Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
Alan your picture of the roulette table (above) is a perfect example of why a photo is not representative of what the eye sees. That photo appears to be taken fairly close to the end of the roulette table (end where wheel is). Maybe a foot or two off the table? Is that correct?

Look at the tower listing the previous numbers. See the small number that says percentage that black and red have come out in the last 20 spins. Looks like it might be 65%? You can't even see the number in the red block. But I can guarantee anyone, even you, standing a foot from that tower could clearly see those numbers. Furthermore look at the betting numbers on the felt. They are blurry and you can't really make them out. But if you someone (even you) were actually standing 3-5 feet from those 2-3 inch numbers, they certainly would be able to CLEARLY see each number. A photo is just not representative of what the actual human eye can see....at least in these cases.
I don't understand your point,
This is where you are really frustrating me Alan. I can't tell if you are yanking my chain by playing dumb, or we are really on two completely different wavelengths...basically two people each speaking a language the other doesn't understand.

I think I made my point pretty clearly. Why are you posting these pictures of different tables in different casinos?

You are doing so in an attempt to say "see you can't see the next table clearly enough to see cards or roulette numbers right?

But your pictures are not representative of what the human eye sees. I can guarantee you that standing 3 feet from the roulette felt, I or anyone else, including you, could see those 2-3 inch numbers in the betting square. But in your picture you can't make them out. Because those picture are not representative of what the human eye sees. You are basically trying to introduce tainted evidence.