tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6272
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
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
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
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9091
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
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
  • Threads: 134
  • Posts: 2174
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
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2558
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
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
  • Threads: 134
  • Posts: 2174
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
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
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
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9091
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
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9091
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
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
  • Threads: 134
  • Posts: 2174
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.

  • Jump to: