Phil Ivey sued for edge sorting at Borgata!
Are you implying the dealer intentionally had something to do with this? If not, I don't know if you can unknowingly conclude with someone.Quote: kewljI'm not. I am on his side about 90% right now.
The casino agreeing to his terms and now bitching about it, is just stupid. Not a leg to stand on IMO.
Edge sorting in itself, while not something I would be comfortable with, I don't see how it is illegal. It is the Casino's responsibility. If they have a vender providing faulty materials, they need to take it up with them. From a legal standpoint, I would think....not a leg to stand on.
But there is one little area, that as I read it, I think could be a problem. That is where the dealer turned certain cards in a certain manner so that when they went into the machine, that 'readable' edge would be exposed, but turned other cards in a different manner, so that edge would not be the edge that was exposed. If this is true, this implies collusion between Ivey and the dealer. This could be a problem. I will leave it to any legal experts to figure it out though.
Quote: kewljIf this is true, this implies collusion between Ivey and the dealer. This could be a problem. I will leave it to any legal experts to figure it out though.
Dealers being ignorant is not collusion.
Quote: kewljI'm not. I am on his side about 90% right now.
The casino agreeing to his terms and now bitching about it, is just stupid. Not a leg to stand on IMO.
Edge sorting in itself, while not something I would be comfortable with, I don't see how it is illegal. It is the Casino's responsibility. If they have a vender providing faulty materials, they need to take it up with them. From a legal standpoint, I would think....not a leg to stand on.
But there is one little area, that as I read it, I think could be a problem. That is where the dealer turned certain cards in a certain manner so that when they went into the machine, that 'readable' edge would be exposed, but turned other cards in a different manner, so that edge would not be the edge that was exposed. If this is true, this implies collusion between Ivey and the dealer. This could be a problem. I will leave it to any legal experts to figure it out though
Really KJ? I hope you're taking devil's advocate here... Is asking a dealer to increase the pen also collusion? What if you ask if you can cut, because (in some games) that'll give the player an edge.
Quote: AxelWolfLOL.....Did anyone really think he brought his own cards? Seriously really think about that. then picture that scenario in your head.
Axel TtEliot had posted that the complaint said he used his own cards. Of course it's ridiculous
Enough said.Quote: HunterhillTtEliot had posted that
Ivey never touched a card.
The rules of hit/stand are immutable.
Borgata should stand-down. Drop'em some bread and cheese for all that w(h)ine.
I didn't say it, I quoted an article from a highly reputable source. What's your problem? Why do you always take cheap shots at me every chance you get? Perhaps you should read the thread before shooting your bullets. Here it is again, since you missed it:Quote: AxelWolfEnough said.
====================
"The Borgata suit claims that Ivey insisted on bringing his own deck of cards because he was superstitious. "
"Missouri-based card manufacturer Gemaco Inc. is also named in the suit, which features charges of breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and racketeering."
http://calvinayre.com/2014/04/11/casino/borgata-accuses-phil-ivey-edge-sorting-at-baccarat-tables/
====================
If you think I am forever making errors, and this is another in a long string of such errors, please say so rather than hiding behind innuendo, based in this case on false logic.
Quote: RSReally KJ? I hope you're taking devil's advocate here... Is asking a dealer to increase the pen also collusion? What if you ask if you can cut, because (in some games) that'll give the player an edge.
I don't believe asking the dealer to increase penetration would be collusion, no. But I have been told by my attorney a while back, who I am not going to drop names, but is an expert in gaming law, that a case could be made for that, especially, if there is an exchange of money (tips) in exchange for the dealer doing something which is not part of the ordinary procedure, like deeper penetration in the example you sited or flipping certain cards in a different manner in this case. He also mentioned that such an agreement, tips for something out of the ordinary, need not be something actually discussed. Such an agreement could be a non verbal thing. (implied)
If Borgata Management knew of this request (special flipping instructions) and approved it, then no they would have no case, but if not, they could MAKE a case for collusion between dealer and players. It is not a case that I think they would win. But I am not in the legal profession. I am just saying that seems to me to be the only possible issue for which they could make a case. I don't think they win that case, but this is the one issue they could make a case on, IMO
Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddySore losers? Wouldn't you swap out the decks if you believed edge sorting was an issue?
As I read the complain, not the article, but the complaint, they are saying they had no knowledge of edge sorting techniques in 2012. Most of the gambling world has known about this possibility for years, but Borgata management was apparently in the dark. lol
The day when I can tell any casino that I'm using my own dice and I'll make my own rules for throwing them is the day that I will make Ivey and Don Johnson combined look like two-bit pikers.Quote: teliotI didn't say it, I quoted an article from a highly reputable source.
"The Borgata suit claims that Ivey insisted on bringing his own deck of cards because he was superstitious. "
"Missouri-based card manufacturer Gemaco Inc. is also named in the suit, which features charges of breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and racketeering." http://calvinayre.com/2014/04/11/casino/borgata-accuses-phil-ivey-edge-sorting-at-baccarat-tables/
Quote: teliot"The Borgata suit claims that Ivey insisted on bringing his own deck of cards because he was superstitious. "
I heard tell that Ivey brought in a deck of cards still in the cellophane and swore he could make the Jack of Diamonds stand up and quirt cider in the Casino Manager's ear.
Don't you think people who work in casinos should know better than to agree to use the player's own cards and to turn the valuable ones every which way as a tip off? Maybe us ordinary Joes should wander into the high limit room and listen to some of these statements being made.
I mean as much as you may be thinking some very bad things about Phil Ivey and all them famous poker dudes ... don't you think casino employees should know how to avoid having cider in their ears?
Quote: PokeraddictDoes anyone know where the actual lawsuit document may be found?
Pacer is a web site for Federal lawsuits. You have to sign up and pay 10 cents a page to view. Kind of a pain but not a lot of options besides the Federal Building where the suit was filed
Quote: kewljAs I read the complain, not the article, but the complaint, they are saying they had no knowledge of edge sorting techniques in 2012. Most of the gambling world has known about this possibility for years, but Borgata management was apparently in the dark. lol
If you've already pulled it, can you post the complaint somewhere? I'm too lazy this morning to remember my PACER password...
Quote: MathExtremistIf you've already pulled it, can you post the complaint somewhere? I'm too lazy this morning to remember my PACER password...
Pacer has upper and lower case letter passwords plus numbers. I cannot remember mine either.
This is a civil case and there will be depositions as well as written requests for admissions. More information will be coming out.
I wonder if the shark that turned Ivey on to this got a %?
Quote: Dicenor33A friend of mine buys cards from a local pharmacy. He goes hash- hash with the owner, all cards are marked. Try to beat this guy. He buys new deck when his opponents present.
I read about a guy who placed decks in a store and went back with his "target" and bought the marked decks. Scams galore : (
Quote: bigpete88I read about a guy who placed decks in a store and went back with his "target" and bought the marked decks. Scams galore : (
Jerry A., a grifter friend of mine had to put a play down on a homely barmaid in Oregon so he could be in the bar after closing time and switch the cards out for a social blackjack game that was played in the bar everyday.
Quote: kewlj
If Borgata Management knew of this request (special flipping instructions) and approved it, then no they would have no case, but if not, they could MAKE a case for collusion between dealer and players.
Do you think there was even the slightest chance that the most famous gambler in the world is betting $10,000 to $100,000 every hand, and that game is not being watched by every ranking boss on duty? Of course the shift manager and surveillance supervisor were watching every single hand and were well aware the dealers were turning the cards. They just didn't realize it could help Ivey.
Quote: teliot"The Borgata suit claims that Ivey insisted on bringing his own deck of cards because he was superstitious. "
Unbelievable. Is this true? Is this a common practice? I don't play baccarat, but I have never heard of a casino allowing a player to provide the deck of cards. They wouldn't let the player provide the dice or the roulette wheel, so I can't imagine why they'd allow the player to bring their own cards.
Quote: renoUnbelievable. Is this true? Is this a common practice? I don't play baccarat, but I have never heard of a casino allowing a player to provide the deck of cards. They wouldn't let the player provide the dice or the roulette wheel, so I can't imagine why they'd allow the player to bring their own cards.
Can someone reply that has read the actual lawsuit? I also find it hard to believe. I do not know N.J. gaming commission rules but I would bet $20 that bringing your own cards is not allowed.
Quote: bigpete88Can someone reply that has read the actual lawsuit? I also find it hard to believe. I do not know N.J. gaming commission rules but I would bet $20 that bringing your own cards is not allowed.
He did not bring his own cards. He requested a specific brand and type of cards which is not an uncommon request. The ones he wanted a specific pattern on the back which is how he did his edge sorting.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe day when I can tell any casino that I'm using my own dice and I'll make my own rules for throwing them is the day that I will make Ivey and Don Johnson combined look like two-bit pikers.
I have not been on here for awhile. Not to hijack this thread but was it ever determined what Don Johnson's advantage play was? I figured it was maybe shuffle tracking or possibly just a positive progression bettor pushing a win like the "legal" Archie Karas did when hot.
Quote: bigpete88
I have not been on here for awhile. Not to hijack this thread but was it ever determined what Don Johnson's advantage play was? I figured it was maybe shuffle tracking or possibly just a positive progression bettor pushing a win like the "legal" Archie Karas did when hot.
It was mostly the 20% loss rebate. With the favorable rules he managed to negotiate having the 20% rebate and knowing where to start and stop to get most out of it he was playing a winning game off the bat. He also specifically set out to intimidate the dealer into making mistakes which pushed him further positive along with $50,000 everyday in show up money.
Quote: geoffI have not been on here for awhile. Not to hijack this thread but was it ever determined what Don Johnson's advantage play was? I figured it was maybe shuffle tracking or possibly just a positive progression bettor pushing a win like the "legal" Archie Karas did when hot.
It was mostly the 20% loss rebate. With the favorable rules he managed to negotiate having the 20% rebate and knowing where to start and stop to get most out of it he was playing a winning game off the bat. He also specifically set out to intimidate the dealer into making mistakes which pushed him further positive along with $50,000 everyday in show up money.
Thanks. I just found that on Google too. Wonder how many casinos are offering 20% rebate to whales these days. Don Johnson did some simple math and banged away : ). Love those stories. Will toast him today at happy hour. Really!
It seems to be a helluva lot more acidic than cider.Quote: FleaStiffDon't you think casino employees should know how to avoid having cider in their ears?
In other words, either outright casino stupidity or just possibly a desire for having the ebullient public relations of catering to the highest rollers. In either event, it is all on the casinos --- and the utterly complicit casino regulators.Quote: geoffWith the favorable rules he managed to negotiate having the 20% rebate and knowing where to start and stop to get most out of it he was playing a winning game off the bat. He also specifically set out to intimidate the dealer into making mistakes which pushed him further positive along with $50,000 everyday in show up money.
Quote: bigpete88Can someone reply that has read the actual lawsuit?
Fair point. In a Google search of media coverage of Borgata's lawsuit, I can't find any other news outlet which stated that Ivey brought his own cards. Perhaps Calvin Ayre's blog is mistaken. But if it turns out that Ayre got it right, the rest of the news media has missed out on the most interesting angle to this story.
Quote: kewljAs I read the complain, not the article, but the complaint, they are saying they had no knowledge of edge sorting techniques in 2012. Most of the gambling world has known about this possibility for years, but Borgata management was apparently in the dark. lol
I have to disagree with you on this Kewl. Most people were not aware of this technique. Before Steve Forte's book, this move was ALMOST unknown. It was mentioned in a book from the 70's and in Stanford's book from the 70`s but most people had forgotten about it or were not aware. Until Ivey and Eliot
even most Ap's were unaware.
The world is aware of this technique now.
Quote: PaigowdanThis hit yahoo news.
The world is aware of this technique now.
Ya it's a shame.
I do not believe such a thing. It should be Number One Security issue that only Casino Equipment (cards, dice etc) are used in any casino.
Even small casinos in the most remote place on the planet who have no clue about APs , know this fundamental casino rule.
Whales can get their own way with many requests on the tables, but bringing their own cards
It does not matter who you are, I do not think any casino will allow anyone to bring their own cards.
If the casino has a few different brands of cards and the high roller asks for a specific brand, that's a different story.
I'm sure I'm just one of many.Quote: teliotI didn't say it, I quoted an article from a highly reputable source. What's your problem? Why do you always take cheap shots at me every chance you get? Perhaps you should read the thread before shooting your bullets. Here it is again, since you missed it:
====================
"The Borgata suit claims that Ivey insisted on bringing his own deck of cards because he was superstitious. "
"Missouri-based card manufacturer Gemaco Inc. is also named in the suit, which features charges of breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and racketeering."
http://calvinayre.com/2014/04/11/casino/borgata-accuses-phil-ivey-edge-sorting-at-baccarat-tables/
====================
If you think I am forever making errors, and this is another in a long string of such errors, please say so rather than hiding behind innuendo, based in this case on false logic.
Fair enough, your right, I was going on the fact that, he said... you said and no I didn't completely read what you wrote.
I guess it's also the fact you took some moral high ground with me concerning online streaming. Especially from someone who was advocating online casinos( a gray aria at best) I feel what you do now, considering you were a former (they say failed AP). Well... I find that very off putting, to say it nice.
Actually, I'm sure I have not pointed out many of your errors myself. I didn't say this was an error. Do you really think he brought in his own decks of cards? OK I understand you were just reporting on something you found on the internet. But since some people think you are an authority on this type of stuff. And since you consort, I mean consult with casinos. Since this kind of thing that you do and some might consider you an expert. I think you might have some responsibility in commenting further on that and things you re post from other sources. someone bring in there own cards is a very key part of that story. You and I both know its very unlikely the casino let him walk in and bring his own cards(I guess its possible). If they did in fact let him do this, I'm flabbergasted to say the least. I think you have bigger casino fish to fry or scare then to worry about me.
I should start consulting, it sounds easy. #1 Rule: DON'T LET THE PLAYERS BRING THEIR OWN CARDS.
I spoke with someone in the know, and the way I understand this is not that he physically brought cards, but that he requested cards from a certain manufacturer. This is a rumor, so is worth its weight in electrons. But it also explains why Borgata is going after the card manufacturer for conspiracy.Quote: AceTwo'Allowed him to bring his own cards'
Quote:Allowed him to bring his own cards
sorry these guys deserve to lose their money. they fell for their own con.. I mean Phil Ivey is a professional gambler.. how smart do you have to be to figure out that professional gamblers won't play a game if they don't have an advantage. do a background check next time.
I just don't understand Borgata. Why did they wait until now to sue Ivey when this happened in 2012? The reason, according to me, is quite simple. They are riding on the Crockford's coat tails hoping for a good verdict in that case which would at least give them presedence to argue in this case. If the Crockfords case is rules in Ivey's favor then I think Borgata withdraws or they will continue knowing their case is exceedingly frivolous at best.
I have been around edge sorting for a while now and I have put many procedures in place. Obviously the Asian casinos are far more strict on procedures than what the US and UK casinos are. There they will do anything to get and keep the big players, including many silly things.
The most important part of this AP is the card back designs. (If Wiz will give me permission, I can post a card back design here that is specifically vulnerable and also I'm almost 100% sure, the one used in this play).
Next you have to get the casinos involved to make certain "concessions" with regards to your play. You want to use only one deck, shuffled in a CSM. This will not change the orientation of the cards unless there is some procedure put in place.
Next, the AP can take a few different approaches (I have heard of both).
1) The players will bet minimum. The 4 cards will be drawn from the shoe, FACE DOWN. The player will ask the dealer to slowly lift the corners of the cards up, just so that the number is exposed. The player will then ask the dealer to please rotate the card 180 degrees or leave it as is. They will do this with an entire playing shoe. Now, once the cards have been sorted, they will again ask the dealer to draw the first 4 cards but this time they will ask if they may make a bet only AFTER the cards have been drawn. They don't want the dealer to lift the cards this time (obviously) just that they are superstitious. Once they establish where the 7's, 8's and 9's are (if any) they will bet that side. Easy money.
2) The cards will be drawn in a normal fashion and the players will bet normally. After the cards have been exposed and the hand finished, the player will ask the dealer to turn the cards, for luck. Once the whole deck has been done the players will see the first card to be dealt and make their decisions based on "first card knoweldge". According to teliot the advantage for knowing the first card out (player card) is a 9 is about 21%. The playing strategy is also very easy to learn after the cards have been sorted.
Obviously the above can happen in any combination of what I had described.
Now my take. Borgata is being frivolous and are hoping that they can get a good verdict in England so that they can get money back.
Edge sorting is not illegal in my mind and it is purely an AP activity. The casinos complied with everything they were asked to do, how can they say that they were "tricked"? Would they even have made this lawsuit had Ivey not been denied his money in England?
Ivey (or his accomplice) exploited casinos with bad procedures and card designs. Not only that, they also put pressure on the table games departments through the Marketing department. They had obviously made demands based on their "front money" and the Marketers told the table games team to let them do "just about whatever they want, they have a lot of money on account".
We can argue the moral angle until the cows come home and not get a fair answer so I'm not going to go there.
I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the casino management team, the Marketing department and the Surveillance department. All these teams have procedures and all of them either looked the other way or they had no idea what was happening. It was a massive breakdown of procedure and communication.
Just as a side note, this play was happening all over the world in 2010/2011 including a very high profile case in LV. That Borgata said in 2012 they had no idea about this play either speaks to their managerial expertise or they are not truthful.
Sorry for this being so long.
Quote: TomspurHere is what I know and my opinion.
I just don't understand Borgata. Why did they wait until now to sue Ivey when this happened in 2012? The reason, according to me, is quite simple. They are riding on the Crockford's coat tails hoping for a good verdict in that case which would at least give them presedence to argue in this case. If the Crockfords case is rules in Ivey's favor then I think Borgata withdraws or they will continue knowing their case is exceedingly frivolous at best.
I have been around edge sorting for a while now and I have put many procedures in place. Obviously the Asian casinos are far more strict on procedures than what the US and UK casinos are. There they will do anything to get and keep the big players, including many silly things.
The most important part of this AP is the card back designs. (If Wiz will give me permissioun, I can post a card back design here that is specifically vulnerable and also I'm almost 100% sure, the one used in this play).
Next you have to get the casinos involved to make certain "concessions" with regards to your play. You want to use only one deck, shuffled in a CSM. This will not change the orientation of the cards unless there is some procedure put in place.
Next, the AP can take a few different approaches (I have heard of both).
1) The players will bet minimum. The 4 cards will be drawn from the shoe, FACE DOWN. The player will ask the dealer to slowly lift the corners of the cards up, just so that the number is exposed. The player will then ask the dealer to please rotate the card 180 degrees or leave it as is. They will do this with an entire playing shoe. Now, once the cards have been sorted, they will again ask the dealer to draw the first 4 cards but this time they will ask if they may make a bet only AFTER the cards have been drawn. They don't want the dealer to lift the cards this time (obviously) just that they are superstitious. Once they establish where the 7's, 8's and 9's are (if any) they will bet that side. Easy money.
2) The cards will be drawn in a normal fashion and the players will bet normally. After the cards have been exposed and the hand finished, the player will ask the dealer to turn the cards, for luck. Once the whole deck has been done the players will see the first card to be dealt and make their decisions based on "first card knoweldge". According to teliot the advantage for knowing the first card out (player card) is a 9 is about 21%. The playing strategy is also very easy to learn after the cards have been sorted.
Obviously the above can happen in any combination of what I had described.
Now my take. Borgata is being frivolous and are hoping that they can get a good verdict in England so that they can get money back.
Edge sorting is not illegal in my mind and it is purely an AP activity. The casinos complied with everything they were asked to do, how can they say that they were "tricked"? Would they even have made this lawsuit had Ivey not been denied his money in England?
Ivey (or his accomplice) exploited casinos with bad procedures and card designs. Not only that, they also put pressure on the table games departments through the Marketing department. They had obviously made demands based on their "front money" and the Marketers told the table games team to let them do "just about whatever they want, they have a lot of money on account".
We can argue the moral angle until the cows come home and not get a fair answer so I'm not going to go there.
I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the casino management team, the Marketing department and the Surveillance department. All these teams have procedures and all of them either looked the other way or they had no idea what was happening. It was a massive breakdown of procedure and communication.
Just as a side note, this play was happening all over the world in 2010/2011 including a very high profile case in LV. That Borgata said in 2012 they had no idea about this play either speaks to their managerial expertise or they are not truthful.
Sorry for this being so long.
Definitely the best post in this thread.
Quote: TomspurHere is what I know and my opinion.
I just don't understand Borgata. Why did they wait until now to sue Ivey when this happened in 2012? The reason, according to me, is quite simple. They are riding on the Crockford's coat tails hoping for a good verdict in that case which would at least give them presedence to argue in this case. If the Crockfords case is rules in Ivey's favor then I think Borgata withdraws or they will continue knowing their case is exceedingly frivolous at best.
I have been around edge sorting for a while now and I have put many procedures in place. Obviously the Asian casinos are far more strict on procedures than what the US and UK casinos are. There they will do anything to get and keep the big players, including many silly things.
The most important part of this AP is the card back designs. (If Wiz will give me permissioun, I can post a card back design here that is specifically vulnerable and also I'm almost 100% sure, the one used in this play).
Next you have to get the casinos involved to make certain "concessions" with regardsedit"Quit trying your luck and start trying your skill." Mickey Crimm
Quote: DeucekiesSo what do you think will be the result? Casinos adding procedures, card manufacturers changing their designs, or a combination of both?
As usual, it will be a combination. Often when casinos try to "save money" or "listen to salesmen" they make mistakes.
You select your cards based upon input from the DEALERS, particularly in the poker room. Dealers are ones who know if an extra thick card will jam up the shuffler all day long or not be worth the extra cost for some other reason. Its casino managers who don't even consult their dealers who wind up making mistakes.
An eighth of a cent per die, but a necessity to stop a busy game to switch the dice does not save money in the eyes of a dealer, only in the eyes of a purchasing agent who probably doesn't venture onto a casino floor anyway.
Yeah, if they were smart they would PAY to keep this whole thing under the rug and preserve their jobs.Quote: chrisrsorry these guys deserve to lose their money. they fell for their own con.
Considering that Gemaco was also the source of the defective baccarat decks at the Golden Nugget, this is at least the second strike against them. With the third strike, they should be disqualified from doing any business with licensed casinos. As dealers will tell you, their product is significantly inferior to those from American Playing Card and Bee.Quote: DeucekiesSo what do you think will be the result? Casinos adding procedures, card manufacturers changing their designs, or a combination of both?
