Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
Once a winning player, you ain't going to gamble your earnings away so easily, not if you have a mindset like his - always looking for an edge.
You've seen his eyes haven't you?
Also, if I was his legal team, I would argue that if the higher ruling is granted, then Ivey should absolutely be allowed to keep his $250,000 in comps free-play winnings. After all, if the casino is making their expected profit, then those are the comps they should have given Ivey.
Like I said, it seems the Borgata is over-reaching in what they feel they should get. Everything apparently, expected losses, Craps winnings, comps that were earned, its ridiculous. Lets see what this judge has to say.
Once it comes to litigation you really only get one chance at trial. So over reaching is far better than under reaching. Its sort of a speak now or forever hold your peace situation. And lawyers tend to want to over reach because they can bill their client for that so a "boarding house reach" is a plus sign to a lawyer.Quote: darkoz
Like I said, it seems the Borgata is over-reaching in what they feel they should get. Everything apparently, expected losses, Craps winnings, comps that were earned, its ridiculous. Lets see what this judge has to say.
Spend 10,000.
Casino.keeps 5000
You get 250 value in comps.
Oops.
But given how the case has gone so far, I fear the worst.
5% of theo on same-day comps is a reasonable number. You might get another 15%-25% in mailers later, depending on how much you're worth and the marketing program details. The thing about same-day comps is that they're almost always used. If someone hands you $25 in free play while you're at the casino, you'll play that off before you leave. Nowhere close to 100% redemption on mailers though.Quote: beachbumbabsSeems to me they're kind of foolish to reveal that much info to the gambling public, about how much they expect to make on a given amount of play, and the relatively small value of the comps. Knock 3 zeros off the 3 amounts, and people can figure out easily they're being had.
Spend 10,000.
Casino.keeps 5000
You get 250 value in comps.
Oops.
Quote: MathExtremist5% of theo on same-day comps is a reasonable number. You might get another 15%-25% in mailers later, depending on how much you're worth and the marketing program details. The thing about same-day comps is that they're almost always used. If someone hands you $25 in free play while you're at the casino, you'll play that off before you leave. Nowhere close to 100% redemption on mailers though.
No argument from me. But casinos tend not to make things that apparent to their general customer. Maybe they figure people won't do the math.
Quote: rawtuffJoking aside, but I think he must've been onto something in every single casino game he has played(possibly craps too).
Once a winning player, you ain't going to gamble your earnings away so easily, not if you have a mindset like his - always looking for an edge.
You've seen his eyes haven't you?
Yeah, and I've seen stories and videos of him playing craps just like anybody else does: PL/odds, but for high denominations.
Sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses: just like me.
Gee, and he isn't a dice setter.
Why not?
1. His craps play was an effort to appear like a more recreational gambler, to throw the casino off the trail of whatever advantage play he was up to on another game.
2. He just likes craps and plays it as a mindless diversion. Same reason I play pai gow tiles sometimes -- I know its negative but I just like the game and the expected loss is worth my entertainment value.
Quote: WizardTwo possibilities that I see why Ivey plays craps:
1. His craps play was an effort to appear like a more recreational gambler, to throw the casino off the trail of whatever advantage play he was up to on another game.
2. He just likes craps and plays it as a mindless diversion. Same reason I play pai gow tiles sometimes -- I know its negative but I just like the game and the expected loss is worth my entertainment value.
I have never met Mr. Ivey but what I hear from friends is that he is really an action junkie. When he is not on an advantage play he will bet on just about anything at high stakes with friends just so he has action.
Quote: beachbumbabsMaybe they figure people won't do the math.
How else do you think casinos exist? :)
Quote: wudgedHow else do you think casinos exist? :)
They just got lucky on a Martingale once.
The Phil Ivey ruling is on the list to be discussed.
Is there anything about this case you'd like us to consider asking him?
If there are other things you wish to suggest asking him, let me know.
Personally, between this and the mess of the counterfeited tournament chips and the hash they made of restitution to the other players, I think they've lost more business that they protected by pursuing Phil Ivey alresdy, not to mention future impact. They should have protected their game better. But I'm far from an expert.
The facts of each case are basically the same:
1. The machine used an unsigned 32-bit integer to store the player's balance, which is routine for storing integers that aren't supposed to ever be negative. When storing the number pennies in the player's balance it can range from $0.00 to $42,949,672.95. That maximum amount is 2^32 - 1 pennies.
2. Through a programming error, somehow the player's balance did go negative, by several pennies.
3. If you subtract x from y, with unsigned integers, where x>y, the computer will wrap around the maximum value. For example, if the player's balance was 10 cents, and you subtract 15 cents from it, the value for the balance will be $42,949,672.96 - $0.05 = $42,949,672.91.
4. The player will then ask to be paid this amount.
5. Of course, the casino will quote the ubiquitous "malfunction" rule.
6. The player will get an attorney who will probably argue the machine didn't malfunction but did exactly what some bad programmer told it to do. In other words, say it was "human error."
I've never heard of a case that wasn't settled out of court.
After all that set up, I'm not sure what my question is for Mr. Nercesian. If forced, what is his opinions on the merits and weaknesses of both sides of such cases? Also, if he were representing such a player, what is the ballpark of a settlement offer he would accept?
Regarding the Phil Ivey battle with Borgata, I'd be interested in Nersesian's take on this question:
The NJ gaming regulations are VERY specific. Concerning Baccarat, the regulations specify in detail which hand the dealer must use when extracting cards from the shoe and the exact words to be spoken at various points during a hand of Baccarat.
As soon as Borgata deviated from the proscribed requirements in the NJ gaming regulations, I believe Borgata -- at that moment -- was no longer playing a legal gaming contest authorized for play in NJ. (Obviously, the judge found otherwise.) What is Bob Nersesian's opinion on the legality of the Baccarat "rules" Borgata offered when it accommodated Phil Ivey's play request?
Quote: LuckyPhow
As soon as Borgata deviated from the proscribed requirements in the NJ gaming regulations, I believe Borgata -- at that moment -- was no longer playing a legal gaming contest authorized for play in NJ. (Obviously, the judge found otherwise.)
Actually, I think the Division of Gaming agrees with you. I believe their contention is that any game not following the rules is null and void no matter what the outcome is.
What have been consequences for such illegal gambling?Quote: DRichActually, I think the Division of Gaming agrees with you. I believe their contention is that any game not following the rules is null and void no matter what the outcome is.
Quote: DRich
Actually, I think the Division of Gaming agrees with you. I believe their contention is that any game not following the rules is null and void no matter what the outcome is.
Well, I dunno. If I recall correctly, the Judge expressed frustration that the gaming regulators had remained silent on this whole issue, which was part of the reason he accepted the case.
If you have information that NJ gaming regulators expressed any opinion about the Borgata-Ivey affair, please share. I agree with you they SHOULD have agreed with what I posted, but I cannot find any reference that NJ gaming regulators DID any determination of the legality of the Borgata Baccarat game.
Maybe Bob Nersesian can provide the information I lack.
Quote: BobDancerIs there anything about this case you'd like us to consider asking him?
Not sure if it is a question he can answer but:
How can edge can an edge sorted deck been deemed to contain marked cards when a proper shuffle (which surely must include a turn to be considered proper) undoes any supposed marking?
Quote: someoneNot sure if it is a question he can answer but:
How can edge can an edge sorted deck been deemed to contain marked cards when a proper shuffle (which surely must include a turn to be considered proper) undoes any supposed marking?
On top of that, going by the judge's definition of marked cards, a deck/shoe is marked, due to the washing of the cards at the start of the session. (Not that you'd necessarily gain an edge, but if you kept track, you would notice they are inherently marked, without any outside influence.)
My question: how would he have approached and argued the case, had Mr. Ivey been his client?
I've never heard of any regulator taking action when a slot machine was misconfigured. No general order to identify and reimburse all players. The only focus is on the complaining player's interaction. When the M opened with a machine that had one of its reels installed backwards, the regulators didn't reach out and order all users of the machine compensated. When security guards at a different casino got too rough with a protesting player who turned out to be right in his declaration that the machine was not working properly, the sole focus was on that player's actions, not the improperly rigged slot machine and other players or money wrongfully obtained from the public.
So I'd not expect regulators to prematurely reach out and make comments about improperly shuffled "preshuffled" decks. Nor would I expect regulators to reach out via PR statements about convincing damned fool employees to rotate certain valuable cards.
No casino has to be cheap enough to buy cards susceptible to edge sorting but the emphasis is on improper activities by players, not dealers.
Casinos tend to like knowledgeable players, but not overly knowledgeable ones.
Tony Freet, who is probably a member here, tried to create a core of "pre-measured" players by creating a sort of national association of players that would deliver to the industry a next generation of gamblers all presorted by favorite game and favorite casino. His idea seemed to me to have been poorly executed, I think because he focused more on marketing rather than the mechanics of gambling. Then, I think he got very rich by various other means and I believe left the industry. His notion was to end the age demographics that casinos are beset with. This was a business decision and regulators are likely to leave alone matters of comps or other ways of grooming potential players whether done en mass by a separate entity or done by individual casinos over time. Comps are a business decision, not a gambling decision subject to regulation.
Quote: FleaStiffWhen the M opened with a machine that had one of its reels installed backwards, the regulators didn't reach out and order all users of the machine compensated..
A reel on "backwards" or a reel strip put on wrong does not alter the payout of a machine. The machine pays the proper amount but just visually reflects the outcome incorrectly.
Opening night of M casino, M management declared it null and void, but paid from their general fund the amount that had been indicated as a jackpot. Final reel was on backwards.Quote: DRichA reel on "backwards" or a reel strip put on wrong does not alter the payout of a machine. The machine pays the proper amount but just visually reflects the outcome incorrectly.
Quote: FleaStiffOpening night of M casino, M management declared it null and void, but paid from their general fund the amount that had been indicated as a jackpot. Final reel was on backwards.
Fantastic, that is great customer service.
A few of the Phil Ivey suggestions here were included as questions --- as was Shack's question about the $43 Million steak dinner.
Thanks for your suggestions
Ivey Contests Borgata Claim
Among other things, the article quotes the court ruling, which admits the game Borgata offered and Ivey played "was not authorized by the New Jersey Casino Control Act, and therefore it was null and void." But, somehow, only Ivey is to blame, not Borgata.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plays out.
Well, it seems that with all the legal and semi-legal expertise hereabouts, no penalty has been reported for New Jersey casinos operating illegal games. Not really a big surprise.Quote: LuckyPhowAmong other things, the article quotes the court ruling, which admits the game Borgata offered and Ivey played "was not authorized by the New Jersey Casino Control Act, and therefore it was null and void." But, somehow, only Ivey is to blame, not Borgata.
Quote: WatchMeWinHas anyone questioned the manufacturer of the cards? It is highly suspicious to me that the maker of the cards were not involved in any way. Perhaps one person who supervises the manufacturing process? When big money is involved, I would leave no stone unturned. Does anyone know if they investigated this?
I'm not sure what there is to investigate, given that it was already known the manufacturer's cards had discrepancies on their backs (or rather, weren't completely even). Everyone already knew those cards were edge-sortable before this whole debacle even started.
I still say its ridiculous to attribute card turning to superstition/luck issues, the employees should know basic cheating techniques and should not allow non-English speaking flunkies to make such decisions.
Nothing about this "just happened," it was all meticulously planned. Ivey specifically requested the brand and color and back pattern of cards to be used and the casino agreed. There was no inside action by the casino, just Ivey's knowledge that his friend could edge sort that particular Gemaco card back pattern. I believe Gemaco was a named defendant originally but I think that part of the case was dropped.Quote: WatchMeWinAre you saying that you believe some asian women just happened to spot patterns on cards that would depict the face of the cards, without any prior knowledge from an insider? Well then, I have a box of costume jewelry I would like to sell you sometime. C'mon Man! ha
Always remember... money does funny things to people! When large amounts are at stake, anything is possible.
He's a big boy, he knew the risks involved.
I don't think so. First off, edge sorting or "playing the turn" was known at least as far back as the 1970s, long before Gemaco was founded. And I believe Ms. Sun had a history of edge sorting that predates her relationship with Ivey. I don't see any evidence that this hustle would not have come off but for someone inside Gemaco acting counter to the company's interests. That theory doesn't seem plausible given the facts on the record.Quote: WatchMeWinwhat Im saying is that I fully believe that someone from Gemaco (insider) was tipping off the asian women in what to look for in the cards and how to spot it. Just my belief, but Im sure we will never know the full truth.
It's all good for me, sure. Less good for Phil Ivey. But unlike Phil, I know better than to even try to run a hustle on someone with lots of money and the willingness to use it. It's not like his play was in the realm of getting just a little lucky -- it was statistically aberrant. He might be a great poker player but he's not a very clever swindler. I'd never try to run the same kind of scam, but if I had tried, I never would have been caught. The old adage about shearing the sheep comes to mind...Quote: WatchMeWinYou are entitled to your opinion. I still have my doubts but it is all good. So, MathExtremist, you seem like a bright individual. What game(s) do you play?
My game is craps for now. When real video games hit the casino floor those will get some of my wallet share. How about you?
Im not a video gamer, but it will be a great new addition to the video/slot games... I think if people are empowered to utilize their skill while risking their money, they will play often . Much better than having the casino dictate the payout %.
Quote: WatchMeWinI understand that it was all meticulously planned out by the defendants, Phil and Asian woman. I know how it all went down. I was being sarcastic when I said that 'the asian women just happened to spot the patterns on cards'. The actually requests and play was absolutely planned to beat the casino.... what Im saying is that I fully believe that someone from Gemaco (insider) was tipping off the asian women in what to look for in the cards and how to spot it. Just my belief, but Im sure we will never know the full truth.
Always remember... money does funny things to people! When large amounts are at stake, anything is possible.
Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about. No inside information is necessary. This is not opinion.
Had you said that when all this first came out I wouldn't think you only made that statement after the fact.Quote: MathExtremistIt's all good for me, sure. Less good for Phil Ivey. But unlike Phil, I know better than to even try to run a hustle on someone with lots of money and the willingness to use it. It's not like his play was in the realm of getting just a little lucky -- it was statistically aberrant. He might be a great poker player but he's not a very clever swindler. I'd never try to run the same kind of scam, but if I had tried, I never would have been caught. The old adage about sheari
ng the sheep comes to mind...
My game is craps for now. When real video games hit the casino floor those will get some of my wallet share. How about you?
You might want n to ask yourself how many times they got away with this and nothing was said. I do believe he's spent lots of time in other countries. We have no idea how much profit he is ahead .
I would be more concern for him if he had silent partners involved who already received and spent their cuts.
Had you said that when all this first came out I wouldn't think you only made that statement after the fact.Quote: MathExtremistIt's all good for me, sure. Less good for Phil Ivey. But unlike Phil, I know better than to even try to run a hustle on someone with lots of money and the willingness to use it. It's not like his play was in the realm of getting just a little lucky -- it was statistically aberrant. He might be a great poker player but he's not a very clever swindler. I'd never try to run the same kind of scam, but if I had tried, I never would have been caught. The old adage about sheari
ng the sheep comes to mind...
My game is craps for now. When real video games hit the casino floor those will get some of my wallet share. How about you?
You might want n to ask yourself how many times they got away with this and nothing was said. I do believe he's spent lots of time in other countries. We have no idea how much profit he is ahead .
I would be more concern for him if he had silent partners involved who already received and spent their cuts.
The implication would be that he had his hustle working well under the radar and then screwed it up by getting caught twice because he was greedy. Not that similar things haven't happened before -- Ron Harris's partner comes to mind -- but it boggles my mind that someone could be clever enough to come up with such a swindle yet not clever enough to get away with it. Seems like you'd want to have the whole thing figured out before sitting down at the table.Quote: AxelWolfYou might want n to ask yourself how many times they got away with this and nothing was said. I do believe he's spent lots of time in other countries. We have no idea how much profit he is ahead .
Quote: WatchMeWinIm strictly a craps and poker guy. Im quite confident and successful in both games as the probabilities are in my favor with my style of play. Where do you play craps?
I call B.S. in regard to your claim that "the probabilities are in my favor with my style of play" as to craps.
Please explain specifically what your "style of play" is, and how, as you claim, you have a greater than 50% chance against the casino by employing it; please incorporate some math in your explanation, as this is a math-based board.
Even the sharpest craps play, a DP/DC bet with max odds, has a positive edge that favors the house.
Oh, and please don't respond with "I'm ahead, so I have a positive expectation;" that dog won't hunt (hello, variance).
