DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 4920
October 22nd, 2016 at 7:54:47 AM permalink
One of the arguments I heard was that they were knowingly using marked cards to give themselves an advantage. It didn't matter who marked them, just using marked cards for an advantage is classified as using a cheating device,
Living longer does not always infer +EV
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 5465
October 22nd, 2016 at 8:00:51 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

One of the arguments I heard was that they were knowingly using marked cards to give themselves an advantage. It didn't matter who marked them, just using marked cards for an advantage is classified as using a cheating device,



Right so wat does nj gambling regs say about using marked cards if its the casino that supplies them. Wouldnt the usage of marked cards by the casino be illegal regardlessbof whether they went in favor of the player or house

If i was ivey ibwould look up nj regs to c if use of illegal marked cards supplied by the casino negated the game and then claim the casino cheated him
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 22nd, 2016 at 8:50:06 AM permalink
I finally found the order posted online:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/107

One of the notable passages states:
Quote: Judge Hillman's order, p. 17

Allowing a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor would violate the essential purpose of legalized gambling. Indeed, since the inception of legalized gambling, the Casino Control Commission has implemented numerous countermeasures to prevent threats to the statistical advantage that casinos need to remain profitable. (footnote to Campione v. Adamar, one of the cases about card counting).
By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them, Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling, as set forth by the CCA. Ivey and Sunís violation of the card marking provision in the CCA constitutes a breach of their mutual obligation with Borgata to play by the rules of the CCA. Consequently, summary judgment must be entered in Borgataís favor, and against Ivey and Sun, on Borgataís contract-based claims.


This passage appears to indicate that other forms of advantage play may also be violations of the New Jersey CCA if they "allow a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor."

Also notably, the Court found that the DGE and CCC (the regulators) should have acted on the question of whether Ivey/Sun violated any provisions of the CCA, but because the regulators didn't address the matter after four years, the Court felt it had to act. Due process and all.

I expect there will be at least one appeal forthcoming, but I also expect the Borgata to file a very simple damages brief and claim 100% of the amount they lost to Ivey.

For what it's worth, here's the earlier order in the case allowing it to proceed (about a year and a half ago):
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/32
"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
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 22nd, 2016 at 8:53:50 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Don't be silly. Edge sorting is worth millions the way he did it. No poker tournament is worth anywhere near that much.



You don't understand. Edge sorting is risky. Poker tournaments are not. (And I mean in the sense of getting "caught.") Poker was worth well over $1 million a year to him. It seems stupid--and greedy--to try something that was at lest quasi-legal instead. The downside is that he may not be able to get the poker action he used to. It's like the group of poker cheaters on the Ultimate Bet and associated scandals. Their careers are essentially over, aside from whatever civil and criminal charges they may face. Ivey is in deep doodoo as well.

And please don't say things like "don't be silly" just because you can't understand what I'm talking about.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 22nd, 2016 at 8:57:40 AM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

I would have to know what gambling regulations Ivey broke to judge in the judge's favor. Otherwise stupidity is just as acceptable to the casino taking money from people, and the casino has no inherent right to be protected from their own stupidity. They don't seek out anyone they've wronged and offer refunds, so how is this fair.



It's breach of contract. New Jersey laws are more stringent than Nevada laws (as in, New Jersey actually has some). The player and casino are entering into an implied contract. Both parties agree to play the game according to the gaming regulations. Apparently, the judge ruled that Ivey violated that contract. I don't know enough about that law to say whether the judge was correct or not. I do know enough about greed and stupidity to say that Ivey took an unacceptable risk, the ethics of his actions aside.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 22nd, 2016 at 9:08:33 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I knew I'd disagree with you eventually about something and that time has come. Can you please tell me which New Jersey gaming regulation he violated?



The OP linked to an article that, while it rambles, explains the issue fairly well. The crux is that Ivey is being accused of breach of contract. In NJ, there is an implied mutual contract between the player and the casino that each will conduct themselves according to NJ gaming regulations. The judge refused to view Ivey's actions as criminal fraud, though.

The specific law is the New Jersey Casino Control Act. Though it's easy to look up the entire text, I don't know which section the judge cited in his ruling.

My assertion that Ivey cheated is not based on that, however. It's something more basic. You fiddle with the cards, the roulette wheel, the golf ball, the horses in the race, whatever--the physical mechanism that affects the outcome of the game--and you're cheating. Yes, the house allowed him to do that. They were immensely stupid. But I don't think that it's ethical. As I said earlier, I'm sure that many APs would vehemently disagree. I feel the same way about hole-card spooking.

For one thing, if you have the mental acumen, even in today's world, you don't need to angle-shoot to win. You're proof of that, and so is Ivey (or, at least, WAS Ivey). Why would Ivey wade into that ethical, legal, and moral swamp?
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 4920
October 22nd, 2016 at 9:26:44 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Right so wat does nj gambling regs say about using marked cards if its the casino that supplies them. Wouldnt the usage of marked cards by the casino be illegal regardlessbof whether they went in favor of the player or house

If i was ivey ibwould look up nj regs to c if use of illegal marked cards supplied by the casino negated the game and then claim the casino cheated him



It is not that there is marked cards, it is using marked cards to your advantage.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 22nd, 2016 at 9:37:19 AM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

For one thing, if you have the mental acumen, even in today's world, you don't need to angle-shoot to win. You're proof of that, and so is Ivey (or, at least, WAS Ivey). Why would Ivey wade into that ethical, legal, and moral swamp?

I certainly understand the drive to turn $1M into $10M or $20M, but I can't for the life of me imagine that Ivey truly thought he'd be able to pull off a decades-old move -- edge sorting, a.k.a. "playing the turn" is not a new thing -- and get away completely undetected in today's era of modern surveillance and immediate communication. From the order:
Quote: Judge Hillman

During his last visit to Borgata on October 7, 2012, Borgata learned through a media report that a casino in London, Crockfords, was withholding £7.3 million won by Ivey playing Punto Banco, which is essentially the same game as Baccarat.

"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
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 22nd, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM permalink
Something else just occurred to me. If Ivey noticed an irregularity in the card back design, why couldn't he just have observed that irregularity and bet accordingly when he was able to see it in the first card coming out of the shoe? That would obviate the need to manipulate the dealer. He'd still see the edge of the card half the time.
Deucekies
Deucekies
Joined: Jan 20, 2014
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 1176
October 22nd, 2016 at 11:01:38 AM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Something else just occurred to me. If Ivey noticed an irregularity in the card back design, why couldn't he just have observed that irregularity and bet accordingly when he was able to see it in the first card coming out of the shoe? That would obviate the need to manipulate the dealer. He'd still see the edge of the card half the time.



Because if the cards that are turned one direction are a mix of good cards (8s and 9s) and bad cards (face cards), the information is of no use. You see a "half-diamond" card, and you have no idea what it is. If you get all the bad cards or all the good cards going one way, that's where you have information.
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

  • Jump to: