Edge sorting and the Sun+Ivey saga..

"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"

Got interested again for some reason...one being I listened to a podcast of Gambling with an Edge and saw something regarding a 30-30 segment on ESPN...

Anyhow, while I know the matters are still in the courts and the players lost the first phase and are appealing, I remain confused about the so called "Macau style"...

Were they in fact able to get both the London and Atlantic City properties to deal out four cards(baccarat) face down, then make their betting decision based I guess on the presence of a high(8-9) card in one of the two hands? It seems to simple to believe not discovered by floor and cameras immediately.

One explanation regarding the floor was and is that Mr. Ivey knows how to work a room. This doesn't however explain the eye in the sky.

Quote: NokTang

I remain confused...

Nok,

I dunno about "Macau style," but I can probably explain how Ivey gets his edge.

The cards are all in the shoe. There is a slight difference in the visible pattern on the long edge of the back of the cards, and this is crucial. Play begins.

After each hand, before cards are placed in the discard tray, Ivey & Sun direct the dealer to rotate particular (high-value?) cards 180 degrees "for luck" (or whatever), and the dealer does this.

As the cards go through the shoe, the hi-value cards increasingly are rotated differently, until the shoe ends. Then cards in the discard rack are (machine shuffled? and) replaced in the shoe. However, this does not alter the 180-degree orientation of the cards with respect to one another.

Once the cards go through the shoe the first time the fun begins. At the start of each hand, the leading edge of the next card to come out of the shoe is exposed (just a tiny bit), allowing Ivey and Sun to determine whether or not the hand getting that card is more likely to be a strong hand. No cards have yet been played for that hand, so they bet based on the info available to them. Overall, this gives them an edge over the casino.

Hopefully, if I got it wrong teliot or another member will correct me. I hope this helps.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Nok,

I dunno about "Macau style," but I can probably explain how Ivey gets his edge.

The cards are all in the shoe. There is a slight difference in the visible pattern on the long edge of the back of the cards, and this is crucial. Play begins.

After each hand, before cards are placed in the discard tray, Ivey & Sun direct the dealer to rotate particular (high-value?) cards 180 degrees "for luck" (or whatever), and the dealer does this.

As the cards go through the shoe, the hi-value cards increasingly are rotated differently, until the shoe ends. Then cards in the discard rack are (machine shuffled? and) replaced in the shoe. However, this does not alter the 180-degree orientation of the cards with respect to one another.

Once the cards go through the shoe the first time the fun begins. At the start of each hand, the leading edge of the next card to come out of the shoe is exposed (just a tiny bit), allowing Ivey and Sun to determine whether or not the hand getting that card is more likely to be a strong hand. No cards have yet been played for that hand, so they bet based on the info available to them. Overall, this gives them an edge over the casino.

Hopefully, if I got it wrong teliot or another member will correct me. I hope this helps.

The bolded part is the key and why what they did is cheating/collusion, even if the dealer, floor, management doesnt know it gives him an edge. I agree with the original court rulings and he IS a cheater.

I believe part of the play was in a sort of alcove so supervision was slight and supervisor did not speak Chinese. Don't know if Supervisor knew about edge sorting.

I believe part of the play was in a sort of alcove so supervision was slight and supervisor did not speak Chinese. Don't know if Supervisor knew about edge sorting.

I read/heard at some point in the last few days that "Macau Style" involves dealing out all four cards(both hands) face down. That posted, I only saw/heard it once and/or it dawned on me later.

In your kind outline you infer what I thought as well, they only knew the first "player" card range. No info on the banker card(s).

I'm interested in how people pull off these things. I used to like bank robbery movies as well. I also enjoyed the "Oceans" movies.

I will google it now and see if I come up with anything on the "Macau Style".

At this very moment, I was under the impression it was a continuous shuffler but maybe you are correct, it was an automatic shuffler. This also of course is involved in understanding how it was done.

I also recall some shoes having a sort of door on them which hid the front card.

"Kelly is not the first person to leverage the move known as edge sorting—finding games that use cards, such as a type made by Gemaco—and take advantage of unmatched edges. Her breakthrough resides in her technique. After a few test runs in the fall of 2011—"Small money," she says, "we made $200,000 at Palms, $300,000 at MGM"—she put the big play into action inside the Salon Privé private gaming room at Aria. Kelly and three collaborators established themselves as losing players by dropping $100,000 playing the game straight and losing it all. The next day they came back, deposited $500,000 and asked to play "Macau style." The casino acquiesced. Four cards were dealt before Kelly and crew made their bets. They played through one shoe and lost $175,000 while having the dealer turn key cards—sixes, sevens, eights and nines—so that the short trims faced her."



Here is where I read about it:

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/the-baccarat-machine-19176

Quote: FleaStiff

I believe part of the play was in a sort of alcove so supervision was slight and supervisor did not speak Chinese. Don't know if Supervisor knew about edge sorting.

Most interesting... I would love to see a source for this "alcove with light supervision" reference. Seems unlikely to me with the large amount bet on each hand.

As far as edge sorting not being known to the supervisor, that also seems unlikely unless the supervisor was incompetent and ignorant of his profession. Edge sorting has been known for over 100 years. Teliot's expert witness testimony showed reference manuals written for the gaming industry have discussed edge sorting (and how to protect against it) since the early 1970s.

In the Crockfords case, "The Court Of Appeal ruled that Crockfords did not have to hand over the cash as the controversial method could be seen as unintentional cheating." (Source) Furthermore, the original trial judge ruled that Ivey was not "dishonest," and none of the three Court Of Appeal judges disagreed, nonetheless somehow deciding against Ivey by a two-to-one split decision.

Not sure how one can have an "honest" player charged with "unintentional cheating" when the casino itself was clearly asleep at the switch. My best take was that the casino decided on the one hand, if Ivey loses, we get his money. And on the other hand, if he wins we claim he cheated and refuse to pay his winnings to him. Crockfords also refused to pay him winnings from an entirely separate hi-stakes craps game. So, IMHO, if there's any real cheating, it's probably the result of Crockfords' actions, not Ivey's.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Crockfords also refused to pay him winnings from an entirely separate hi-stakes craps game. So, IMHO, if there's any real cheating, it's probably the result of Crockfords' actions, not Ivey's.

Where did you read/see the story about the craps game? I didn't think they even had craps in Europe? Thanks.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Most interesting... I would love to see a source for this "alcove with light supervision" reference. Seems unlikely to me with the large amount bet on each hand.

As far as edge sorting not being known to the supervisor, that also seems unlikely unless the supervisor was incompetent and ignorant of his profession.

I'd love to see the source too but my biological hard drive is perpetually in failure mode these days. My post was a recollection of events at some UK casino (that is why I didn't say 'floor' because they have different titles there.

As for it being astounding that either a dealer or a first line supervisor would not know about edge sorting I too agree that it is is indeed astounding but I do know that in American casinos alot of inexperienced personnel were promoted after severe layoffs and it may just be that the same happened in the UK and the dealers and 'floor' there are also lacking in experience.

To me it is utterly incomprehensible that anyone would seek to have the cards turned and absurd to think the dealer would agree to this.

Now I will admit that I am aware of one Vegas incident where at a Carnival Game there was a neophyte dealer and the players decided to have a little fun (and to make some money) by telling the dealer that Dueces were wild. For several hands the dealer paid out because a deuce was used as a wild card. Eventually the dealer received a deuce and tried to use it as a wild card to declare a house win, so the greedy players called over a supervisor and that ended the whole deuces wild incident. This is atleast a fifteen year old incident. So there is precedent for utter ignorance amongst dealers due to schedulling pressures. One dealer went to the coat check area when told to go to 'chip check' for twenty minutes. Mistakes happen.

But edge sorting is cheating and it is such a gross trick that the casino personnel should all know it.

I've posted before about an incident over twenty years ago in Vegas where the Pencil told a dealer "You are on Such and Such Carnival Game, Table 3, in ten minutes. The dealer protested that he didn't know how to play the game, did not know the rules, had never been trained on the game. Whereupon the Pencil made a big show of looking at his watch and replied "In that case you are on that tabel in nine mimutes".

Nowadays that doesn't happen and it should certainly not happen in high stakes games. However about three years ago at a Seminole casino in Florida I did have a neophyte baccarat dealer. And she tried to charge me a commission on the five dollar bet I made for her on the mini-bacc layout. You can be sure I called the Floor over for that one.

Quote: FleaStiff

I've posted before about an incident over twenty years ago in Vegas where the Pencil told a dealer "You are on Such and Such Carnival Game, Table 3, in ten minutes. The dealer protested that he didn't know how to play the game, did not know the rules, had never been trained on the game. Whereupon the Pencil made a big show of looking at his watch and replied "In that case you are on that tabel in nine mimutes".

Nowadays that doesn't happen and it should certainly not happen in high stakes games. However about three years ago at a Seminole casino in Florida I did have a neophyte baccarat dealer. And she tried to charge me a commission on the five dollar bet I made for her on the mini-bacc layout. You can be sure I called the Floor over for that one.

That's simply false.

Quote: NokTang

Where did you read/see the story about the craps game? I didn't think they even had craps in Europe? Thanks.

Wow! OK, I checked, and you are correct. Thanx for calling my attention to this oversight.

The issue of craps wins and losses involved only Ivey's battle with the Borg. Crockfords does not show craps as available at its venue. When I checked, I could only find where Borgata tried to include Ivey's wins from craps, while not including his (larger) losses from craps in its calculation of "damages." For those interested in reviewing the Borg battle, look here.

Quote: Borgata Opinion, 12/15/2016

This finding implicates Ivey and Sun’s argument against Borgata’s requested damages. For each of the four days of play, Borgata provides an accounting of the front money Ivey deposited, the amount of money Ivey and Sun won, and the amount of money Ivey and Sun withdrew from the front money account. (Docket No. 109 at 4.)

Borgata’s calculation separates out the $892,200 Ivey lost at Craps, but it includes as damages the $504,000 Ivey won at Craps, because those winnings were directly traceable to his prior Baccarat winnings – i.e., he used Baccarat winnings to play Craps. Borgata’s calculation also notes the chips Ivey redeemed for cash rather than deposited into his front money account. The total amount Borgata claims constitutes the parties’ positions prior to Ivey and Sun’s formation of their contract to play Baccarat is $10,130,000.

So, in calculating $$$ Ivey won from Borgata, the casino included Ivey's craps winnings, but did not include Ivey's (larger) craps losses, because the Borg (and judge) were (apparently) able to determine Ivey's craps losses were from his own front money, but his winnings were from ill-gotten baccarat winnings.

I remain stunned the casino and court could divide the "baby" so precisely, and in such a one-sided manner.

Craps is available in the UK.

Quote: LuckyPhow

So, in calculating $$$ Ivey won from Borgata, the casino included Ivey's craps winnings, but did not include Ivey's (larger) craps losses, because the Borg (and judge) were (apparently) able to determine Ivey's craps losses were from his own front money, but his winnings were from ill-gotten baccarat winnings.

I remain stunned the casino and court could divide the "baby" so precisely, and in such a one-sided manner.

It's total nonsense because once the money is won, it's yours/mine/Ivey's. They also as you may recall included theoretical loss in the lawsuit.

There was a time when I knew, but on some appeal matters you have to put the money up. I don't know in this New Jersey case.

Quote: NokTang

They also as you may recall included theoretical loss in the lawsuit.

True, but the judge disallowed Borg's inclusion of theoretical losses.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The bolded part is the key and why what they did is cheating/collusion, even if the dealer, floor, management doesnt know it gives him an edge. I agree with the original court rulings and he IS a cheater.

IIRC, the original court rulings did not state that he cheated. However, Borgata did deal an illegal game.

Quote: RS

However, Borgata did deal an illegal game.

More precisely it was that an unknowingly non-random deck was deemed to illegal ab initio so the game was considered void from the start.

Now a die that had a physixal defect is immediately detectable but a misshuffled deck is not. The preshuffled but unknowingly rigged deck is not detectable until its in use. The turn the edges of the valuable cards is a rigged deck once the first cards are turned even though it would not be usuable information until those discards are fed thru the sorter again.

Its cheating, now matter how bold the scheme is and now matter how stupid the dealer is, its cheating.

Quote: FleaStiff

Quote: RS

However, Borgata did deal an illegal game.

More precisely it was that an unknowingly non-random deck was deemed to illegal ab initio so the game was considered void from the start.

Now a die that had a physixal defect is immediately detectable but a misshuffled deck is not. The preshuffled but unknowingly rigged deck is not detectable until its in use. The turn the edges of the valuable cards is a rigged deck once the first cards are turned even though it would not be usuable information until those discards are fed thru the sorter again.

Its cheating, now matter how bold the scheme is and now matter how stupid the dealer is, its cheating.

Based on your argument, shuffle tracking would also be cheating if you cut a slug of high cards
To a known location.
Since you are now rigging the deck.