darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 15th, 2015 at 9:24:52 PM permalink
I thought this was an interesting and smart counterclaim on the part of Phil Ivey. The Borgata may have chosen the wrong person to mess with.

Law360, New York (July 27, 2015, 4:20 PM ET) -- A pair of professional pokers players accused of exploiting defective playing cards to cheat Atlantic City’s Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa out of $9.6 million, told a New Jersey federal judge last week that the casino knew the cards were defective and intentionally destroyed evidence.



Professional poker player Phil Ivey and a partner allegedly used a technique known as “edge-sorting” to gain the unfair advantage over Atlantic City’s Borgata, raking in $9.6 million. (Credit: AP)
Phillip Ivey and Cheng Yin Sun filed an answer and counterclaim against the casino July 22, seeking to have the claims against them dismissed and to be awarded damages and attorneys' fees for the defense of what they claim is a “frivolous” lawsuit. The players, who are accused of using inconsistent markings on the backs of cards to cheat at baccarat, said the casino knew the cards contained defects but chose to use them anyway.

“Plaintiff’s claims against defendants were waived knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily by the plaintiff, given plaintiff’s knowledge that each deck of playing cards contained industry tolerances with regard to the design backs of its playing cards, and plaintiff did nonetheless and with complete knowledge of those variances place those cards into play on each and every trip of defendants’ play,” the answer and counterclaim said.

Ivey and Sun also said the casino inspected the cards used during the games they allegedly won by cheating, but rather than preserve the decks for evidence, the casino intentionally destroyed the cards.

“Notwithstanding plaintiff’s absolute legal obligation and duty to maintain, preserve and present that evidence in the instant litigation, knowing that defendants could not reasonably obtain access to that very evidence from any other source, plaintiff has intentionally destroyed all such evidence for the purpose of obstructing, disrupting and eviscerating the defendants’ ability to prove the lack of any defective cards utilized by the plaintiff from April through July of 2012,” they wrote.

The pair included counterclaims against the casino for fraudulent concealment by way of intentional spoliation of evidence and negligent spoliation of evidence. The players also wrote that if anyone should be held liable for the claims made by Borgota, it should be Gemaco Inc., the company that makes the cards and is also named as a defendant in the suit.

“While defendants Ivey and Sun deny any and all liability, obligation or damage to the plaintiff, and deny any negligence in any regard to the plaintiff, they assert that their negligence, if any, was passive, vicarious and imputed, whereas the negligence of co-defendant Gemaco Inc., was active and primary.”

According to the complaint, Ivey and Sun — a professional gambler who has been banned from several casinos around the world and who accompanied Ivey during all four sessions — used a technique known as “edge-sorting” to gain the unfair advantage over the casino. Because the Gemaco cards were not cut symmetrically during the manufacturing process, Ivey and Sun were able to exploit the manufacturing defects to “mark” the cards without actually touching or defacing them.

Mini Baccarat is a game of chance in which players bet on the relative value of two hands of two cards each before the hands are dealt or the cards are revealed, according to the complaint. The game is generally played with six or eight decks of cards placed into a dealing “shoe,” and its object is to bet on the hand that will have a total value closest to nine. If a player knows the value of the first card in the shoe before it’s dealt, the player has a significant advantage over the house, the complaint said.

The casino says Ivey negotiated special arrangements to play the game during four sessions in 2012, under the pretext for some of the requests that he was superstitious. The pair used the accommodations — including using an automatic card shuffling device, having Sun as a guest at the table while Ivey played and being provided with one eight-deck shoe of purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards — to “turn” strategically important cards so that they could be distinguished from other cards in the deck, Borgata said.

Their manipulative scheme changed the overall odds of the game from about a 1.06 house advantage to about a 6.765 advantage for Ivey, Borgata said.

The suit survived a dismissal bid earlier this year.

An attorney for Ivey and Sun could not be reached for comment Monday. Gemaco and an attorney for the Borgata could also not be reached for comment.

Ivey and Sun are represented by Edwin J. Jacobs Jr. and Louis M. Barbone of Jacobs & Barbone PA.

Borgata is represented by Jeremy M. Klausner of Agostino and Associates
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
August 15th, 2015 at 9:44:21 PM permalink
Interesting.


Borgata knew what they were getting themselves into. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew what Ivey & Sun were going to be doing, but decided to take a shot -- if Ivey won money they'd sue him for the money, if Ivey lost they would have done nothing.


I find it very hard to believe Borgata was so naive as to not know the cards's backs were not symmetrical and they had no knowledge of edge sorting.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
August 15th, 2015 at 9:51:35 PM permalink
Quote: RS

Interesting.


Borgata knew what they were getting themselves into. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew what Ivey & Sun were going to be doing, but decided to take a shot -- if Ivey won money they'd sue him for the money, if Ivey lost they would have done nothing.


I find it very hard to believe Borgata was so naive as to not know the cards's backs were not symmetrical and they had no knowledge of edge sorting.



I find it hard to believe they're allowing themselves to look so gullible. Their legal advice was terrible on this. No way of knowing what it will cost them in the end in legal bills, bad publicity, and lost revenue, but I bet it exceeds any recovery. I'm not clear on whether Ivey cashed out at the time or they're holding his winnings; anybody know?
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
August 15th, 2015 at 10:09:54 PM permalink
From what I've seen with casinos.....they don't care about the money they're giving up by going to court or whatever. They'll do whatever it takes to get "their money back". If someone has $10 that the casino thinks should be the casino's....the casino would rather spend $1,000 getting back that $10, than to just let the $10 go away. It's more of the principle of the fact someone got their money than it is they're doing something to come out ahead.
Neutrino
Neutrino
  • Threads: 84
  • Posts: 515
Joined: Feb 20, 2014
August 15th, 2015 at 10:29:08 PM permalink
So is Ivey permanently done with playing in non poker games in the casino? During all this legal shenanigans he was forced to admit that he was an AP. Now all the casinos know.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
August 16th, 2015 at 3:38:21 AM permalink
spoliation of evidence is a rather weak claim as destruction of the cards is the industry standard and the court and experts can easily be supplied with other decks from the manufacturer at that time all identical to the decks in question.

the main thrust of the argument is that the casino actively made major changes to the game whereas he merely took advantage of a well known in the industry condition.
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
August 16th, 2015 at 4:05:50 AM permalink
Have never understood why the casino(s if we include the one in London) allowed the dealer to turn the high value cards when requested.
teddys
teddys
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5527
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
August 16th, 2015 at 6:45:58 AM permalink
That's a common legal rhetorical device, to say that their negligence was "passive, vicarious and imputed." It's something to do with using three words that all mean basically the same thing. Like, "to have and to hold." I guess it's effective.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
1BB
1BB
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 5339
Joined: Oct 10, 2011
August 16th, 2015 at 7:11:26 AM permalink
Quote: teddys

That's a common legal rhetorical device, to say that their negligence was "passive, vicarious and imputed." It's something to do with using three words that all mean basically the same thing. Like, "to have and to hold." I guess it's effective.



I love reading a cop's report or listening to a cop being interviewed on television. The terms they come up with are hilarious. I recently read a half page or so police report of a minor incident. The phrase "to wit" was used seven times. Who talks like that? Hey junior, finish your homework so we can go somewhere, to wit, the park. The same report contained the word furtive or furtively several times.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
August 16th, 2015 at 9:14:37 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

spoliation of evidence is a rather weak claim as destruction of the cards is the industry standard and the court and experts can easily be supplied with other decks from the manufacturer at that time all identical to the decks in question.



I've not followed the case closely,but I would assume Ivey's argument is that while the industry standard is to destroy cards used in normal course, the casino would have an affirmative duty to preserve the cards when something abnormal happens which concerns the actual cards used in play.

Consider it a commons sense duty to preserve obviously relevant evidence.

Such as when an event likely to lead to a lawsuit or criminal charge is captured by The Eye, the recording should be preserved.
"What, me worry?"
tringlomane
tringlomane
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6281
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
August 16th, 2015 at 10:11:21 AM permalink
Quote: Neutrino

So is Ivey permanently done with playing in non poker games in the casino? During all this legal shenanigans he was forced to admit that he was an AP. Now all the casinos know.



Considering how he plays craps, casinos barring him from that would be very unwise.
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
August 16th, 2015 at 7:09:40 PM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

Considering how he plays craps, casinos barring him from that would be very unwise.



According to Ahigh, he was paying another player to pass the dice to him, Ahigh, a "dicesetter" with skills and ability to skew the house advantage.
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 16th, 2015 at 8:19:04 PM permalink
I think you guys are focusing on the wrong element of the counter-claim.

The strength of Ivey's legal argument is that the Borgata actively entered a defective deck into play, willingly. That the deck was known to be defective to the Borgata, that the Borgata actively was in control of not only opening and shuffling the decks but was always in control of the operation (handling) of the cards. They were the active participant.

While Phil was a passive participant (i.e. he simply looked at the cards and never handled them.)

Therefore it is the Borgata which should be held accountable (or at the least Gemaco which supplied the cards) for any activity that occurred at the gaming table resulting in Ivey winning.

The destruction of the evidence is part of this claim, that the Borgata knew of the defective cards and purposefully did not keep the evidence which could show how Ivey simply looked at the cards and was able to win even though they were claiming this deck was evidence of wrongdoing.

I'm certain this will be used by his attorney at trial, "So, he just looked at the cards and that was cheating? Oh, he memorized the way they looked? Oh, you have destroyed the cards so no one can see how they looked and everyone is supposed to just take your word for it?"
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Greasyjohn
Greasyjohn
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 2178
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
August 16th, 2015 at 10:03:46 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

I think you guys are focusing on the wrong element of the counter-claim.

The strength of Ivey's legal argument is that the Borgata actively entered a defective deck into play, willingly. That the deck was known to be defective to the Borgata, that the Borgata actively was in control of not only opening and shuffling the decks but was always in control of the operation (handling) of the cards. They were the active participant.

While Phil was a passive participant (i.e. he simply looked at the cards and never handled them.)

Therefore it is the Borgata which should be held accountable (or at the least Gemaco which supplied the cards) for any activity that occurred at the gaming table resulting in Ivey winning.

The destruction of the evidence is part of this claim, that the Borgata knew of the defective cards and purposefully did not keep the evidence which could show how Ivey simply looked at the cards and was able to win even though they were claiming this deck was evidence of wrongdoing.

I'm certain this will be used by his attorney at trial, "So, he just looked at the cards and that was cheating? Oh, he memorized the way they looked? Oh, you have destroyed the cards so no one can see how they looked and everyone is supposed to just take your word for it?"



Yes, but you are omitting one salient point. Phil Ivey ask that certain cards be rotated in order to gain knowledge of their value. This is a manipulation of the game even though the casino agreed to the request. Whether this amounts to cheating or not is the real issue.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 5479
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
August 16th, 2015 at 10:23:09 PM permalink
Quote: Greasyjohn

Phil Ivey ask that certain cards be rotated in order to gain knowledge of their value. This is a manipulation of the game even though the casino agreed to the request. Whether this amounts to cheating or not is the real issue.



If it's cheating to rotate the cards, wouldn't that mean that every shuffle procedure that incorporates a turn is cheating?
May the cards fall in your favor.
Greasyjohn
Greasyjohn
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 2178
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
August 16th, 2015 at 10:29:20 PM permalink
Quote: Dieter

If it's cheating to rotate the cards, wouldn't that mean that every shuffle procedure that incorporates a turn is cheating?



I don't think so because Ivey only asked that cards he had seen be turned, and then they were delt later in this turned position. In a shuffle, usually the cards are washed and shuffled. There would be no knowledge gained by even cards with irregular edges in this procedure.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
August 16th, 2015 at 10:39:20 PM permalink
Quote: Greasyjohn

Yes, but you are omitting one salient point. Phil Ivey ask that certain cards be rotated in order to gain knowledge of their value. This is a manipulation of the game even though the casino agreed to the request. Whether this amounts to cheating or not is the real issue.


And then asked them to re-use the decks instead of throwing them away, and then further asked to use an automatic shuffler instead of using a hand shuffle and wash which would spoil the sorted edges. There is no question that he knew exactly what he was doing. Given that the casino apparently did not, I think the legal question is whether there is a claim for misrepresentation or some other mechanism to void the wagering contract. I'm not a lawyer but I think a basis of any contract is a meeting of the minds.

I'd note that this issue has already been answered "yes" in the UK trial, though I understand Ivey has appealed. It's been a while since I actively looked up the latest docket info in either trial.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 16th, 2015 at 10:44:11 PM permalink
Quote: Greasyjohn

I don't think so because Ivey only asked that cards he had seen be turned, and then they were delt later in this turned position. In a shuffle, usually the cards are washed and shuffled. There would be no knowledge gained by even cards with irregular edges in this procedure.



And most likely, this is the purpose of the argument that Borgata knew of the irregularities in the deck when they introduced it into the game. It shows the casino agreed to the terms of play knowing of card irregularities (and most certainly Borgata can't argue they never heard of edge sorting). By agreeing to the terms, the play should be legal and they should honor payment of wins.

It will probably be argued that by knowledge of the irregularities, they took the gamble that Phil Ivey would still lose and therefore the game was legal as they had no intention of voiding the play if he lost.

That is the real key -- by proving foreknowledge of an irregular deck and agreement to terms with Ivey, they must have planned for him to lose and are now attempting to void pay through the argument that he took advantage of them.

At least that is the direction it appears to me his legal team is taking.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 16th, 2015 at 10:49:17 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

And then asked them to re-use the decks instead of throwing them away, and then further asked to use an automatic shuffler instead of using a hand shuffle and wash which would spoil the sorted edges. There is no question that he knew exactly what he was doing. Given that the casino apparently did not, I think the legal question is whether there is a claim for misrepresentation or some other mechanism to void the wagering contract. I'm not a lawyer but I think a basis of any contract is a meeting of the minds.

I'd note that this issue has already been answered "yes" in the UK trial, though I understand Ivey has appealed. It's been a while since I actively looked up the latest docket info in either trial.



British law generally does not set precedent here in the United States in most cases. There have been a few cases I have read of in the past where British outcomes were completely opposite American outcomes in similar cases.

The British have a different worldview and different legal system so it's usually not cited except in extreme circumstances.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Greasyjohn
Greasyjohn
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 2178
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
August 16th, 2015 at 10:56:58 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

And most likely, this is the purpose of the argument that Borgata knew of the irregularities in the deck when they introduced it into the game. It shows the casino agreed to the terms of play knowing of card irregularities (and most certainly Borgata can't argue they never heard of edge sorting). By agreeing to the terms, the play should be legal and they should honor payment of wins.

It will probably be argued that by knowledge of the irregularities, they took the gamble that Phil Ivey would still lose and therefore the game was legal as they had no intention of voiding the play if he lost.

That is the real key -- by proving foreknowledge of an irregular deck and agreement to terms with Ivey, they must have planned for him to lose and are now attempting to void pay through the argument that he took advantage of them.

At least that is the direction it appears to me his legal team is taking.



Was it ever proven that Borgata knew the cards in play could be edge sorted? It could be argued that they should have known through examination of the backs of the cards as is common procedure in places I have played.

But to contend that they did know is just an assumption.
tringlomane
tringlomane
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6281
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
August 16th, 2015 at 11:08:08 PM permalink
Quote: Greasyjohn

Yes, but you are omitting one salient point. Phil Ivey ask that certain cards be rotated in order to gain knowledge of their value. This is a manipulation of the game even though the casino agreed to the request. Whether this amounts to cheating or not is the real issue.



Under New Jersey law, I believe it does.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-5/section-5-12-113

And when you Google the definition of "trick" you get this from Google:

a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.

Ivey and his partner are clearly guilty of that, imo. The only thing that may save him is that Borgata apparently destroyed the cards in question because they are clearly idiots as well.
Greasyjohn
Greasyjohn
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 2178
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
August 16th, 2015 at 11:20:01 PM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

Under New Jersey law, I believe it does.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-5/section-5-12-113

And when you Google the definition of "trick" you get this from Google:

a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.

Ivey and his partner are clearly guilty of that, imo. The only thing that may save him is that Borgata apparently destroyed the cards in question because they are clearly idiots as well.



I'm not sure destroying the cards would make any difference if Borgata acknowledges that the cards were readable through edge sorting, seeing how Phil Ivey has already admitted this. Espically if destroying and only if destroying the cards is normal procedure.
speedycrap
speedycrap
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 1305
Joined: Oct 13, 2013
August 17th, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM permalink
Quote: Greasyjohn

Yes, but you are omitting one salient point. Phil Ivey ask that certain cards be rotated in order to gain knowledge of their value. This is a manipulation of the game even though the casino agreed to the request. Whether this amounts to cheating or not is the real issue.

I doubt so. Say, I ask the casino to flip over the dealer hole card before I hit/no hit my hand of black jack. And casino agrees. Then I hit/on hit and win. Do you call that cheating??? Casino knows about the risk of NOT following procedure. Anything out of ordinary is suspicious to the casino. That is why casino has risk control and procedure. This experience cost the casino over 10 million dollars.
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
August 17th, 2015 at 4:22:17 AM permalink
Quote: speedycrap

I doubt so. Say, I ask the casino to flip over the dealer hole card before I hit/no hit my hand of black jack. And casino agrees. Then I hit/on hit and win. Do you call that cheating??? Casino knows about the risk of NOT following procedure. Anything out of ordinary is suspicious to the casino. That is why casino has risk control and procedure. This experience cost the casino over 10 million dollars.



I'm sure an AP-hater would respond to your post and say "But flipping over the dealer's card is obvious...and Ivey tricked the casino into using those cards / using ASM / turning cards / etc.!"

But......it doesn't matter if it was obvious or a trick. The casino went ahead and willingly/willfully agreed to Ivey's requests.

The only thing that it comes down to is this: Did Ivey break the law? If not, he should be given the $9.6M or however much it is. If he did break the law, he should go to jail.
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 17th, 2015 at 4:49:14 AM permalink
To straighten out the confusion,

Ivey was denied payment by Crockfords and sued them for the money -- he lost but its on appeal.

Ivey was PAID by Borgata and is being sued by Borgata for its return. He is counter-suing them as part of his defense strategy.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 17th, 2015 at 4:57:10 AM permalink
Here is another article with some clarification.

http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/law-and-legislation/08173-borgata-admits-destroying-playing-cards-in-phil-ivey-case/

It should be pointed out and is important to the case, that the special requests for turning cards and using specific brands and automatic shufflers are ROUTINELY granted to high rollers according to this article and others I have read.

If that is the case, then the requests granted are normal operating procedure for that type of level of player and any information gleaned from it cannot be considered cheating without claiming that all high rollers who request cards be turned a certain way or certain packs be used or automatic shufflers (due to superstition or not) are cheating.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
August 17th, 2015 at 5:02:57 PM permalink
It seems like the boxes are opened, and simply but in the continuous shuffle machine without any manual shuffling. Therefore all of the cards would have the same edge downwards. Then, as the game progresses, Mr. Ivey and his Chinese friend would ask that the high value cards(8's and 9's I've read) be turned a half turn, making their edge distinctive from the remaining in the machine. As time goes on, more and more of said turned cards are in the machine and at some point, they/he would see the next card coming to the player was an 8 or 9 and bet big on the player at that point. How this act was not obvious to high limit casino's is beyond me. They, having said high limits, one would assume also have high paid experts watching the games both at the table and above.
speedycrap
speedycrap
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 1305
Joined: Oct 13, 2013
August 17th, 2015 at 5:16:43 PM permalink
Quote: NokTang

It seems like the boxes are opened, and simply but in the continuous shuffle machine without any manual shuffling. Therefore all of the cards would have the same edge downwards. Then, as the game progresses, Mr. Ivey and his Chinese friend would ask that the high value cards(8's and 9's I've read) be turned a half turn, making their edge distinctive from the remaining in the machine. As time goes on, more and more of said turned cards are in the machine and at some point, they/he would see the next card coming to the player was an 8 or 9 and bet big on the player at that point. How this act was not obvious to high limit casino's is beyond me. They, having said high limits, one would assume also have high paid experts watching the games both at the table and above.

Exactly. The casino knowingly change or bend procedure to accommodate high limit players without doing any homework. Resulting 10 millions lost. Who can they blame except themselves. Cheating... I dont think so. Stupidity.... Yes with a capital Y.
ZenMasterFlash
ZenMasterFlash
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Aug 9, 2015
August 23rd, 2015 at 3:58:35 PM permalink
In order for Ivey to know that the next card out of the shoe was an 8 or a 9, REQUIRED more than edge-sorting the cards. Anyone who has played the game needs to pause a moment and visualize the game. Nobody can see the first card (always a Player Card) that starts off each hand - BECAUSE the dealer is taught NOT to pull that card partially out of the shoe ~ BEFORE all player's bets are "set". Ivey's playing with a Chinese partner, and insisting on a Mandarin-speaking dealer, should have been a BIG "red-flag." The floor-person(s) supervising the game were CLEARLY negligent ~ or ~ in collusion with Team Ivey. There are no other possible conclusions to be drawn. It amazes me that this little fact has never been mentioned. The dealer HAD TO KNOW that she was in collusion, and that without her direct involvement, Ivey could not have won !
Long Ago I Learned that All of Life is 6 to 5 Against"
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:12:33 PM permalink
You'd also have to be able to handle the cards, or as in Ivey's case the dealer AND have the cards reused. Never seen this situation where players handle the cards and are reused.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Wizardofnothing
Wizardofnothing
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3493
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:20:39 PM permalink
Jesus guess no one follows anything. He was NOT NOT not touching the cards. They were playing mini bac not midi. That's why they recycled them- also they do no destroy mini bac cards they destroy midi bac cards
No longer hiring, don’t ask because I won’t hire you either
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:30:35 PM permalink
We knew what he was playing. They had the dealer deal the first four cards out BEFORE making his bet.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
speedycrap
speedycrap
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 1305
Joined: Oct 13, 2013
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:37:28 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

We knew what he was playing. They had the dealer deal the first four cards out BEFORE making his bet.

If that was the case. STUPIDITY rules and no cheating at all. Remember, there is no medication for STUPIDITY.
Wizardofnothing
Wizardofnothing
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3493
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:40:07 PM permalink
In reality that's his central argument was he didn't touch the cards- and had to play and entire shoe before the edge sorting would even work
No longer hiring, don’t ask because I won’t hire you either
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:45:17 PM permalink
Quote: speedycrap

If that was the case. STUPIDITY rules and no cheating at all. Remember, there is no medication for STUPIDITY.


Naturally. When has a casino blamed the crew (supervisors and dealers) for procedural errors like this, hole carding, etc. Throw in the paranoia perpetrated by "consultants" to sell their services. There is no more bigger sore loser than the casinos.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:58:17 PM permalink
Quote: ZenMasterFlash

In order for Ivey to know that the next card out of the shoe was an 8 or a 9, REQUIRED more than edge-sorting the cards. Anyone who has played the game needs to pause a moment and visualize the game. Nobody can see the first card (always a Player Card) that starts off each hand - BECAUSE the dealer is taught NOT to pull that card partially out of the shoe ~ BEFORE all player's bets are "set".



From my experience, you can see the next cards edge in most shoes. I do recall some shoes with a sort of "door" which had to be lifted but don't recall where. We are talking about the downward edge of the back side of a playing card, not seeing the card's front value side itself.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 5:08:45 PM permalink
Quote: NokTang

From my experience, you can see the next cards edge in most shoes. I do recall some shoes with a sort of "door" which had to be lifted but don't recall where. We are talking about the downward edge of the back side of a playing card, not seeing the card's front value side itself.


You'll see that almost anywhere. Problem is, you have to physically set the right cards the right way. Just ain't happening in the real world when you can't handle the cards. I get a kick out of casinos wasting time "turning" half an 8 deck blackjack or baccarat shoe in which only the dealer touches the cards. Just stupid.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 5:11:07 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

When has a casino blamed the crew (supervisors and dealers) for procedural errors like this, hole carding, etc. Throw in the paranoia perpetrated by "consultants" to sell their services. There is no more bigger sore loser than the casinos.

All this preposterous situation is thanks to the total inaction of the D.G.E. and C.C.C. How they escaped being sued is beyond my reach.
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
August 23rd, 2015 at 5:13:57 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

We knew what he was playing. They had the dealer deal the first four cards out BEFORE making his bet.



I assume you mean face down, the two for the players hand and the two for the bankers in their positions on a mini table? That would indeed make a huge difference if you had been able to distinguish 8's and 9's via prior turns of same as time went by. I keep reading it gave Mr. Ivey a 6 percent edge but seems like would have been much higher.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 5:19:10 PM permalink
Yes, face down. Quite possible for only the first shoe though. Would love to see the surveillance footage.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
August 23rd, 2015 at 9:48:57 PM permalink
That's not the way I understand it. No cards were dealt prior to betting otherwise yes, there would be a much bigger edge than just 6% knowing from the backs all four cards.

The way I read and understood it, only the top card in the shoe (next one to be dealt) could be distinguished from its edge. If this gave away that the card was an 8 or 9, because that card automatically went to player side first, huge bet was made for player, since any second card that was a ten card would be an almost certain (but not guaranteed) win.

It was still gambling but with a player edge of 6% which is huge for a high stakes player like Ivey.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Ahigh
Ahigh
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 5197
Joined: May 19, 2010
August 23rd, 2015 at 10:59:41 PM permalink
I've been asked, "are you a player's advocate?" I don't really consider myself such, really. But I'm on Phil's side here.
aahigh.com
speedycrap
speedycrap
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 1305
Joined: Oct 13, 2013
August 24th, 2015 at 3:58:56 AM permalink
Any member has a full account of how Ivey played at that particular occasion???
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
August 24th, 2015 at 11:25:24 AM permalink
There's a lot of detail in this report about crockfords that might be useful. I saw others at the time (the crockfords' trial) that went into a lot of detail, based on court testimony. Borgata supposedly saw the exact same behaviors from them, so I would think there's some value in what info was released in England.

My understanding (from having read those earlier reports) is that:

They played mini-bacc.
They asked for a mandarin speaking dealer, and Sun was the one who did the talking.
They asked for the 8s and 9s to be turned as they appeared in the shoe, basing the request on superstition.
They asked in advance that, during their multi-day stay, their shoe be kept intact for their entire visit, with the same cards, again based on superstition. Normally the cards would be changed on a several-times-a-day rotation.
The cards were not dealt in advance of betting. However, the bottom edge of each next card could be seen in the shoe. (There's an upside-down U shape in most shoe fronts, tapering to the edges, to allow the dealer to get a finger on each card and slide it out.)
There was not, at the time, a shuffle procedure that turned 1/2 of the cards during the shuffle, so the cards remained in their orientation unless specifically turned during play.
The first card out of the shoe after a bet was placed always went to the player. (standard)
There was a report that they started out betting much smaller the first time through the shoe, then increased their bets once the shoe was "sorted". Not sure if they ramped up only when they could discern an 8 or 9 on Player, or just flat-bet at a higher level once the shoe was set.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Wizardofnothing
Wizardofnothing
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3493
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
August 24th, 2015 at 11:41:39 AM permalink
Very well summarized and very accurate
No longer hiring, don’t ask because I won’t hire you either
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 27th, 2015 at 10:59:54 AM permalink
Breaking news: Ivey accusing Borgata of something we've known forever.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/pro-borgata-uses-booze-sexy-155022749.html

I don't think it'll help his case.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
August 27th, 2015 at 11:38:48 AM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Breaking news: Ivey accusing Borgata of something we've known forever.

He can't really be that much of a novice on the main floor. ;)
Artemis
Artemis
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 441
Joined: Nov 20, 2010
August 27th, 2015 at 2:58:09 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

There's a lot of detail in this report about crockfords that might be useful. I saw others at the time (the crockfords' trial) that went into a lot of detail, based on court testimony. Borgata supposedly saw the exact same behaviors from them, so I would think there's some value in what info was released in England.

My understanding (from having read those earlier reports) is that:

They played mini-bacc.
They asked for a mandarin speaking dealer, and Sun was the one who did the talking.
They asked for the 8s and 9s to be turned as they appeared in the shoe, basing the request on superstition.
They asked in advance that, during their multi-day stay, their shoe be kept intact for their entire visit, with the same cards, again based on superstition. Normally the cards would be changed on a several-times-a-day rotation.
The cards were not dealt in advance of betting. However, the bottom edge of each next card could be seen in the shoe. (There's an upside-down U shape in most shoe fronts, tapering to the edges, to allow the dealer to get a finger on each card and slide it out.)
There was not, at the time, a shuffle procedure that turned 1/2 of the cards during the shuffle, so the cards remained in their orientation unless specifically turned during play.
The first card out of the shoe after a bet was placed always went to the player. (standard)
There was a report that they started out betting much smaller the first time through the shoe, then increased their bets once the shoe was "sorted". Not sure if they ramped up only when they could discern an 8 or 9 on Player, or just flat-bet at a higher level once the shoe was set.



Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Breaking news: Ivey accusing Borgata of something we've known forever.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/pro-borgata-uses-booze-sexy-155022749.html

I don't think it'll help his case.



Quote: SanchoPanza

He can't really be that much of a novice on the main floor. ;)





Hey BBB, thanks for the link. Today I've learned a new tag-line: "ILL PRACTICE." So... Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that Mr. Ivey was guilty of ill practice.

Wait a minute... casinos are also guilty of ill practice too, i.e., they're notorious for their predatory practices, and they don't play fair. Here are examples:

1) Casinos get gamblers drunk and bankrupted them, i.e., the case of Leonard Tose. They attempted to get Mr. Ivey drunk too, but he's too smart for them.

2) Casinos've targeted the degenerated gamblers and ruined their lives, i.e., the case of Arelia Taveras, Esq.

3) Casinos welcome & target the helpless losers, but UNinvite & blacklist the educated winners, i.e., the cases of Lemieux66, MasterHoudini, and the almighty Don Johnson.

4) Above all, casinos have this greatest unfair advantage/ill practice: They have "the wait and see trick", and they can stiff any gamblers they want with loopholes and excuses.

They let gamblers play out suspicious games (i.e., the case of Mr. Ivey, OR the case of the 14 baccarat players vs AC Golden Nugget).

If gamblers lose all their bankrolls due to "bad luck", casinos will never refund a dime. If gamblers win big, then casinos find excuses/loopholes NOT to pay the winners. Admonitio: Caveat emptor!
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
  • Jump to: