How does edge sorting work in real life, like the Ivey case

I know what edge sorting is, and I am sure you can see the difference on the back of the card when you are sitting at your own table holding the card in your hand.

But in real life, that card must be 4 or 5 feet from you. Dealer slide the card from the shoe and turn it over. The back is expose for maybe at most 1 to 2 seconds. And you have to act like you are not looking. Under these conditions, how on earth is edge sorting even possible?

It's all described here:

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/107/0.pdf?ts=1477131948

Start on p. 7.

Thanks for the link.

I can now better understand the decision, which seems to hinge on the court's definition of "marked cards."

The court's interpretation of the term, while certainly subject to attack, seems logical enough and reeks of common sense (a rare commodity in a courtroom).

Quote: MrV

Thanks for the link.

I can now better understand the decision, which seems to hinge on the court's definition of "marked cards."

The court's interpretation of the term, while certainly subject to attack, seems logical enough and reeks of common sense (a rare commodity in a courtroom).

I think you meant to write reeks of NONSENSE not common sense.

I understand that many people disagree with the court's interpretation; my point is that it seems to be defensible: I've no dog in this fight.

Yes, Ivey et al did not touch the cards, but his instructions to the dealer led to him having a quantifiable advantage, which the court felt was wrong.

Whether the advantage results from daubing or edge sorting seems irrelevant: the focus instead is on whether the player's actions are designed to result in him having an advantage.

This case could, and arguably should, go up on appeal (another bite of the apple).

It's an interesting decision. Ivey and Sun's defense of course is that the cards are not physically marked and therefore they weren't breaking rules. The court felt that the way the cards were being manipulated (by the dealer) constituting marking and therefore in violation of New Jersey's gambling laws but not the laws of Baccarat. They lost for breach of contract, but their charges of fraud and conspiracy were dismissed.

Quote: MrV

Yes, Ivey et al did not touch the cards, but his instructions to the dealer led to him having a quantifiable advantage, which the court felt was wrong.

However, the player doing things to have a quantifiable edge is legal, as demonstrated with counting cards.

What the judge ruled is that Ivey caused the cards to be marked.

To assess this ruling we need to define what constitutes a marked card. To me a card is marked, if after randomizing a deck properly you can determine the card by looking at the back of the it. With edge sorting this is not the case, as randomizing a deck should always involve a turn.

In the Ivey case, what happened is that the player asked the house to modify their card handling procedures, that then interacted with a flaw in the shuffle. After this it was just a matter of tracking the groups of cards through the shuffle and betting accordingly.

Also, by counting cards, I'm effectively marking the remaining cards.

Using the court's definition of a marked card or marked deck, the cards are inherently marked. Ivey & co did not mark the cards, but simply changed the groupings. IE: They are already sorted (non-optimally) from the start....he just changed the sort.

Seems like the casino should shuffle better.