Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
Different countries and cainos have different abilities. Ohther opportunities could have dried up or been worth less. Sometimes you have to take what you have in front of you. Perhaps they found places that already had everything in place so it was less likely the casino's had a leg to stand on.Quote: MathExtremistThe 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.
If he didn't feel he was cheating or think there would ever be any way they could go after him. He was free rolling and nothing to fear by getting caught. It's not as if he should have stopped in fear of going to jail.
PS. I would be shocked if the places we know about were the only places or even the last places.
Or, maybe not, and it is that complicated secret supah-sophisticated Special Agent-007 international man of mystery "Advantage Player" thing going on, and Phil Ivey is no longer Phil Ivey. Because if Phil Ivey actually is still Phil Ivey, then any money he took off the table from the edge sorting scheme would usually get dusted off pretty quickly shooting dice.
To be fair, he did say probabilities, not edge. You have greater than 50% chance of winning any lay bet, etc. There's still a house edge, obviously, but the odds are better than even.Quote: MrVI 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.
Now, if he meant the edge on dice is in his favor, I'll echo your call of B.S...
That li'l clicker thingy next to the scroll wheel is a handy tool.Quote: MathExtremistTo be fair, he did say probabilities, not edge. You have greater than 50% chance of winning any lay bet, etc. There's still a house edge, obviously, but the odds are better than even.
Now, if he meant the edge on dice is in his favor, I'll echo your call of B.S...
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/8952-luck-or-skill/Quote: WatchMeWinI consistently win. Period. Only play poker, craps, and jumped back into NBA for fun. Check out my documented winning record this week. 5-0. I hit for my usual 30% win in craps this week and won a poker tournament. The craps and poker have been consistent for years. Sports betting is not something that I would brag about because there are too many variables.. but I was put to the challenge this week. I put my mind to handicapping the best games I felt were on the board and I have gone 5 days straight undefeated... There must be more skill than luck involved.... just sayin...
And you too can be a winner.. just buy my new book and cd coming out this spring! Only 19.95, but wait, you will also get a money clip to hold all of the fucking dough you are winning and dont know what to do with! lol just kidding... but not a bad idea.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/5444-craps-in-vegas-in-july/Quote: WatchMeWinI am new here and have already found myself fascinated with not only the level of intelligence of the people but also the number of 'know it alls' that make claims.
For all craps and poker lovers, I will be in Vegas for WSOP in July. I will be making money on various craps tables at various casinos. I welcome serious players that want to have a good time. Im not going to claim I consistantly win, I will display it live.
A special invitation to the Wizard. It would be a pleasure to meet you and show you the reality of Consistant W's.
EDIT: Highlighting added above.
Ho-hum. And this is still WoV Forum, with the same peculiar flavor of 'net catnip as always, and today is Thursday.
But he certainly implied he had a positive expectation at craps, as he said that his "style of play" makes him "successful" at craps.
Quote: MathExtremistNothing 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.
when someone "specifically requested the brand and color and back pattern of cards to be used" and the staffs didn't smell anything, they are either stupid or they are part of an inside job. period.
Now of course the Tuscany meant it as ordinary advertising hype, but the Gaming Board frowns on hype that misleads the public.
In the forums, there seems to be an incessant tattoo of things like dice control and 'my favor' stuff. I don't see any casinos being bankrupted by fancy rolling craps players. I don't even see the casinos running scared; they just keep raking the money in as usual.
Quote: FleaStiffI don't see any casinos being bankrupted by fancy rolling craps players.
I haven't seen any proof that any player has ever actually controlled / meaningfully influenced the dice.
There is even proof that an "edge" such as some of these dice controllers claim would be financially meaningless in a real craps game, even if it existed.Quote: MrVI haven't seen any proof that any player has ever actually controlled / meaningfully influenced the dice.
The statistics professor at Standord of Greek heritage whose name I can never remember proved this when he had a pair of dice milled professional to a slight edge. He found that the miniscule edge, combined with recording errors of his grad student assistants pretty much meant he would never make any money if he had taken those dice into a real game. Add in player errors, dealer errors, dealer tips, tray lizard tips, the effects of alcohol and the effects of fatigue and there is no dice cotroller who could possibly make even a modest living, much less do it "under the radar" of the dealers, box, pit crew and surveillance cameras.
Unless of course you get some Chinese chick and Phil Ivey to convince casino employees that bringing in his own dice is "a lucky superstition".
The name alone was a red flag. Thanks for the confirmation.Quote: DrawingDeadThat li'l clicker thingy next to the scroll wheel is a handy tool.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/8952-luck-or-skill/Quote: WatchMeWinI consistently win. Period. Only play poker, craps, and jumped back into NBA for fun. Check out my documented winning record this week. 5-0. I hit for my usual 30% win in craps this week and won a poker tournament. The craps and poker have been consistent for years. Sports betting is not something that I would brag about because there are too many variables.. but I was put to the challenge this week. I put my mind to handicapping the best games I felt were on the board and I have gone 5 days straight undefeated... There must be more skill than luck involved.... just sayin...
And you too can be a winner.. just buy my new book and cd coming out this spring! Only 19.95, but wait, you will also get a money clip to hold all of the fucking dough you are winning and dont know what to do with! lol just kidding... but not a bad idea.https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/5444-craps-in-vegas-in-july/Quote: WatchMeWinI am new here and have already found myself fascinated with not only the level of intelligence of the people but also the number of 'know it alls' that make claims.
For all craps and poker lovers, I will be in Vegas for WSOP in July. I will be making money on various craps tables at various casinos. I welcome serious players that want to have a good time. Im not going to claim I consistantly win, I will display it live.
A special invitation to the Wizard. It would be a pleasure to meet you and show you the reality of Consistant W's.
EDIT: Highlighting added above.
Ho-hum. And this is still WoV Forum, with the same peculiar flavor of 'net catnip as always, and today is Thursday.
Mr V, i dont need to convince you of anything. I am doing quite fine doing what I do. I was having a conversation with MathExtremist as I have respect for his intelligence.... yours on the other hand, is questionable. I hope you win however and whatever you play. GL
Quote: WatchMeWinMr V, i dont need to convince you of anything. I am doing quite fine doing what I do. I was having a conversation with MathExtremist as I have respect for his intelligence.... yours on the other hand, is questionable.
Ah yes, the ad hominem attack: the "ace in the hole" played by those unable to back up their brag.
It was YOU, not me, that made the claim that your "style of play" makes you "successful" at craps; I merely asked you WHAT is your style of play?
Answer the question, if you wish to preserve a shred of credibility: what is your specific "style of play." and how does it work, mathematically, to make your craps play "successful?"
You posted your brag on a public forum, so my question is legit.
What say you?
A lot of folks make claims like yours about craps; most are dice setters: none can prove their brags.
Please, just put up or shut up.
Quote: WatchMeWinI was having a conversation with MathExtremist as I have respect for his intelligence.... yours on the other hand, is questionable.
Personal insult. Three-day suspension.
Now he has three days ponder his next evasion.
It's 83.33%, and playing the Iron Cross is not a winning craps system in any event. Let's not go down the chasm of "I use discipline, money management, and a winning attitude to beat craps." If you really want to hedge, there are better hedges than the Iron Cross.Quote: WatchMeWinYou are correct MathExtremist. I did not say I had an edge. I simply stated that probabilities are in my favor. Obviously, if anyone plays poker, you know that you are playing against other players and not the house. If you are a good player, you can consistently come out ahead majority of the time. As for craps, there are too many factors involved to speak of here. We should all just meet in Vegas sometime and play. On any given roll, one can have an 84% chance of winning their bet.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's 83.33%, and playing the Iron Cross is not a winning craps system in any event. Let's not go down the chasm of "I use discipline, money management, and a winning attitude to beat craps." If you really want to hedge, there are better hedges than the Iron Cross.
Don't forget getting lots of rest.
ZCore13
Not in a way that is repeatable at a casino table. Sliding and the whip or Greek shots are demonstrably effective in the abstract, but you can't get away with them at a well-run craps table because they're easy to detect and therefore call off. And trying to get away with such acts while obscuring the view of the dealers so they *can't* call them off is illegal according to the court in Skipper v. State.Quote: MrVI haven't seen any proof that any player has ever actually controlled / meaningfully influenced the dice.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19941611879P2d732_11607/SKIPPER%20v.%20STATE
I know its splitting hairs but just curioua what people count the game played or the angle
No. It's a profitable play, it's not a profitable style of play unless the style itself is profitable. "Making perfect decisions" is a style of playing 9/6 Jacks or Better video poker, but that's not a profitable style of play. When combining it with too many loyalty points that can be a profitable play for an AP. But if there are enough loyalty points being given, even playing sub-optimally can be profitable. That's profitable because of the marketing dollars, not because of the play style.Quote: darkozIm sure his system is bunk but if someone was using the doey dont to generate comps at craps and it was profitable would he not be correct in stating his style of play at craps generated profit
I know its splitting hairs but just curioua what people count the game played or the angle
Card counting can be a profitable style of play. So can perfect play at FPDW, or clocking a roulette wheel, or hole carding at any number of games. The Iron Cross on a craps table is not a profitable style of play.
How's that for splitting hairs?
However, they didn't he wasn't required to pay back the 1 to 2 million in comps.
I wonder if he will appeal
Really unjust, especially the craps play. Nathan is starting to make sense with his stolen pennies owe the jackpot theory if Ivey has to repay legitimate craps winnings. He could have used his own money to play craps if he had to, this judge is really a piece of work. It's so bad, he should work for the Make A Wish foundation. Of course Ivey will appeal.Quote: HomelessnycSo it looks like the court ordered Ivey to pay back what he won in baccarat and craps. So a little over 10 million.
However, they didn't he wasn't required to pay back the 1 to 2 million in comps.
I wonder if he will appeal
Quote: Homelessnyc
So it looks like the court ordered Ivey to pay back what he won in baccarat and craps. So a little over 10 million.
I wonder if he will appeal
I definitely think Ivey should appeal the judge's decision that he has to surrender his craps winnings.
Before the Baccarat fiasco began, Ivey deposited his own $$ with the casino. Lotsa $$. So, how can the judge say that Ivey was playing craps with his Baccarat winnings? Ivey had his own money on deposit with the casino and was playing a legal game of craps.
I increasingly find myself wondering if I have followed Alice through the Looking Glass into a world where everything is "backwardser" and the Red Queen (and others of us) do three impossible things each day before breakfast.
Its easy to determine if craps play was with his own money or not. If he deposited money... did he then sign markers at the craps table? If not, it was winnings from the Bacc Cheating Scheme or one could say the Brazen 'card turnng for "luck" scheme. Casinos hire idiots and put them in positions of power with insufficient training.
Lets see: turn the valuable cards, .... once some players tried to tell a neophyte dealer that deuces were wild in some carnival game... the players got away with it until the dealer tried to use a deuce to win,,, THEN they called over the Floor Man and protested that deuces were not wild.
Quote:
A federal judge had previously ruled Ivey and companion player Cheng Yin Sun didn’t meet their obligation to follow gambling regulations on four occasions in 2012 by having a dealer at the Borgata arrange Baccarat cards so they could tell what kind of card was coming next.
Who Must Follow NJ Gaming Regulations??
Whoa! According to the judge, it was Ivey's & Sun's obligation to follow NJ gaming regulations. Apparently, it is not the casino's obligation to follow NJ gaming regulations. Now, there's a judge who knows an even-handed, just decision when he sees one. I'm sure all gamblers in NJ casinos know all those complex NJ gaming regulations, right? (Clearly, the casino does not know them!)
But, wait! There's more:
Quote:
The judge noted that Ivey and Sun instructed dealers to arrange the cards in a certain way, which is permitted under the rules of the game, after Sun noticed minute differences in them. But he ruled in October that those actions violated the state Casino Control Act and their contractual obligation to abide by it in gambling at the casino.
Whaaa??? Where in the NJ Casino Control Act -- or regulations implementing it -- does it say Baccarat rules (even Baccarat rules in NJ) specifically allow cards to be turned this way or that during play?
I've read those regulations. NJ Gaming Regulations are so specific that they identify which hand the Dealer uses when retrieving cards from the Baccarat shoe. They indicate the precise words Dealers must say at each stage of the game. If it is legal in NJ for casinos to "arrange cards in a certain way," the regulations would say so.
Ivey & Sun have a contractual obligation to follow NJ Gaming Regulations?? But (apparently) the casino has no such obligation, even when it is a willing participant in violating gaming regulations it agrees to follow (as part of its approval process)?? This stretches judicial credibility (even for New Jersey legal systems!) far past the breaking point, IMHO.
Fasten your seat belts. Weirder weirdness is sure to follow!
Quote: HunterhillThat reminds me of when dealers mistakenly stand on s17 on a h17 game, the players keep quiet as long as it's in their favor,the 1st time it causes them to lose they immediately complain.Even though they would be better off to take the loss.
I doubt that the average player would be better off taking the loss.
I think what was meant was that the average player would fare better over all if the player allows the game to continue as a Dealer Stands At All Seventeens game rather than correcting the misplay and having the game continue as Draw on Soft Seventeen.Quote: DRichI doubt that the average player would be better off taking the loss.
Its a question of bet size and duration of the game, not just the financial impact of that one disputed transaction.
Quote: FleaStiffOften judges are ignorant and often judges are beholden to commercial interests.
Its easy to determine if craps play was with his own money or not. If he deposited money... did he then sign markers at the craps table? If not, it was winnings from the Bacc Cheating Scheme or one could say the Brazen 'card turnng for "luck" scheme. Casinos hire idiots and put them in positions of power with insufficient training.
Lets see: turn the valuable cards, .... once some players tried to tell a neophyte dealer that deuces were wild in some carnival game... the players got away with it until the dealer tried to use a deuce to win,,, THEN they called over the Floor Man and protested that deuces were not wild.
With money on deposit ivey can claim it was easier to use cash in pocket than sign a marker. I dont think the use of money from winnings physically off the table should define the judgement
The real question should b would ivey hav played craps irregardless of his bacc win. With money deposited he shows ability to do so. Since he was playing a game heavily in his favor (bacc edge sorted) and still chose to play craps that demonstrates he most likely would hav played anyway. He certainly was doing nothing less than risking the hard earned money at bacc wen playing craps. He got lucky and now the borgata wants that back too
Imagine if one of the players from thr golden nugget unshuffled cards game had subsquently won a slot jackpot and had to hand that back too. This whole decision is smelling fishy and im certain ther will b some improvement on appeal at leastbas pertains to craps
Finally doesn't the nj gaming commision hav sone say in the craps decision. That wasnt part of thr original case. Isnt the gaming commision supposed to make thr decisions about legit games? For the legit craps play whose power supercedes who?
That doesn't matter. The test employed by the court was that since the contract between player and casino was voided, the situation should be returned to status quo ante -- that is, how things were before any of that baccarat play started. Borgata's accounting demonstrated that Ivey played craps with his baccarat winnings so it doesn't matter what he would have done otherwise, it only matters what he did, and then the court unwound that. Fruit of the poisoned tree, as it were. If he had played craps first, I don't believe the judge would have assessed any damages there.Quote: darkozWith money on deposit ivey can claim it was easier to use cash in pocket than sign a marker. I dont think the use of money from winnings physically off the table should define the judgement
The real question should b would ivey hav played craps irregardless of his bacc win.
Here's the opinion:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/117
Quote: MathExtremistThat doesn't matter. The test employed by the court was that since the contract between player and casino was voided, the situation should be returned to status quo ante -- that is, how things were before any of that baccarat play started. Borgata's accounting demonstrated that Ivey played craps with his baccarat winnings so it doesn't matter what he would have done otherwise, it only matters what he did, and then the court unwound that. Fruit of the poisoned tree, as it were. If he had played craps first, I don't believe the judge would have assessed any damages there.
Here's the opinion:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/117
What do you think would have happened had he lost playing craps....would that be refunded as well? Something tells me a big fat NO.
Interestingly, the opinion mentions both craps winnings and losses and the losses were indeed larger. I'd need to see more details of the accounting to really comment on the facts in the case. But I wouldn't put it past the Borgata to play number games in an attempt to convince the court of a larger damages figure than is deserved.Quote: RSQuote: MathExtremistThat doesn't matter. The test employed by the court was that since the contract between player and casino was voided, the situation should be returned to status quo ante -- that is, how things were before any of that baccarat play started. Borgata's accounting demonstrated that Ivey played craps with his baccarat winnings so it doesn't matter what he would have done otherwise, it only matters what he did, and then the court unwound that. Fruit of the poisoned tree, as it were. If he had played craps first, I don't believe the judge would have assessed any damages there.
Here's the opinion:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/117
What do you think would have happened had he lost playing craps....would that be refunded as well? Something tells me a big fat NO.
In fact, one of my earliest cases went exactly like that. Someone partnered with an employee to steal dormant comp points, then played them off on slot games. He lost everything so there was no money to recover, but the casino submitted a damages spreadsheet that listed some huge number. Turns out they added coin-in and coin-out instead of subtracting, and they hoped the public defender wouldn't catch it. She didn't, but I did.
Quote: MathExtremist
I'd need to see more details of the accounting to really comment on the facts in the case.
I hope Ivey & Sun have someone like you reviewing how the casino differentiated between Ivey's $504,000 craps win and his $892,200 craps loss. Maybe the casino did the math cleanly. Maybe not.
I wonder how the court decided Ivey's craps win was with ill-gotten Baccarat gains, but his craps losses were from his own personal funds, and not related in any way to the illegal play.
Before the first Baccarat hand was played, and before the first roll of any dice, Ivey deposited $1 million with the Borgata. If the court is trying to restore the situation to status quo ante (i.e., before the illegal rule switch voided Ivey's "contract" to play "fair" by not tinkering with the established house advantage), it seems Ivey's craps loss should also be included in the calculation.
Ivey started with $1 million, deposited with Borgata. All Baccarat winnings were returned to Borgata. Ivey wins $504,000 in craps and loses $892,200 in craps. Final result: Ivey should have $611,800 on deposit with Borgata.
Steal uncut diamonds and you can't get the beneift of any interim price change.
Deposit stolen money in some investment and you lose ALL the profits, not just some sum that would represent a reasonable interest rate. Win the lottery with stolen money and you don't have to give back just that one dollar purchase price.
The trouble is that chips (cheques) are usually viewed as fungible and some claim of illlegitimacy is hard to enforce ... are teh courts trying to get the tips back from the cocktail waitress?
Quote: FleaStiff
The law generally does not allow a criminal to benefit from the proceeds of his crime.
So true.
But, there was no crime in this case. Only a legal contract that was voided immediately upon its first moment of execution. The court specifically found no fraud or other criminal action by Ivey & Sun. This was a civil lawsuit.
To my knowledge, they do have someone like me on their legal team -- he's a member here. But I don't know whether he provided the review you're talking about (or whether he can talk about it if he did).Quote: LuckyPhowI hope Ivey & Sun have someone like you reviewing how the casino differentiated between Ivey's $504,000 craps win and his $892,200 craps loss. Maybe the casino did the math cleanly. Maybe not..
Quote: FleaStiffThe law generally does not allow a criminal to benefit from the proceeds of his crime.
Steal uncut diamonds and you can't get the beneift of any interim price change.
Deposit stolen money in some investment and you lose ALL the profits, not just some sum that would represent a reasonable interest rate. Win the lottery with stolen money and you don't have to give back just that one dollar purchase price.
The trouble is that chips (cheques) are usually viewed as fungible and some claim of illlegitimacy is hard to enforce ... are teh courts trying to get the tips back from the cocktail waitress?
As stated above this is not a criminal issue so criminal style resolutions cannot b attributed. U stated the judge is using a part of law meant to make both sides whole prior to thr incident. So how does iveys craps losses not figure in but his wins do? That would not be making both sides whole but preferential to borgata
I make the distinction between "front-end players", "back-end players", "creators/scammers", "cheaters", "glitch-hunters", etc...Quote: MathExtremistNo. It's a profitable play, it's not a profitable style of play unless the style itself is profitable. "Making perfect decisions" is a style of playing 9/6 Jacks or Better video poker, but that's not a profitable style of play. When combining it with too many loyalty points that can be a profitable play for an AP.
How's that for splitting hairs?
(1) For me, "Front-end players" mostly beat games w/o marketing or "player reinvestment" money.
(1A) Points, promotions, and rebates may pay you immediately (or within a few days), and I would still count that as "front-end". However, it isn't beating a game "heads-up", which is MathExtremist's distinction.
(2) "Back-end players" may make +10-20% of their profits from beating games (or they may lose -10-50%), but they collect Free Play, use coupons, play on multiple point days, find gameable promotions, loss rebates, etc...
There is no clear line between "front-end" and "back-end", as most people do some of both. The extreme case of a front-end player is someone who plays without a card and gets no casino benefits (room, food, Free Play). And some back-end players lose 50% (or more) of their Free Play (so they might be getting a 96-99% return on the games they play).
When a back-end player is receiving $5K-15K/month in Free Play, it becomes a quite sizable "implied bankroll".
-----
Some people do play craps for the "back-end". I don't know their methods (possibly some places give a lot of "action" for odds & come bets?), but many casinos will give $1,000-2,000+/week in Free Play when you are a heavy player (In California, I know of nine which give $1,000+/wk).
At some casinos, you don't have be a Don Johnson to get loss rebates. Casinos start rebates at $2,500, $10,000, $50,000, etc... and they may require a top-tier (or 2nd-to-top-tier card). At the lower lowels, 5% loss ($500 extra Free Play for a -$10K loss) seems typical. Some casinos give annual rebates, which might be quite sizable ($10,000+)
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting-future/
Quote: MathExtremistInterestingly, the opinion mentions both craps winnings and losses and the losses were indeed larger. I'd need to see more details of the accounting to really comment on the facts in the case. But I wouldn't put it past the Borgata to play number games in an attempt to convince the court of a larger damages figure than is deserved.Quote: RSQuote: MathExtremistThat doesn't matter. The test employed by the court was that since the contract between player and casino was voided, the situation should be returned to status quo ante -- that is, how things were before any of that baccarat play started. Borgata's accounting demonstrated that Ivey played craps with his baccarat winnings so it doesn't matter what he would have done otherwise, it only matters what he did, and then the court unwound that. Fruit of the poisoned tree, as it were. If he had played craps first, I don't believe the judge would have assessed any damages there.
Here's the opinion:
/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/117
What do you think would have happened had he lost playing craps....would that be refunded as well? Something tells me a big fat NO.
In fact, one of my earliest cases went exactly like that. Someone partnered with an employee to steal dormant comp points, then played them off on slot games. He lost everything so there was no money to recover, but the casino submitted a damages spreadsheet that listed some huge number. Turns out they added coin-in and coin-out instead of subtracting, and they hoped the public defender wouldn't catch it. She didn't, but I did.
It seems like there are 2 separate issues here:
1) Borgata's accounting -- I, too, would like to know exactly how they came up with $504,000 in "Wins" and $892,200 in "Losses". Are they just doing so on a roll-by-roll basis from a *single session*? Akin to separating out each hand of blackjack in a single shoe as though some were Wins and others Losses? The court accepts the Borgata's argument that the $504,000 in "Wins" were "those winnings were directly traceable to his prior Baccarat winnings", wording that immediately smells to high heavens. I'd like to see the calculations as well, but it's hard to fathom a scenario where separating "Wins" and "Losses" and claiming only the former are 'ill-gotten' is rational.
2) Accounting aside, the "status quo ante" theory the court relies on by definition: "returns the parties to past, restoring the parties to the position they held before the voided contract was entered into." So what of Ivey's $388,200 in NET CRAPS LOSSES? If you're making the argument that Ivey's craps play was directly attributable to his ill-gotten Baccarat gains, then restoring the parties to their pre-contractual state would rewind whatever happened with his Craps play, win or lose. IOW, *regardless* of what Borgata's accounting was in #1 above, the court simply CAN'T draw a direct nexus between his Baccarat wins and his craps play and still apply a strict "status quo ante" remedy. If you want to hit the rewind button, go ahead, but that means rewinding everything REGARDLESS of outcome.
As I mentioned before, I'd need to see the accounting, but I disagree that they're not potentially tied together. If the Borgata could (and did) present evidence that some of Ivey's craps play was directly attributable to the poisoned Baccarat winnings, but other of Ivey's craps play was not, then they are properly separated. There was nothing voidable about Ivey playing craps with his own money so status quo ante doesn't apply there. I would assume that the accounting by Borgata represented that Ivey lost $892,200 at craps with his own money and, separately, won $504,000 with the ill-gotten edge sorting money, but I'd need to examine the source documents in order to know that. As I mentioned before, it's very easy for casinos to fudge such numbers, and when seven figures are involved, there's every incentive to do so. But remember that he apparently took four trips. If he played craps before baccarat on some of the trips, and craps after baccarat on others, that's might be an easy way to distinguish things.Quote: basicbrad2) Accounting aside, the "status quo ante" theory the court relies on by definition: "returns the parties to past, restoring the parties to the position they held before the voided contract was entered into." So what of Ivey's $388,200 in NET CRAPS LOSSES? If you're making the argument that Ivey's craps play was directly attributable to his ill-gotten Baccarat gains, then restoring the parties to their pre-contractual state would rewind whatever happened with his Craps play, win or lose. IOW, *regardless* of what Borgata's accounting was in #1 above, the court simply CAN'T draw a direct nexus between his Baccarat wins and his craps play and still apply a strict "status quo ante" remedy. If you want to hit the rewind button, go ahead, but that means rewinding everything REGARDLESS of outcome.
Does anyone know how the crapsplay went down? Was it before after during? Fid he use the funds he won to play craps? That's a hard one when it comes to gambling.Quote: MathExtremistAs I mentioned before, I'd need to see the accounting, but I disagree that they're not potentially tied together. If the Borgata could (and did) present evidence that some of Ivey's craps play was directly attributable to the poisoned Baccarat winnings, but other of Ivey's craps play was not, then they are properly separated. There was nothing voidable about Ivey playing craps with his own money so status quo ante doesn't apply there. I would assume that the accounting by Borgata represented that Ivey lost $892,200 at craps with his own money and, separately, won $504,000 with the ill-gotten edge sorting money, but I'd need to examine the source documents in order to know that. As I mentioned before, it's very easy for casinos to fudge such numbers, and when seven figures are involved, there's every incentive to do so. But remember that he apparently took four trips. If he played craps before baccarat on some of the trips, and craps after baccarat on others, that's might be an easy way to distinguish things.Quote: basicbrad2) Accounting aside, the "status quo ante" theory the court relies on by definition: "returns the parties to past, restoring the parties to the position they held before the voided contract was entered into." So what of Ivey's $388,200 in NET CRAPS LOSSES? If you're making the argument that Ivey's craps play was directly attributable to his ill-gotten Baccarat gains, then restoring the parties to their pre-contractual state would rewind whatever happened with his Craps play, win or lose. IOW, *regardless* of what Borgata's accounting was in #1 above, the court simply CAN'T draw a direct nexus between his Baccarat wins and his craps play and still apply a strict "status quo ante" remedy. If you want to hit the rewind button, go ahead, but that means rewinding everything REGARDLESS of outcome.
Had he lost on craps then what?
Ivey confessed to me that he was a big loss-rebate craps advantage player, a-la Don Johnson. No doubt he had a great deal worked out with The Borgata.Quote: AxelWolfHad he lost on craps then what?
Makes sense to me.Quote: teliotIvey confessed to me that he was a big loss-rebate craps advantage player, a-la Don Johnson. No doubt he had a great deal worked out with The Borgata.
Phil Ivey used those millions to gamble poker and craps without any fear of losing because he had a money stream from FT.
Phil Ivey won millions in poker (craps is unknown).
Government shut down Full Tilt deemed it illegal.
Should government go after Phil Ivey for his other wins while using full tilt money?
Quote: teliotMy article on the topic was just posted:
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting-future/
I was a bit surprised by this article. I was expecting you to take a more defensive approach for Ivey.
I'm also of the opinion it's advantage play, and the courts were wrong. I'm still happy to have the precedence, if needed, in my jurisdiction to stop it here if any of our 86's get challenged. From my experience with these groups, I think Ivey's involvement was heavily overstated. He was just the name / money to get the special conditions.
Its the fault of the casino for granting or even entertaining the requested conditions.Quote: KingoftheEyeFrom my experience with these groups, I think Ivey's involvement was heavily overstated. He was just the name / money to get the special conditions.
The staged fight between two well-endowed young ladies results in entertainment for the players and certainly results in enhanced entertainment if either of the participants is some notorious starlet but the dealers should be trained to have the exact same response: keep your eyes on the chip tray, not the diversion.
Its the casino who trains and tests dealers and if some casino employee granted permission for the fight, its the casino's responsibility all the way. If the fight is spontaneous and authentic, the dealers are still supposed to respond by staring at the chip tray.
I'd put the burden on the casino and not allow some judge to sit as a super arbiter who can peer into the minds of the parties and say there is some sort of 'contract' on the player's behalf to abide by zillions of arcane regulations promulgated by the Gaming Board but utterly unknown to the player. The Game was altered by the actions of the casino in allowing an absurd deviation from procedures and from common sense and from common business practices.
The casino can't get a second bite of the apple down at the court house; they took their bite on the gaming floor and come into court crying "nuances".
Quote: FleaStiffIts the fault of the casino for granting or even entertaining the requested conditions.
I don't believe I said the casinos involved weren't at least partially to blame.
I won't debate who is most liable for advantage play in this forum. It's like debating religion, no chance of either side winning. I just keep kicking AP's out of my casino, and they keep trying new things. I call that job security. These edge-sorting copycats coming out are particularly pathetic. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, except even easier, more like the fish are jumping out of the water onto the grill and saying, "Please eat me". Makes me look good though, so keep it coming.
It'd been a while since you posted.Quote: KingoftheEyeI don't believe I said the casinos involved weren't at least partially to blame.
I won't debate who is most liable for advantage play in this forum. It's like debating religion, no chance of either side winning. I just keep kicking AP's out of my casino, and they keep trying new things. I call that job security. These edge-sorting copycats coming out are particularly pathetic. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, except even easier, more like the fish are jumping out of the water onto the grill and saying, "Please eat me". Makes me look good though, so keep it coming.
You came in at a really bad time (I think you know what I'm talking about)
I think there's a few guys that would really like to talk to you on the down low.
Anyways, I can say that I would like to see more posts from you.
Quote: AxelWolfIt'd been a while since you posted.
You came in at a really bad time (I think you know what I'm talking about)
I think there's a few guys that would really like to talk to you on the down low.
Anyways, I can say that I would like to see more posts from you.
I only post when there is some issue that comes up that I know something about and want to input. Probably hurts that I only come on here from home every once in a while. I won't post from the office, although I will read the board from there anonymously.
I'm not opposed to down low chatting. I'm no slouch, but I'm certainly not on the level of Don or Eliot and I won't compromise my own house.
