MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 25th, 2016 at 2:20:28 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I think ANY business, casinos included, should be able to refuse service to any customer or customers it deems as detrimental to its operations, for any reason or no reason at all.

Except that's precisely the opposite of the holding in the New Jersey case Uston v. Resorts International:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/198225289NJ163_1241/USTON%20v.%20RESORTS%20INTERNATIONAL%20HOTEL,%20INC.

Quote: Uston v. Resorts Int'l

Resorts claimed that it could exclude Uston because it had a common law right to exclude anyone at all for any reason. While we hold that the Casino Control Act precludes Resorts from excluding Uston for the reasons stated, it is important for us to address the asserted common law right for two reasons. First, Resorts' contentions and the Commission's position concerning the common law right are incorrect. Second, the act has not completely divested Resorts of its common law right to exclude.
...
Whether a decision to exclude is reasonable must be determined from the facts of each case. Respondent Uston does not threaten the security of any casino occupant. Nor has he disrupted the functioning of any casino operations. Absent a valid contrary rule by the Commission, Uston possesses the usual right of reasonable access to Resorts International's blackjack tables.

"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
LuckyPhow
LuckyPhow
Joined: May 19, 2016
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 680
October 25th, 2016 at 2:27:06 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist



But the judge doesn't have that amount of discretion. For starters, he has to follow the law...



And the law sez it is "unlawful...knowingly to ... expose for play any ... games played with cards ... operated in a manner, the result of which ... tends to alter ... the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."

Source: NJ Casino Control Act, Article 9 - Sanctions:
5:12-115 Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.


Eliot Jacobson, providing expert testimony in the Ivey case, documented that card-edge sorting as an advantage technique was in the published literature prior to 1900, and well-known in the modern casino management literature as early as 1977.

The NJ gaming regs require the casino to determine all gaming equipment (I trust, including cards) is not vulnerable to cheating. Furthermore, as I read the regs, the NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement must inspect and approve suitability of all gaming equipment prior to its use. Both should have examined the cards Ivey insisted the casino use prior to his baccarat sessions. (Ah, but did they? When, and who signed off on those screwy cards?) The gaming regs are so specific they specify which hand the dealer uses to retrieve cards from the baccarat shoe and what specific words the dealer says at each point in the play of a hand. Someone signed off on those cards, and they probably had to note that on some form. All gaming equipment is tracked in the most minute detail.

No excuse for the casino to put forward cards that were vulnerable to cheating. IMHO, doing so puts the casino in the position of offering an illegal game, not played according to the state's gaming regulations. The casino cheated. Having done so, it should have no standing to suggest Ivey cheated (even if he did), because the casino stands before the court with its own dirty hands.

Furthermore, the wording of the NJ regulations suggests to me that the casino has a fiduciary responsibility to Phil Ivey to permit only legal games played in accordance with NJ gaming requirements. Failure of the casino to exercise appropriate fiduciary responsibility, as best I can surmise, makes Phil Ivey the victim.

And, as Extremist said, the judge has to follow the law. IMHO, he failed to render a just and fair opinion consistent with the law, even as he quoted that same statute. I hope Ivey appeals. Every gambler should hope he appeals this decision, because casinos should be required to follow the law.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 25th, 2016 at 2:28:39 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Except that's precisely the opposite of the holding in the New Jersey case Uston v. Resorts International:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/198225289NJ163_1241/USTON%20v.%20RESORTS%20INTERNATIONAL%20HOTEL,%20INC.



I'm well aware of the Hew Jersey vs. Uston ruling(s) and the general way the NJ gaming laws work. However, I strongly disagree with those laws and note that NJ is the only state that FORCES a casino to accept customers that it doesn't want (and even that has been dialed back since then).

Why should any business be forced to serve patrons that it doesn't want? Resorts was correct to argue common law in that case. That they lost just means that the law was terrible. If I run a business (and I have), I will CERTAINLY exclude any customer whose custom costs me money. It's my right.
Hunterhill
Hunterhill
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 1908
October 25th, 2016 at 3:27:28 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I'm well aware of the Hew Jersey vs. Uston ruling(s) and the general way the NJ gaming laws work. However, I strongly disagree with those laws and note that NJ is the only state that FORCES a casino to accept customers that it doesn't want (and even that has been dialed back since then).

Why should any business be forced to serve patrons that it doesn't want? Resorts was correct to argue common law in that case. That they lost just means that the law was terrible. If I run a business (and I have), I will CERTAINLY exclude any customer whose custom costs me money. It's my right.


I have no problem with casinos being able to exclude patrons. Just tell me I'm not wanted and i will leave, just don't backroom me arrest me or illegally detain me.
Also don't steal my money like Foxwoods did to Sun and Ivey. They not only kept their winnings they kept their deposit front money.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8409
October 25th, 2016 at 3:28:28 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I think ANY business, casinos included, should be able to refuse service to any customer or customers it deems as detrimental to its operations, for any reason or no reason at all. Casinos are in business to make money. Why wouldn't they want to exclude the rare (AP) customer who costs them money? To put it another way,what makes the AP think he has a right to gamble in a privately owned casino?



Technically until an ap is banned from a casino he has every right any ploppie has to play. Someone asked if it was worth it to hire a lawyer to fight an exclusion for ap. I think t was ace tracking in particular. I would argue it isnt not because the play itself isnt worth it but even if u win the right to enter again the casino will watch u like a hawk. It would be a hollow victory with them doing every trick to negate your ap move. Only hire a lawyer to sue for actual torts like imprisonment etc
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8409
October 25th, 2016 at 3:33:39 PM permalink
So based on this judges decision edge sorting is NOT illegal however the casino can sue for breach of implicit contract. That would stand for nj based on their legal definitions but other jurisdictions may b different.

In theory if someone edge sorted and used a successful cover play (i dont know what that might be) the play coyld still b profitable with the only penalty being a loss of winnings. Kind of like a free roll in a sense although one cant discount possible attorney fees.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 25th, 2016 at 3:58:17 PM permalink
Quote: LuckyPhow

And the law sez it is "unlawful...knowingly to ... expose for play any ... games played with cards ... operated in a manner, the result of which ... tends to alter ... the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."

Source: NJ Casino Control Act, Article 9 - Sanctions:
5:12-115 Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with....

Eliot Jacobson, providing expert testimony in the Ivey case, documented that card-edge sorting as an advantage technique was in the published literature prior to 1900, and well-known in the modern casino management literature as early as 1977.

And, as Extremist said, the judge has to follow the law. IMHO, he failed to render a just and fair opinion consistent with the law, even as he quoted that same statute. I hope Ivey appeals. Every gambler should hope he appeals this decision, because casinos should be required to follow the law.

I don't have access to Eliot's testimony, and I'm also aware that edge sorting / playing the turn is an old move, but the crux of the casino's liability would seem to be the word "knowingly" in the law you cited. Did the casino actually know they were being edge-sorted? I'd think they wouldn't have let Ivey play if they did...
"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
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2051
October 25th, 2016 at 4:58:33 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That's not what the judge said. The judge said that the act of manipulating the cards caused them to be effectively marked per the purpose of the regulation. Without knowing which cards are turned one way or the other, there is no way to distinguish certain cards from the others. According to the judge, cards are marked if players who are aware of the manipulation can distinguish one from the other, but players who are not aware cannot. The asymmetry in the card edges does not, by itself, mean the cards are marked. If the deck is edge sorted, they are. That's the takeaway from the ruling.



Here's what many people are missing. The cards can easily enough be sorted into several different categories based on the degree of printed asymmetry. In other words, you don't even have to turn the cards in order to get an edge in baccarat. The player can easily enough distinguish between symmetrically printed and asymmetrical printed cards, regardless of which side is first visible in the shoe. It's like being able to determine that a penny is a penny, regardless of which side is up.
The card manufacturer is the one that is at fault.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
October 25th, 2016 at 5:36:25 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

Here's what many people are missing. The cards can easily enough be sorted into several different categories based on the degree of printed asymmetry. In other words, you don't even have to turn the cards in order to get an edge in baccarat. The player can easily enough distinguish between symmetrically printed and asymmetrical printed cards, regardless of which side is first visible in the shoe. It's like being able to determine that a penny is a penny, regardless of which side is up.
The card manufacturer is the one that is at fault.



I've never tried it, but I'd think "easily" is quite a stretch to do this. Which also begs the question -- when the cards are purchased and taken out of the packs, are they cut so that they all have "big diamonds" on one side and "half diamonds" on the other? Or are the edges random?
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 25th, 2016 at 6:55:35 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

Here's what many people are missing. The cards can easily enough be sorted into several different categories based on the degree of printed asymmetry. In other words, you don't even have to turn the cards in order to get an edge in baccarat. The player can easily enough distinguish between symmetrically printed and asymmetrical printed cards, regardless of which side is first visible in the shoe. It's like being able to determine that a penny is a penny, regardless of which side is up.
The card manufacturer is the one that is at fault.

That allegation wasn't in front of the court, and it's certainly not what Ivey/Sun did. Otherwise they wouldn't have needed to sort anything. Are you saying that you can tell what the front of a card is by looking at the back?


Here's the Gemaco example from a newspaper. What's the value of that card?
"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

  • Jump to: