Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
Quote: DRichI doubt that the average player would be better off taking the loss.
It depends on the length of play. I imagine a situation where it would matter is the player stands on 12-16, or doubles to under 17, and the dealer sticks on 17. The player's only hope is to have the dealer hit it out. If the dealer does, his chances of busing are 21.21%. So, there is a 21.21% chance of turning a loss to a win, or a swing of two units. Or mentioning the error is worth 0.4242 units.
Coincidentally, the house edge is 0.2125% higher if the dealer hits a soft 17. So, it would take 0.4242/0.002125 = 199.6 hands for the lower house edge to equate to the lost 0.4242 units by keeping your mouth shut.
Personally, I would rather take the bird in the hand and point out the error when I had a stiff hand against a soft 17.
Quote: WizardIt depends on the length of play. I imagine a situation where it would matter is the player stands on 12-16, or doubles to under 17, and the dealer sticks on 17. The player's only hope is to have the dealer hit it out. If the dealer does, his chances of busing are 21.21%. So, there is a 21.21% chance of turning a loss to a win, or a swing of two units. Or mentioning the error is worth 0.4242 units.
Coincidentally, the house edge is 0.2125% higher if the dealer hits a soft 17. So, it would take 0.4242/0.002125 = 199.6 hands for the lower house edge to equate to the lost 0.4242 units by keeping your mouth shut.
Personally, I would rather take the bird in the hand and point out the error when I had a stiff hand against a soft 17.
To be noted: Just because you fix the dealer error doesn't mean he'll be fixed going forward. On the other hand, not fixing the dealer error doesn't mean he won't deal properly going forward.
I usually assume a dealer error is a one time thing, although I don't block out the possibility it'll happen again. If the dealer is grossly incompetent, that's a different story. I saw (sort of) a dealer deal a DD shoe (or whatever you call it) completely backwards, like from third base to first base....shoe before and after was normal. He also had an A showing, asked insurance, a few did, he checked, nobody home....dealt out the player's hit cards.....flipped a T in the hole, hit it with another T, then an 8, then a 5 and "busted" (or something like that). Floorman was watching....basically said "f*** this" didn't do anything walked over to me and told me what happened and what I thought he should do....and I was like meh, nothing probably.
You never know what you're gonna see.
Quote: CanyoneroIn this article you will find some interesting perspectives on the Ivey / Borgata case, including the written Baccarat agreement.
As KGB would say... 'Pay.. dat.. man.. hizzz money' ! Although, I still contend that there was an insider at the card manufacturing facility... otherwise that Chinese woman is the most brilliant, preceptive, and focused women every to walk the earth. How did she figure out the patterns on specific decks of cards without someone giving her a hint? When big money is involved, anyone and anything can be bought.
Really? Do your homework.Quote: WatchMeWinAlthough, I still contend that there was an insider at the card manufacturing facility... otherwise that Chinese woman is the most brilliant, preceptive, and focused women every to walk the earth. How did she figure out the patterns on specific decks of cards without someone giving her a hint? When big money is involved, anyone and anything can be bought.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/survey-of-sortable-cards/
These defects are in about 70% of cards in use and are obvious to the casual observer. That's why people have been edge sorting for the last 50 years. For example, Stanford Wong wrote about it in 1993 in his book Blackjack Secrets. You just don't know about it. That doesn't mean others don't.
Here are a few other references to edge sorting:
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/a-few-historical-references-to-edge-sorting/
Use Google and/or listen to experts before stating things that are easily refuted and demonstrably wrong. Then again, don't do that, and let us form a fair opinion of you based on your willingness to say things that have no merit whatsoever.
FYI - I was Ivey's expert witness in his 2014 lawsuit against Crockford's Casino.
Quote: teliotMy article on the topic was just posted:
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting-future/
UK Supreme Court Will Review Ivey-Crockfords Case
Teliot summarizes previous history in his link, above.
But now the UK Supreme Court has decided to review the case. Earlier UK court decisions went against Ivey, while still saying he had not cheated the Baccarat game in question. The UK Supreme Court only hears cases which raise issues of general public importance. One issue with this case is that the previous court decisions have apparently left the UK gaming regulations in an "undefined" situation that somehow must be resolved.
Here's a link to current news:
UK Supreme Court Will Hear Phil Ivey's Gambling Case
Stay tuned. Film at eleven.
It seems the oh-so-quiet battle Phil Ivey has with Crockfords casino in London is once again heating up.
If you cannot recall details of this David vs. Goliath struggle, Teliot summarized previous history in this link:
UK Supreme Court Will Hear Phil Ivey's Gambling Case
The article referenced below says the UK Supreme Court heard arguments today and soon will render the final, Final, FINAL decision on this long, drawn-out legal struggle.
UK Supreme Court to hear Ivey’s final appeal on 13-Jul-2017
The legal issues are rather tangled so I won't try to summarize them here. As I've noted before, I sure hope Ivey can win the case. Stay tuned.
UK court dismissed his case on the basis that dishonesty was not a necessary element of cheating. Genting said "edge-sorting" is not a legitimate strategy,
Google is your friend for more info.
Yes, he lost.
>>>>> wonder how much that has cost him?
I think he was merely the front man for the Chinese woman and doubt their agreement will ever be public
>>>>UK court dismissed his case on the basis that dishonesty was not a necessary element of cheating.
Mere interference with the process is sufficient, but Ivey did not interfere with the process or touch the cards, his acts were no more cheating than if he had asked a blackjack dealer to "look at your hole card as you deal it and tell me what it is because I'm superstitious and a big shot player." Surely the burden should be on the casino.
>>>> Genting said "edge-sorting" is not a legitimate strategy,
How many players attempt to edge sort and would indeed edge sort if they were able to? Its a strategy that the casino does not want people to use and that is unknown to many players but query as to legitimacy.
>>>>>Google is your friend for more info.
My only friend right now is coffee.
Quote: FleaStiff
How many players attempt to edge sort and would indeed edge sort if they were able to? Its a strategy that the casino does not want people to use and that is unknown to many players but query as to legitimacy.
Every casino I have played in, including Genting establishments in the UK and overseas, all the cards have a border, the rear pattern does not extend to the edge of the card, way too much fuss about potential copy-cats.
Quote: CyrusVPhil Ivey lost his appeal at the Supreme court, wonder how much that has cost him?
UK court dismissed his case on the basis that dishonesty was not a necessary element of cheating. Genting said "edge-sorting" is not a legitimate strategy,
Google is your friend for more info.
I like Richard Marcus's take on it. I said the same thing from the get go and agree with his assessment.
http://richardmarcus-pokercheats.blogspot.com/2017/10/casino-cheat-phil-ivey-finally-shit.html?m=1
Quote: IbeatyouracesI like Richard Marcus's take on it. I said the same thing from the get go and agree with his assessment.
http://richardmarcus-pokercheats.blogspot.com/2017/10/casino-cheat-phil-ivey-finally-shit.html?m=1
Have you read some of his other "blog entries" (if you can even call them that)? He's a complete idiot and there is nothing of substance in his blog entries. They remind me of some youtube videos that are like 7 minutes long, with a 2-3 minute intro and a 1 minute outro, with a mediocre 3-4 minutes in between.
I think he had some trouble at the Borgata, something about a poker game in a room that for some players was video poker but the other players thought it was just poker.
Or have I gotten a name mixed up?
Quote: RSHave you read some of his other "blog entries" (if you can even call them that)? He's a complete idiot and there is nothing of substance in his blog entries. They remind me of some youtube videos that are like 7 minutes long, with a 2-3 minute intro and a 1 minute outro, with a mediocre 3-4 minutes in between.
Yes I've read them and they don't matter. What Ivey did amounts to collusion. The dealers didn't have to know what was going on. It's no different then me asking the dealer to flash a hole card. There's a huge difference between an intentional act and unintentional one. Ivey's was intentional. And as far as I'm concerned, this makes all of his poker "winnings" suspect too.
Phil Ivey always appeared half dead, I assume it was an act.
Quote: FleaStiffI know some of those televised games were bankrolled by syndicates so the players were not really playing with their own money.
Phil Ivey always appeared half dead, I assume it was an act.
Most of these pros are staked by their sponsors. Especially for tournaments. They're basically free rolling for a percentage of any win.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd as far as I'm concerned, this makes all of his poker "winnings" suspect too.
I do believe some of his WSOP bracelets are suspect. I have heard rumors from people in Vegas that they suspect he paid people to dump chips to him to build a big stack.
Quote: DRichI do believe some of his WSOP bracelets are suspect. I have heard rumors from people in Vegas that they suspect he paid people to dump chips to him to build a big stack.
He scammed his way into casinos illegally as a minor back in A.C. There's no telling what stops he'll do to scam again.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHe scammed his way into casinos illegally as a minor back in A.C. There's no telling what stops he'll do to scam again.
Oh c'mon I don't think you can equate sneaking into a casino when you're underage to cheating.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHe scammed his way into casinos illegally as a minor back in A.C. There's no telling what stops he'll do to scam again.
I may have done that.
I have no issues with him playing advantages and I would have done the edge sorting too if I had the skills, opportunity and bankroll.
We should have a discussion about how dishonest the casinos are.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI like Richard Marcus's take on it. I said the same thing from the get go and agree with his assessment.
http://richardmarcus-pokercheats.blogspot.com/2017/10/casino-cheat-phil-ivey-finally-shit.html?m=1
I totally disagree with Richard Marcus,
It doesn't matter what reason Ivey gave to the casino for them to deal in the manner he wanted
Ie..superstition,the casino agreed to it with the full intention of separating a sucker from his money.
When they realized they had been tricked they went crying to the authorities.
Quote: FleaStiffIsn't Richard Marcus the guy that claims to have made a living cheating in Vegas by bribing dealers and then tried to parlay that into a career as a cheating consultant only to find that casinos don't hire ex-thieves?
I think he had some trouble at the Borgata, something about a poker game in a room that for some players was video poker but the other players thought it was just poker.
Or have I gotten a name mixed up?
You are confusing him with Steve Forte.
Richard Marcus scammed the casinos,so he says,and now he's scamming people with his blog.
You can tell by his articles that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Quote: IbeatyouracesYes I've read them and they don't matter. What Ivey did amounts to collusion. The dealers didn't have to know what was going on. It's no different then me asking the dealer to flash a hole card. There's a huge difference between an intentional act and unintentional one. Ivey's was intentional. And as far as I'm concerned, this makes all of his poker "winnings" suspect too.
I think a better comparison would be if you asked casino management to tell the dealer to flash the card.
Quote: HunterhillI think a better comparison would be if you asked casino management to tell the dealer to flash the card.
If management agreed to allow the dealers to turn the cards, then I'll change my view.
But if they did allow it, why did he need Mandarin speaking dealers?
Isn't that part of being a skilled AP, knowing how far to go and when to leave.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf management agreed to allow the dealers to turn the cards, then I'll change my view.
But if they did allow it, why did he need Mandarin speaking dealers?
I can't speculate on that ,but even though they were speaking Mandarin there were supervisors watching, they clearly should have noticed that the dealer was turning the cards.
I Doubt they were saying,ok the floor isn't watching turn the cards,now oh don't do it now because the floor is here.
For the amount of money they were betting the pit boss as well as shift manager,and possibly casino manager would have been watching the game.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf management agreed to allow the dealers to turn the cards, then I'll change my view.
But if they did allow it, why did he need Mandarin speaking dealers?
You don't think that table was being watched 24/7 by surveillance and had higher-than-normal attention by the floor people? What was happening was as clear as day.
I suspect the Mandarin speaking dealers was for Sun Li Heu Hung or whatever her name is.....there's a GWAE podcast with her and she can hardly speak English (IMO).
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf management agreed to allow the dealers to turn the cards, then I'll change my view.
But if they did allow it, why did he need Mandarin speaking dealers?
The reason management allowed the dealers to turn the cards is obvious to me.
Ivey requested playing cards with card-backs that allow one to edge sort. As Dr. Jacobson (Teliot in WoV) noted, edge sorting is an advantage play known to the casino industry for over 100 years and referenced in table game management manuals for decades. I can only believe Crockfords knew edge sorting was an advantage play and that the game Phil requested would allow Sun and him to edge sort.
So, when Phil lied saying he wanted to humor his Chinese companion by allowing her to sense the "energy" of the cards (or whatever), the casino lied saying it agreed to offer that as a fair baccarat game. If Phil lost his money, too bad for Phil. If Phil won lots of casino money, the casino would scream, "he cheated," and would refuse to pay his winnings. Yes, he cheated, and the casino knew that when it allowed the jiggered game. The fact that this dispute went all the way to England's highest court, probably had lots of Crockford executives pissing in their pants because the case wasn't immediately and completely decided in favor of the casino.
Gaming regulators (I assume UK has some) should have asked Crockford who was the ignorant nincompoop who allowed such a game to be offered, since the casino was an involved party from the start in a game all should have known favored the player. IMHO, when the casino lost its money, it went to the court with dirty hands.
As for Mandarin, who cares? Dealers rotate and go on breaks. When dealers rotated, how come suits didn't ask the dealers why they were sometimes rotating cards (assuming that was not approved beforehand and that the dealers would agree to do that without first checking with a suit)? You know with the high bet levels in Ivey's game, surveillance was watching closely, probably with multiple cameras running. He wants Mandarin? Give it. He wants Chinese cards (or other special cards)? Give it. He wants some cards rotated? Give it. Does he want the cards put in the shoe face up? Give it.
Did Ivey have Mandarin speaking dealers at Borgata? NJ baccarat regulations are so detailed they specify which hand the dealer uses to draw cards from the shoe and what exact words are to be spoken when, fer cryin' out loud. And, the regs say it isn't a legal game if it isn't done according to the regulations. Both Crockfords and Borgata knew durn well what they were doing, and it's called: Heads I win; tails you lose.
Nevertheless, I am not surprised every ruling in both jurisdictions have gone against him. I think the courts and gaming authorities are more likely to see things from the casino's point of view. I will admit a bias the other way.
Quote: HunterhillYou are confusing him with Steve Forte.
Marcus has written some books. I read "American Roulette" a few years back.
http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/reviews.php
Quote: JohnnyQMarcus has written some books. I read "American Roulette" a few years back.
http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/reviews.php
Yes I have read that book as well as one he wrote on cheating at poker.
In the above example I meant he was confusing him with Steve Forte in regards to the cheating incident in a Borgata hotel room.
Quote: CyrusVEvery casino I have played in, including Genting establishments in the UK and overseas, all the cards have a border, the rear pattern does not extend to the edge of the card, way too much fuss about potential copy-cats.
There is no such animal as a perfectly cut and centered card. Every card from every manufacturer is subject to edge sorting.
Quote: FCBLComishThere is no such animal as a perfectly cut and centered card. Every card from every manufacturer is subject to edge sorting.
Ummm... I don't think so.
I've played at casinos where the cards were a uniform color on the back side. About one-third of the way down the card was the name of the casino plus the name again (upside down) one-third of the way up from the bottom. Each name about the size of a dime.
I don't see how those cards lend themselves to edge sorting. Nothing -- nothing at all -- is close to the edge.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/survey-of-sortable-cards
Although it might be topcarding in that situation if there’s no ink to be seen on the edge? Not sure if topcarding refers to something else.
Quote: RSNothing needs to be near the edge for a card to be edge sorted.
Riiiight! So, that's why they call it "edge sorting."
Because whether there is a distinct pattern difference there, or whether there is no pattern there, the edge can still be used to sort the cards. The very, VERY small edge revealed by the shoe.
Hmmm... I don't think so.
(edited because I accidently hit Post before finishing my text.)
Quote: LuckyPhowRiiiight! So, that's why they call it "edge sorting."
Because whether there is a distinct pattern difference there, or whether there is no pattern there, the edge can still be used to sort the cards. The very, VERY small edge revealed by the shoe.
Hmmm... I don't think so.
(edited because I accidently hit Post before finishing my text.)
Imagine the following card with faded off edges so there are no asymmetries on the edges and one of the "Borgata" logos are removed. Surely you don't believe such a card cannot be sorted.
Quote: RSImagine the following card with faded off edges so there are no asymmetries on the edges and one of the "Borgata" logos are removed. Surely you don't believe such a card cannot be sorted.
There are still places that have one logo on one end and a different one on the other.
Explain the situation to gaming and to
The casino who
Still had no
Clue and refused to pay
Quote: WizardofnothingGaming and judges know very little, I hit a jackpot this week and had to call gaming over being refused a payout. I had to basically
Explain the situation to gaming and to
The casino who
Still had no
Clue and refused to pay
I would be interested to here what was being disputed even if you have to change up some of the details to stay anonymous.
Quote: RSImagine the following card with faded off edges so there are no asymmetries on the edges and one of the "Borgata" logos are removed. Surely you don't believe such a card cannot be sorted.
Hmmm... Sorta confusing with the double negatives in your last sentence. My comments:
- I think it would be difficult to edge-sort the card in your picture.
- Regardless of whether the card you described had one Borgata logo or two, if the edges were asymmetric (i.e., visually distinct from one another), I agree such cards could be vulnerable to edge sorting. But, the logos are unimportant because they are sufficiently distant from the edge to impact edge-sorting vulnerabilities one way or the other.
- My comment referred to the post by FCBLComish, which stated, "Every card from every manufacturer is subject to edge sorting." Imagine the card you showed with the two Borgata logos, but the rest of the card a uniform full-bleed-to-the-edge blue (or other) color. I believe a card such as that would be impossible to edge sort, where only a small portion of the long edge of the card shows in the shoe. That's pretty close to perfect symmetry in my book.
Phil Ivey had to request a VERY specific card style from a specific manufacturer so Sun could edge-sort the cards. You and FCBLComish seem to suggest any cards could have been used for edge sorting. I don't think so. My 2 cents.
Quote: LuckyPhowBut, the logos are unimportant because they are sufficiently distant from the edge to impact edge-sorting vulnerabilities one way or the other.
Dont be so naive.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/edge-sorting-the-most-dangerous-card
Quote: IbeatyouracesQuote: LuckyPhowBut, the logos are unimportant because they are sufficiently distant from the edge to impact edge-sorting vulnerabilities one way or the other.
Dont be so naive.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/edge-sorting-the-most-dangerous-card
??? WTF?
As far as I can tell, the article you reference makes no comment about the logo being involved in edge sorting. It shows cards where the most tiny triangles on the edges are not equally symmetric. That's what edge-sorting is all about.
Also, the corners on the two cards in the article you referenced are not equally symmetric in how they are rounded, and that also is an edge-sorting vulnerability. I guess the cards were made that way on purpose, but I cannot help but wonder if that is how the casino "cancelled" them so they could be sold after the casino finished using them. The article doesn't speak to that at all.
How does the article you referenced indicate the logo is key to the cards being edge sorted? Someone may be naive, but it may not be me.
What you Don't know, you don't know.
