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.