RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
October 27th, 2016 at 7:50:26 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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.

The count is also not known to a new-comer mid shoe, either. Although that information would be available to that player if he was at the table, observing. Circular, perhaps. But the same can be said about card-counting -- You wouldn't know someone was card-counting if you weren't looking for it to begin with (or if you weren't counting yourself).

Shuffle Tracking is not known to a new-comer. I play one shoe and have tracked the shuffle. A new-comer sits down at the beginning of the next shoe, where he has no information about the shoe's map (ie: clumps), but I do.

Ace Sequencing is not immediately discernible(?) to a new-comer, either.

Playing with information not available to all players? What about playing a pitch game. I'm dealt K,Q, another player 6,3. Dealer is showing an ace. My decision as to whether or not insure my hand uses the very information in my hand, which the other player is not privy to. And he would use information that is not available to me.

Or Pai Gow Poker, where frequently the casino will NOT allow you to show your cards to other players. I'd be using information not available to all players and they'd be using information not available to me.
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7036
October 27th, 2016 at 7:56:55 PM permalink

Think he will spend legal fees in a court of appeal ? NO WAY

I think he just might.

It seems this is an unsettled area of the law, which increases the odds that a fresh set of eyes might see things differently than did the trial court.
"What, me worry?"
Hunterhill
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
• Posts: 1909
October 27th, 2016 at 9:48:17 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

She wasn't the Asian eye candy,she was the one with the skill.There are both asian floors and pit bosses at Borgata so others could have understood.
Also I believe that he will appeal.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
• Posts: 6272
October 28th, 2016 at 12:16:14 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

passive: OK

active: not OK

Well said. And telling a dealer to specifically do something is "active", imo.
Greasyjohn
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
• Posts: 2172
October 28th, 2016 at 5:55:23 AM permalink
I agree.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
October 28th, 2016 at 6:23:24 AM permalink
Quote: RS

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?

Is there a ruling like that in AC? I would assume so, because it seems manifestly unfair to punish the player if he notices that an ace has been marked by someone else (or by the casino) through no fault of his own, and just places a different bet whenever he sees that card coming out. He just noticed an irregularity and took advantage of it. Still, there's the Golden Nugget baccarat case as a backstop. In that case, players had to forfeit over \$1M in winnings when they noticed that the cards at a baccarat table weren't shuffled at all. That was also a case of noticing an irregularity and taking advantage of it, just to a much greater degree. They won 41 hands in a row...

So there's a line to be drawn even in the case where the player doesn't actively do anything to cause the marking. I'm not sure where it is, but apparently it's between "just one card" and "all of them."
"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
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
October 28th, 2016 at 8:59:33 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Is there a ruling like that in AC? I would assume so, because it seems manifestly unfair to punish the player if he notices that an ace has been marked by someone else (or by the casino) through no fault of his own, and just places a different bet whenever he sees that card coming out. He just noticed an irregularity and took advantage of it. Still, there's the Golden Nugget baccarat case as a backstop. In that case, players had to forfeit over \$1M in winnings when they noticed that the cards at a baccarat table weren't shuffled at all. That was also a case of noticing an irregularity and taking advantage of it, just to a much greater degree. They won 41 hands in a row...

So there's a line to be drawn even in the case where the player doesn't actively do anything to cause the marking. I'm not sure where it is, but apparently it's between "just one card" and "all of them."

I'll clear one thing -- I'm not sure if that's a ruling in AC or anywhere. But something I remember reading from a respected AP (maybe Grosjean or teliot or one of them)...although, I can't provide a source/link.

As far as the GN thing, I don't remember all the specifics of the case and don't think I looked much into it. Although I'd certainly feel better about the GN thing that Borgata (at least from the little I know about it).....but what I think is kind of unnerving about all of it is this -- Let's say the players had not noticed the cards were repeating and unshuffled, do we believe the casino would have absolutely paid back their losses? I think we all been in casinos, around gambling, and in the business long enough to know the chance of them paying them back is greater than 0%, but is not close to 100%, either.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
October 28th, 2016 at 11:19:31 AM permalink
Quote: RS

I'll clear one thing -- I'm not sure if that's a ruling in AC or anywhere. But something I remember reading from a respected AP (maybe Grosjean or teliot or one of them)...although, I can't provide a source/link.

As far as the GN thing, I don't remember all the specifics of the case and don't think I looked much into it. Although I'd certainly feel better about the GN thing that Borgata (at least from the little I know about it).....but what I think is kind of unnerving about all of it is this -- Let's say the players had not noticed the cards were repeating and unshuffled, do we believe the casino would have absolutely paid back their losses? I think we all been in casinos, around gambling, and in the business long enough to know the chance of them paying them back is greater than 0%, but is not close to 100%, either.

If you start with the premise that the players didn't notice the cards were repeating and unshuffled and they lost money, then you never get to the point where anyone realizes something was wrong with the game. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think you can get there from here. Everyone would just chalk it up to a bad streak of cards.

On the other hand, if the players had noticed the unshuffled shoe on the last hand, I think they'd have grounds to void all their prior wagers on that shoe. That seems to be the crux of the GN holding: the bets were void ab initio as not complying with the CCA.
"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
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
• Posts: 7565
October 28th, 2016 at 12:18:37 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

If you start with the premise that the players didn't notice the cards were repeating and unshuffled and they lost money, then you never get to the point where anyone realizes something was wrong with the game. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think you can get there from here. Everyone would just chalk it up to a bad streak of cards.

On the other hand, if the players had noticed the unshuffled shoe on the last hand, I think they'd have grounds to void all their prior wagers on that shoe. That seems to be the crux of the GN holding: the bets were void ab initio as not complying with the CCA.

Am I correct in thinking that in the GN case players were not judged to have done anything wrong? I thought it was just determined that the casino dealt an improper game, the results were void, and that was why the players had to return the money.
Order from chaos
LuckyPhow
Joined: May 19, 2016
• Posts: 681
October 28th, 2016 at 1:17:32 PM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

Well said. And telling a dealer to specifically do something is "active", imo.

Agreed.

However, when the dealer did the "something" the player requested, the dealer modified the play of the game in a way that could alter the game outcome, contrary to NJ Casino Control Act requirements. At that moment, the casino was dealing an illegal game.

I remain confused as to how the casino could stand before the court, saying, "He was cheating, Your Honor," and not have Ivey's attorneys reply, "The casino voluntarily agreed to modify game play, making it an illegal game, Your Honor. And, it's crying foul because it lost."

If the casino had done its job correctly, it would have refused to alter the game rules. "Mr. Ivey, we'd love to have you play baccarat with the bet limits you propose, but NJ gaming statutes don't allow us to adjust the game rules as you request." IMHO, that's what the law requires and for all the right reasons -- specifically, to disallow casinos making up their own rules, such as Borgata did in allowing Ivey to play has he requested.