MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 25th, 2016 at 7:00:26 PM permalink
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?

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:
"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
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2272
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
October 25th, 2016 at 7:15:31 PM permalink
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:

Perhaps off topic, though not 100% sure...

I have a (now framed) sheet of a deck of cards on my wall (from an old time casino that no longer exists). The whole deck is a single sheet, though with perforations (partly cut lines) where it'd separate into individual cards. I got it from someone who has been in Las Vegas for a zillion years, after his wife put her foot down about her desire for parts of their home no longer looking like a gambling museum. And I don't know how or why it came to be that way before it came to him from the casino.

FWIW. Which I'm guessing is perhaps nothing too relevant for this purpose, but there you have it. And there I have it, now on my wall, instead of his after originally being made for an iconic casino, since I have no wife putting down any feet or implosion pending that I know about.
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
Keyser
Keyser
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2106
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
October 25th, 2016 at 7:44:38 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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



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.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
October 25th, 2016 at 8:33:34 PM permalink
The fact the casino allowed an employee to speak in a language the casino didn't have a translator on hand I place some blame. The casino should have never dealt the deck or allow the funny business. If a player asked for the dealer to deal his upcard first in bj before a bet was placed, the casino would be cheating though benefitting the player.

If Ivey walked around the casino handing $5,000 chips to everyone, instead of cashing, would he have to repay the $9,000,000? Seems possible if they paid out the money, they would have had problems getting it back and screwed him by denying payment.

This is really hard to understand the bets were made and paid, then the casino didn't pay. Ivey knew more about the game then the casino whose job is to know more. We're just not going to get this, because Ivey didn't hold a gun to their head. All they did was ask to which the casino complied.

What has the casino learned? Nothing. I think he cannot have a fair trial in new jersey because the courts assume a casino has a right to be the cheater(right to be ensured a profit) then the courts look for an excuse. It's a stretch and there isn't any denying it. You almost have to start assuming the judges have undisclosed conflicts of interest or bias. This is third world kangaroo court bs.
I am a robot.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 25th, 2016 at 9:30:53 PM permalink
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.

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?
"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
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22293
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
October 25th, 2016 at 11:29:47 PM permalink
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?

Because it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know they will only let people who lose 50% in the door. Perhaps they won't let anyone play who knows or associates with a smart gambler.

Casinos are not the same as other businesses, they are unique and that's why the strict regulations. We need to stop comparing them to anything and everything else.

It's a privilege to own and run a casino. It's illegal to gamble or offer it unless there's a licence involved. In reality compared to something like fast food and convince stores there's very little competition.
Very few people can obtain a licence, also allowing them to pick and choose who's allowed to gamble gives them too much power.
It's the people(US citizens) that allow the casinos to exist in the first place, everyone should have a say.

If they want to open up gambling licenses to the average private person (like running a food truck)then I would agree it should be able to treat it like a private club. Are all casinos in the US privately owed? I thought there were some owed by the states?

They should have to put up giant signs saying "SMART GAMBLERS NOT WELCOME" "NO CARD COUNTING" "GAINING AN ADVANTAGE WILL RESULT IN EXCLUSION"
They shouldn't be able to advertise "Winners wanted" We love winners" etc etc
♪♪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♪♪
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
October 25th, 2016 at 11:53:07 PM permalink
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.)
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
October 26th, 2016 at 8:00:46 AM permalink
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...

Here you go:

https://apheat.net/2014/10/22/a-few-historical-references-to-edge-sorting/
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 8:38:28 AM permalink
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.)

Well, I was referring to the suggestion that somehow the cards sorted themselves by symmetry. I can't tell if that's what he meant, or if somehow *he* was sorting cards by symmetry. I don't know if anyone can detect asymmetry on the order of 100 microns (=1/10 mm), and that's almost surely the level of distinction that would be present across a deck of cards. Moreover, it's not true that such asymmetry would be useful anyway. Here's a photo of an uncut Gemaco sheet, the manufacturer used at the Borgata:

If the sheet were slightly rotated going into the cutter, there would be a different amount of asymmetry between the cards at the top vs. at the bottom. But there's no consistency in ranks going from top to bottom so that won't help. In fact, the sheet itself is symmetrical around the center so -- without more information -- knowledge that the deck is slightly miscut can't help at all.

If he was talking about shuffle tracking or some other non-manipulative technique, that wasn't clear to me. I have no idea what he meant by "each card is sorted by its symmetry."
"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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 8:43:34 AM permalink
Quote: teliot

Here you go:

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

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.
"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
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
October 26th, 2016 at 9:06:28 AM permalink
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.

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?
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 11:57:24 AM permalink
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?

I didn't know that history, thanks. Intentionally constructing a deck of cards with different asymmetries that correspond to card ranks would seem trivially to fall under the language "it shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards." I know that's not what Sun/Ivey did. In fact, it seems they took advantage of the fact that the asymmetries were constant out of the box, which is what you would expect from a deck that was *not* tampered with by the manufacturer other than the inherent machining asymmetry. Ironically, if Ivey was playing with a "pre-edge-sorted" deck like you describe, his attempt to edge sort based on high/low cards (6-9 vs. 0-5) may not have worked.

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?
"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
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
October 26th, 2016 at 12:27:22 PM permalink
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?

Yes, this has happened multiple times. Depending on how the sheet is laid out and the cuts are made, it is easy to imagine how a sloppy cut might allow you to identify each card by rank.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1496
  • Posts: 26619
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 26th, 2016 at 1:01:50 PM permalink
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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
October 26th, 2016 at 1:35:11 PM permalink
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.



I also wonder if the dealer was in on the scheme. If I was dealing blackjack and a player asked me to draw a smiley face on the back of all the Aces or something, I would make SURE that every supervisor knew that I was doing that. The baccarat dealer at the Borg might have been under some general instruction to humor the high rollers (and, apparently, might have been irradiated by the feminine charms of Ivey's playing partner), but would he just fiddle with the cards based on Ivey's request, when doing so might get him fired, or worse, dragged outside and dipped in the ocean, which, given the local pollution levels, would have been instantly fatal?

The inside job aspect could also have been one level higher, for instance if the dealer says, "He wants me to do such and such, is that really OK?" and the floorman says, "Sure, no problem, do as he asks," nudge nudge, wink wink.
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
October 26th, 2016 at 1:36:39 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

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

No. Take this response for what it's worth. I was Ivey's expert in the Crockford's case.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 2:04:45 PM permalink
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.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 2:16:46 PM permalink
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.

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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 2:42:51 PM permalink
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.


He said in an interview that the rebates didn't give him his edge. It was the "other" things along with them that did.

I'm not saying that the casinos will go after the money. Just curious if anyone thinks they'll try.

https://youtu.be/hJpnnaksXNM

https://www.888casino.com/blog/burning-down-the-house-the-amazing-story-of-don-johnson/

"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."
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 26th, 2016 at 3:20:51 PM permalink
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."

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.
"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
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 297
  • Posts: 11546
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
Thanked by
CasinoKiller
October 26th, 2016 at 6:46:40 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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



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

Most certainly small bets would simply b table minimum and for don johnsons table that could easily hav been $500 a hand vs the $50000 he was normally making. Its not like they suddenly threw out $5 red chips lol
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
October 27th, 2016 at 12:49:28 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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



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

Quote: MathExtremist

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



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

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

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

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

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



If you think the judge got the facts wrong and you are able to demonstrate that the card values were identifiable to everyone, you should contact Phil Ivey's attorneys. That may be a good grounds for appeal.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
October 27th, 2016 at 9:26:26 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist


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



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

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

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

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

I think that's exactly right. He was able to profit from his manipulation, not merely his (or his associate's) visual acuity. That's why ace tracking, shuffle tracking, or card counting are not unlawful.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
October 27th, 2016 at 10:22:22 AM permalink
passive: OK

active: not OK
"What, me worry?"
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
October 27th, 2016 at 3:31:17 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: RS

Quote: MathExtremist

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



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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

But I think your argument boils down to "if you had been looking for edge sorting, you would have realized that Ivey was edge sorting." That seems to be improper circular reasoning. But the court may not see it that way, and perhaps there's an argument to be made that the dealers should have been looking for edge sorting in any event.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
October 27th, 2016 at 5:36:37 PM permalink
Whether you're looking for it or not, it is available to all players.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
FDEAD3709
FDEAD3709
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 94
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
October 27th, 2016 at 6:18:23 PM permalink
Ivey might have had a shot, if he just used edge sorting. When he brought Asian eye Candy, insisted on an Asian dealer, had her give the request in a language no other casino employees would understand, had they overheard, the whole thing became a con job. A smooth one I will admit. But as much a con as 3 card Monte.
Think he will spend legal fees in a court of appeal ? NO WAY
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
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
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
October 27th, 2016 at 7:56:55 PM permalink
Quote: FDEAD3709

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
Hunterhill
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 2155
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
October 27th, 2016 at 9:48:17 PM permalink
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


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
tringlomane
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6281
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
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
Greasyjohn
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 2178
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
October 28th, 2016 at 5:55:23 AM permalink
I agree.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
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
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
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
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
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
DRich
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11882
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
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.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
LuckyPhow
LuckyPhow
  • Threads: 55
  • Posts: 698
Joined: May 19, 2016
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.
darkoz
darkoz
  • Threads: 297
  • Posts: 11546
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
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
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 30
Joined: Aug 30, 2016
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
  • Threads: 55
  • Posts: 698
Joined: May 19, 2016
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
  • Threads: 58
  • Posts: 1443
Joined: Jan 20, 2014
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
  • Threads: 297
  • Posts: 11546
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
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
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22293
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
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
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 94
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
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
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22293
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
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
  • Threads: 55
  • Posts: 698
Joined: May 19, 2016
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
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11882
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
Thanked by
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/
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
  • Jump to: