Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
Quote: socksSome poker players are known to be degenerate gamblers in other areas. That might be the default expectation.
Good point. Stu Ungar comes to mind. However, I would still be suspicious if he asked to play for large stakes at anything, out of an abundance of caution.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik2. 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.
Please be advised that Bob Dancer is a member of the forum now and I'll be put in a bad position again if he feels insulted over that post.
In Bob's defense, I doubt he names names and I think such accusations such not be made without evidence. My own opinion is some casinos like the South Point know their promotions can be abused by the best of players, and accept that as a cost of doing business, in the interests that they gain much more through recreational players doing those same promotions.
Quote: WizardPlease be advised that Bob Dancer is a member of the forum now and I'll be put in a bad position again if he feels insulted over that post.
In Bob's defense, I doubt he names names and I think such accusations such not be made without evidence. My own opinion is some casinos like the South Point know their promotions can be abused by the best of players, and accept that as a cost of doing business, in the interests that they gain much more through recreational players doing those same promotions.
Yeah, but it's not like they don't have an itchy trigger finger against players who have the temerity to get lucky for a week or two, never mind those who actually consistently play at an advantage. I think it's a legitimate question to ask: why do they let him play, when they toss players who cost them maybe a twentieth as much as he does?
I really don't know what the answer is. I was hypothesizing, in that casinos (particularly the South Point) generally don't like winners and there has to be an explanation for why Bob is allowed to play there, or ANYWHERE for that matter. I base what I said on anecdotal evidence that many years ago, the Orleans hired Bob as a "consultant," and within a few days, many players had their slot cards revoked, and a few were barred permanently. Again, I don't have any documentation to support this, as it was so long ago--just the complaints of many people I knew (a couple of whom weren't APs at all BTW).
If that is or has been his function, I don't think it matters whether he names names or not. Simply providing the casinos with the proper algorithms to identify and destroy APs would do damage enough. And yes, South Point would probably tolerate his action in return for this service. I hasten to reiterate that I'm speculating here. It could simply be that he gives video poker classes there and elsewhere, and they might think it would be viewed unfavorably if they didn't let him play there.
So we can't really know, and that includes by asking Bob directly, as he would have no reason or inclination to tell us the whole story, or even a part of it for that matter. But whatever speculations I come up with have been prompted by his repeated reportage of his escapades in his column, where he reports weekly on how he marched into some casino with a couple of hundred grand in hand to pillage and burn. I KNOW that we mere mortals wouldn't be allowed to do that, even if we had the requisite bankroll. Hell, I've been barred for having the supreme gall to play .25 FPDW!
Quote: RSAFAIK, using marked cards is not cheating. Marking them, however, is cheating.
I'm not sure that marking cards is illegal in Nevada. I believe it is only illegal if there is intent to cheat.
Paragraph 7 of NRS 465.070"
[It is unlawful:] To manipulate, with the intent to cheat, any component of a gaming device in a manner contrary to the designed and normal operational purpose for the component…”
Although, I don't think what you quoted has to do with marking of cards, since marking a card does not alter its operational purpose or use. The cards are still fully functional, even while marked. Unless one wants to argue the operational purpose of the backs of the card is to conceal the front-side of the card.
RE: Joe's speculation(?) about BD....I've heard the same before from multiple sources (ie: outing APs). I wonder if BD would clear the air and let us know what the situation is there.
Quote: RSRE: Joe's speculation(?) about BD....I've heard the same before from multiple sources (ie: outing APs). I wonder if BD would clear the air and let us know what the situation is there.
Not to mention the Revel $100,000 you can't lose promo.
More likely he is well recognized as someone with books and a radio show who can do damage thru negative publicity while delivering positive publicity if they let him play. Ie they are looking at his play as the cost of positive advertising
Negative publicity directed at casinos has never really been helpful to the AP community. Just ask Mike. They don't care, especially since they lump AP's in with blatant cheaters.Quote: darkozI dont know bob dancer personally but i doubt casinos would let him play in return for info. I see most casinos (and most businesses) always wanting to solve these issues on their own. They r more afraid of him using it to his own advantage
More likely he is well recognized as someone with books and a radio show who can do damage thru negative publicity while delivering positive publicity if they let him play. Ie they are looking at his play as the cost of positive advertising
Quote: AxelWolfI think you are saying the casino's greed allowed them to get swindled.
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?
Totally agree Axel. He swindled under NJ law, imo. I'm pleased he lost this case.
Quote: HeyMrDJThis was a total free roll for the casino. I think they already knew about this trick, and they possibly already knew Phil was involved.
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.
You may not consider it cheating, but NJ law does, imo. If Borgata knew exactly what he was doing from the get go, then letting him do it knowing the law was on their side if they lost the session, then it was a master stroke. Kudos to them. But I honestly think Borgata wasn't that smart. I feel that they are fortunate that gaming law is on their side here.
Have you ever increased your bet when you knew that the floor person was watching and then bet less when he walked away, in order to get a higher rating?
Well you probably just broke the NJ law.
Quote: RSRE: Joe's speculation(?) about BD....I've heard the same before from multiple sources (ie: outing APs). I wonder if BD would clear the air and let us know what the situation is there.
I believe in one of his Las Vegas Advisor posts, Bob Dancer specifically says "never have, never will," when accused of having "named names" of APs to casino management. I forget which week exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was around the Revel promotion. This obviously can't be considered the final word on the matter, as BD saying, "Yep, I totally sold out the same people I profess to help with my books and training by playing both sides of the fence," probably wouldn't be good for his rep in the AP community or his business as a writer/teacher (though likely his casino consulting business would improve).
Still, with only circumstantial evidence against BD, I think people need to just take him at his word in this case. At the very least, people who don't know him personally and thus only have the incomplete picture of his public image shouldn't be quick to judge him. I don't know BD personally, but I'm fairly certain that much of his public image is likely purposefully exaggerated or overly colorful because he feels it to be more entertaining and thus more likely to gain attention i.e. he recognizes the marketing possibilities. Regardless of how he portrays himself publicly, he may well have a personal set of honor that would prohibit him from selling people out.
But I don't know that, you don't know that, it's all just speculation.
Quote: socksSome poker players are known to be degenerate gamblers in other areas. That might be the default expectation.
I've heard that Ivey got big loss rebates for his craps play, so he might have been playing with an edge even with his supposed degen behavior. If not, it might even be possible that he had this planned out for some time--maybe he could take a hit on craps only to build casino trust so he could pull off an even bigger win on baccarat. Though, that would be a real Batman-style gambit, as everything would have to fall into place exactly, and the casinos at which he played would have to be run by monumental idiots. Of course, it turns out they were, so who knows?
That's not at all what the opinion said. It was focused on what constitutes purposive card marking. Ivey/Sun admitted to causing the dealer to manipulate the cards in order to cause their values to be known only to them. The judge found that to be a violation of the CCA's prohibition on using marked cards:Quote: HunterhillThe way the law is written is too ambiguous. Under the current law I believe Ace location, shuffle tracking, even card counting could be considered breaking the law.
Have you ever increased your bet when you knew that the floor person was watching and then bet less when he walked away, in order to get a higher rating?
Well you probably just broke the NJ law.
Quote: OrderThe Court finds that Ivey and Sun breached their contract with Borgata to play Baccarat in compliance with the CCA by violating N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b) when they knowingly engaged in a scheme to create a set of marked cards and then used those marked cards to place bets based on the markings.
In a previous post you said that
"This passage appears to indicate that other forms of Ap may be in violation of cca law if it unilaterally changes the outcome of the game "
So wouldn't an ace location player cutting the deck and altering the number of spots he plays fit this criteria?
Quote: tringlomane
Totally agree Axel. He swindled under NJ law, imo. I'm pleased he lost this case.
You may not consider it cheating, but NJ law does, imo. If Borgata knew exactly what he was doing from the get go, then letting him do it knowing the law was on their side if they lost the session, then it was a master stroke. Kudos to them. But I honestly think Borgata wasn't that smart. I feel that they are fortunate that gaming law is on their side here.
Hmmm... But, is NJ Gaming Law on Borgata's side here? In my opinion, it's better to quote chapter and verse from the New Jersey Casino Control Act, as follows:
ARTICLE 1. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
5:12-21 "Game" or "gambling game"
"Game" or "gambling game" - Any banking or percentage game located within the casino or simulcasting facility played with cards, dice, tiles, dominoes, or any electronic, electrical, or mechanical device or machine for money, property, or any representative of value.
5:12-22 "Gaming" or "gambling"
"Gaming or gambling" - The dealing, operating, carrying on, conducting, maintaining or exposing for pay of any game.
5:12-37 "Person"
"Person"- Any corporation, association, operation, firm, partnership, trust or other form of business association, as well as a natural person.
ARTICLE 9. SANCTIONS
5:12-113 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.
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.
OK, enough NJ law "stuff." Seems to me Borgata was either incompetent or cheating.
Shame on you, Borgata! When you point a finger at Phil Ivey, three more point back at you.
And, this is just from the NJ statutes. Don't get me started on the (much more detailed) REGULATIONS of the NJ Casino Control Commission. Wading thru that crap makes me wonder if Borgata was even playing Baccarat according to the required procedures on the proper table. (Yech!)
Lucky (clawing his way back out of the Rabbit Hole...)
In April 2014, Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City, New Jersey sued Phil Ivey for $9.6 million.Quote: IbeatyouracesPossibly the same reason why MGM, who owns Borgata, and sued Ivey in this case is still paying him to use his name on their Aria high limit poker room.
MGM Resorts International on Monday completed its deal to buy Boyd Gaming’s 50 percent stake of Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa for $900 million. --Aug. 1, 2016.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIn April 2014, Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City, New Jersey sued Phil Ivey for $9.6 million.
MGM Resorts International on Monday completed its deal to buy Boyd Gaming’s 50 percent stake of Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa for $900 million. --Aug. 1, 2016.
Sure, but they've have been a partner in Bogata long before the Ivey case. MGM resorts is involved.
Here's what the Court wrote:Quote: HunterhillMathExtremist
In a previous post you said that
"This passage appears to indicate that other forms of Ap may be in violation of cca law if it unilaterally changes the outcome of the game "
So wouldn't an ace location player cutting the deck and altering the number of spots he plays fit this criteria?
Quote: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.
What is it about maneuvering an ace in blackjack that you think would be different than maneuvering high or low cards in baccarat? Let me ask a simpler question: after reading that ruling, are you willing to try maneuvering an ace in New Jersey?
Quote: MathExtremistHere's what the Court wrote:
What is it about maneuvering an ace in blackjack that you think would be different than maneuvering high or low cards in baccarat? Let me ask a simpler question: after reading that ruling, are you willing to try maneuvering an ace in New Jersey?
Yes I would. I'm only cutting the cards ,I'm not having the dealer do anything outside of the normal procedures, so I don't think this could be considered breaking the rules.
I still don't agree with the ruling and I expect there will be an appeal.
Boyd maintained 100 percent operating control of the property until two months ago.Quote: IbeatyouracesSure, but they've have been a partner in Bogata long before the Ivey case. MGM resorts is involved.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's what the Court wrote:
What is it about maneuvering an ace in blackjack that you think would be different than maneuvering high or low cards in baccarat? Let me ask a simpler question: after reading that ruling, are you willing to try maneuvering an ace in New Jersey?
Actually, the high/low cards were not maneuvered in Ivey's edge sorting play.
I don't think we should go straight to the laws & regulations to see if something is legal/permitted or illegal/cheating.....but should determine whether this type of play should be illegal/cheating or if it should be legal & permitted....then see if they'll be changed accordingly.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's what the Court wrote:
What is it about maneuvering an ace in blackjack that you think would be different than maneuvering high or low cards in baccarat? Let me ask a simpler question: after reading that ruling, are you willing to try maneuvering an ace in New Jersey?
You guys have no idea what's going on in AC casinos in real life. Never mind about acetracking, be aware of the casinos' phony accusations.
Example 1
Casino "00" had the best ace tracker arrested a few times with phony accusations.
Example 2
With DGE agents' laissez-faire attitude, Casino "01" is also allowed to evict permanently the same best ace tracker. An agent said to the tracker: " Oh I can't overturn the casino's eviction against you..." The tracker could fight the eviction, but he needs to pay a lawyer at a rate of $400~$600 per hour. What would you guys do if you were the tracker?
True, but so what? The judge didn't condition his opinion on "what's going on." The opinion was based on the facts in front of the court. If you think the ruling isn't relevant to ace tracking, so be it.Quote: ArtemisYou guys have no idea what's going on in AC casinos in real life.
Find a different play or a different line of work.Quote:An agent said to the tracker: " Oh I can't overturn the casino's eviction against you..." The tracker could fight the eviction, but he needs to pay a lawyer at a rate of $400~$600 per hour. What would you guys do if you were the tracker?
Seriously, either that acetracking play is worth the legal costs to preserve or it's not. If it's not, that should tell you something. Good entrepreneurs know when to pivot to better opportunities. Bad ones cling to the old ones and fail when they dry up. There is no right to make money from being an AP any more than there is a right to make money from being a lawyer or a plumber. Every job has a cost of doing business. For AP, it sounds like that includes legal fees when you get caught. If you don't want to accept those costs, don't be an AP ... or don't get caught.
Quote: ArtemisYou guys have no idea what's going on in AC casinos in real life. Never mind about acetracking, be aware of the casinos' phony accusations.
Example 1
Casino "00" had the best ace tracker arrested a few times with phony accusations.
Example 2
With DGE agents' laissez-faire attitude, Casino "01" is also allowed to evict permanently the same best ace tracker. An agent said to the tracker: " Oh I can't overturn the casino's eviction against you..." The tracker could fight the eviction, but he needs to pay a lawyer at a rate of $400~$600 per hour. What would you guys do if you were the tracker?
If it's who i think it is he deserved to be kicked out,the way he was doing it was pathetic. I won't say any more on a public forum.
Quote: RSActually, the high/low cards were not maneuvered in Ivey's edge sorting play.
I don't think we should go straight to the laws & regulations to see if something is legal/permitted or illegal/cheating.....but should determine whether this type of play should be illegal/cheating or if it should be legal & permitted....then see if they'll be changed accordingly.
Ivey sees that the 8s and 9s in the deck are inadvertently marked with a smiley face on the back. He uses this information to make millions. That is not cheating.
Ivey talks the dealer into drawing a smiley face on the back of all the 8s and 9s because (he says) he thinks it's lucky to do that. He uses this information to make millions. That is indisputably cheating.
Nevada has some fairly unequivocal language about "manipulating the outcome" of a game, but the New Jersey law is kind of ambiguous in places. For one thing, they seem not to differentiate between cheating and swindling, which are two totally different things.
Link: Golden Nugget Atlantic City Wins Favorable Ruling In Case Of $1.5 Million Baccarat Scandal.
Given that, I'm not surprised at all that Ivey lost in Atlantic City.
It is a shame such cases have to be all or nothing. I think the Ivey case falls in a grey area. If forced, I'd rule in his favor, but I would feel better about splitting the difference and let him keep half his winnings.
Quote:Nevada has some fairly unequivocal language about "manipulating the outcome" of a game, but the New Jersey law is kind of ambiguous in places. For one thing, they seem not to differentiate between cheating and swindling, which are two totally different things.
Ambiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.
Quote: KeyserAmbiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.
You're absolutely right!
Quote: KeyserAmbiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.
Even in a civil tort case? That very concept seems to have saved him from prosecution for fraud, but I see no reason why it should favor the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil action.
+1Quote: KeyserAmbiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.
But the judge doesn't have that amount of discretion. For starters, he has to follow the law and prior precedents, including (where applicable) respecting the purpose and intent of the law or regulation. In fact, that's a primary job of a judge -- to discern the purpose and intent of a law where the parties have a dispute over its interpretation (as they do here) and clarify the meaning of that law. Applying the law to the facts is easy if the law and facts are not in dispute, and cases like that rarely get to trial because it's obvious who's going to win beforehand. In this case, Ivey and Borgata had a fundamentally different view on what the law meant. Here's the kernel of the judge's decision:Quote: WizardComparisons could be made to the Gemaco case where players took advantage of two baccarat shoes where the cards came out in the exact same order.
Link: Golden Nugget Atlantic City Wins Favorable Ruling In Case Of $1.5 Million Baccarat Scandal.
Given that, I'm not surprised at all that Ivey lost in Atlantic City.
It is a shame such cases have to be all or nothing. I think the Ivey case falls in a grey area. If forced, I'd rule in his favor, but I would feel better about splitting the difference and let him keep half his winnings.
Quote: Judge HillmanIvey and Sun’s view of what constitutes a “marked” card is too narrow. Such an interpretation would undermine in a fundamental way the purpose behind the regulatory ban on marked cards. “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.[11]
Footnote 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.
Footnote 11: The basic dictionary definitions of the verb “mark” support this meaning as well. See Merriam-Webster Dictionary (defining “mark” as “to take notice of, to take careful notice”); Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“MARK: A symbol, impression, or feature on something, usu. to identify it or distinguish it from something else.”).
Quote:Footnote 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.
The cards were "manufactured" and not "marked" after the manufacturing had taken place. The manufacturing of the cards is not "marking" the cards.
If the cards were defective, then the casino should also be required to refund everyone that lost money to the casino due to the "marked/defective" cards. I can just imagine seeing the billboards along the AC turnpike. "Have you lost money at the Borgata playing baccarat? You may be entitled to a full refund!"
In some ways this reminds me of a biased wheel case. A well known casino claimed that shouldn't have to pay the player because the wheel was biased (defective).
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.Quote: KeyserThe cards were "manufactured" and not "marked" after the manufacturing had taken place. The manufacturing of the cards is not "marking" the cards.
In fact, based on that reasoning, it would be a violation of the NJ regs just to play at a baccarat table with edge sorted cards even if, as you sat down, the dealer simply told you "hey, this deck is edge sorted so ranks 6 through 9 have the big diamonds and the other ones don't." Possession and use of marked cards is a violation of the CCA. Of course, in that scenario the dealer would also be culpable.
Quote: MathExtremistTrue, but so what? The judge didn't condition his opinion on "what's going on." The opinion was based on the facts in front of the court. If you think the ruling isn't relevant to ace tracking, so be it.
Find a different play or a different line of work.
Seriously, either that acetracking play is worth the legal costs to preserve or it's not. If it's not, that should tell you something. Good entrepreneurs know when to pivot to better opportunities. Bad ones cling to the old ones and fail when they dry up. There is no right to make money from being an AP any more than there is a right to make money from being a lawyer or a plumber. Every job has a cost of doing business. For AP, it sounds like that includes legal fees when you get caught. If you don't want to accept those costs, don't be an AP ... or don't get caught.
Quote: HunterhillIf it's who i think it is he deserved to be kicked out,the way he was doing it was pathetic. I won't say any more on a public forum.
Guys, thanks for your replies. TO each his own. After you guys have gambled in AC casinos 24/7 for years and abused by them, you guys will not talk that way in favor of AC casinos.
Since you guys are in favor of AC casinos, then it's no surprise that most judges seem to rule in favor of AC casinos. Examples are
1) Recently the judge used the BREACH OF CONTRACT as the reason to rule in favor of Borg over Ivey,
2) On the other hand, another judge ruled in favor of Taj against the Union Local 54. That judge said it's OK for Taj to BREACH the CONTRACT with the Union in order for Taj to be profitable and to stay in business. To revenge against that super unfair ruling, on 7/1/2016, the Union workers took Taj and themselves to the grave with a deadly strike. Taj closed on 10/10/2016.
3) Another judge ruled against Lenny Tose in favor of the old Sands
4) Another judge ruled against a group of baccarat players in favor of AC Golden Nugget.
5) Another judge ruled against Ex-Lawyer Arelia Taveras in favor of AC casinos.
Of course there is always an exception. A judge ruled in favor of Uston against Resorts. AC casinos can't ban AP, but AC casinos have used phony excuses to ban APs indirectly thru the eviction orders.
So the bottom line is this...it's extremely hard for the little guy (i.e., Ivey, Tose, or Taveras, etc...) to beat AC casinos in courts when the judges seem to be able to find a reason to rule in favor of AC casinos.
Quote: ArtemisGuys, thanks for your replies. TO each his own. After you guys have gambled in AC casinos 24/7 for years and abused by them, you guys will not talk that way in favor of AC casinos.
Since you guys are in favor of AC casinos, then it's no surprise that most judges seem to rule in favor of AC casinos. Examples are
1) Recently the judge used the BREACH OF CONTRACT as the reason to rule in favor of Borg over Ivey,
2) On the other hand, another judge ruled in favor of Taj against the Union Local 54. That judge said it's OK for Taj to BREACH the CONTRACT with the Union in order for Taj to be profitable and to stay in business. To revenge against that super unfair ruling, on 7/1/2016, the Union workers took Taj and themselves to the grave with a deadly strike. Taj closed on 10/10/2016.
3) Another judge ruled against Lenny Tose in favor of the old Sands
4) Another judge ruled against a group of baccarat players in favor of AC Golden Nugget.
5) Another judge ruled against Ex-Lawyer Arelia Taveras in favor of AC casinos.
Of course there is always an exception. A judge ruled in favor of Uston against Resorts. AC casinos can't ban AP, but AC casinos have used phony excuses to ban APs indirectly thru the eviction orders.
So the bottom line is this...it's extremely hard for the little guy (i.e., Ivey, Tose, or Taveras, etc...) to beat AC casinos in courts when the judges seem to be able to find a reason to rule in favor of AC casinos.
I have played in Ac casinos for years,and I feel the same way that you do about most of the cases you cited.I said that the particular ace tracker that I'm thinking of, does his method in a weak manner which I don't agree with,and potentially causes issues for players using more traditional tracking or location methods.
If it's no surprise, why do the APs complain about it? It's like being surprised that you got hit by a car while jaywalking.Quote: ArtemisGuys, thanks for your replies. TO each his own. After you guys have gambled in AC casinos 24/7 for years and abused by them, you guys will not talk that way in favor of AC casinos.
Since you guys are in favor of AC casinos, then it's no surprise that most judges seem to rule in favor of AC casinos.
...
So the bottom line is this...it's extremely hard for the little guy (i.e., Ivey, Tose, or Taveras, etc...) to beat AC casinos in courts when the judges seem to be able to find a reason to rule in favor of AC casinos.
Look, AP is an adversarial business -- you've always got someone directly opposed to your success. Whining about your adversaries won't help. In order to be successful in any adversarial business, you've got to be able to overcome the efforts of those adversaries. That's true in litigation, it's true in football, and it's true for professional gamblers. When a lawyer or football team runs into an opponent who's better than they are, they either change their strategy or they lose. Same for APs. It doesn't matter if you have some play that's theoretically brilliant and worked in the past, but now you can't pull it off in practice because the casino has changed their strategy (or the law) to prevent you. Like everything else, either you change your strategy or you lose.
It's probably worse for you since, as you suggest, you've been playing in AC casinos 24/7 for years. But you've got to let go of the past. Any new potential AP would walk in, look around, and make a decision based on the current ability to succeed as an AP. They wouldn't pine for the way things used to be, and you shouldn't either. I'm sure there are some former video store rental clerks who are pining for those days too.
Except that's precisely the opposite of the holding in the New Jersey case Uston v. Resorts International:Quote: JoeshlabotnikI 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.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/198225289NJ163_1241/USTON%20v.%20RESORTS%20INTERNATIONAL%20HOTEL,%20INC.
Quote: Uston v. Resorts Int'lResorts 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.
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.
Quote: MathExtremistExcept 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.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI'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.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI 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
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.
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...Quote: LuckyPhowAnd 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.
Quote: MathExtremistThat'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.
Quote: KeyserHere'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?
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?Quote: KeyserHere'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.
Here's the Gemaco example from a newspaper. What's the value of that card?
