Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
I haven’t read the opinion, but if your summary is accurate then it would pick up blackjack card counting as violating the same swindling statute.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.
Quote: unJonI haven’t read the opinion, but if your summary is accurate then it would pick up blackjack card counting as violating the same swindling statute.
No, in New Jersey counting is actually legally protected.
Casinos cannot ban you or prohibit play for simply counting.
However, they are entitled to limit bet sizes, flat bet you, and revoke comps (this is common, some people have this happen for not counting but just playing unorthodoxy so they appear to be counting, casinos can really pull back all comps for any reason or no reason, even if you are simply just winning too much by chance) for counters.
I believe NJ is the only state that I know of (unless it recently changed) that counting is actually a protected gaming activity.
I am too lazy right now to look at the case in the legal library, but here is the wiki summary:
Atlantic City casinos in the US state of New Jersey are forbidden from barring card counters as a result of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision. In 1979 Ken Uston, a Blackjack Hall of Fame inductee, filed a lawsuit against an Atlantic City casino, claiming that casinos did not have the right to ban skilled players. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed,[22] ruling that "the state's control of Atlantic City's casinos is so complete that only the New Jersey Casino Control Commission has the power to make rules to exclude skillful players." The Commission has made no regulation on card counting, so Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to ban card counters. As they are unable to ban counters even when identified, Atlantic City casinos have increased the use of countermeasures.[23]
Quote: GandlerNo, in New Jersey counting is actually legally protected.
Casinos cannot ban you or prohibit play for simply counting.
However, they are entitled to limit bet sizes, flat bet you, and revoke comps (this is common, some people have this happen for not counting but just playing unorthodoxy so they appear to be counting, casinos can really pull back all comps for any reason or no reason, even if you are simply just winning too much by chance) for counters.
I believe NJ is the only state that I know of (unless it recently changed) that counting is actually a protected gaming activity.
I am too lazy right now to look at the case in the legal library, but here is the wiki summary:
Atlantic City casinos in the US state of New Jersey are forbidden from barring card counters as a result of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision. In 1979 Ken Uston, a Blackjack Hall of Fame inductee, filed a lawsuit against an Atlantic City casino, claiming that casinos did not have the right to ban skilled players. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed,[22] ruling that "the state's control of Atlantic City's casinos is so complete that only the New Jersey Casino Control Commission has the power to make rules to exclude skillful players." The Commission has made no regulation on card counting, so Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to ban card counters. As they are unable to ban counters even when identified, Atlantic City casinos have increased the use of countermeasures.[23]
I’m familiar with the Uston decision and that was my point. Either (a) the judge is wrong or (b) RS’a summary of the rationale was wrong or (c) the swindling statute post dates Uston and card counters beware.
Quote: unJonQuote: GandlerNo, in New Jersey counting is actually legally protected.
Casinos cannot ban you or prohibit play for simply counting.
However, they are entitled to limit bet sizes, flat bet you, and revoke comps (this is common, some people have this happen for not counting but just playing unorthodoxy so they appear to be counting, casinos can really pull back all comps for any reason or no reason, even if you are simply just winning too much by chance) for counters.
I believe NJ is the only state that I know of (unless it recently changed) that counting is actually a protected gaming activity.
I am too lazy right now to look at the case in the legal library, but here is the wiki summary:
Atlantic City casinos in the US state of New Jersey are forbidden from barring card counters as a result of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision. In 1979 Ken Uston, a Blackjack Hall of Fame inductee, filed a lawsuit against an Atlantic City casino, claiming that casinos did not have the right to ban skilled players. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed,[22] ruling that "the state's control of Atlantic City's casinos is so complete that only the New Jersey Casino Control Commission has the power to make rules to exclude skillful players." The Commission has made no regulation on card counting, so Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to ban card counters. As they are unable to ban counters even when identified, Atlantic City casinos have increased the use of countermeasures.[23]
I’m familiar with the Uston decision and that was my point. Either (a) the judge is wrong or (b) RS’a summary of the rationale was wrong or (c) the swindling statute post dates Uston and card counters beware.
A) i agree the judge was most likely wrong.
The whole appeal process is to determine that.
You actually dont argue new points under appeal. The purpose of the appeal is to argue the lower court judge erred or other aspects of law negate the lower court decision. Ivey appeal is claiming lower court judge erred.
B) RS rationale is correct. Which is why Ivey is appealing. See A
C) the swindling statute implies touching the cards. While the Borgata lawyers argued it they also argued for rico to be invoked. I have yet to see any legal analysts state he swindled. Thats a viewpoint only heard on here to my knowledge
As a practical matter, sure. Also depends on what you mean by “cleared” as in found not guilty or actually evidence came out that affirmatively shows innocence.Quote: AxelWolfI know it's "easier" to win a civil case, but would it be harder to win a civil case if that person was cleared in the criminal case?
Here’s a simple analogy that isn’t correct but is helpful.
To be guilty in a civil case, the judge has to think there’s a 51% chance you did it. To be guilty in a criminal case the jury has to think there’s a 99% chance you did it.
So if you are in the 99-100% guilty, you get nailed in civil and criminal. If 51% up to 99%, criminal not guilty but civil guilty. And below 51% both not guilty.
But the above (in addition to not being correct) is also more about weighing evidence. In the Ivy case, I think all the facts are agreed. It’s just a question of interpreting whether the agreed facts line up within the law. So legal interpretation should not change between a civil and criminal case. So in the Ivy case in theory if he’s civilly guilty he’s criminally guilty.
Quote: unJonQuote: GandlerNo, in New Jersey counting is actually legally protected.
Casinos cannot ban you or prohibit play for simply counting.
However, they are entitled to limit bet sizes, flat bet you, and revoke comps (this is common, some people have this happen for not counting but just playing unorthodoxy so they appear to be counting, casinos can really pull back all comps for any reason or no reason, even if you are simply just winning too much by chance) for counters.
I believe NJ is the only state that I know of (unless it recently changed) that counting is actually a protected gaming activity.
I am too lazy right now to look at the case in the legal library, but here is the wiki summary:
Atlantic City casinos in the US state of New Jersey are forbidden from barring card counters as a result of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision. In 1979 Ken Uston, a Blackjack Hall of Fame inductee, filed a lawsuit against an Atlantic City casino, claiming that casinos did not have the right to ban skilled players. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed,[22] ruling that "the state's control of Atlantic City's casinos is so complete that only the New Jersey Casino Control Commission has the power to make rules to exclude skillful players." The Commission has made no regulation on card counting, so Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to ban card counters. As they are unable to ban counters even when identified, Atlantic City casinos have increased the use of countermeasures.[23]
I’m familiar with the Uston decision and that was my point. Either (a) the judge is wrong or (b) RS’a summary of the rationale was wrong or (c) the swindling statute post dates Uston and card counters beware.
Card counting is not tracking or manipulating cards. It is noting cards that have been played, and scaling what is left in the deck. It is totally different than using marked cards.
I believe one of the key aspects of that case was that it was all mental, no physical markers or triggers.
So you fall into camp (B) that RS’s summary was wrong. Cool. Glad we got to the bottom of that.Quote: GandlerQuote: unJonQuote: GandlerNo, in New Jersey counting is actually legally protected.
Casinos cannot ban you or prohibit play for simply counting.
However, they are entitled to limit bet sizes, flat bet you, and revoke comps (this is common, some people have this happen for not counting but just playing unorthodoxy so they appear to be counting, casinos can really pull back all comps for any reason or no reason, even if you are simply just winning too much by chance) for counters.
I believe NJ is the only state that I know of (unless it recently changed) that counting is actually a protected gaming activity.
I am too lazy right now to look at the case in the legal library, but here is the wiki summary:
Atlantic City casinos in the US state of New Jersey are forbidden from barring card counters as a result of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision. In 1979 Ken Uston, a Blackjack Hall of Fame inductee, filed a lawsuit against an Atlantic City casino, claiming that casinos did not have the right to ban skilled players. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed,[22] ruling that "the state's control of Atlantic City's casinos is so complete that only the New Jersey Casino Control Commission has the power to make rules to exclude skillful players." The Commission has made no regulation on card counting, so Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to ban card counters. As they are unable to ban counters even when identified, Atlantic City casinos have increased the use of countermeasures.[23]
I’m familiar with the Uston decision and that was my point. Either (a) the judge is wrong or (b) RS’a summary of the rationale was wrong or (c) the swindling statute post dates Uston and card counters beware.
Card counting is not tracking or manipulating cards. It is noting cards that have been played, and scaling what is left in the deck. It is totally different than using marked cards.
I believe one of the key aspects of that case was that it was all mental, no physical markers or triggers.
Defense attorney: you say this is one of the marked cards? Did it come this way from Gemaco?
Borgata: yes
Defense: did Ivey touch it in anyway?
Borgata: no but he had them turned around so he could read the marks
Defense: so if they were not turned around they would not be marked? They would not be discernable from any other card.
Borgata: correct
Defense attorney now flips the card repeatedly
(Holds it right side up) so its marked
(Holds it right side down) and now its not
(Flips it back around) and now it is
(Flips it around again) and now its not?
Thats how you feel marked cards work?
Quote: RS
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.
is that just the opinion of the lawyer or a law?
If that is a law that really leaves it to interpretation and can really lead to them suing anyone who won money from a reason that they may not have known.
I wonder if they pointed out that same casinos have games over 100%. I would argue that sometimes casinos have loss leaders like a grocery store. So even though their overall purpose is to make money, each individual game can be adjusted in either direction.
Quote: GWAEis that just the opinion of the lawyer or a law?
If that is a law that really leaves it to interpretation and can really lead to them suing anyone who won money from a reason that they may not have known.
I wonder if they pointed out that same casinos have games over 100%. I would argue that sometimes casinos have loss leaders like a grocery store. So even though their overall purpose is to make money, each individual game can be adjusted in either direction.
That was the opinion of the trial judge.
In essence a judge decided casinos must always make money. Any player who makes money is in breach of an implied contract.
The appeal again is challenging this judges decision by asking the higher court to determine if his ruling actually falls under any existing gambling statutes
Quote: darkozThat was the opinion of the trial judge.
In essence a judge decided casinos must always make money. Any player who makes money is in breach of an implied contract.
The appeal again is challenging this judges decision by asking the higher court to determine if his ruling actually falls under any existing gambling statutes
Oh well that is crap.
I once lost a lawsuit because of terrible interpretation if life
https://www.njonlinegambling.com/phil-ivey-borgata-baccarat-gambling-case/amp/
Quote: Gandler
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.
Well said. I think that sums it up perfectly.
Lets look at that.
The Casino Control Commission sets out the rules of how every game is to be dealt and played.
Some games ALLOW for players to touch(use) or possess for a momentary time the instruments of the game.
Baccarat where players are allowed to touch the cards before turning them over
Craps is obvious where players "use and possess" the dice.
However the CCC does not allow other games (based on traditional rules albeit) to have the instruments "used and possessed" by the patrons
In roulette Only dealers are allowed to touch either the wheel or the ball!!!!
To claim that any player making a wager at roulette is "using and possessing" the wheel and ball is ridiculous.
I believe the appellate court will come to a similar conclusion especially since they are going to attempt to define the meaning of the term "use or possess"
Just my 2 cents
Quote: Gandler<snip>I believe NJ is the only state that I know of (unless it recently changed) that counting is actually a protected gaming activity.<snip>
Gandler,
While I won't dispute your belief, I will mention that Missouri law also protects card counting, though the casinos can take other measures, such as preferential shuffling.
Louisiana passed a law last year that was SUPPOSED to protect card counting, but the casinos have been flouting the law (as I know first-hand) thus far without repercussions.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Quote: DRichWell said. I think that sums it up perfectly.
I never understood why Ivey wanted to get involved in something like this in the first place, but he did, so pay that man his money.
Borgata deserves to lose the money for being so clueless. It's not like edge-sorting was new, and it's not like it was complicated. A big casino company like that should have known better. But they didn't. So they should pay up.
Quote: DogHandGandler,
While I won't dispute your belief, I will mention that Missouri law also protects card counting, though the casinos can take other measures, such as preferential shuffling.
Louisiana passed a law last year that was SUPPOSED to protect card counting, but the casinos have been flouting the law (as I know first-hand) thus far without repercussions.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Right, that is how NJ is (I think the post you snip quoted went on to say that), casinos cannot bar counters from playing or ban them for merely counting, however, they can implement measures to make counting not worthwhile (frequent shuffles, flat betting players -same bet size the whole shoe- , revoking comps, etc...)
I honestly did not know that about MO or LI, I have never gambled in either, but that is good information to know.
Quote: AxelWolfAssuming Ivey has a contract with a backer in any poker tournaments he plays going forward can we assume they can only go after and confiscate Ivey's personal earnings?
I doubt it.
I know if you have a shared bank account they can attach that. The additional name on the account does not make it safe. It sucka for the other person.
There was a famous science fiction writer who owed tons to the IRS. They made an arrangement that all future book proceeds would be garnished but any books co-written would not be attached. It was specified in the deal. So clearly there must be some written exemption if finances are shared under garnishment.
BTW, that sci-fi writer wrote an additional dozen or so books AND every single one was co-written. I am certain the IRS would never enter a similar arrangement again.
EDIT: It was Fred Saberhagen
Quote: AxelWolfAssuming Ivey has a contract with a backer in any poker tournaments he plays going forward can we assume they can only go after and confiscate Ivey's personal earnings?
No. From the government’s perspective the backer is just another creditors of Ivy’s and the garnishment is first in line.
Quote: darkoz
BTW, that sci-fi writer wrote an additional dozen or so books AND every single one was co-written. I am certain the IRS would never enter a similar arrangement again.
So true.
So if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?Quote: unJonNo. From the government’s perspective the backer is just another creditors of Ivy’s and the garnishment is first in line.
I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.
I didn't know the IRS was involved.Quote: darkozI doubt it.
I know if you have a shared bank account they can attach that. The additional name on the account does not make it safe. It sucka for the other person.
There was a famous science fiction writer who owed tons to the IRS. They made an arrangement that all future book proceeds would be garnished but any books co-written would not be attached. It was specified in the deal. So clearly there must be some written exemption if finances are shared under garnishment.
BTW, that sci-fi writer wrote an additional dozen or so books AND every single one was co-written. I am certain the IRS would never enter a similar arrangement again.
EDIT: It was Fred Saberhagen
Quote: AxelWolfI didn't know the IRS was involved.
The IRS isnt involved.
Im just using that instance of an example.
Quote: AxelWolfSo if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?
I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.
That is different because the money is going to the company and they cut you a check for 10%. when he wins a tourney they pay him everything and he divies out the money.
Quote: AxelWolfSo if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?
I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.
Im certain it works to whether the garnished person is listed in a fiduciary way.
An employee is not listed on the company's bank account as being financially connected. Even if he works on commission he doesn't have access to the company account. So only his paycheck would be garnished.
Since Ivey would be entering tourneys and being awarded the winning amounts I could see him as being financially connected to the entire win. And therefore it would be subject to the garnishment
Quote: AxelWolfSo if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?
I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.
No. I’m not telling you that. It’s the company's revenue. Borgata could not garnish the 100% in that circumstance. That’s a (legally) different situation than Ivy playing poker with backers.
Looks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.Quote: AxelWolfAssuming Ivey has a contract with a backer in any poker tournaments he plays going forward can we assume they can only go after and confiscate Ivey's personal earnings?
Link
Thank you very much Sir.Quote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
You are the warehouse of Man's knowledge.Quote: AxelWolfQuote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
And you are a man of great humour.Quote: PuckerbuttYou are the warehouse of Man's knowledge.Quote: AxelWolfQuote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
Quote: PuckerbuttYou are the warehouse of Men's DNA.
FYP.
Quote: AxelWolfThank you very much Sir.Quote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
The backers very unlikely to win their objection.
Lawyers probably telling them otherwise.Quote: unJonThe backers very unlikely to win their objection.
I don't doubt that since they already got the money, and I'm not sure what type of evidence they have of what kind of deal was actually being made. I would love to know exactly what the deal was, assuming there was one. Just to give us an insight into what kind of terrible deals are being made for the backers(not that I don't already know).Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfThank you very much Sir.Quote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
The backers very unlikely to win their objection.
But, going forward, if Phil Ivey (or anyone for that matter) had a legitimate contract with the legitimate company can they keep taking the money above and beyond what the person was actually being pay?
I can't imagine they can keep doing that and keep the guy from working. Obviously they're going to have to scrutinize if these deals are actually legitimate and not some wink wink we have a contract sort of thing.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't doubt that since they already got the money, and I'm not sure what type of evidence they have of what kind of deal was actually being made. I would love to know exactly what the deal was, assuming there was one. Just to give us an insight into what kind of terrible deals are being made for the backers(not that I don't already know).Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfThank you very much Sir.Quote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
The backers very unlikely to win their objection.
But, going forward, if Phil Ivey (or anyone for that matter) had a legitimate contract with the legitimate company can they keep taking the money above and beyond what the person was actually being pay?
I can't imagine they can keep doing that and keep the guy from working. Obviously they're going to have to scrutinize if these deals are actually legitimate and not some wink wink we have a contract sort of thing.
The article goes into all that.
Contract existed for the backers to put up the entire $50,000 entry fee.
Any profit split 50/50.
Ivey won something like $125,000 (I dont remember the exact amount) so profit was $75,000.
Backers are claiming Borgata only has legal claim to Iveys portion which wiuld be $37,500 ($125,00 - $50,000 entry and backers 50% split.
Backers showed online discussions about the deal prior to the event.
Also, backers are falling back on Nevada laws which protect backers interest in staked games.
My take: this is going to come down to two opposing laws (laws protecting backers vs. Laws establishing garnishment).
The court will use prior precedent to establish which has higher authority. From my experience this is determined by legal "weights"
For example if the garnishment laws have had previous power to overturn legislative laws. Or vice versa.
Thank you, I didn't read it all, I just skimmed through a little. What an absolutely insanely horrible deal for the backers. Of course, I don't know if they have future agreements were makeups is involved, but even then, I still think it's a horrible deal with or without makeup. If he is able to negotiate a 50% free roll on each tournament he plays... he should have that 10 million(or whatever it is) paid back in no time at all.Quote: darkozQuote: AxelWolfI don't doubt that since they already got the money, and I'm not sure what type of evidence they have of what kind of deal was actually being made. I would love to know exactly what the deal was, assuming there was one. Just to give us an insight into what kind of terrible deals are being made for the backers(not that I don't already know).Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfThank you very much Sir.Quote: PuckerbuttLooks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.
Link
Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷♂️
The backers very unlikely to win their objection.
But, going forward, if Phil Ivey (or anyone for that matter) had a legitimate contract with the legitimate company can they keep taking the money above and beyond what the person was actually being pay?
I can't imagine they can keep doing that and keep the guy from working. Obviously they're going to have to scrutinize if these deals are actually legitimate and not some wink wink we have a contract sort of thing.
The article goes into all that.
Contract existed for the backers to put up the entire $50,000 entry fee.
Any profit split 50/50.
Ivey won something like $125,000 (I dont remember the exact amount) so profit was $75,000.
Backers are claiming Borgata only has legal claim to Iveys portion which wiuld be $37,500 ($125,00 - $50,000 entry and backers 50% split.
Backers showed online discussions about the deal prior to the event.
Also, backers are falling back on Nevada laws which protect backers interest in staked games.
My take: this is going to come down to two opposing laws (laws protecting backers vs. Laws establishing garnishment).
The court will use prior precedent to establish which has higher authority. From my experience this is determined by legal "weights"
For example if the garnishment laws have had previous power to overturn legislative laws. Or vice versa.
I would love to know how many people are getting deals of that nature. It doesn't even have to be close to 50% if there's no makeup involved. Just imagine getting a 20% free roll on any tournament you entered.Quote: RigondeauxI'd imagine it's mainly rich guys who are paying to be involved with Ivey and to walk around telling people they are backing Phil Ivey and that they know him and are "friends" with him, etc.
Quote: AxelWolfI would love to know how many people are getting deals of that nature. It doesn't even have to be close to 50% if there's no makeup involved. Just imagine getting a 20% free roll on any tournament you entered.
Yes, from an AP perspective its a freeroll.
I can see the backers side of it though.
For them they are "gambling" on Iveys skillset which has historical precedents.
They have no chance of profiting from poker if they played and probably cant waste the time necessary to play so this puts them in the game.
Besides the thrill of the action, they look at it as an easy $37,500 profit they would otherwise have no chance at vs handing someone a freeroll.
EDIT: there is also the possibility that the freeroll element was specifically tailored as a bolster to legal claims that Iveys money was involved.
I.E. Borgata has fully taken the entire stake put up by the backers and not a penny of stake money from Ivey. That would be an interesting legal maneuver probably brokered by a forward thinking attorney
The backers were not part of the garnishment order.
The stake was an expense to be repaid 100% before there were any earnings.
The earnings, by contract, were only half Ivey.
I would go even further and say a countersuit could win as this one is lost, in that Borgata is killing Ivey's stakehorse stable if this seizure is upheld. Libel, restraint of commerce, illegal confiscation of third party assets, are all in play. He's got to have IRS filed as a pro for a couple decades now. Stake holder rights are in existing laws. The money was earned in Nevada.
I think he comes out ahead on this one. May even have done it on purpose to force the issue.
Quote: beachbumbabsI disagree with what seems to be a concensus this is a loser case.
The backers were not part of the garnishment order.
The stake was an expense to be repaid 100% before there were any earnings.
The earnings, by contract, were only half Ivey.
I would go even further and say a countersuit could win as this one is lost, in that Borgata is killing Ivey's stakehorse stable if this seizure is upheld. Libel, restraint of commerce, illegal confiscation of third party assets, are all in play. He's got to have IRS filed as a pro for a couple decades now. Stake holder rights are in existing laws. The money was earned in Nevada.
I think he comes out ahead on this one. May even have done it on purpose to force the issue.
But could the case be decided where the stake holders don't get the winnings, but just what they invested? One thing I was reading is the Verdict might not be sympathetic to the stake holders if it is believed they were aware Ivey was already in default of a judgment of 10 million.
Quote: rxwineBut could the case be decided where the stake holders don't get the winnings, but just what they invested? One thing I was reading is the Verdict might not be sympathetic to the stake holders if it is believed they were aware Ivey was already in default of a judgment of 10 million.
Unless there is zero precedent here and I find that hard to believe, the case will not be decided on sympathy.
It will be decided on case law.
If the law says the stake holders have an inviolable right to botb their winnings and stake then thats probably what they will receive.
This almost certainly wont be a jury trial. No one is accused of any criminality. Its going to be determined solely on law precedent
Phil Ivey entered into a contract to pay investors a defined amount of money for paying his entry fee. He would only have to pay the money if he won (cashed) of course. He won a defined amount of money from WSOP, thus he owes the investors.
As far as the government is concerned, they would believe he has not been wronged. His lawful debt is reduced by the amount withheld, no more, no less.
If you believe that the debt he owed is not legal, that is a whole nother ball of wax. Not relevant to whether the investors are owed money by Mr. Ivey. There must be millions of men getting wages garnished who also owe other people money. Their debt just doesn't go away because someone is garnishing their wages first.
Quote: SOOPOOMaybe my mind is simple, but this one seems simple to me. Phil Ivey entered into a contract with WSOP to pay them an entry fee and have them pay him winnings if he won. The government took those winnings to pay a debt he owed.
Phil Ivey entered into a contract to pay investors a defined amount of money for paying his entry fee. He would only have to pay the money if he won (cashed) of course. He won a defined amount of money from WSOP, thus he owes the investors.
As far as the government is concerned, they would believe he has not been wronged. His lawful debt is reduced by the amount withheld, no more, no less.
If you believe that the debt he owed is not legal, that is a whole nother ball of wax. Not relevant to whether the investors are owed money by Mr. Ivey. There must be millions of men getting wages garnished who also owe other people money. Their debt just doesn't go away because someone is garnishing their wages first.
Very true
However garnishments usually have exemptions based on precedence.
For example if u owe 2 different organizations (federal taxes and child support lets say) there are laws which state WHO comes first.
In this case a contract based on legal aspects of gaming law (allowing for backers to stake) may or may not take precedence
That will be for the court to decide
