darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8450
October 28th, 2016 at 1:49:08 PM permalink
Quote: LuckyPhow

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.



It was not against nj casino regs to turn the cards as ivey did for superstitious reasons or any othef inane reason. It was only illegal cuz the real purpose was marking the cards "remotely" if u will without touching them. If a similar game is played the cards may still be turned if the casino agrees to it
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
crazydazy
crazydazy
Joined: Aug 30, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 30
October 28th, 2016 at 1:55:16 PM permalink
Quote: RS

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.



I agree with your interpretation, but I want to inform you that when I used to work as a dealer, management made me sign a paper stating that if I were signaling players what the count of the shoe is (or any information of the shoe that could be used advantageously as the player), I could be prosecuted for insider trading. Apparently, one of my co-workers tipped my supervisors off that I could and did count cards as a dealer and practiced while I dealt to customers. They took this absurdly seriously as if it is special that someone can do 4th grade math in their head.

Point is, casinos and casino management in general have a warped sense of reason when it comes to cheating/advantage play as they consider both to be equivalent.
LuckyPhow
LuckyPhow
Joined: May 19, 2016
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 681
October 28th, 2016 at 2:59:07 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz


It was not against nj casino regs to turn the cards as ivey did for superstitious reasons or any othef inane reason. It was only illegal cuz the real purpose was marking the cards "remotely" if u will without touching them. If a similar game is played the cards may still be turned if the casino agrees to it



As I read the NY casino regs, casinos are forbidden to play the game any way other than as specified in the regs. I cannot find any reference allowing the casino to "turn the cards" before placing them in the discard tray. IMHO, if it is "done" but not specifically "allowed," it IS against NJ casino regs. Please help me understand by quoting chapter and verse from the regs. The only reference I can find is this:

At the conclusion of a round of play, all cards on the layout shall be picked up by the dealer and placed in the discard rack, in order and in such a way that they can be readily arranged to indicate the "Player's Hand" and the "Banker's Hand" in case of question or dispute. (CCA, Chapter 69F-7.10(d).)

CCA rules make no mention of the dealer receiving "card-turning" instructions from a player and then adjusting the cards accordingly prior to placement in the discard tray. If this was allowed, believe me, CCA would have provided VERY detailed instructions on how to do it.
Deucekies
Deucekies
Joined: Jan 20, 2014
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 1254
October 28th, 2016 at 3:31:53 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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...



Forgive me, I haven't heard this story before. The players seriously won 41 hands in a row totaling over $1 million before somebody with the casino (ANYBODY) noticed the cards weren't shuffled?

I'm reminded of a line from The Green Mile. "How many years you spend pissing on a toilet seat before someone told you to put it up?"
Casinos are not your friends, they want your money. But so does Disneyland. And there is no chance in hell that you will go to Disneyland and come back with more money than you went with. - AxelWolf and Mickeycrimm
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8450
October 28th, 2016 at 4:22:39 PM permalink
Quote: Deucekies

Forgive me, I haven't heard this story before. The players seriously won 41 hands in a row totaling over $1 million before somebody with the casino (ANYBODY) noticed the cards weren't shuffled?

I'm reminded of a line from The Green Mile. "How many years you spend pissing on a toilet seat before someone told you to put it up?"



They couldn't figure out why they kept winning. Winning streaks do happen in baccarat so they got gaken before they realized it

It should b pointed out unshuffled deck did not mean collated deck. The cards were not coming out ace 2 3 4 etc. The sheets which are printed and cut were not collated and preshuffled by the manufacturer. The order of the cards coming out would be something like ace 4 8 queen 3 7 etc which being dealt to opposing sides isnt so obvious

It also created a weird pattern which i mapped out in another thread something like p b p b p p b b p p b b repeat through 8 straight unshuffled decks and before you know it golden nugget was taken
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 19494
October 28th, 2016 at 5:23:09 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.

It's the casinos greed that makes them blind. Without counting along or knowing the person or what they are doing. Even if it's something new, or I never heard about I can quickly scan and spot an advantage player or someone who's probably cheating. Isn't that why they have pit bosses and surveillance?

Don't they have multiple levels of casino employees involved with big action? The dealers, Pit guys, pit bosses, shift supervisors, table games managers, surveillance, security? Even disregarding all special requests. Someone had to be wondering if something was going on. I would guess at some point there was even a discussion about it.

IMO the casino should have to pay an idiot tax.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
FDEAD3709
FDEAD3709
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 94
October 28th, 2016 at 5:50:15 PM permalink
Visual Limits has updated signage for the BJ tables. How NICE. In play at Tropicana. Here is an article about it.

http://www.casinojournal.com/articles/90814-a-tropicana-executive-taps-visualimits-technology-to-improve-the-table-game-experience

" Packed into the small sleek unit is the digital/optical capability to intelligently track hands dealt, detect chips wagered by every player including side-bet utilization and even perform facial recognition to spot both good players as well as known cheats. "

GOOD PLAYERS<><><> Does this mean management want to congratulate you on your excellent BJ skills ? ? ?
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 19494
October 28th, 2016 at 6:49:37 PM permalink
Quote: FDEAD3709

Visual Limits has updated signage for the BJ tables. How NICE. In play at Tropicana. Here is an article about it.

http://www.casinojournal.com/articles/90814-a-tropicana-executive-taps-visualimits-technology-to-improve-the-table-game-experience

" Packed into the small sleek unit is the digital/optical capability to intelligently track hands dealt, detect chips wagered by every player including side-bet utilization and even perform facial recognition to spot both good players as well as known cheats. "

GOOD PLAYERS<><><> Does this mean management want to congratulate you on your excellent BJ skills ? ? ?

Other than the possible AP tracking aspect I noticed how they over exaggerated how wonderful it is.

Case on point. They talk about a big player wanting to change 6 to 5 to 3 to 2 and how hard that was before this system. Are you Friggen kidding me? It isn't that hard to accommodate a big player. You don't need some expensive system to accomplish that microscopic task but they make a big deal about that.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
LuckyPhow
LuckyPhow
Joined: May 19, 2016
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 681
October 28th, 2016 at 8:37:18 PM permalink
Quote: Deucekies


Forgive me, I haven't heard this story before. The players seriously won 41 hands in a row totaling over $1 million before somebody with the casino (ANYBODY) noticed the cards weren't shuffled?



Yup. And it happened at the Trump Taj Mahal at about the same time also. This story (from 2012) has some interesting background info (summarized below):

Press of Atlantic City

The article notes the cards, “came out in the same suit and number order as they would with a new deck.” But, other, then-recent, changes in NJ gaming regulations further compounded the problem:
  • First, NJ removed the requirement casinos maintain gaming inspectors on site 24 hours a day, resulting in less state gaming oversight.
  • Also, NJ deleted minimum staffing requirements for table-game supervisors, resulting in less game oversight by casinos.
  • And, last, when pre-shuffled cards were first permitted, Division of Gaming Enforcement required casinos shuffle the pre-shuffled cards before they were used, a requirement later made “optional.”

So, what could the court do except the obvious conclusion: the gamblers were all at fault (Lucky sez, scarcastically) and had to return their winnings. (But, if I understand correctly, they were refunded their original buy-in amounts.)
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 7569
Thanks for this post from:
LuckyPhow
November 21st, 2016 at 9:01:33 AM permalink
"Borgata has asked the court to order Ivey to pay $10.4 million or $15.5 million. The lower amount includes the baccarat winnings, Ivey’s craps and free-play winnings during his visits and nearly $250,000 in casino comps. The higher amount includes the casino’s expected win from baccarat if the games had been played with the standard house edge."

Wow, this is the first time that I read that Borgata was not only asking for the money Ivey won, but also asking for his expected losses. I don't think there is anyway that it will be granted, but I am shocked they even asked for it.

Source: http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/commentaries/judges-ruling-threatens-advantage-players-experts-say/
Order from chaos

  • Jump to: