Cheating, or advantage? Cheating, or advantage? That’s the question.

The Phil Ivey baccarat saga gets the Harvard treatment. https://bit.ly/2PNNCY3
Nicholas Huba Apr 11, 2021: (Paper in the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law wonders what defines cheating)

It’s not every day that a paper in the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law starts its introduction with “Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater,” but then again it’s not every day a Hong Kong-born card shark spends four years plotting her revenge against a worldwide casino conglomerate and teams up with one of poker’s top players in an effort to exact that revenge. And it’s also not every day that they succeed, with one of them ending up in court, losing, then settling on appeal — in other words, winning — and... https://bit.ly/2PNNCY3

Cheating, or advantage? That’s the question.
Got it? Good. And now it’s all part of the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, thanks to Carr, who found herself fascinated by the story she first saw in Cigar Aficionado.

“I got to thinking about it, and yes, Ivey did use an advantage,” she said. “So, OK, some will say it’s cheating. But on the other hand, casinos use all kinds of advantages. If you’re going to say he can’t use an advantage, then the casino shouldn’t be able to either.”

This sent Carr down the rabbit hole of the saga.

“Everyone was pointing the finger, saying, ‘He cheated, he cheated,’ but as a lawyer, one of the things I spend much of my day doing is figuring out what words mean in a contract,” she said. “Did he really cheat, or did he just play the system? Really thinking of it from that perspective, that’s what got me interested in it.”

And what Sun and Ivey did, by Carr’s measurement? Not cheating. Not even close.

“What’s really inexcusable from the casino perspective was that Phil Ivey said I want these types of cards, and I want an automatic shuffler, and this kind of dealer, and the casino said OK,” Carr said. “Well why do you think Phil was asking for these things? Of course he was asking because he thought it would give him some sort of advantage. It’s not like he had a secret device in his pocket. He came right out and said I want these three things, and they said OK.”

Carr also points out casinos routinely use their own advantages in trying to separate a gambler from their money, using everything from free booze to technology in an effort to prevent players from winning.

“There is technology available to monitor exactly what’s going on at the table, so that if a pit boss isn’t paying attention, the tracking software will alert someone that we have to change things at that table,” she said. “The player certainly can’t have any electronic device monitoring anything, but the casinos get to have an electronic device.” https://bit.ly/2PNNCY3


Casino Hold'em® Poker™ and Unlimited-21® Blackjack™ Play-in MGM and Borgata Online-Casinos.
​​* Unlimited-21® MGM: Unlimited21MGM.com
* Casino Hold'em® Borgata: CasinoHoldemB.com

The arguments in the Harvard article are ancient. This is nothing new. All the post-hoc rambling is meaningless. The courts in England, all the way up to their supreme court, decided the case and therefore that is the law in the UK.

"then settling on appeal (ie: winning)"

Why settle? Thought the courts ruled in the casino's favor?
and How much?

Quote: 100xOdds

"then settling on appeal (ie: winning)"

Why settle? Thought the courts ruled in the casino's favor?
and How much?

We will probably never know.

I think a few assumptions can be made.

Ivey gave something up because his career was going to be followed by seizure of all his wins going forward.

Borgata had a huge amount which they could not collect except in piddling amounts and if Ivey didn't play anymore they would have nothing else.

I would put the settlement based on that imo somewhere in the low millions. Perhaps two or three.

Enough for Ivey to feel he could pay and move on, and for Borgata to feel somewhat satisfied that they got something back

all of this is song and dance just a show - the press and people who think they can probably edge sort probably brought in so much money anyways that they didnt care at all

Quote: darkoz

We will probably never know.

I think a few assumptions can be made.

Ivey gave something up because his career was going to be followed by seizure of all his wins going forward.

Borgata had a huge amount which they could not collect except in piddling amounts and if Ivey didn't play anymore they would have nothing else.

I would put the settlement based on that imo somewhere in the low millions. Perhaps two or three.

Enough for Ivey to feel he could pay and move on, and for Borgata to feel somewhat satisfied that they got something back

Do you think he snitched on someone?

They absolutely cheated, however, I dont think what they did was illegal, and I dont think the casino had the right to recover.

.............

I'm not by any means Bible thumper or even a religious person - but I do like this one:

Matthew 16:26


𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙩 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙛 𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙡................?





*

Quote: lilredrooster

.............

I'm not by any means Bible thumper or even a religious person - but I do like this one:

Matthew 16:26
𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙩 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙛 𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙡................?

only if you feel guilty for what you did.

Don’t worry eventually I’ll send an Android in they have no feelings, don’t care how long they are arrested or backroomed for, and will do their job optimally every time.

Games are analyzed for house edge using ideal sweeping assumptions - for the convenience of mathematicians

- the shuffle is completely random
____even though clumping (and rarely, other irregularities) occur in some shuffle systems

- players make optimal decisions based on the cards they can see in their hand and the dealer's hand and no other information
_____even though, in some games, no person on Earth knows the complete perfect strategy (e.g., Russian poker, Texas Switch, UTH, High Card Flush)
_____even though the player can see other cards on the table in a multiplayer game
_____even though the player can remember other cards from previous deals (In games that don't re-shuffle after each hand)
_____even though the actions of other players at the table (whose hands you cannot see) reveals information about the cards in their hands

- players cannot discern any information about face down cards
_____even though players occasionally could see a hole card
_____even though the backs of cards may have discriminating features due to manufacturing or handling.

Mathematicians make these ideal assumptions because it makes their analyses simpler. And thick-skulled casino operators insist that you must play according to the way that mathematicians analysed their games. If you hold J-2 in Mississippi Stud and you can see J-J in your wife's hand, you are supposed to be dimwitted and bet your J-2 rather than fold it. That is what the dough-for-brains casino employees insist on otherwise you are defined as "cheating."

However, when a player who is clueless stands on 12vsT in blackjack, or Bets 3x on a J-High hand in Four Card Poker, then voila! - that's an acceptable deviation from basic strategy for the casino operator -because casinos benefit from these deviations from the way the mathematicians analyzed their games. You are allowed complete freedom to play the game with your own decisions as long as you are not skillful. These are completely arbitrary distinctions made by casinos that are based on nothing other than their own self-interest. I find nothing in this behavior to respect.

And now we players must hold cards with only one hand, and are not permitted to help their spouses at the table because of collusion concerns. Casino security run amuck, taking the fun and ease out of gambling. Is it any wonder that the future belongs to on-line sports betting, fantasy sports and multiplayer poker while brick and mortar casinos seem headed for an unmarked grave?

Gamblers are voting their pocketbooks.

Quote: lilredrooster

.............

I'm not by any means Bible thumper or even a religious person - but I do like this one:

Matthew 16:26


𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙩 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙛 𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙡................?





*

Well the same can be said of Borgata. What did they gain by dragging it out for so many years? They are ruthless against anyone suspected of using their brain. They steal comps earned on slots because of table play.