Borgata Battles Gemaco While Phil Ivey Waits
For Casino Losses to Phil Ivey
Phil Ivey and "Kelly" Sun wait while their appeal of a court decision works its way through the judicial system. The most current court decision indicated Borgata should be repaid the $10.1 million Ivey & Sun won playing Baccarat.
But, Borgata also included in its lawsuit Gemaco, the company that made the allegedly "defective" playing cards. The most recent twist in this complex legal battle occurred a few days ago. Borgata asserts Gamaco must pay money the casino lost because it sold "defective" playing cards to the casino. The judge ruled he would take no action on the Sun-Ivey appeal of an earlier decision that favored the casino until the Borgata-Gemaco issues are resolved.
So, Borgata has no choice but to carry forward the "pay-me-back-all-my-money" battle with Gemaco. But Gemaco points to its contract with the casino, which says the casino excludes Gemaco from "any liability for gaming losses." However, until this Borgata-Gemaco battle concludes, Borgata remains hanging out to dry, having won (so far) against Ivey & Sun in the court but not yet been able to collect any money.
Here's the story. Enjoy!
Quote: LuckyPhowThe judge ruled he would take no action on the Sun-Ivey appeal of an earlier decision that favored the casino until the Borgata-Gemaco issues are resolved.
Thanks for the update of this very interesting saga.
I don't understand why the same Judge would be ruling on the "appeal" of his own decision? This is repeated in the link you provided without explanation. Any insight on this aspect of it all?
The decision not to have a jury trial is also perplexing but I guess smarter people than me made that decision.
Edge sorting is similar to dice shaving; buy more expensive dice. Many casinos plug a die and retire it to eventually be sold in the gift store. The Venetian grinds their dice to dust when retired. If you focus on pennies; you loose dollars.
Borgotta focused on pennies in buying the cards and in not training its dealers and floormen sufficiently.
Its like the player who asked for an ashtray so the BJ dealer walked away from his own chip tray and took an ashtray from an adjacent but empty BJ table. Nice polite dealer but it was the casino's fault for not training him properly. A casino has to impart more than BJ knowledge but also general gambling operations. Don't leave your chips unguarded. If two women pull each other's blouses off during a fight, don't look at anything except your chip tray.
Its the casino not the card manufacturer... cards CAPABLE of being edge sorted are still perfectly valid IF you train your dealers to never permit the cards to be turned around by players or by casino staff. Its the same thing as 'daubing' chalk or make up on the backs of high value cards: the woman's make up and her companion's special contact lenses are the items the casino has to watch for not the card manufacturer.
The casino went after Ivey and is also going after Gemaco? I mean, if our legal system decides Gemaco or Ivey are responsible, sure (although I wholeheartedly agree either are responsible), but certainly our legal system isn't stupid enough to award the casino money from BOTH Gemaco and Ivey, can it? I don't know if legally it can work out that way, but holy damn, that's completely preposterous.
Does anyone know when Borgata filed their claim against Gemaco? If it was recent, and IF they figured Ivey had a good shot at winning the appeal, then it would make sense they'd go after Gemaco to try to recoup their lost money.
The non-symmetrical-ness of some cards was discovered years before Ivey & Borgata, at the latest. Unless they're complete fools, I doubt Gemaco would have said their cards are perfectly symmetrical. If anything, they likely may have even recommended the casino a way to counter-act edge sorting (it's simple and common knowledge but I'd rather not write it anyway).
Quote: FleaStiffCards suitable for edge sorting are not defective they are simply CHEAPER and the casino made its decision.'
Edge sorting is similar to dice shaving; buy more expensive dice. Many casinos plug a die and retire it to eventually be sold in the gift store. The Venetian grinds their dice to dust when retired. If you focus on pennies; you loose dollars.
Borgotta focused on pennies in buying the cards and in not training its dealers and floormen sufficiently.
Its like the player who asked for an ashtray so the BJ dealer walked away from his own chip tray and took an ashtray from an adjacent but empty BJ table. Nice polite dealer but it was the casino's fault for not training him properly. A casino has to impart more than BJ knowledge but also general gambling operations. Don't leave your chips unguarded. If two women pull each other's blouses off during a fight, don't look at anything except your chip tray.
Its the casino not the card manufacturer... cards CAPABLE of being edge sorted are still perfectly valid IF you train your dealers to never permit the cards to be turned around by players or by casino staff. Its the same thing as 'daubing' chalk or make up on the backs of high value cards: the woman's make up and her companion's special contact lenses are the items the casino has to watch for not the card manufacturer.
Well, Ivey did request those specific cards, IIRC. So it's not an issue of the cards being cheaper, but the casino's complete stupidity, greed, and lack of understanding what's going on.
If a big player walks up to a table and says, "I like to play big money on blackjack and I like to play fast. The way they deal to me in Russia is they deal both dealer cards face up, to save time. Will you deal me Russian blackjack?" Ivey's edge sorting play is about as easy to figure out as this "Russian blackjack" play.
I'm still bewildered the Ivey case wasn't thrown out for being frivolous. F*** the "technicality" BS and use common sense. If a casino agrees to deal a game a certain way to a patron, whatever happens from then on out is their problem.
Quote: RS
Well, Ivey did request those specific cards, IIRC.
Mr. Ivey and/or Ms. Sun requested purple cards IIRC, not specific backside design(as that was already known and used). Perhaps the brand but I think said card distributes distributes nationwide, if not worldwide. Macau uses a Japanese supplier FYI, but Ms. Sun claims to have edge sorted there in an interview.
As for your inquiry about two defendants, that happens all the time. I don't know if they split it 50/50 etc., settlements are made as you well know.
"Ms. Sun claims to have edge sorted there in an interview." I'm surprised her attornies did not advise against this.
I didn't listen to the interview, did there seem to be some motivation behind doing an interview and saying that?
Quote: AxelWolf
"Ms. Sun claims to have edge sorted there in an interview." I'm surprised her attornies did not advise against this.
I didn't listen to the interview, did there seem to be some motivation behind doing an interview and saying that?
I think it was on our very own "Gambling with an edge".... She rambled on and on about doing it at various casino's in Las Vegas and Macau. The name "Galaxy" is in my memory as well regarding Macau. As you may recall, the term "Macau Style" involves seeing all of the backsides of the cards before making a wager.
Quote: FleaStiffIf two women pull each other's blouses off during a fight, don't look at anything except your chip tray.
Thanx, Flea... Pure, absolute, distilled wisdom!
I've heard it said, "When a beautiful woman enters a room, the psychologist looks at everyone else." Not sure what the psychologist would do in your example. But, gamblers must always (try to) guard their chips.
