Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/judge-poker-pro-ivey-pal-broke-gambling-rules-in-10m-win/
I was kind of wondering why Ivey was running this scam, anyway, I mean, isn't he supposed to be a totally whiz-bang poker pro? Why would he do this con when there was some risk (more than negligible, as it turned out!) of him getting caught and maybe sued? Can't he just walk into a poker tournament and win it by giving people unnerving stares, like he used to? Or is the poker world not the fertile field it used to be?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, he cheated. But I'm sure that many people think he didn't, because the casino allowed him to (and yes, they were idiots not to realize why Ivey wanted the dealer to rearrange the cards).
I was kind of wondering why Ivey was running this scam, anyway, I mean, isn't he supposed to be a totally whiz-bang poker pro? Why would he do this con when there was some risk (more than negligible, as it turned out!) of him getting caught and maybe sued? Can't he just walk into a poker tournament and win it by giving people unnerving stares, like he used to? Or is the poker world not the fertile field it used to be?
If it happened the other way the results would be the same. If there was a defect noticed after the fact and he lost 10 mil the judge would still rule in the casinos favor.
Just because the mob left AC doesn't mean it's any less corrupt or a kangaroo court
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, he cheated. But I'm sure that many people think he didn't, because the casino allowed him to (and yes, they were idiots not to realize why Ivey wanted the dealer to rearrange the cards).
I was kind of wondering why Ivey was running this scam, anyway, I mean, isn't he supposed to be a totally whiz-bang poker pro? Why would he do this con when there was some risk (more than negligible, as it turned out!) of him getting caught and maybe sued? Can't he just walk into a poker tournament and win it by giving people unnerving stares, like he used to? Or is the poker world not the fertile field it used to be?
I think this is a terrible judgment, and yes I'm one of those people that think how can it be cheating if they did it with the casinos permission.
However the ruling doesn't surprise me If they were "cheating " as you put it why haven't they been charged with a crime?
Quote: HunterhillI think this is a terrible judgment, and yes I'm one of those people that think how can it be cheating if they did it with the casinos permission.
However the ruling doesn't surprise me If they were "cheating " as you put it why haven't they been charged with a crime?
Because it looks like this is being treated as a civil tort case. The story said that Ivey had violated a contractual obligation and it was now up to the casino to state the damages.
Quote: FDEAD3709Why did he do it ? Old adage among many gamblers " Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat "
Jesse "The Body" Ventura was a gambler?
Don't be silly. Edge sorting is worth millions the way he did it. No poker tournament is worth anywhere near that much.Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, he cheated. But I'm sure that many people think he didn't, because the casino allowed him to (and yes, they were idiots not to realize why Ivey wanted the dealer to rearrange the cards).
I was kind of wondering why Ivey was running this scam, anyway, I mean, isn't he supposed to be a totally whiz-bang poker pro? Why would he do this con when there was some risk (more than negligible, as it turned out!) of him getting caught and maybe sued? Can't he just walk into a poker tournament and win it by giving people unnerving stares, like he used to? Or is the poker world not the fertile field it used to be?
Quote: onenickelmiracleI would have to know what gambling regulations Ivey broke to judge in the judge's favor. Otherwise stupidity is just as acceptable to the casino taking money from people, and the casino has no inherent right to be protected from their own stupidity. They don't seek out anyone they've wronged and offer refunds, so how is this fair.
Greasy palms possibly.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, he cheated.
I knew I'd disagree with you eventually about something and that time has come. Can you please tell me which New Jersey gaming regulation he violated?
I'm to lazy to look it up, but IIRC they do have some ambiguous wording in their law. I belive it says something about trickery or some word like that.Quote: WizardI knew I'd disagree with you eventually about something and that time has come. Can you please tell me which New Jersey gaming regulation he violated?
This would be obvious trickery IMO.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm to lazy to look it up, but IIRC they do have some ambiguous wording in their law. I belive it says something about trickery or some word like that.
This would be obvious trickery IMO.
It is up to the one writing the language to be on the losing side of any ambiguity. However, I am all ears to chapter and verse of whatever Ivey did that was "cheating."
Surprised to see you taking the casino's side on this one.
The punchline of course is that The Pencil paused thoughtfully, then looked at his watch and said to the Dealer :You are Pai Gow Poker, Table Twelve in Nineteen Minutes".
I had minibacc dealers take my "losing" Players Bet when I bet on both Players and Tie and Tie won.
I had minbacc dealers charge me a Commission on BOTH my Bankers Bet for ME and my Bankers Bet for the Dealer. Idiotic dealer to think thats proper, they should want those dealer bets for their toke box and not punish teh player for making them.
These are casino Lack of Training Errors and Dumb Hires errors.
There is also the public response to thing like this: where the neophyte dealer is told "Deuces are Wild" or some crazy thing and falls for it.
Foreign Language aside its clear the casino employees should have been instantly taken aside and presented with expensive cigars as well as a pretty nifty blind fold too. The use of a foreign language simply means the Shift Supervisor should be included in the line against that wall.
Imagine a teller so dumb as to hand over ten grand in cash 'because I have an arrangement with the bank every Monday' and "no, I don't sign no receipt or give you anything, just shut up and do your job".
Ivey probably got a flat fee from teh Oriental Handlers who set it up. Reputation? Ever try using reputation when trying to get a drink from a bar tender?
I haven't been able to find the opinion but here's a more detailed article:Quote: WizardIt is up to the one writing the language to be on the losing side of any ambiguity. However, I am all ears to chapter and verse of whatever Ivey did that was "cheating."
Surprised to see you taking the casino's side on this one.
http://blogs.northjersey.com/meadowlands-matters/federal-judge-gives-split-court-opinion-on-phil-ivey-10m-baccarat-win-over-borgata-1.1681211?platform=hootsuite
Apparently there were claims/counterclaims and the judge dismissed some on both sides but found liability in others. It appeared that the judge found primary liability in breach of contract (that all parties follow the regulations) and that's where the damages hearing will go -- Borgata's initial brief is due in 20 days, Ivey's reply is due 20 days after. The judge did *not* issue a finding of fraud or cheating, and in fact dismissed the Borgata's fraud claims.
Did they swindle the casino?
Here is what I found.
113. Swindling and Cheating; Penalties.
a.A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.
Ivey won't go down for "cheating" or anything like that. My guess is this -- Ivey will be stuck $10M, won't be charged for cheating or whatever -- but they'll do something stupid....like charge the money with the crime of cheating (ie: like they do in asset forfeiture cases).
A bit ridiculous, I think, to say the cards "became marked" when they were turned, upon request by Ivey/Sun at the approval of the casino. This is, in essence, welching on behalf of the Borgata. The article says he made 5 requests to the casino...when there was really a 6'th request, with which the casino agreed -- to turn the cards.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI would have to know what gambling regulations Ivey broke to judge in the judge's favor. Otherwise stupidity is just as acceptable to the casino taking money from people, and the casino has no inherent right to be protected from their own stupidity. They don't seek out anyone they've wronged and offer refunds, so how is this fair.
This.^^^
Do you think they swindled the casino?Quote: beachbumbabsThis.^^^
I would think this cost them much, much more than the 10M they're fighting over in high roller action, let alone all the less-than-skilled shot takers of all values who won't come lose to them after this.
Quote: beachbumbabsAnd not knowing their own game and its vulnerabilities. They screwed up. They lost. And they sued, looking like idiots the whole way.
Consider the old trick:
Woman player uses makeup and daubs the cards. Male Confederate wears red contacts and can see the finger daubs. Is this cheating? Clearly it is.
Edge sorting is akin to having the casino daub the cards thinking they are only giving in to the whims of a weirdo.
Is it disgraceful to the casino to have been fooled this way? YES.
The question in a court of law does not relate to the casino's disgrace or business decisions relating to recouping its losses, the question before the court will be "in enlisting the casino's aid in marking the cards, did the player vitiate the game?
Quote: FleaStiffConsider the old trick:
Woman player uses makeup and daubs the cards. Male Confederate wears red contacts and can see the finger daubs. Is this cheating? Clearly it is.
Edge sorting is akin to having the casino daub the cards thinking they are only giving in to the whims of a weirdo.
Is it disgraceful to the casino to have been fooled this way? YES.
The question in a court of law does not relate to the casino's disgrace or business decisions relating to recouping its losses, the question before the court will be "in enlisting the casino's aid in marking the cards, did the player vitiate the game?
Again that is someone adding something to the cards.
This is a manufacturers defect if I understand correctly. So the borgata should be having suit with the manufacturer not a player that found it and was allowed to use it to their advantage.
I think you are saying the casino's greed allowed them to get swindled.Quote: beachbumbabsNo, I don't. I think the casino swindled themselves through not seeing the angle he was trying. Through giving him special treatment because of the celebrity and the bet sizes. And not knowing their own game and its vulnerabilities. They screwed up. They lost. And they sued, looking like idiots the whole way.
I would think this cost them much, much more than the 10M they're fighting over in high roller action, let alone all the less-than-skilled shot takers of all values who won't come lose to them after this.
I don't think he cheated and im not on the side of the casino, but I do think he swindled the casino. I really don't know how anyone can dispute that fact. If that's not a swindle I don't know what is.
If I invited you to play a card game with me, and lets say we both knew I was better at that game than you. So you asked me to buy a special deck of cards because you secretly knew the cards were marked and you used that to your advantage to beat me silly. You don't think that's a swindle?
If he lost, they say nothing. When he wins they cry foul. It was my understanding, that even with the edge sorting the variance is such that he could still blow chunks before seeing the profit.
FWIW I dont consider this cheating at all.
Im curiuos if the judge is saying the cards were marked in essence by gemaco then cant ivey create a countersuit that the borgata used improper gaming devices. Certainly there must be something about that in nj regulations. They could point to this ruling as evidence
Finally i think it sets up a dangerous precedent. Can this argument not be used for an unbalanced roulette wheel. What if a player discovers a glitch that helps him recognize wen to win and keep playing. I am reminded of the vp glitch which required the double up feature to b enabled. Were they marking in this sense by making requests that would enable them to win. Perhaps those charges were dropped cause they gave the money back and this is really just a sore loser play on the part of casinos
Quote: DRichOne of the arguments I heard was that they were knowingly using marked cards to give themselves an advantage. It didn't matter who marked them, just using marked cards for an advantage is classified as using a cheating device,
Right so wat does nj gambling regs say about using marked cards if its the casino that supplies them. Wouldnt the usage of marked cards by the casino be illegal regardlessbof whether they went in favor of the player or house
If i was ivey ibwould look up nj regs to c if use of illegal marked cards supplied by the casino negated the game and then claim the casino cheated him
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/107
One of the notable passages states:
Quote: Judge Hillman's order, p. 17Allowing a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor would violate the essential purpose of legalized gambling. Indeed, since the inception of legalized gambling, the Casino Control Commission has implemented numerous countermeasures to prevent threats to the statistical advantage that casinos need to remain profitable. (footnote to Campione v. Adamar, one of the cases about card counting).
By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them, Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling, as set forth by the CCA. Ivey and Sun’s violation of the card marking provision in the CCA constitutes a breach of their mutual obligation with Borgata to play by the rules of the CCA. Consequently, summary judgment must be entered in Borgata’s favor, and against Ivey and Sun, on Borgata’s contract-based claims.
This passage appears to indicate that other forms of advantage play may also be violations of the New Jersey CCA if they "allow a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor."
Also notably, the Court found that the DGE and CCC (the regulators) should have acted on the question of whether Ivey/Sun violated any provisions of the CCA, but because the regulators didn't address the matter after four years, the Court felt it had to act. Due process and all.
I expect there will be at least one appeal forthcoming, but I also expect the Borgata to file a very simple damages brief and claim 100% of the amount they lost to Ivey.
For what it's worth, here's the earlier order in the case allowing it to proceed (about a year and a half ago):
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/32
Quote: AxelWolfDon't be silly. Edge sorting is worth millions the way he did it. No poker tournament is worth anywhere near that much.
You don't understand. Edge sorting is risky. Poker tournaments are not. (And I mean in the sense of getting "caught.") Poker was worth well over $1 million a year to him. It seems stupid--and greedy--to try something that was at lest quasi-legal instead. The downside is that he may not be able to get the poker action he used to. It's like the group of poker cheaters on the Ultimate Bet and associated scandals. Their careers are essentially over, aside from whatever civil and criminal charges they may face. Ivey is in deep doodoo as well.
And please don't say things like "don't be silly" just because you can't understand what I'm talking about.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI would have to know what gambling regulations Ivey broke to judge in the judge's favor. Otherwise stupidity is just as acceptable to the casino taking money from people, and the casino has no inherent right to be protected from their own stupidity. They don't seek out anyone they've wronged and offer refunds, so how is this fair.
It's breach of contract. New Jersey laws are more stringent than Nevada laws (as in, New Jersey actually has some). The player and casino are entering into an implied contract. Both parties agree to play the game according to the gaming regulations. Apparently, the judge ruled that Ivey violated that contract. I don't know enough about that law to say whether the judge was correct or not. I do know enough about greed and stupidity to say that Ivey took an unacceptable risk, the ethics of his actions aside.
Quote: WizardI knew I'd disagree with you eventually about something and that time has come. Can you please tell me which New Jersey gaming regulation he violated?
The OP linked to an article that, while it rambles, explains the issue fairly well. The crux is that Ivey is being accused of breach of contract. In NJ, there is an implied mutual contract between the player and the casino that each will conduct themselves according to NJ gaming regulations. The judge refused to view Ivey's actions as criminal fraud, though.
The specific law is the New Jersey Casino Control Act. Though it's easy to look up the entire text, I don't know which section the judge cited in his ruling.
My assertion that Ivey cheated is not based on that, however. It's something more basic. You fiddle with the cards, the roulette wheel, the golf ball, the horses in the race, whatever--the physical mechanism that affects the outcome of the game--and you're cheating. Yes, the house allowed him to do that. They were immensely stupid. But I don't think that it's ethical. As I said earlier, I'm sure that many APs would vehemently disagree. I feel the same way about hole-card spooking.
For one thing, if you have the mental acumen, even in today's world, you don't need to angle-shoot to win. You're proof of that, and so is Ivey (or, at least, WAS Ivey). Why would Ivey wade into that ethical, legal, and moral swamp?
Quote: darkozRight so wat does nj gambling regs say about using marked cards if its the casino that supplies them. Wouldnt the usage of marked cards by the casino be illegal regardlessbof whether they went in favor of the player or house
If i was ivey ibwould look up nj regs to c if use of illegal marked cards supplied by the casino negated the game and then claim the casino cheated him
It is not that there is marked cards, it is using marked cards to your advantage.
I certainly understand the drive to turn $1M into $10M or $20M, but I can't for the life of me imagine that Ivey truly thought he'd be able to pull off a decades-old move -- edge sorting, a.k.a. "playing the turn" is not a new thing -- and get away completely undetected in today's era of modern surveillance and immediate communication. From the order:Quote: JoeshlabotnikFor one thing, if you have the mental acumen, even in today's world, you don't need to angle-shoot to win. You're proof of that, and so is Ivey (or, at least, WAS Ivey). Why would Ivey wade into that ethical, legal, and moral swamp?
Quote: Judge HillmanDuring his last visit to Borgata on October 7, 2012, Borgata learned through a media report that a casino in London, Crockfords, was withholding £7.3 million won by Ivey playing Punto Banco, which is essentially the same game as Baccarat.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSomething else just occurred to me. If Ivey noticed an irregularity in the card back design, why couldn't he just have observed that irregularity and bet accordingly when he was able to see it in the first card coming out of the shoe? That would obviate the need to manipulate the dealer. He'd still see the edge of the card half the time.
Because if the cards that are turned one direction are a mix of good cards (8s and 9s) and bad cards (face cards), the information is of no use. You see a "half-diamond" card, and you have no idea what it is. If you get all the bad cards or all the good cards going one way, that's where you have information.
Quote: DeucekiesBecause if the cards that are turned one direction are a mix of good cards (8s and 9s) and bad cards (face cards), the information is of no use. You see a "half-diamond" card, and you have no idea what it is. If you get all the bad cards or all the good cards going one way, that's where you have information.
So he had the dealer turn ONLY the 8s and 9s? And nobody saw anything suspicious about that? Good God.
Quote: HeyMrDJThis is why every game in vegas is now shuffled differently. Watch them rotate half the pack just before the riffle.
Even on shoe blackjack. Fear mongering from the protection people to sell their services.
Quote: FleaStiffConsider the old trick:
Woman player uses makeup and daubs the cards. Male Confederate wears red contacts and can see the finger daubs. Is this cheating? Clearly it is.
Edge sorting is akin to having the casino daub the cards thinking they are only giving in to the whims of a weirdo.
Yes, marking cards is cheating. However, I reject to comparison to what Ivey did. The makeup is a device, which are generally illegal. I would argue that Ivey didn't use any devices and obeyed all casino rules. Although, in the very similar Crocfords case, the judge there ruled that Ivey used the dealer as a device. Decent point but I still take Ivey's side.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSo he had the dealer turn ONLY the 8s and 9s? And nobody saw anything suspicious about that? Good God.
I fail to understand why didn't immediately suspect something when Ivey asked to play baccarat. If he asks to play anything I would immediately ask what advantage play does he know about that I don't. I would then let him play and watch everything he does like a hawk. If you can't figure out the advantage play, there are several consultants, some who are members here, who could have figured it out within two minutes.
Quote: WizardI fail to understand why didn't immediately suspect something when Ivey asked to play baccarat.
Some poker players are known to be degenerate gamblers in other areas. That might be the default expectation.
Or is the argument going to be, they didn't know any better?
Does that mean I can send my mom into a casino with some extra make-up or daub on her hand, and tell her to touch the back-side of the aces? As long as she didn't know any better.....am I right?
Or do the laws only go one way? (Rhethorical question, btw.)
Quote: WizardI fail to understand why didn't immediately suspect something when Ivey asked to play baccarat. If he asks to play anything I would immediately ask what advantage play does he know about that I don't. I would then let him play and watch everything he does like a hawk. If you can't figure out the advantage play, there are several consultants, some who are members here, who could have figured it out within two minutes.
Although he has a great reputation as a phenomenal poker pro, he has possibly a bigger reputation as a non-AP gambler. His game of choice is usually craps, and he is known to lose seven figures in a trip sometimes.
Quote: DeucekiesAlthough he has a great reputation as a phenomenal poker pro, he has possibly a bigger reputation as a non-AP gambler. His game of choice is usually craps, and he is known to lose seven figures in a trip sometimes.
https://youtu.be/3hYsCemYyGQ
Quote: WizardI fail to understand why didn't immediately suspect something when Ivey asked to play baccarat. If he asks to play anything I would immediately ask what advantage play does he know about that I don't. I would then let him play and watch everything he does like a hawk. If you can't figure out the advantage play, there are several consultants, some who are members here, who could have figured it out within two minutes.
1. Ivey could be like many successful poker players who have a gambling leak. If he also plays craps, for example, that might suggest that he just likes to gamble. So they'd happily let him play baccarat.
2. I do repeatedly ask this question when Bob Dancer writes about his latest video poker escapades. A casino should know that if he's playing, that can't be any good for them. The only answer I've ever been able to come up with is that Dancer strikes a Mephistophelian bargain with the casinos where he plays, offering "consulting" when needed, as in, outing other players. Maybe Ivey had some kind of similar deal??
3. They could have indeed suspected that he was doing some kind of advantage play but let him play anyway, as they might have been secure in their belief that Ivey couldn['t beat the game. (Stupid, I know.)
