Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.
Quote: MidwestAP'Edge Sorting' is the name of a technique used to align cards of certain values in a way that provides an advantage on subsequent plays of the same card. It is often and most usually (to my knowledge) done using the asymmetry of the edges of card backs, thus deriving the name 'edge sorting'. But, that doesn't make it exclusive to only asymmetric edges. Any asymmetry in the card back is susceptible to edge sorting, such as logo's, and other asymmetric designs, boxes, colors, etc.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.
Looks good go me.
Quote: MidwestAP'Edge Sorting' is the name of a technique used to align cards of certain values in a way that provides an advantage on subsequent plays of the same card. It is often and most usually (to my knowledge) done using the asymmetry of the edges of card backs, thus deriving the name 'edge sorting'. But, that doesn't make it exclusive to only asymmetric edges. Any asymmetry in the card back is susceptible to edge sorting, such as logo's, and other asymmetric designs, boxes, colors, etc.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.
It is generally called that because it needs to be the edge of the card. Usually only the edge is visible when looking at the next card coming out of the shoe..
It may be different in inside the private VIP rooms, I somehow doubt it.
Quote: HunterhillInthe above example I meant he was confusing him with Steve Forte in regards to the cheating incident in a Borgata hotel room.
Yes. you are correct, I was totally confused as to the names involved and was indeed thinking of Steve Forte who was the one arrested at the Borgata "video" poker incident. Thank you. I did not mean to confuse anyone since obviously I was sufficiently confused already.
the fact remains, however, that former crooks do not have good prospects to become consultants to casinos for the simple reason that people just do not place trust in ex-cons.
It was a bid to triple the judgement to $30 million.
The first attempt failed but they have appealed.
It will give a black mark to rico and AP if 2 people now make up a criminal organization (and he wasnt even charged with a crime smh)
https://www.playusa.com/phil-ivey-lawsuit-poker/
Lawyers always ask for the moon on the theory that they just might get it. Most RICO filings are attempts to get a speedy trial and a better judge. Sounds good in a press release too.Quote: darkozThe Borgata also attempted to claim Ivey and Sun constituted a criminal partnership and sued under Rico laws
It was a bid to triple the judgement to $30 million.
Quote: GWAEman they even had claim to his bracelet if he won the event.
It's worth money that Borgata deserves, imo. Imo, he violated NJ's "swindling" statute and should pay.
How dumb do you have to be to hire such fools who don't know about edge sorting?
Even the supervisor was dumb.
https://www.uspoker.com/blog/ivey-appeal-borgata/26052/
As of march 2019 Ivey has filed to 3rd circuit court of appeals based on request to show cause for gambling statutes that were violated.
In essence they are claiming the trial judge used his judgment and NOT gambling statutes to determine Ivey marked cards (which again they contest since he never touched them)
The fact that Ivey must pay back half a mil in Craps winnings as well points to the trial judge being full of crap.
Can ANYONE please point to a NJ statute that says if a person wins thru deceptive means at one game HE ALSO HAS TO RETURN ANY WINNINGS HE GOT FROM LEGIT PLAYING???
Finally, the article states that in order to proceed with this appeal, IVEY PUT UP A 10.1 MILLION BOND.
Ivey has already handed over the cash although its being held in bond until the appeals decision
If Ivey loses again this grab by Borgata will have to be refunded/handed back.
And if Ivey wins, Borgata wi will have to hand over the money as well plus forfeit their 10 mil
Quote: tringlomaneIt's worth money that Borgata deserves, imo. Imo, he violated NJ's "swindling" statute and should pay.
I dont know all of the obscure laws but I am surprised you are on the side of the casino here.
Yes the bracelet is worth money but imo it should be valued more than just the gold value. If I won it, it is worth more than just the 1k or whatever it is worth.
Quote: GWAEI dont know all of the obscure laws but I am surprised you are on the side of the casino here.
Yes the bracelet is worth money but imo it should be valued more than just the gold value. If I won it, it is worth more than just the 1k or whatever it is worth.
Here is the swindling law in question
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-5/section-5-12-113/
Opinions are worthless.
Swindling of millions would be a first degree offense.
Point of fact Ivey has not been charged with this crime.
Anyone's opinion that edge sorting constitutes swindling is just that. An opinion and not rooted in legal fact.
Trust me, with Borgata going as hard as they have after Ivey, anyone who believes they did not charge him with swindling when they had an opportunity is ridiculous
Ivey didnt swindle. Borgata knows that and never pursued charges. End of story!
A perfect example! Their wine cellar didn't change but somehow its a bit less likely that you are going to be interested in the Borgata or impressed by it in any way. And a glass of wine from some other casino will be viewed as more of interest.Quote: beachbumbabsAll I can say is, for 6 years I had Borgata listed in my profile here under "favorite casino". No longer. What a cheesy move.
I believe the judge hung his hat on that - that Ivy was doing more than merely participating, he was directing.
Stepping back from the argument, which I will agree there are points on both sides, it just gets back to that these poker players can't stop "gambling" and this is part of their downfall. Assuming they are good enough to win consistently at poker, still they can't seem to stay away from games of chance and sports betting. But the difference from regular gamblers is that the successful poker players have too large of a bankroll and feel invincible, which ends up taking them down.
At this point I'm not even sure if Archie Karas ever played an honest game of cards.
Quote: darkoz
Ivey didnt swindle. Borgata knows that and never pursued charges. End of story!
Isn’t a lot of what is going on also an attempt to scare into a settlement by both sides? or maybe they’ve passed that point.
Quote: rxwineIsn’t a lot of what is going on also an attempt to scare into a settlement by both sides? or maybe they’ve passed that point.
They are past that.
Since Ivey HAS put $10.1 million bond during the appeal, there is no way the Borgata can be frightened they dont receive their money... IF they prevail.
There is still the possibility Ivey prevails and Borgata doesnt get another dime and even has to pay back what they have garnished.
So why do it?
Well, if Ivey has over ten mil in limbo and every asset he still has along with winnings is garnished as well he may be left broke enough that he cant pay his high powered attorneys
I am certain that is the Borgata main motive at this point. Drive him under financially and persevere by default
Quote: FleaStiffActualy , I believe the instructions were given in Chinese to the Oriental dealer, which is akin to telling the croupier to not spin the ball, just drop it directly into the slot.
Hardly!
Even with first card knowledge there was a chance Ivey could lose any given hand. Not the same as dropping a roulette ball directly into a number.
Furthermore the house was aware of the requests and accommodated them. One of those requests was a dealer who spoke mandarin. The Borgata had to know Mandarin was going to be spoken.
Finally, this was a trained dealer. Regardless of any language spoken if she thought there was something untoward she would have alerted her superiors.
I am certain there are plenty of comparisons we can make but dropping a roulette ball into the slotted number isnt one of them
From what stories I read, Ivy has not posted the bond. Did you read otherwise? If the bond had been posted, I don’t think Borgata could have garnished the winnings also.Quote: darkozThey are past that.
Since Ivey HAS put $10.1 million bond during the appeal, there is no way the Borgata can be frightened they dont receive their money... IF they prevail.
There is still the possibility Ivey prevails and Borgata doesnt get another dime and even has to pay back what they have garnished.
So why do it?
Well, if Ivey has over ten mil in limbo and every asset he still has along with winnings is garnished as well he may be left broke enough that he cant pay his high powered attorneys
I am certain that is the Borgata main motive at this point. Drive him under financially and persevere by default
Quote: unJonFrom what stories I read, Ivy has not posted the bond. Did you read otherwise? If the bond had been posted, I don’t think Borgata could have garnished the winnings also.
The later article states as you say that he has avoided bond during appeal
Apparently that is unusual and the bond is normally required
That may be the reason for the confusion
Quote: cwwbjrHow do you edge sort in baccarat? Even if I show you the first card of the current round and you place your bet/ bets ,How do you know the sequence of the next 3, and if/then card 4 ,or 5 and where they will land ( B or P )? Unless you can explain that as cheating , or at least show a mathematical advantage therein , I would agree with Phil's legitimate win. I personally think he used other AP skills that he has acquired and the edge sorting is a decoy to renege.
Someone will correct me if I'm misremembering this, but.
The cards were somehow non-symmetrical on the backs, from side to side. Might have been how they were die-cut, might have been in the design.
They were shuffled but not turned. So all the backs lined up the same. 6 decks. A shoe has the leading side edge of the next card exposed about 1/4 inch, with a horseshoe-shaped thumb hole that's about 1"x1" in the middle of the side, so some of the design can be seen.
Ivey and Sun made an agreement with Borgata before the game started that they would get to use the same decks through the entire weekend. That their shoe would be locked up when they weren't playing, and the decks would not be changed. This was a superstition of theirs.
The same cards were shuffled and replaced in the shoe each time. The shuffle was very specific, no washing, no spinning.
The first play through the deck, each time an 8 or 9 came up, they had the dealer spin the card for superstition before placing it in the discard rack. So, with them only cutting off 16 cards at the end (standard), by the time they played through the first shoe, the deck was rigged.
Once the 2nd and all subsequent shoes were loaded, they would always know when the first card off the deck was an 8 or 9 because they could see the side edge. You place your only bet in baccarat before the cards are dealt.
Assuming the first card goes to Player, they would bet huge on Player each time they saw an 8 or 9 coming. Since there are 4 good cards for a 9 and 5 good cards for an 8, and a couple more each that don't hurt much, they had an advantage. Bet low on non-8 or 9 first cards (or bet Banker), bet high on Player when an 8 or 9 is coming.
Everything else they might have done (other superstitions, comments, whatever) was distraction designed to mask the card-turning. Reportedly Sun was the one who could see the pattern difference. And she was the one who gave the dealer instructions on their superstitions at the table.
Part of the superstition was that only the dealer would touch the cards. Not touching the cards helped ensure both no bending of the cards (requiring fresh decks) and also gave Borgata a false sense of security in dealing to them.
Quote: WizardI 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?
.
§ 5:12-113. Swindling and cheating; penalties
a. A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.
b. Consolidation of offenses. Conduct denominated swindling and cheating in this section constitutes a single offense, but each episode or transaction may be the subject of a separate prosecution and conviction. A charge of swindling and cheating may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be swindling and cheating under this section, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the indictment or accusation, subject only to the power of the court to ensure a fair trial by granting a bill of particulars, discovery, continuance, or other appropriate relief when the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by a lack of fair notice or by surprise.
c. Grading of swindling and cheating offenses.
(1) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the second degree if the amount involved is $75,000 or more.
(2) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $500.
(3) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the fourth degree if the amount involved is at least $200 but not more than $500.
(4) Swindling and cheating constitutes a disorderly persons offense if the amount involved is less than $200.
(5) The amount involved in swindling and cheating shall be determined by the trier of fact. Amounts involved in acts of swindling and cheating committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
§ 5:12-113. Swindling and cheating; penalties, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-113 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-051Y-00000-00&context=1516831.
Quote: Gandler.
§ 5:12-113. Swindling and cheating; penalties
a. A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.
b. Consolidation of offenses. Conduct denominated swindling and cheating in this section constitutes a single offense, but each episode or transaction may be the subject of a separate prosecution and conviction. A charge of swindling and cheating may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be swindling and cheating under this section, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the indictment or accusation, subject only to the power of the court to ensure a fair trial by granting a bill of particulars, discovery, continuance, or other appropriate relief when the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by a lack of fair notice or by surprise.
c. Grading of swindling and cheating offenses.
(1) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the second degree if the amount involved is $75,000 or more.
(2) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $500.
(3) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the fourth degree if the amount involved is at least $200 but not more than $500.
(4) Swindling and cheating constitutes a disorderly persons offense if the amount involved is less than $200.
(5) The amount involved in swindling and cheating shall be determined by the trier of fact. Amounts involved in acts of swindling and cheating committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
§ 5:12-113. Swindling and cheating; penalties, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-113 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-051Y-00000-00&context=1516831.
Gandler
I think you might be mistaking the language of the word "trick"
Tricking the dealer isnt what they mean
Specifically the wording is "by any trick or sleight of hand performance"
This would mean the person guitly would have to do the sleight of hand or trick "performance (physical act). I.e. manipulation of the card thru a physical trick performed by the violator. Which would require him to touch the cards
Again, it doesn't mean tricking the casino into doing your bidding
Under this law Ivey is not guilty of swindling
Quote: darkozGandler
I think you might be mistaking the language of the word "trick"
Tricking the dealer isnt what they mean
Specifically the wording is "by any trick or sleight of hand performance"
This would mean the person guitly would have to do the sleight of hand or trick "performance (physical act). I.e. manipulation of the card thru a physical trick performed by the violator. Which would require him to touch the cards
Again, it doesn't mean tricking the casino into doing your bidding
Under this law Ivey is not guilty of swindling
Well, it appears courts would disagree.
NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....
“t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”
Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx
This is the other section they cited as him violating:
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.
c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.
Summary:
HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.
If you're owed money I think you have the right to collect it. I'm not sure why that's cheesy, I think it was pretty damn smart of them. This could end his poker tournament playing. I'm wondering if they could even go after his cash in cash games?Quote: beachbumbabsAll I can say is, for 6 years I had Borgata listed in my profile here under "favorite casino". No longer. What a cheesy move.
If I was the Borgata I will go after him as well.
I don't blame the Borgata I don't blame him.
It's the judges and gaming who got this wrong IMO.
Quote: GandlerWell, it appears courts would disagree.
NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....
“t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”
Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx
This is the other section they cited as him violating:
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.
c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.
Summary:
HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.
Those are the Borgata attorney arguments so they are going to state that.
The current appeal is declaring that the trial judge completely misinterpreted that law as you point out above.
Part B says it is illegal to "use or possess". Apparently now a card never touched is being used and possessed?
By that definition all the players at a roulette table are using and possessing the ball and wheel.
In the end the ccc has been given statutory oversight and that is the basis for this appeal. For the CCC to determine its statutory definitions of these very wordings
So at best we should just agree its up in the air pending appeal
Quote: darkozQuote: GandlerWell, it appears courts would disagree.
NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....
“t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”
Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx
This is the other section they cited as him violating:
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.
c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.
Summary:
HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.
Those are the Borgata attorney arguments so they are going to state that.
The current appeal is declaring that the trial judge completely misinterpreted that law as you point out above.
Part B says it is illegal to "use or possess". Apparently now a card never touched is being used and possessed?
By that definition all the players at a roulette table are using and possessing the ball and wheel.
In the end the ccc has been given statutory oversight and that is the basis for this appeal. For the CCC to determine its statutory definitions of these very wordings
So at best we should just agree its up in the air pending appeal
I think the or is key there "use OR possess". He was using marked cards, even if he or his partner did not handle or mark them himself.
I doubt that the appeal will be successful, but like you said we neve know.
Quote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerWell, it appears courts would disagree.
NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....
“t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”
Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx
This is the other section they cited as him violating:
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.
c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.
§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.
Summary:
HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.
Those are the Borgata attorney arguments so they are going to state that.
The current appeal is declaring that the trial judge completely misinterpreted that law as you point out above.
Part B says it is illegal to "use or possess". Apparently now a card never touched is being used and possessed?
By that definition all the players at a roulette table are using and possessing the ball and wheel.
In the end the ccc has been given statutory oversight and that is the basis for this appeal. For the CCC to determine its statutory definitions of these very wordings
So at best we should just agree its up in the air pending appeal
I think the or is key there "use OR possess". He was using marked cards, even if he or his partner did not handle or mark them himself.
I doubt that the appeal will be successful, but like you said we neve know.
Agreed.
And yet this whole case has been of s civil nature. Why no criminal charges for criminality?
I suspect there is enough vagueness to not be able to muster a conviction with a jury.
For example, you say he used marked cards? Where did the markings come from? Apparently from Gemaco.
Those same edge irregularities are on all card packs. So are all cards marked?
Can a jury be convinced that cards ALREADY POSSESSING the marks that sun and Ivey used be attributed to criminality on their part?
Any competent defense attorney would have a field day and thats probably why no charges were ever brought
Quote: beachbumbabsSomeone will correct me if I'm misremembering this, but.
I don't see a reply to your post so will advise of a few corrections FYI only.....
The cards were somehow non-symmetrical on the backs, from side to side. Might have been how they were die-cut, might have been in the design.
TOP TO BOTTOM........THE LONG EDGES WERE NOT EQUAL/SYMMETRICAL....
They were shuffled but not turned. So all the backs lined up the same. 6 decks. A shoe has the leading side edge of the next card exposed about 1/4 inch, with a horseshoe-shaped thumb hole that's about 1"x1" in the middle of the side, so some of the design can be seen.
A CONTINIOUS SHUFFLER WAS USED IF I RECALL...AND THE SHOE EXPOSURE DIDN'T MATTER. A CONDITION WAS TO PLAY 'MACAU STYLE' WHERE ALL FOUR OF THE CARDS ARE DEALT OUT FACE DOWN SO THEY HAD ABILITY OF COURSE TO SEE BOTH BACK SIDES OF BOTH THE PLAYER AND BANKER HAND. NOT SURE IF SIX OR EIGHT DECKS, EIGHT IS COMMON IN BACCARAT.
Ivey and Sun made an agreement with Borgata before the game started that they would get to use the same decks through the entire weekend. That their shoe would be locked up when they weren't playing, and the decks would not be changed. This was a superstition of theirs.
The same cards were shuffled and replaced in the shoe each time. The shuffle was very specific, no washing, no spinning.
The first play through the deck, each time an 8 or 9 came up, they had the dealer spin the card for superstition before placing it in the discard rack. So, with them only cutting off 16 cards at the end (standard), by the time they played through the first shoe, the deck was rigged.
Once the 2nd and all subsequent shoes were loaded, they would always know when the first card off the deck was an 8 or 9 because they could see the side edge. You place your only bet in baccarat before the cards are dealt.
AS MENTIONED, MACAU STYLE ALLOWS ALL FOUR TO BE DEALT OUT FACE DOWN.
Assuming the first card goes to Player, they would bet huge on Player each time they saw an 8 or 9 coming. Since there are 4 good cards for a 9 and 5 good cards for an 8, and a couple more each that don't hurt much, they had an advantage. Bet low on non-8 or 9 first cards (or bet Banker), bet high on Player when an 8 or 9 is coming.
DITTO ETC. ON BANKER.
Everything else they might have done (other superstitions, comments, whatever) was distraction designed to mask the card-turning. Reportedly Sun was the one who could see the pattern difference. And she was the one who gave the dealer instructions on their superstitions at the table.
Part of the superstition was that only the dealer would touch the cards. Not touching the cards helped ensure both no bending of the cards (requiring fresh decks) and also gave Borgata a false sense of security in dealing to them.
in order to appeal, you have to put up the $ you owe first??Quote: darkozThis whole battle is still ongoing in the courts in case u guys dont know.
https://www.uspoker.com/blog/ivey-appeal-borgata/26052/
Finally, the article states that in order to proceed with this appeal, IVEY PUT UP A 10.1 MILLION BOND.
that normal?
also, what if Ivey doesnt have all that $ anymore?
ie: paid 33% is taxes so he's down to about $7M
I am thinking that Ivey's Chinese friend who was the one who could read the cards must have been paid something too, maybe she already got her cut of the Borgata money leaving now Ivey alone to deal with the aftermath.
As far as why he wasn't prosecuted criminally the standard of proof is much higher in a criminal case than civil. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "preponderance of evidence." Think, OJ and Robert Blake.
if Ivey did file the appeal already before the wsop, then why was Borgata able to go after him for his $100k+ wsop winnings in event #58?Quote: MDawgThere were two lawsuits filed, one over winnings withheld (Crockfords), one over winnings paid out (Borgata). Ivey lost both. The judgment against Ivey is to repay what he did collect. I believe he does have to post a bond to stay execution of judgment pending appeal. The cost of a bond is substantial, but not ten million, probably more like 100 - 200K per year. The cost of these two lawsuits must be quite a lot too though, and at least in the Crockfords one Ivey is pretty much done there he is not going to collect and is not going to recoup those attorney's fees.
I am thinking that Ivey's Chinese friend who was the one who could read the cards must have been paid something too, maybe she already got her cut of the Borgata money leaving now Ivey alone to deal with the aftermath.
As far as why he wasn't prosecuted criminally the standard of proof is much higher in a criminal case than civil. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "preponderance of evidence." Think, OJ and Robert Blake.
wouldnt the appeal stay any collections?
Because he never posted the appeal bond.Quote: 100xOddsif Ivey did file the appeal already before the wsop, then why was Borgata able to go after him for his $100k+ wsop winnings in event #58?
wouldnt the appeal stay any collections?
He has not.
So Borgata is coming for his winnings.
Ivey took advantage of a situation, Borgata is taking advantage of the law to protect their assets (and no doubt to discourage future behavior).
Both parties are doing what they feel is in their best interest.
It would seem that the cheating/swindling thing is criminal. Maybe I'm misreading it. But if it is criminal, and that has been proven, why are Ivey and Sun not being prosecuted?
I understand the OJ simpson principle: that you can lose a civil trial based on criminal behavior, even if not convicted in a criminal trial. But it's odd that they nobody even tried.
Quote: RigondeauxI think DO's best point is this.
It would seem that the cheating/swindling thing is criminal. Maybe I'm misreading it. But if it is criminal, and that has been proven, why are Ivey and Sun not being prosecuted?
I understand the OJ simpson principle: that you can lose a civil trial based on criminal behavior, even if not convicted in a criminal trial. But it's odd that they nobody even tried.
Call the NJ gaming commission and make a complaint.
It is such a high profile case, I am sure it is on their radar, and there are probably reasons for why they did and did not do certain things.
They could fine both individuals for quite a but of money (based on the amounts they "won" ) so it could be profitable, but it would also probably be a long and expensive trial and investigation.
Quote: GandlerCall the NJ gaming commission and make a complaint.
It is such a high profile case, I am sure it is on their radar, and there are probably reasons for why they did and did not do certain things.
They could fine both individuals for quite a but of money (based on the amounts they "won" ) so it could be profitable, but it would also probably be a long and expensive trial and investigation.
"There are unknown reasons" is not that satisfying of an explanation.
IDK obvious, but I strongly suspect that if they had been capping bets, there would be a criminal prosecution. So, what is the difference?
How many times has someone been meticulously documented as cheating, in court no less, and the prosecutors were like, "nah, it's fine."
Quote: Rigondeaux"There are unknown reasons" is not that satisfying of an explanation.
IDK obvious, but I strongly suspect that if they had been capping bets, there would be a criminal prosecution. So, what is the difference?
How many times has someone been meticulously documented as cheating, in court no less, and the prosecutors were like, "nah, it's fine."
Call and ask?
Or do an open records request?
I can't give you a satisfactory explanation, nobody here can (at least not openly) and only the gaming commission can (maybe if anyone can) , I would recommend: do a FOI request regarding their investigation and post the results here.
The purpose of legalized gambling is for the casino to have an advantage and to make money, among other things (recreation, event centers, etc.). Ivey & co breached their “contract” with Borgata (and CCA) in that they played a game that wasn’t played along the rules or purpose of legalized gambling (casino advantage). Therefore, they broke the rules of gambling.
HOWEVER, they didn’t break the rules of baccarat because in baccarat you’re allowed to touch, bend, etc. the cards, even though Ivey & co didn’t touch, bend, etc. the cards.
Also, Borgata tried to go after them for fraud, RICO, etc. but judge denied that, essentially saying that Ivey asking for certain conditions and misleading the casino about the reasons why he wanted them (he said superstition) doesn’t amount to fraud.
Quote: RSLink was posted early in this thread, I think page 2, 3, or 4 of the “judge’s opinion” (look at page 17 of the opinion mostly). Idk what all that crap is, but I read it, and the TLDR is:
The purpose of legalized gambling is for the casino to have an advantage and to make money, among other things (recreation, event centers, etc.). Ivey & co breached their “contract” with Borgata (and CCA) in that they played a game that wasn’t played along the rules or purpose of legalized gambling (casino advantage). Therefore, they broke the rules of gambling.
HOWEVER, they didn’t break the rules of baccarat because in baccarat you’re allowed to touch, bend, etc. the cards, even though Ivey & co didn’t touch, bend, etc. the cards.
Also, Borgata tried to go after them for fraud, RICO, etc. but judge denied that, essentially saying that Ivey asking for certain conditions and misleading the casino about the reasons why he wanted them (he said superstition) doesn’t amount to fraud.
Borgata cannot go after them for criminal charges, only the state can....
Borgata can only bring civil claims (which they successfully have).
Quote: GandlerBorgata cannot go after them for criminal charges, only the state can....
Borgata can only bring civil claims (which they successfully have).
So Borgata told the state to go after Ivey & co for criminal charges and the judge said no.
