Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1223
  • Posts: 20327
October 24th, 2016 at 7:56:30 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

Ambiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.



You're absolutely right!
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 24th, 2016 at 10:15:00 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

Ambiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.



Even in a civil tort case? That very concept seems to have saved him from prosecution for fraud, but I see no reason why it should favor the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil action.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 131
  • Posts: 16741
October 24th, 2016 at 10:37:07 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

Ambiguities in the law should should favor the defendant.

+1
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 25th, 2016 at 8:25:09 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Comparisons could be made to the Gemaco case where players took advantage of two baccarat shoes where the cards came out in the exact same order.

Link: Golden Nugget Atlantic City Wins Favorable Ruling In Case Of $1.5 Million Baccarat Scandal.

Given that, I'm not surprised at all that Ivey lost in Atlantic City.

It is a shame such cases have to be all or nothing. I think the Ivey case falls in a grey area. If forced, I'd rule in his favor, but I would feel better about splitting the difference and let him keep half his winnings.

But the judge doesn't have that amount of discretion. For starters, he has to follow the law and prior precedents, including (where applicable) respecting the purpose and intent of the law or regulation. In fact, that's a primary job of a judge -- to discern the purpose and intent of a law where the parties have a dispute over its interpretation (as they do here) and clarify the meaning of that law. Applying the law to the facts is easy if the law and facts are not in dispute, and cases like that rarely get to trial because it's obvious who's going to win beforehand. In this case, Ivey and Borgata had a fundamentally different view on what the law meant. Here's the kernel of the judge's decision:
Quote: Judge Hillman

Ivey and Sun’s view of what constitutes a “marked” card is too narrow. Such an interpretation would undermine in a fundamental way the purpose behind the regulatory ban on marked cards. “Marking” a card is to surreptitiously identify the value of the card to a player – and that player alone. The physical acts of a card being drawn on, daubed, or crimped are several ways to inform a player of its value. But, as demonstrated by Ivey and Sun’s edge sorting technique, a
physical act is not necessary to alert a player surreptitiously of a card’s value. Asking a card dealer to turn a card a particular way so that the pattern on the edge of the card will distinguish it from other cards such that it will inform the player of that card’s value also constitutes “marking” within the meaning and intent of the regulatory ban. The term “marking” therefore can be defined as having something done to the card that identifies the value of the card to a player [10] but to no one else.[11]

Footnote 10: Or to anyone who is aware that a card is marked, however accomplished, like a dealer or pit boss who would be advantaged by the marked card.
Footnote 11: The basic dictionary definitions of the verb “mark” support this meaning as well. See Merriam-Webster Dictionary (defining “mark” as “to take notice of, to take careful notice”); Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“MARK: A symbol, impression, or feature on something, usu. to identify it or distinguish it from something else.”).

"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1850
October 25th, 2016 at 10:30:10 AM permalink
Quote:

Footnote 10: Or to anyone who is aware that a card is marked, however accomplished, like a dealer or pit boss who would be advantaged by the marked card.



The cards were "manufactured" and not "marked" after the manufacturing had taken place. The manufacturing of the cards is not "marking" the cards.

If the cards were defective, then the casino should also be required to refund everyone that lost money to the casino due to the "marked/defective" cards. I can just imagine seeing the billboards along the AC turnpike. "Have you lost money at the Borgata playing baccarat? You may be entitled to a full refund!"

In some ways this reminds me of a biased wheel case. A well known casino claimed that shouldn't have to pay the player because the wheel was biased (defective).
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 25th, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM permalink
Quote: Keyser

The cards were "manufactured" and not "marked" after the manufacturing had taken place. The manufacturing of the cards is not "marking" the cards.

That's not what the judge said. The judge said that the act of manipulating the cards caused them to be effectively marked per the purpose of the regulation. Without knowing which cards are turned one way or the other, there is no way to distinguish certain cards from the others. According to the judge, cards are marked if players who are aware of the manipulation can distinguish one from the other, but players who are not aware cannot. The asymmetry in the card edges does not, by itself, mean the cards are marked. If the deck is edge sorted, they are. That's the takeaway from the ruling.

In fact, based on that reasoning, it would be a violation of the NJ regs just to play at a baccarat table with edge sorted cards even if, as you sat down, the dealer simply told you "hey, this deck is edge sorted so ranks 6 through 9 have the big diamonds and the other ones don't." Possession and use of marked cards is a violation of the CCA. Of course, in that scenario the dealer would also be culpable.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Artemis
Artemis
Joined: Nov 20, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 441
October 25th, 2016 at 10:49:13 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

True, but so what? The judge didn't condition his opinion on "what's going on." The opinion was based on the facts in front of the court. If you think the ruling isn't relevant to ace tracking, so be it.

Find a different play or a different line of work.

Seriously, either that acetracking play is worth the legal costs to preserve or it's not. If it's not, that should tell you something. Good entrepreneurs know when to pivot to better opportunities. Bad ones cling to the old ones and fail when they dry up. There is no right to make money from being an AP any more than there is a right to make money from being a lawyer or a plumber. Every job has a cost of doing business. For AP, it sounds like that includes legal fees when you get caught. If you don't want to accept those costs, don't be an AP ... or don't get caught.



Quote: Hunterhill

If it's who i think it is he deserved to be kicked out,the way he was doing it was pathetic. I won't say any more on a public forum.




Guys, thanks for your replies. TO each his own. After you guys have gambled in AC casinos 24/7 for years and abused by them, you guys will not talk that way in favor of AC casinos.

Since you guys are in favor of AC casinos, then it's no surprise that most judges seem to rule in favor of AC casinos. Examples are

1) Recently the judge used the BREACH OF CONTRACT as the reason to rule in favor of Borg over Ivey,

2) On the other hand, another judge ruled in favor of Taj against the Union Local 54. That judge said it's OK for Taj to BREACH the CONTRACT with the Union in order for Taj to be profitable and to stay in business. To revenge against that super unfair ruling, on 7/1/2016, the Union workers took Taj and themselves to the grave with a deadly strike. Taj closed on 10/10/2016.

3) Another judge ruled against Lenny Tose in favor of the old Sands

4) Another judge ruled against a group of baccarat players in favor of AC Golden Nugget.

5) Another judge ruled against Ex-Lawyer Arelia Taveras in favor of AC casinos.

Of course there is always an exception. A judge ruled in favor of Uston against Resorts. AC casinos can't ban AP, but AC casinos have used phony excuses to ban APs indirectly thru the eviction orders.

So the bottom line is this...it's extremely hard for the little guy (i.e., Ivey, Tose, or Taveras, etc...) to beat AC casinos in courts when the judges seem to be able to find a reason to rule in favor of AC casinos.
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
Hunterhill
Hunterhill
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 1737
October 25th, 2016 at 11:32:26 AM permalink
Quote: Artemis

Guys, thanks for your replies. TO each his own. After you guys have gambled in AC casinos 24/7 for years and abused by them, you guys will not talk that way in favor of AC casinos.

Since you guys are in favor of AC casinos, then it's no surprise that most judges seem to rule in favor of AC casinos. Examples are

1) Recently the judge used the BREACH OF CONTRACT as the reason to rule in favor of Borg over Ivey,

2) On the other hand, another judge ruled in favor of Taj against the Union Local 54. That judge said it's OK for Taj to BREACH the CONTRACT with the Union in order for Taj to be profitable and to stay in business. To revenge against that super unfair ruling, on 7/1/2016, the Union workers took Taj and themselves to the grave with a deadly strike. Taj closed on 10/10/2016.

3) Another judge ruled against Lenny Tose in favor of the old Sands

4) Another judge ruled against a group of baccarat players in favor of AC Golden Nugget.

5) Another judge ruled against Ex-Lawyer Arelia Taveras in favor of AC casinos.

Of course there is always an exception. A judge ruled in favor of Uston against Resorts. AC casinos can't ban AP, but AC casinos have used phony excuses to ban APs indirectly thru the eviction orders.

So the bottom line is this...it's extremely hard for the little guy (i.e., Ivey, Tose, or Taveras, etc...) to beat AC casinos in courts when the judges seem to be able to find a reason to rule in favor of AC casinos.


I have played in Ac casinos for years,and I feel the same way that you do about most of the cases you cited.I said that the particular ace tracker that I'm thinking of, does his method in a weak manner which I don't agree with,and potentially causes issues for players using more traditional tracking or location methods.
Don't teach an alligator how to swim.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 25th, 2016 at 11:55:24 AM permalink
Quote: Artemis

Guys, thanks for your replies. TO each his own. After you guys have gambled in AC casinos 24/7 for years and abused by them, you guys will not talk that way in favor of AC casinos.

Since you guys are in favor of AC casinos, then it's no surprise that most judges seem to rule in favor of AC casinos.
...
So the bottom line is this...it's extremely hard for the little guy (i.e., Ivey, Tose, or Taveras, etc...) to beat AC casinos in courts when the judges seem to be able to find a reason to rule in favor of AC casinos.

If it's no surprise, why do the APs complain about it? It's like being surprised that you got hit by a car while jaywalking.

Look, AP is an adversarial business -- you've always got someone directly opposed to your success. Whining about your adversaries won't help. In order to be successful in any adversarial business, you've got to be able to overcome the efforts of those adversaries. That's true in litigation, it's true in football, and it's true for professional gamblers. When a lawyer or football team runs into an opponent who's better than they are, they either change their strategy or they lose. Same for APs. It doesn't matter if you have some play that's theoretically brilliant and worked in the past, but now you can't pull it off in practice because the casino has changed their strategy (or the law) to prevent you. Like everything else, either you change your strategy or you lose.

It's probably worse for you since, as you suggest, you've been playing in AC casinos 24/7 for years. But you've got to let go of the past. Any new potential AP would walk in, look around, and make a decision based on the current ability to succeed as an AP. They wouldn't pine for the way things used to be, and you shouldn't either. I'm sure there are some former video store rental clerks who are pining for those days too.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
October 25th, 2016 at 2:03:30 PM permalink
I think ANY business, casinos included, should be able to refuse service to any customer or customers it deems as detrimental to its operations, for any reason or no reason at all. Casinos are in business to make money. Why wouldn't they want to exclude the rare (AP) customer who costs them money? To put it another way,what makes the AP think he has a right to gamble in a privately owned casino?

  • Jump to: