darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 261
  • Posts: 8758
Thanks for this post from:
CasinoKiller
October 26th, 2016 at 6:46:40 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

None of those acts, however, would qualify as intentional card marking based on how I interpret the judge's ruling. The closest would be eating the small cards with small bets, but even that is not something that's "using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them." It's settled law in New Jersey that counting is not unlawful.



Eating cards with small bets is csrtainly not a recoverable or cheating offence. Those were legal bets made by his compatriots whether to gain advantagr or not

Most certainly small bets would simply b table minimum and for don johnsons table that could easily hav been $500 a hand vs the $50000 he was normally making. Its not like they suddenly threw out $5 red chips lol
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
October 27th, 2016 at 12:49:28 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

None of those acts, however, would qualify as intentional card marking based on how I interpret the judge's ruling. The closest would be eating the small cards with small bets, but even that is not something that's "using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them." It's settled law in New Jersey that counting is not unlawful.



The bolded is a bit ridiculous. Anyone at the table could identify the value of the turned cards....not specific to Ivey or Sun.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 27th, 2016 at 8:57:32 AM permalink
Quote: RS

Quote: MathExtremist

None of those acts, however, would qualify as intentional card marking based on how I interpret the judge's ruling. The closest would be eating the small cards with small bets, but even that is not something that's "using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them." It's settled law in New Jersey that counting is not unlawful.



The bolded is a bit ridiculous. Anyone at the table could identify the value of the turned cards....not specific to Ivey or Sun.

How? If I were sitting at the table, how would I have identified the value of the cards unless I knew about the edge sorting? Edge sorting isn't like card counting -- anyone can walk up to a table and start card counting. The dealer can even keep the count because that information is public. But if the cards are being edge sorted but the dealer doesn't know that's happening, how would he know? How would anyone else? In that regard, edge sorting is no different than crimping or daubing -- if you don't know the cards are crimped or daubed or edge sorted, you have no way of knowing their value.

Here's exactly what the judge wrote:
Quote: Judge Hillman

“Marking” a card is to surreptitiously identify the value of the card to a player – and that player alone. The physical acts of a card being drawn on, daubed, or crimped are several ways to inform a player of its value. But, as demonstrated by Ivey and Sun’s edge sorting technique, a physical act is not necessary to alert a player surreptitiously of a card’s value. Asking a card dealer to turn a card a particular way so that the pattern on the edge of the card will distinguish it from other cards such that it will inform the player of that card’s value also constitutes “marking” within the meaning and intent of the regulatory ban. The term “marking” therefore can be defined as having something done to the card that identifies the value of the card to a player[10] but to no one else.

[10] Or to anyone who is aware that a card is marked, however accomplished, like a dealer or pit boss who would be advantaged by the marked card. See, e.g., Kelly, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 468 (patrons were defrauded by the casino when a marked card cheating scheme was perpetrated by casino employees, including cardroom dealers, pit bosses, and the cardroom manager).



If you think the judge got the facts wrong and you are able to demonstrate that the card values were identifiable to everyone, you should contact Phil Ivey's attorneys. That may be a good grounds for appeal.
"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
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 27th, 2016 at 9:26:26 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist


If you think the judge got the facts wrong and you are able to demonstrate that the card values were identifiable to everyone, you should contact Phil Ivey's attorneys. That may be a good grounds for appeal.



I think that the most meaningful distinction is that Ivey actively influenced the card identification. This crosses a line, which isn't crossed if you simply notice irregularities in the back design and play accordingly.

The judge did have to interpret the law, as this is a situation that the law didn't specifically anticipate, but I think his interpretation was reasonable.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 27th, 2016 at 10:21:07 AM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I think that the most meaningful distinction is that Ivey actively influenced the card identification. This crosses a line, which isn't crossed if you simply notice irregularities in the back design and play accordingly.

The judge did have to interpret the law, as this is a situation that the law didn't specifically anticipate, but I think his interpretation was reasonable.

I think that's exactly right. He was able to profit from his manipulation, not merely his (or his associate's) visual acuity. That's why ace tracking, shuffle tracking, or card counting are not unlawful.
"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
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 325
  • Posts: 7159
October 27th, 2016 at 10:22:22 AM permalink
passive: OK

active: not OK
"What, me worry?"
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
October 27th, 2016 at 3:31:17 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: RS

Quote: MathExtremist

None of those acts, however, would qualify as intentional card marking based on how I interpret the judge's ruling. The closest would be eating the small cards with small bets, but even that is not something that's "using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them." It's settled law in New Jersey that counting is not unlawful.



The bolded is a bit ridiculous. Anyone at the table could identify the value of the turned cards....not specific to Ivey or Sun.

How? If I were sitting at the table, how would I have identified the value of the cards unless I knew about the edge sorting? Edge sorting isn't like card counting -- anyone can walk up to a table and start card counting. The dealer can even keep the count because that information is public. But if the cards are being edge sorted but the dealer doesn't know that's happening, how would he know? How would anyone else? In that regard, edge sorting is no different than crimping or daubing -- if you don't know the cards are crimped or daubed or edge sorted, you have no way of knowing their value.

Here's exactly what the judge wrote:
Quote: Judge Hillman

“Marking” a card is to surreptitiously identify the value of the card to a player – and that player alone. The physical acts of a card being drawn on, daubed, or crimped are several ways to inform a player of its value. But, as demonstrated by Ivey and Sun’s edge sorting technique, a physical act is not necessary to alert a player surreptitiously of a card’s value. Asking a card dealer to turn a card a particular way so that the pattern on the edge of the card will distinguish it from other cards such that it will inform the player of that card’s value also constitutes “marking” within the meaning and intent of the regulatory ban. The term “marking” therefore can be defined as having something done to the card that identifies the value of the card to a player[10] but to no one else.

[10] Or to anyone who is aware that a card is marked, however accomplished, like a dealer or pit boss who would be advantaged by the marked card. See, e.g., Kelly, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 468 (patrons were defrauded by the casino when a marked card cheating scheme was perpetrated by casino employees, including cardroom dealers, pit bosses, and the cardroom manager).



If you think the judge got the facts wrong and you are able to demonstrate that the card values were identifiable to everyone, you should contact Phil Ivey's attorneys. That may be a good grounds for appeal.



How? In that regard, it is like card counting because anyone can look at the cards and realize what is happening. It's equivalent to, "If Steven were at the table, how would he know what the count is if he's not counting?" It's all public information, anyone who paid attention would have gotten the same information as Ivey. Surveillance figured it out, right? It's not like the cards were pre-sorted into 6-9 vs 0-5 before the cards were even put on the table and that information was only available to him.

There's an excellent blog post thing by James Grosjean about the "private vs public" information, on gamblingwithanedge.com.


Unfortunately, footnote 10 says "anyone who is aware" which I think is a bit stupid.

For instance, I believe it's been ruled that you can play off of markings that you did not cause (ie: through wear and tear, like an ace that didn't get put into the mirror prism properly and cut the side of it). So if I'm the only one who notices this and play off of this information.....what then?
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 27th, 2016 at 5:34:03 PM permalink
Quote: RS

How? In that regard, it is like card counting because anyone can look at the cards and realize what is happening. It's equivalent to, "If Steven were at the table, how would he know what the count is if he's not counting?" It's all public information, anyone who paid attention would have gotten the same information as Ivey.

It's an interesting argument but I'm inclined to disagree. The count is based off public information because the count only involves the cards that have been revealed and no other facts. So it's an immediate evaluation -- you see a few cards at the beginning of a new shoe, you know what the count is. You can choose to ignore it, but if you want to know the count, you always can.

But the fact that edge sorting is going on cannot be immediately discerned by a newcomer. They'd need to observe for a while and realize, "hey, every time I see a half-diamond leading edge it's a 0-5 and every time I see a full-diamond leading edge it's a 6-9." That's not an instant evaluation in the way that "first card off the top is an Ace, count is now -1" is an instant evaluation.

But I think your argument boils down to "if you had been looking for edge sorting, you would have realized that Ivey was edge sorting." That seems to be improper circular reasoning. But the court may not see it that way, and perhaps there's an argument to be made that the dealers should have been looking for edge sorting in any event.
"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
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
October 27th, 2016 at 5:36:37 PM permalink
Whether you're looking for it or not, it is available to all players.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
FDEAD3709
FDEAD3709
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 94
October 27th, 2016 at 6:18:23 PM permalink
Ivey might have had a shot, if he just used edge sorting. When he brought Asian eye Candy, insisted on an Asian dealer, had her give the request in a language no other casino employees would understand, had they overheard, the whole thing became a con job. A smooth one I will admit. But as much a con as 3 card Monte.
Think he will spend legal fees in a court of appeal ? NO WAY

  • Jump to: