Interesting development over at WoV. Alan is STILL trying to disprove the tracking a second table technique.
I refer you to page 244 of the Mdawg fantasy thread. First post shows multiple pictures of tables. The first picture is an example of conditions not allowing for this opportunity. Something I have always said (when conditions are right), but has always been omitted by Alan and other that argue.
So the second picture is a case where the conditions are right. The Lady in the hat (I think it is a lady right?), seated in the middle seat would have a clear view of the playing surface of the table to her right. Conditions would be right. Now if either one of two things occurred, which would be someone sitting in seat 4 of the table to the right which is currently vacant, or someone sitting between the lady with the hat and the man in the blue shirt, then the view could be blocked and conditions not right for tracking a second table. But as it is, conditions are right for tracking the next table. Thanks to Mdawg for the picture.
Now if you scroll down further on that same page, Mdawg has posted the layout from the Circa high limit room, which is only open during select times. This is a smaller square type configuration. You can plainly see that if a player was sitting middle seat at the double deck table he would have a clear view to the shoe table regardless of any other players. This configuration would actually be ideal because there can be no blocking players, as well as the player is already looking directly in that direction.
However, I don't play much high limit rooms as they are generally too hawked. There is also talk of tracking a second table that is a double deck game, something I don't do, as by the time you tracked a couple rounds and "jumped", the dealer would be shuffling. I have no idea where this talk of using this technique on a double deck game came from, certainly not me. This is a shoe game technique only to assure enough rounds remaining to be played to make the play worthwhile.
Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".
Now Mdawgs response to Alan's questions are interesting. Of course he doesn't say it can't be done, which is what Alan is fishing for, because everyone can clearly see that it can. So instead, Mdawg responds that "you have to consider the person making the claims". And THIS is quite telling. Apparently if you don't like the person making the claim, it must not be true. I guess that is the new Mdawg standard, rather than the truth. This guy must make some kind of Attorney.
As a final point, Mdawg suggests this technique is something I came up with after reading it in a book. That seems to be the new line being repeated to attempt to discredit me. So I challenge Mdawg to show or reference any book that has any discussion of this technique. There isn't one that I am familiar with.
Everything I share is either based on my own experiences from my 19 years of blackjack card counting advantage play. Most are things I have learned from my own experience, but a very little bit things learned from other players that I network with. If I share something I do, learned from others, I always try to credit that person/player.
It all comes back to one thing with these guys. They don't like me, so I can't be doing what I say. I have come to accept these attempts to discredit me, but Alan, as someone who claims to be a journalist, you showed nothing but a bias from the very origins of this discussion. That is contrary to what journalism is supposed to be. You should be ashamed.
Last edited by kewlJ; 09-26-2022 at 12:34 PM.
Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".
I do not understand why Alan is so hard ass regarding the tracking two tables. I know nothing about blackjack, but I sat at empty tables in various casinos and actually measured the distances with a tape measure. I laid out a couple cards and could see them. Then I went home and duplicated the distances at home. Yes, I could still see the cards, and at worst distances could discern paint from pips. So there's no question you can physically ID cards at other tables. My eyes suck, and I could do it. It's just a question of getting good enough angles and views from appropriate seats. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what seats would be best.
Who knows? Back in the 90's, I could watch six or more football games simultaneously and know what's going on (and be able to ballpark track stats) and be able to keep down and distance in my head before there were graphics each play during broadcasts. That seems more unlikely a skill than tracking two tables.
Some people live in a world devoid of reason. They fabricate stupid stories about seeing 18 yos and then are so stunned that they were caught in a lie that they try their best to discredit other people. But they're too stupid to attack statements that could plausibly be false, so they say stupid shit like "It's not possible to turn your head 60 degrees to the left and remember two separate numbers for a few rounds."
Alan could hit a royal flush on his first hand and he'd say he somehow lost money.
Alan vs KJ, for LOLZ Mendelson for the win !
To be clear I never busted Kewl's balls about tracking 2 tables. IIRC, it was only 3 tables. 2 seems very possible to someone with enough practice, but 3 is a whole different game for various reasons.
It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"
There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 16 guests)