Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses

Quote: RS

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?

Quote: MathExtremist

I'd assume the manufacturing process cuts the large sheets and forms the deck without turning the cards, but I could be wrong. Assuming the blades are appropriately spaced, a slight shift of, say, 0.5mm in the cutting process should persist across all the cards equivalently.

This is not Gemaco's factory but I'd assume they'd use similar equipment:

Quote: MathExtremist

Are you saying that you can tell what the front of a card is by looking at the back?

Quote: Keyser

Put it this way, each card is sorted by it's symmetry. I have a much higher probability of knowing what the next card is based on the visible information than what probability would predict.

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?

Quote: MathExtremist

Are you suggesting that cards somehow magically sort themselves? Are you claiming that with a proper casino shuffle, you can predict card values coming out of a baccarat shoe far better than random chance would dictate?

Quote: MathExtremist

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: RS

Quote: MathExtremist

Are you suggesting that cards somehow magically sort themselves? Are you claiming that with a proper casino shuffle, you can predict card values coming out of a baccarat shoe far better than random chance would dictate?

I couldn't do it in my head, but if given pen & paper and time, I absolutely could. Although, that depends on what you mean by "far better than random". You can absolutely beat random with a sortable deck, the sort is just not what you'd expect. I'm assuming a no-turn shuffle. (Although shuffles with turns would still be theoretically beatable, but that's essentially mixing shuffle tracking with edge-sorting which, I'd have to imagine, would be difficult.)

Quote: teliot

Here you go:

https://apheat.net/2014/10/22/a-few-historical-references-to-edge-sorting/

Quote: MathExtremist

That's excellent, thanks for the link. If you're inclined, can you ask counsel for permission to publish your opinion as well? If not that's fine too, but it would make for interesting and relevant reading.

Quote: teliot

Just a word on the original meaning of "edge sorting." As you pointed out above, if the sheet is slightly rotated then the cut will be at a slight diagonal to the pattern. The asymmetry would be slightly different as each sheet passed through the cutter. The "edge sorter" would create a new deck by picking out cards from different sheets so that each rank could be distinguished based on the asymmetry of the cut for that card on that sheet. The sorter created a marked deck based on selecting cards from different sheets.

This method of creating sorted decks is very old and therefore the knowledge that asymmetries in the card backs can be used to beat casino games is very old. Why are cards created with symmetric designs to begin with if not for the knowledge that asymmetries can be used to defeat games?

Quote: MathExtremist

Now I'm wondering if a high-resolution camera could detect minute differences on the backs of cards and correlate them with card faces when those cards are exposed. In other words, are typical casino cards already effectively marked with respect to a system with super-human visual acuity?

Quote: Wizard

I can see both sides of this. I still say that Gemaco bears some culpability for making flawed cards and the Borgata for for buying and using them.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I also wonder if the dealer was in on the scheme.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Does anyone think the AC casinos Don Johnson AP'ed will go after him after this verdict? He's admitted having his cohorts at the tables ST and HC during his loss rebate blitz.

Quote: MathExtremist

Not likely. From what I recall, Don Johnson derived his edge from the too-large loss rebate, not from manipulating any aspect of the games themselves. I don't think the gaming regs have anything to say about what is effectively a poorly-designed personalized marketing promotion.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

"In fact, things got hopping enough that the pit-boss failed to recognize Johnson card-counting, the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards and another collaborator sequencing the deck, telling Johnson when strong cards would be coming his way. Besides serving as distractions, the good-looking girls made small bets and ate cards when the count got bad."

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote: FDEAD3709

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

Quote: FDEAD3709

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

Quote: MrV

passive: OK

active: not OK

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?

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."

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.

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.

Quote: tringlomane

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

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.

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.

Show Spoiler

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.

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

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...

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?"

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.

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 ? ? ?

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?

• 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.”