Phil Ivey sued for edge sorting at Borgata!
Quote: SanchoPanzaConsidering 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.
My understanding is there is nothing about those specific cards used that were defective, but all of those types of cards were edge sortable. In other words, every card was designed the same way and "defective", not just the select 8 decks used in this case. It was the casino's fault for using the cards.
IMHO though Gemaco is the brand in question presumably for "lack of quality control", the full bleed design has this inherent "flaw". A margined card does not have the problem, but may suffer from other issues. /MHO
Are people really this gullable?
Anyway, if it's just a lawsuit and not criminal charges, they can't prove Ivey got the cards into play. Can't prove he got the cards into play, there's no criminal case. They can try the lawsuit, but at some point you still have to prove he was the one who got the cards into play. If they could prove that it would be criminal charges. So, I don't see them winning the lawsuit either.
My guess is Ivey isn't the one responsible for the cards getting into play. If he knew what the cards were, he wouldn't have to have the dealer flip the cards over, he would already have known. Word probably got around that the cards were in play, and he just went down to check it out, and holy shit... marked cards. Field day from there.
Edge Sorting...ROTFL
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThey aren't really marked. The point is, some brands of cards are not symmetric. Marking usually refers to different cards looking different. Here, the cards all look the same.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Quote: 98ClubsSo what I gather about edge-sorting without a real understanding of its methods... it appears that the card design must be a "full bleed" design (printing the pattern to cover the full card). I'm surprised that this type of design is alloowed at all. I have come across many designs/manufacturers that use a margin however narrow. That also includes some famous and some inexpensive brands. What I find startling is the number of expensive brands/designs that are full bleed.
IMHO though Gemaco is the brand in question presumably for "lack of quality control", the full bleed design has this inherent "flaw". A margined card does not have the problem, but may suffer from other issues. /MHO
They don't have to be full bleeds, although that makes it easier. They symmetry can be lacking on the edges of thec ard (hence the name "edge sorting") or it can be on the edges of the logo boxes or if there is a white box around the outside (like most poker cards) there can still be a-symmetrical patterns there to be exploited. Hell, the card companies tried to get clever and include a "faded design" which fades the main coloring more and more the closer it gets to the edges and even those had flaws.....
Where there is a will, there is a way!
Quote: JyBrd0403LOLOLOLOLOL
I have no idea why you think that this is funny. Do you not agree that some cards have asymmetric patterns on the back?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI have no idea why you think that this is funny. Do you not agree that some cards have asymmetric patterns on the back?
Actually marked cards originally refer to a mark on the back of the card. An oily thumb print on the Aces. So, I'm just really getting a good laugh at all this, I really don't mean any offense.
They're not marked, they're asymmetric. Got it.
Quote: JyBrd0403Actually marked cards originally refer to a mark on the back of the card. An oily thumb print on the Aces. So, I'm just really getting a good laugh at all this, I really don't mean any offense.
They're not marked, they're asymmetric. Got it.
Well now you are splitting hairs :)
They are marked just not in the traditional sense of the word. There are many card manufacturers who have defects on the backs of their cards, either by design (collusion) or by accident.
Again, I don't feel sorry for any casino who doesn't thoroughly check the cards they put in play before actually doing so.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Floors who don't check the cards before placing them on a game, dealers who don't check and ultimately Surveillance who doesn't care.....Not on my watch :)
Quote: JyBrd0403Actually marked cards originally refer to a mark on the back of the card. An oily thumb print on the Aces. So, I'm just really getting a good laugh at all this, I really don't mean any offense.
They're not marked, they're asymmetric. Got it.
Check out http://apheat.net/2012/08/18/edge-sorting-in-baccarat/
Quote: wudgedCheck out http://apheat.net/2012/08/18/edge-sorting-in-baccarat/
I read it, actually, when I had to google 'edge sorting' before. It's nonsense. Not all of it, but most of it.
Quote: TomspurWell now you are splitting hairs :)
They are marked just not in the traditional sense of the word. There are many card manufacturers who have defects on the backs of their cards, either by design (collusion) or by accident.
Again, I don't feel sorry for any casino who doesn't thoroughly check the cards they put in play before actually doing so.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Floors who don't check the cards before placing them on a game, dealers who don't check and ultimately Surveillance who doesn't care.....Not on my watch :)
I don't mean to split hairs, but I think that there is a significant difference here.
A marked card, that can be read regardless of orientation, does not require anything special in the way of procedures. You look at the back of the card and you play accordingly.
Edge sorting requires complete incompetence on the part of the staff. They have to let you rotate the cards, or in this case, rotate them for you (!!!) and then not do a turn before the shuffle. Every casino that I've ever been does a cut and a turn, whether they use an automatic shuffler or not. The turn takes all of 2 seconds, and it makes edge sorting impossible.
The morons who allowed this should be fired. It's not like edge sorting is a new thing. It's been well-known for years. There is absolutely no excuse for someone who is in charge of game protection not knowing about it or the trivial fix.
Paulson Cards are made in Mexico. Gemaco makes several casinos' decks, including (currently) the Victory out of Port Canaveral. I would think this play is blown, though, wouldn't you?
The continuous design backs are designed to be centrally symmetrical; the trouble comes on the die cut, if they're not really picky about it at the factory. Like somebody said, the faded edge cards can have the same problem; if they're cut the slightest bit crooked/off, your eye can tell one side from the other. And I do have a few old decks where the casino made a bad choice and the logo or design had an up-and-down, which makes it pretty damned easy.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't mean to split hairs, but I think that there is a significant difference here.
A marked card, that can be read regardless of orientation, does not require anything special in the way of procedures. You look at the back of the card and you play accordingly.
Edge sorting requires complete incompetence on the part of the staff. They have to let you rotate the cards, or in this case, rotate them for you (!!!) and then not do a turn before the shuffle. Every casino that I've ever been does a cut and a turn, whether they use an automatic shuffler or not. The turn takes all of 2 seconds, and it makes edge sorting impossible.
The morons who allowed this should be fired. It's not like edge sorting is a new thing. It's been well-known for years. There is absolutely no excuse for someone who is in charge of game protection not knowing about it or the trivial fix.
I was talking to Jybyrd :)
It still takes this flip flop stuff to turn an edge sort into profitability but its a danger that the casino should never allow. Some purchasing agent looking at pennies can cost a casino millions, particularly if you throw in the publicity, lawyers and good will involved.
When will casinos EVER learn? You run your poker room to keep the pokers dealers happy and it will turn out to be a profitable and well liked poker room. The poker dealers select the card manufacturer, not some purchasing agent listening to salesmen and calculators.
You run your general casino in the same manner: To keep the dealers happy and not always wanting to jump at the EO list all the time. Regular and fair schedules, prior notice, good game rotation. A "Pencil" who is fair minded. All these things lead to happy dealers who are invitingly smiling when customers wander by. You think a dealer itching for the Early Out list day after day is bringing in tips? Or keeping his customers happy and entertained? Dealers are the experts in cards and shuffling machines, not salesmen and purchasing agents. Dealers know the costs involved in shoddy merchandise and poor shift scheduling. So too do stockholders, it just takes them longer to learn the lessons.
Dealers who love to get up and come to work have happy tables with winners who tip and people who enjoy themselves even if they lose. Dealers who are morose and moody and want the Early Out list all the time are not going to have happy players or winning players. It really is a customer service field. And the Suits should never forget that. The bottom line rests on making use of the valuable employees that you have, not grinding them into an impersonal shredder of "Dummy Up and Deal".
then that will be exploited.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis has nothing to do with the dealers. Just put a turn into your shuffling procedures and you can use cards with THIS SIDE UP stamped on one of the edges.
Quote: Tomspur
They are marked just not in the traditional sense of the word. There are many card manufacturers who have defects on the backs of their cards, either by design (collusion) or by accident.
I don't know the case all that well, but, your saying these defects on the cards just all happen to be on the 6's,7's,8's, and 9's? What a lucky break.
Quote: JyBrd0403I don't know the case all that well, but, your saying these defects on the cards just all happen to be on the 6's,7's,8's, and 9's? What a lucky break.
Nope. Not at all. All the cards have the same 'defect'. But what if I could get that defect closest to the dealer on the 6-9's and closest to me on all the rest of the cards?
Quote: thecesspitNope. Not at all. All the cards have the same 'defect'. But what if I could get that defect closest to the dealer on the 6-9's and closest to me on all the rest of the cards?
Aaahhh, now it all makes sense. LOL Laughing at myself now. Then, you've got to get lucky on the dealer.
Quote: JyBrd0403I don't know the case all that well, but, your saying these defects on the cards just all happen to be on the 6's,7's,8's, and 9's? What a lucky break.
If only the 6's, 7's, 8's and 9's were marked then it would be collusion starting with the manufacturers.
In this edge sorting case, one isde of the card has BIG diamonds or circles, the other side has SMALL diamonds or circles. If the 6, 7, 8 and 9 cards have all the BIG diamonds facing one way and the other cards have the SMALL diamonds facing another way (after being sorted) then the players can easily see which cards are which.
Quote: mickeycrimmI think Borgata is just taking a shot. They are setting it up in case Ivey loses in England. This kind of jockeying goes on all the time. About the best Borgata can hope for is an out of court settlement.
Spot on mickey, you and I thinking along the same lines :)
Quote: TomspurSpot on mickey, you and I thinking along the same lines :)
guessing both of you are right. I still can't believe they're willing to make this happen on the heels of the poker tournament fiasco. Terrible publicity.
Quote: beachbumbabsguessing both of you are right. I still can't believe they're willing to make this happen on the heels of the poker tournament fiasco. Terrible publicity.
You know what they say about money and bull feces......they talk and they walk :)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't mean to split hairs, but I think that there is a significant difference here.
A marked card, that can be read regardless of orientation, does not require anything special in the way of procedures. You look at the back of the card and you play accordingly.
Edge sorting requires complete incompetence on the part of the staff. They have to let you rotate the cards, or in this case, rotate them for you (!!!) and then not do a turn before the shuffle. Every casino that I've ever been does a cut and a turn, whether they use an automatic shuffler or not. The turn takes all of 2 seconds, and it makes edge sorting impossible.
The morons who allowed this should be fired. It's not like edge sorting is a new thing. It's been well-known for years. There is absolutely no excuse for someone who is in charge of game protection not knowing about it or the trivial fix.
Again I have to disagree. Edge sorting has not been well known for years. It was mentioned in a couple of books from the 70's and in . Steve Forte's book from the mid 2000's. Before 2010ish hardly anyone knew about this play. And to blame the dealers and floors for not checking the cards, they didn't know what they were looking for. Also it was not just a Gemaco problem.
Quote: HunterhillAgain I have to disagree. Edge sorting has not been well known for years. It was mentioned in a couple of books from the 70's and in . Steve Forte's book from the mid 2000's. Before 2010ish hardly anyone knew about this play. And to blame the dealers and floors for not checking the cards, they didn't know what they were looking for. Also it was not just a Gemaco problem.
As you know I'm in Surveillance myself and this play first came across my desk in 2010 so you are almost right on the button there. However it had already been run by a Philipino crew since 2008 in some Asian markets. They then came to the US and battered us before we became wise in 2010.
After that, if any casino AFTER 2010 still hadn't either redesigned their card backs or taught their staff ALL ABOUT edge sorting, then imo, they have nobody but themselves to blame, so yeah, you kinda can't blame the floors and dealers but you sure can blame management and surveillance.
Quote: HunterhillAgain I have to disagree. Edge sorting has not been well known for years. It was mentioned in a couple of books from the 70's and in . Steve Forte's book from the mid 2000's. Before 2010ish hardly anyone knew about this play. And to blame the dealers and floors for not checking the cards, they didn't know what they were looking for. Also it was not just a Gemaco problem.
I partially agree. I've heard of edge sorting for decades, but I am on the edge of gaming, not in the know. I do think the casinos should be training for it, and if they're not, they're penny wise and pound foolish. But you're right, it's all of the manu's, not just Gemaco.
Quote: HunterhillAgain I have to disagree. Edge sorting has not been well known for years. It was mentioned in a couple of books from the 70's and in . Steve Forte's book from the mid 2000's. Before 2010ish hardly anyone knew about this play. And to blame the dealers and floors for not checking the cards, they didn't know what they were looking for. Also it was not just a Gemaco problem.
Between 2010 and now is years. Anyone who is responsible for protecting millions of dollars should know what has been going on in their industry in the last 3-5 years. Part of your job is keeping up with the news. The information is freely available -- there is no good reason not to know it.
There is no excuse for any casino anywhere to not do a turn as part of their shuffling procedure. Almost every casino does it -- to not do so is just negligent.
I agree that casino's should know, but thankfully they are always 2 steps behind. By the time Eliot AND the casino's find out we are on to the next play.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBetween 2010 and now is years. Anyone who is responsible for protecting millions of dollars should know what has been going on in their industry in the last 3-5 years. Part of your job is keeping up with the news. The information is freely available -- there is no good reason not to know it.
There is no excuse for any casino anywhere to not do a turn as part of their shuffling procedure. Almost every casino does it -- to not do so is just negligent.
Quote: TomspurIf only the 6's, 7's, 8's and 9's were marked then it would be collusion starting with the manufacturers.
In this edge sorting case, one isde of the card has BIG diamonds or circles, the other side has SMALL diamonds or circles. If the 6, 7, 8 and 9 cards have all the BIG diamonds facing one way and the other cards have the SMALL diamonds facing another way (after being sorted) then the players can easily see which cards are which.
marked cards = criminal case.
asymmetric cards = lawsuit.
Got it.
A casino is just a business and just like any other it can sue a person. Most likely Borgata is suing over fraud by saying Phil Ivey tricked them.Quote: speedycrapHow can a casino sue a player in this fashion at all????
Quote: PokeraddictI am writing a story on this and wanted to make sure of a rule. Can a player simply bet the tie without betting on the player or banker? It seems like the answer to that is yes but I want to make 100% sure before I make an error.
The answer is absolutely YES!
They can also only bet on the pairs bet if they wanted to or a combination of the 3 bets or all of them or none of them :)
Quote: TomspurThe answer is absolutely YES!
They can also only bet on the pairs bet if they wanted to or a combination of the 3 bets or all of them or none of them :)
Provided the house allows it. Some houses will (foolishly) not allow you to bed only tie.
Quote: DeucekiesProvided the house allows it. Some houses will (foolishly) not allow you to bed only tie.
I understand but then they don't like money :)
- Ivey would have had to have been playing 25 hands an hour to have the edge they claim he did based on the results. This seems incredibly low for a heads up game. A page at Wizard of Odds says the average game is 72 hands per hour, and I assume that implies a table with several players, all with separate superstitions. Some players suggest 100 hands per hour would be more accurate for these sessions. The problem is we don't really know.
- A player with this alleged edge is not likely to play at a speed of 35% of a standard table (less than one hand every two minutes seems extremely slow). An AP play can be busted at any moment and that would be in the back of anyone's mind I would think.
- One session really stands out. He won just over 6 bets per hour. It was the first visit that lasted 16 hours.
- One visit was 56 hours. It accounted for more than half of his entire play. The result was a win of just 44 units.
- At his hourly win rate from the three previous sessions, it would have taken about 13 hours to have intentionally lost what they claim he did as cover play. The last visit was only 18 hours and at one point they say he was up $3.5m.
- If we assume he really was playing only 25 hands per hour before, a speed of 100 hands per hour based on his alleged edge would have taken 5 hours to dump $2.7m. Betting the tie at this rate of speed would have taken six hours.
- Variance plays a big factor in the small sample size. At 100 hands per hour he played 10,700 hands, if he was really only playing 25 hands an hour then he only played 2,675 hands.
The casino's assertion that it was ignorant of edge sorting seems ludicrous.
The casino personnel who agreed to such critical procedures should be fired.
I think the casino is a bit of shot taker in this whole matter.
Quote: TomspurThey don't have to be full bleeds, although that makes it easier. They symmetry can be lacking on the edges of thec ard (hence the name "edge sorting") or it can be on the edges of the logo boxes or if there is a white box around the outside (like most poker cards) there can still be a-symmetrical patterns there to be exploited. Hell, the card companies tried to get clever and include a "faded design" which fades the main coloring more and more the closer it gets to the edges and even those had flaws.....
Where there is a will, there is a way!
Thanks for that. I have a few decks with "fading to edge". You're right, they don't make it either. So symmetry prevails.
Quote: teliotI 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.
Let's see, we have a poker professional who is requesting cards from a specific manufacturer...
Let us make the fundamental assumption that when people do things, they do things for a reason. Having made this assumption, it necessarily follows that when people do unusual things, those things, as well, can be assumed to be being done for a reason.
Now, we ask ourselves the question: Is there anything so wrong with the cards we have that he should want us to use different cards?
It appears that our decks of cards have 52 cards per deck, and we can assume so do his...
Next question: Would a professional poker player be superstitious?
Answer: Probably not. Therefore, we can conclude that he wants cards from a specific manufacturer, and not for reasons owing to superstition, thus, the answer is no.
You don't have to know why he wants different cards when simply knowing that he wants different cards is enough.
Again, assuming that rumor is true.
That would be almost like saying, "I am suing you because I am unbelievably stupid, you are not, and you took advantage of my stupidity to LEGALLY obtain money from me."
Quote: Mission146
Next question: Would a professional poker player be superstitious?
Answer: Probably not.
I'm gonna stop you right there. As it turns out, there are plenty of superstitious poker players, and at least when it comes to house gambling like craps, Ivey has proven to be plenty superstitious.
Check out this video for a fun and interesting watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hYsCemYyGQ
