I call BS on Dirty Poker

[PygmyHero]

I happened to be in a bookstore last week with a little time to kill, so I picked up Richard Marcus' book Dirty Poker. My impression from reviews I've read here was that it may be of some passing interest to me, but it wasn't worth buying.

I got through the first 90 pages pretty quickly (1/3 of the book), and I concur with the two main points I've read in this forum - he's not a very good writer, but it is a fast read.

However, I am going to have to question the veracity of the book after reading the section on Marking Cards. In this section, Marcus describes how he and his cohorts would mark big cards with a substance which was odorless, invisible to the naked eye (they wore special contact lenses), and did not affect the texture of the cards. This quote is from page 69, near the bottom of the page for those following along at home.

"Similar to the chip-placements on the cards used in the collusion scam, we marked the aces on the left of the card slightly above center, the kings on the right of the card slightly above center, the queens on the left of the card slightly below center and the jacks on the right of the card slightly below center."

Does anyone see a problem with that method of marking cards? I felt it was so interesting that I wrote it down to show my fiancee later. She and I arrived at the same conclusion:

Cards are symmetrical. Along two axes.

Let's say Marcus and I are sitting at a table and he marks an ace "on the left of the card slightly above center," as per his strategy. I am later dealt that card and Marcus observes this fact. However, I then proceed to TURN THE CARD UPSIDE DOWN. The marking he made is now on the RIGHT of the card, slightly BELOW center, in other words, how he expects the jacks he marked to look. Imagine his confusion in playing against me. Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that if you fear you are up against a card marked, you should constantly be turning your cards upside down.

So I guess I'm led to a few possibly conclusions:
1) The whole book is BS.
2) Marcus is incompetent as a card marker and / or cheater.
3) Marcus is an extremely bad writer and has poorly described his strategy for marking cards. For example, he could mark the aces high and left, but the jacks right of center - these would actually look different, but at some point the lack of space on the card back would present a problem. Furthermore, the markings would sometimes be obsured by people protecting their cards with a chip, their hands, or another object.
4) Marcus does not want to divulge his secrets (i.e. his real strategy for marking cards). For example, he could actually put a circle on the aces, a polka dot pattern on the kings, and the anarchy symbol on the queens.

Regardless which of the above conclusions is correct, it calls the value of the book into question. If Marcus won't actually reveal his secrets, the book has no value. If he reveals his secrets poorly, it's as if he has not revealed them at all.