Edge Sorting

If edge sorting has been going on for decades, and casinos are well aware of the tactic, then why on earth would The Borgata agree to all of the 'obvious' requests that Phil Ivey made? It seems to me that those requests would scream 'edge sorting here' to industry professionals that should be and probably were aware of the type of scheme. Were they that oblivious to this because that were just salivating at his bankroll? Or did they suspect it but didn't care because they thought they would beat him? I say pay Phil his money.

Here is a thought.... why don't the card manufacturers print solid color on the back of the cards so that no edge sorting can be done? Am I missing something? Can the cards be scuffed to easily to be marked?

The 'turn carding' was known only to Chinese speaking lower level personnel, not supervisors.
MBAs had probably fired all the surveillance people with any skills or experience.

Edge-sortable cards are probably a few pennies cheaper and you know those MBA types.

Quote: WatchMeWin

Here is a thought.... why don't the card manufacturers print solid color on the back of the cards so that no edge sorting can be done? Am I missing something? Can the cards be scuffed to easily to be marked?

Watch from the 8:10 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD3E4FJblfA

Take that back. Watch the whole thing. You appear not to want to do any research on your own, so any self-education I can encourage you to do should go a long way towards reducing the noise.

Quote: FleaStiff

The 'turn carding' was known only to Chinese speaking lower level personnel,

Wrong.

Quote:

not supervisors.

Wrong.

Quote:

MBAs had probably fired all the surveillance people with any skills or experience.

Wrong.

Quote:

Edge-sortable cards are probably a few pennies cheaper

Wrong.

Quote: WatchMeWin

why don't the card manufacturers print solid color on the back of the cards so that no edge sorting can be done?

Wear and tear is much more noticeable on a solid back ?

2 big scratch = Ace
1 big scratch = Ten
2 small scratch = Five
1 small scratch = Six

Quote: supergrass

Wear and tear is much more noticeable on a solid back ?

2 big scratch = Ace
1 big scratch = Ten
2 small scratch = Five
1 small scratch = Six

Sure. But now it's a felony.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Sure. But now it's a felony.

Wear and tear occurs naturally without player ever touching the cards.

Quote: WatchMeWin

Or did [the casino] suspect it but didn't care because they thought they would beat him?

Teliot may have a more informed opinion than mine, but I think the casino didn't care because they would keep Ivey's money if he lost, and the casino thought they could refuse payment if he won (as actually occurred), because the modifications had made the game illegal under NJ gaming regulations.

NJ makes it very clear that any game not played according to the state gaming regulations is illegal. For Baccarat (Ivey's game), the regulations are so specific they specify which hand the dealer must use when extracting cards from the shoe and the exact words the dealer must say at each stage of the game. IMHO, if NJ gaming regulations allowed cards to be rotated 180 degrees, that would have been clearly stated in the regulations.

Because the regulations do not allow card rotation, Borgata was offering an illegal game. And, as Teliot noted, they knew the card rotation affected the inherent house advantage. I cannot understand why Borgata wasn't the party punished by the court rather than Ivey. But, if I recall correctly, the judge noted his frustration that the NJ Casino Control Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement had taken no action prior to Borgata filing the civil lawsuit to recover its losses.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Quote: WatchMeWin

Or did [the casino] suspect it but didn't care because they thought they would beat him?

Teliot may have a more informed opinion than mine, but I think the casino didn't care because they would keep Ivey's money if he lost, and the casino thought they could refuse payment if he won (as actually occurred), because the modifications had made the game illegal under NJ gaming regulations.

NJ makes it very clear that any game not played according to the state gaming regulations is illegal. For Baccarat (Ivey's game), the regulations are so specific they specify which hand the dealer must use when extracting cards from the shoe and the exact words the dealer must say at each stage of the game. IMHO, if NJ gaming regulations allowed cards to be rotated 180 degrees, that would have been clearly stated in the regulations.

Because the regulations do not allow card rotation, Borgata was offering an illegal game. And, as Teliot noted, they knew the card rotation affected the inherent house advantage. I cannot understand why Borgata wasn't the party punished by the court rather than Ivey. But, if I recall correctly, the judge noted his frustration that the NJ Casino Control Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement had taken no action prior to Borgata filing the civil lawsuit to recover its losses.

The Borgata didn't know how they were beat.
They didn't even proceed with their lawsuit until after Crockfords refused payment.

Quote: Hunterhill

The Borgata didn't know how they were beat.
They didn't even proceed with their lawsuit until after Crockfords refused payment.

When the Crockfords decision was handed down by Judge Mitting, Ivey turned to me and said "that's a $42 million swing" -- meaning that he assumed that however the Crockfords case went, the Borgata case would go the same way.

I did watch your entire video. You are polished and much younger than I envisioned. Very good and informative video. I understand much better now. Thank you. But I just still cant grasp why, if casinos and management are aware of edge sorting and how it is done... just as you explained, then how can they agree to the terms that Ivey and the woman requested with respect to the cards, shuffling, etc? Wouldn't that send a red flag to Borgata management to be wary of edge sorting possibilities? Were they that naive or did they not really care because they knew he was bringing in a large bankroll.

The interesting back story to me is.... so, how did Ivey and Cheung Yin Sun meet? I 'did some more research' and found this article link below... it is very interesting and will probably be made into a movie someday. Obviously, Phil is the guy who made the bets and did all of the monetary transactions, but he is not the guy who really beat them with his wit. It was all Cheung Yin Sun... and with her history in gaming and edge sorting, it is embarrassing that The Borgata didn't pick up on anything.

Regardless of if we believe it was cheating or not, both Ivey and Sun know that they were doing something wrong, otherwise they wouldnt have to lie about reasons for demands and the whole superstition jargon. But, they did beat them after The Borgata agreed to all requests... so pay the man his money.

Ask yourself this... If you had friends over your house for card games and you played for money. One guy wins everyones money. It is later found out that he was edge sorting which is why he won everyones money. Now all of those requests he made to have the cards shuffled a certain way, etc. hit home. Would you consider him to have cheated? Or would you just say that you should have been more astute to the cards and how they were dealt?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/how-advantage-players-game-the-casinos.html?_r=0
(about half way through the article you will read about Cheung Yin Sun and how she found Ivey)

Quote: Hunterhill

The Borgata didn't know how they were beat.

Then Boyd was criminally negligent. Especially in the view of shareholders. Never mind players.

Quote: WatchMeWin

If you had friends over your house for card games and you played for money. One guy wins everyones money. It is later found out that he was edge sorting which is why he won everyones money. Now all of those requests he made to have the cards shuffled a certain way, etc. hit home. Would you consider him to have cheated? Or would you just say that you should have been more astute to the cards and how they were dealt?

It is an entirely different situation when dealing with presumed business professionals with long experience and major legal and fidicuary obligations.

Perhaps the magnitude of the event is escalated when dealing with millions of dollars in a professional establishment, but the principle is still the same.

Quote: teliot

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

I think this is what is known as "hitting on all four".
My usual average, perhaps.

This has been a very bad look for The Borgata, even with the court ruling in their favor.

In their finacial favor, perhaps.