Ivey- skill- really cmon
Cheating in an open and notorious manner that is instantly observable by all players is still cheating.
Now if there has been an industry wide trend to let MBAs run rampant and to overwork dealers and floors and promote inexperienced personnel to positions of responsibility, that allows an opportunity for the bad guys to walk in and be blatant about it perhaps the high mucky mucks at Borgata might sit up and take notice. Bank personnel are supposed to be taught about bank robberies, linesmen are supposed to be taught about electric shock, cops are supposed to know about that little dohickey called the trigger.
In an effort to squeeze more and more out of the gambling public perhaps the casinos should look at the results of their actions. Backrooming people who steal an extra packet of soap from the maid's dolly, making a player fill out a form in triplicate to get a decent drink, backing off honest, lawful but overly skilled players who are having an occasional run of luck may have all lead to a situation where no one is watching the basic cheat moves that used to be known to anyone over six.
Yes, cards often have designs on the back. Yes, one edge will be a slightly truncated pattern. However, the edge orientation will only indicate card value if someone takes the cards and flips them in a certain manner. This is cheating. Benefiting from it is cheating. Benefiting from it is cheating if everyone in the room knows about it. Benefiting from it is cheating if everyone in the room should know about it but doesn't. Hiring a dumb dealer in awe of some superstore is the casino's fault but it doesn't invite cheating. Hiring some dumb and overworked dealer who knows nothing about his industry reflects on the casino's wisdom, but should not reflect on the integrity of the game.
Ivey's lawyers seem to imply that if a casino allows any deck of cards to be re-used then the casino should expect the cards to be marked. That is absurd.
If a card is dealt face up it is visible to every player. If a card deck is edge sorted randomly, it is visible to every player. If a card deck is edge sorted in an intentional manner to reveal high value cards, it is visible to every player but is still cheating even if the casino personnel are idiots.
Casinos have been going around saying 'don't photograph our sign', don't use cell phones, don't look weird at the dealer, don't slurp too many free sodas, don't try to gamble without giving us your id, don't back into a parking spot, don't take an extra towel, don't count cards, don't win. Perhaps its time for the casinos to hold fewer meetings, issue fewer memos, hire better dealers, reward the alert dealers, and maybe not promote to Floor level some idiot who does not know about edge sorting because he worked his way up the ranks by counting soap packets.
Yeah, using information available to all isn't cheating. But although the article mentions Edge Sorting, it doesn't describe it, nor does it indicate that Ivey is accused of doing it. In fact, by mentioning the Golden Nugget unshuffled cards case (where the only thing the players did wrong is not alert the casino to the problem), it further attempts to make the Ivey case seem to be completely the casino's fault.
He goes on to describe the card destruction that goes on in Macau - a fact that has nothing to do with either case.
Is Ivey guilty? If you're basing the decision on the info in this case, you'll either say "no", or "what's he accused of?"
To say it is cheating is like saying hole-carding is cheating. It is the casino's responsibility to protect their game.
That way, if the evidence shows that edge sorting occurred, and that the flaws in the cards permitted it, their claim against the manufacturer is solidified and they should recover the money lost.
Heck, they shouldn't really care WHO pays, just so they get paid back their losses due to edge sorting.
FWIW, here is a legal thought piece.
There IS a certain element of skill involved:Quote: strictlyAPi guess he is implying that edge sorting is skill
1 - The ability/skill to detect a VERY SLIGHT difference in the edges of the cards, at a distance of at least arm's length.
2 - The ability/skill to sweet talk the dealer into turning the cards over is a specific manner so that once the shoe is shuffled, the edges are aligned so the information can be used.
Note that anyone with the first skill who happens to be at the table when someone with the second skill is working, can also benefit from the information provided.
When you sue, you automatically sue everybody that is potentially involved, wether or not they are potentially at fault.Quote: MrVWhile Borgata would certainly LIKE to prevail in their claims against Ivey and Sun, I suspect they anticipate that they will lose; that is why they "hedged their bet" by also suing Gemaco, the playing card manufacturer.
Quote: MrVWhile Borgata would certainly LIKE to prevail in their claims against Ivey and Sun, I suspect they anticipate that they will lose; that is why they "hedged their bet" by also suing Gemaco, the playing card manufacturer.
That way, if the evidence shows that edge sorting occurred, and that the flaws in the cards permitted it, their claim against the manufacturer is solidified and they should recover the money lost.
Heck, they shouldn't really care WHO pays, just so they get paid back their losses due to edge sorting.
FWIW, here is a legal thought piece.
I would imagine that a manufacturer would have some type of clause in a sales contract stating that absolute perfection is not possible. This is totally on the Borgata. Their game, their rules. They could have had rules in place preventing this. Oh well.
Quote: FleastiffYes, cards often have designs on the back. Yes, one edge will be a slightly truncated pattern. However, the edge orientation will only indicate card value if someone takes the cards and flips them in a certain manner. This is cheating. Benefiting from it is cheating. Benefiting from it is cheating if everyone in the room knows about it. Benefiting from it is cheating if everyone in the room should know about it but doesn't. Hiring a dumb dealer in awe of some superstore is the casino's fault but it doesn't invite cheating. Hiring some dumb and overworked dealer who knows nothing about his industry reflects on the casino's wisdom, but should not reflect on the integrity of the game.
In order to sort play, you don't have to turn the cards. Turning the cards simply makes it easier. With practice, you can track the count value of the symmetrical cards verses the asymmetrical cards as the cards are dealt - without turning the cards! This is effective in the mini bac games.
Once you've gone through the all of the decks, you can use the totals of all of the symmetrical cards to determine if they're likely to create an advantage for either the banker bet, or the player bet. You do the same for all of the asymmetrical cards.
As the cards are dealt, each category may get stronger/weaker. With practice, you'll find that you can create several additional sort categories by also using the left right symmetry of the card pattern. Some cards will have a pattern that is short on the left bottom side of the card, but tall on the right side of the bottom of the card.
Once you've sorted all of the cards, you will sometimes find, that right off the top of the deck, you may have an advantage. Again, all without ever having to turn a card. Simply seeing the lower edge of the card setting in the shoe can yield an advantage in bac. The game of min bac is easy, because you can openly track and write with pen and paper. However, the method is also quite effective at BJ. (Run a simply +/- count for each sorted category).
And yes, I would argue that this IS a SKILL. A skill that takes time to develop, great eyes, and a great deal discipline.
I would also question whether or not he really had someone always turning the cards. Turning the cards could be part of a cover story by the casino to help prevent copy cats. Often times, in such disputes, the casinos will sometimes bend the truth, more than just little bit.
-Keyser
.
You seem to be implying that the pattern on the back of the cards had some variance to it. That is not what I have read. The backs of the cards are perfectly symmetrical. However, the left side of the back starts on a perfect point of a diamond. On the right side of the card, the edge of the card is just short of the point of the diamond, leaving a bit of a space between the 2 lines.
When you are looking at the back of the card, you have no way of knowing what card you are looking at, IF they are all oriented the same direction. However, if all of the 8s and 9s are turned so that the full diamond point is on the right side, and the rest of the cards have the full diamond point on the left side, it is now very easy to spot the 8s and 9s.
Quote: RaleighCrapsKeyser,
You seem to be implying that the pattern on the back of the cards had some variance to it. That is not what I have read. The backs of the cards are perfectly symmetrical. However, the left side of the back starts on a perfect point of a diamond. On the right side of the card, the edge of the card is just short of the point of the diamond, leaving a bit of a space between the 2 lines.
I'm referring to the printed pattern. The printed pattern is not always symmetrical. From side to side it can vary. It can also vary from left to right.
Quote: RaleighCrapsWhen you are looking at the back of the card, you have no way of knowing what card you are looking at, IF they are all oriented the same direction. However, if all of the 8s and 9s are turned so that the full diamond point is on the right side, and the rest of the cards have the full diamond point on the left side, it is now very easy to spot the 8s and 9s.
That's not true. Once you've sorted some decks, you will understand. With practice, you'll learn exactly how much of the "diamonds" should be showing on either edge. If too much of the diamond is showing, then the card goes into an asymmetrical category. If just the right amount is showing, then it goes into a symmetrical category. It's kind of like looking at a penny. You know it's a penny, regardless of which side you see, because you've learned to spot a penny.
Next, you can total all of the cards within a category to determine if it's advantageous for you to bet on the player or the banker based on what you see as the first card out of the shoe. You don't have to know exactly what that next card is going to be, only whether it's likely to favor player or the banker.
-Keyser
http://apheat.net/2013/12/10/edge-sorting-101/
Jeez, you would think most of these obvious dumb and don't have a clue casinos would have gone bankrupt by now with all the AP'ing going on.
I think 99.9% of the people would have a better chance of becoming a pro golfer or ball player when compared too constantly or successfully making a living as an AP. I hope the ridiculous odds of that happening get my point across.
All this mathematical ass blowing smoke might impress some young rookies who are to dumb and wet behind the ears to know any better, and actually think they could win constantly if they keep listening to the endless bullshit that goes on here. But don't forget their are a lot of veterans also on these sites who get a great deal of laughter reading this endless ap nonsense.
Phil Ivery may have gotten away with something that should have been obvious, but it certainly won't happen again. Yet, I'm certain several AP'ers on here already made their millions using this same tactic.
I will say:
1. Card turning is NOT an official or sanctioned part of the game of Baccarat;
2. It was deliberately done as an "extra-to-the-game" manipulation.
3. But I have extremely little sympathy for a casino that has such ridiculously weak game protection.
Quote: 4ofaKindIt gets boring reading how smart and intelligent all you AP's are. Must be an awful lot of AP millionaires out there. Every time their is any type of discussion of any type of edge the AP's start coming out of the wood work and brag how much they know about how to execute and squeeze every nickle out of a casino.
Jeez, you would think most of these obvious dumb and don't have a clue casinos would have gone bankrupt by now with all the AP'ing going on.
I think 99.9% of the people would have a better chance of becoming a pro golfer or ball player when compared too constantly or successfully making a living as an AP.
All this mathematical ass blowing smoke might impress some young rookies who are to dumb and wet behind the ears to know any better. But don't forget their are a lot of veterans also on these sites who get a great deal of laughter reading this endless ap nonsense.
Phil Ivery may have gotten away with something that should have been obvious, but it certainly won't happen again. Yet, I'm certain several AP'ers on here already made their millions using this same tactic.
Everything is obvious when you are aware of it. I have seen/heard of several situations where one knowledgeable employee could have saved the casino high six to low seven figures, I.E. the casino was aware something was going on, but couldn't figure out what. Some of these things I would expect the average WoV poster to get within ten minutes of observation, not because they are experts, but because they are aware of kind of AP that is taking place. I think the big thing here is that it's not even clear that AP is taking place, so there's no reason to try to investigate, just a patron getting very lucky.
I disagree, it will happen again, just not at the same property, and not on the same game. As for the posters crying "obvious!" making millions, knowledge of AP techniques is probably the smallest hurdle in terms of producing income. A good example is our own teliot, a guy who knows all the math behind a few of the bread and butter AP techniques, and manages to only eke out a modest living with the knowledge while travelling across the world. It's not for everyone, and you will find the profession is dominated by gritty underworld types with an ambiguous moral compass rather than academic scholars.
Quote: PartialInfoI understand the numbers, that is not the issue. My concern is how long it would take for an AP to sit through 10+ shoes of Bac in order to be reasonably certain that he has seen/classified each card in the shoe. Like I stated earlier, you are really only seeing the back edge of the first card out per round, which works out to be around 1/5 of the cards per shoe. By the time you do this, it will be time to change the cards.
Why does he need to sort every card in the shoe? Probably sorting half is enough to start betting, and with whatever discounts/rebates/offers combined, his breakeven point is probably less than a full shoe worth of sorting.
It boils down to this:
1. The Borgata dealt the game the way they wanted to. Ivey never touched a card.
2. All Ivey did was bet what he wanted to when he wanted to, which the player is allowed to do.
3. The cards were shuffled and dealt according to the stated rules of baccarat as outlined by NJ.
Not much else to see here.
Quote: sodawaterIt's so clear that what Ivey did was 100% not cheating, 100% not illegal, and 100% not unethical, that I really am disturbed that anyone on this forum could feel otherwise.
It boils down to this:
1. The Borgata dealt the game the way they wanted to. Ivey never touched a card.
2. All Ivey did was bet what he wanted to when he wanted to, which the player is allowed to do.
3. The cards were shuffled and dealt according to the stated rules of baccarat as outlined by NJ.
Not much else to see here.
That's definitely not true. While I think it is legal, I don't think it's as clear black and white as you think.
2) Ivey did not just bet what he wanted to when he wanted to, he used a scheme involving deception to manipulate the cards to give him an advantage.
5:12-113 Swindling and cheating; penalties
a. A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or
knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or
fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another,
wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or
reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to
casino gaming
Fraud is defined as a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Was there deception in his requests? Most definitely. Was it used to secure an unlawful or unfair gain? Depends on who's on the bench.
5:12-115 Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be
conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or
device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play
any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any
combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or
tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of
which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection
of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or
alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards,
loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices
In this statute, Ivey might be found guilty because he knowingly played a game where the cards were marked and used those marks to gain an advantage. Borgata is not guilty because they were not aware of this defect as evidenced by the fact that they lost several million dollars before realizing the deception due to a related fraud at another casino. The idea that the casino was trying to freeroll him is very foolish - the chances of him losing after 100 wagers is very low due to the low variance and 1-1 payouts of baccarat, additionally, depending on his sort, he may only be wagering big when an 8 or 9 is his first card, in which case it's even more unlikely. The chance of him being down after the entire amount of time he played is probably 0.
If you think it's not a crime because you don't feel it should be, well, unfortunately the law doesn't work like that. I think it's a lot closer than you would think.
Quote: 4ofaKindbut it certainly won't happen again.
What happened at the Borgata was the second time around. So it did happen again. The first incident was at Genting Crockford in the UK.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/phil-ivey-us-poker-champ-battles-london-casino-for-winnings-after-cheating-accusation/
Quote: 4ofaKindIt gets boring reading how smart and intelligent all you AP's are. Must be an awful lot of AP millionaires out there. Every time their is any type of discussion of any type of edge the AP's start coming out of the wood work and brag how much they know about how to execute and squeeze every nickle out of a casino.
Jeez, you would think most of these obvious dumb and don't have a clue casinos would have gone bankrupt by now with all the AP'ing going on.
I think 99.9% of the people would have a better chance of becoming a pro golfer or ball player when compared too constantly or successfully making a living as an AP. I hope the ridiculous odds of that happening get my point across.
All this mathematical ass blowing smoke might impress some young rookies who are to dumb and wet behind the ears to know any better, and actually think they could win constantly if they keep listening to the endless bullshit that goes on here. But don't forget their are a lot of veterans also on these sites who get a great deal of laughter reading this endless ap nonsense.
Phil Ivery may have gotten away with something that should have been obvious, but it certainly won't happen again. Yet, I'm certain several AP'ers on here already made their millions using this same tactic.
Yes, why read or discuss anything about strategic gambling when you can be blissfully ignorant? That's the better course of action when it comes to gambling, or any other endeavor, right?
If we bother you so much why don't you just block the threads on strategic gambling. That way you won't be bothered with us.
Quote: 4ofakindIt gets boring reading how smart and intelligent all you AP's are. Must be an awful lot of AP millionaires out there.
There's not an "awful lot, but some." Many APs have found success in other fields before becoming an AP. The thrill of beating the casino is simply a way for many to enjoy their financial freedom. The truth is that many successful APs often find success and excel in other business fields as well, due to their level of creativity, intelligence, education, and obsessive drive to succeed.
Quote: 4ofakindEvery time their is any type of discussion of any type of edge the AP's start coming out of the wood work and brag how much they know about how to execute and squeeze every nickle out of a casino.
No, most APs hold back some of the more important information. I suppose that it's a lot like discussions regarding pro football. Everyone likes to pretend that they're an armchair quarter back.
Quote: 4ofakindJeez, you would think most of these obvious dumb and don't have a clue casinos would have gone bankrupt by now with all the AP'ing going on.
Yes, many of the casinos are in a great deal of financial trouble. But it's not all due to APs. Most of it's due to poor management, the economy, etc... Too many casinos are still relying on old formulas for success from the 1980s and 1990s. Times have changed. The old formula no longer appears to be efficient.
Quote: 4ofakindI think 99.9% of the people would have a better chance of becoming a pro golfer or ball player when compared too constantly or successfully making a living as an AP. I hope the ridiculous odds of that happening get my point across.
I believe that it would be more difficult to become a pro golfer. Again, it's worth nothing that most successful APs often find success in other fields as well due to their obsessive drive to succeed.
Quote: 4ofakindAll this mathematical ass blowing smoke might impress some young rookies who are to dumb and wet behind the ears to know any better, and actually think they could win constantly if they keep listening to the endless bullshit that goes on here. But don't forget their are a lot of veterans also on these sites who get a great deal of laughter reading this endless ap nonsense.
Wow, if I made a comment like that, then I'd be banned. Experience, and gaming discipline is meaningless if you can't get the edge in the first place. Without an edge, you simply can't win in the long run.
Quote: 4ofakindPhil Ivery may have gotten away with something that should have been obvious, but it certainly won't happen again. Yet, I'm certain several AP'ers on here already made their millions using this same tactic.
Yes, some APs have indeed made millions off of sort play. It's actually been around for quite a while. Phil Ivey's success likely isn't limited to just the few plays that you've read about in the news. And he's by no means alone. Sort play has been, and still is, one of the biggest threats to card games in general.
In the end, casinos will always have to rely on the risk consultants and former APs in order to stay caught up on the latest methods being used to beat the games. They will forever by playing the game of "catch up".
-Keyser
All this mathematical ass blowing smoke might impress some young rookies who are to dumb and wet behind the ears to know any better, and actually think they could win constantly if they keep listening to the endless bullshit that goes on here. But don't forget their are a lot of veterans also on these sites who get a great deal of laughter reading this endless ap nonsense.
Quote: Keyser
Wow, if I made a comment like that, then I'd be banned. Experience, and gaming discipline is meaningless if you can't get the edge in the first place. Without an edge, you simply can't win in the long run.
Keyser,
No, you wouldn't, because as rude and disrespectful as the post was, it just skirts insulting anyone in particular. However, he needs to mask his swears if he insists on using them.
4OAK,
Please consider this a warning. See above.
The timeline doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they go after Ivey as soon as they figured out what he had done? Why, I'll tell you why, because theyd idn't know they got hit until Crockfords and then, unless they saved his footage for some reason, the footage of him playing bacc is gone the way of the dodo.
No, Ivey didn't cheat, yes the casinos are morons for allowing such lax game protection to take place and yes, Borgata is acting awfully suspiciously. I would imagine they are casting a line and trying to go fishing...........
> Most of it's due to poor management, the economy, etc...
I think its the MBAs and Wall Streeters who focus on fire half the employees and work the other half to death. Too few Floors, too many extraneous duties, too little experience.
Think back to Steve Wynn who made sure dealers and their wives got a Night on the House. Dealers got to eat in the restaurants and when players asked about them, the dealers spoke from experience. He also did a Cabbies Night. Casinos have to have employees who know what the overall picture is. Everybody in a casino should know what edge sorting is. Everybody. Same with dice shaving and 'tops'. Same with slot wands, etc. Its the MBAs who won't allow such training to take place. They work the CWs to death on just serving drinks, they won't give them a free day of cheating detection. You think a Tray Lizard would have let Ivey get away this stuff? Dealers? Many of them are Part Time (no minimum hours guaranteed them, no benefits). Some have been part time employees for years. No seniority. No clout. No reason to be alert to cheaters. Too much is shift dependent, ie, supervisor dependent. Which means whimsical rather than Procedures Manual. That is an opportunity for shifty eyed experts to step in.
>casinos will always have to rely on the risk consultants and former APs to stay caught up on the latest methods.
Maybe. The first people on the catwalks with telescopes were former crossroaders.
Quote: beachbumbabs
No, you wouldn't, because as rude and disrespectful as the post was, it just skirts insulting anyone in particular. However, he needs to mask his swears if he insists on using them.
4OAK,
Please consider this a warning. See above.
I of course will and have no choice but to respect the warning you gave me.
I also now understand in the future that I should mask my personal opinions and words if they offend or disagree with the majority here, or at least the few that could actually ban me.
Any comments, statements, opinions, etc. I or anyone else makes are certainly open to responses and or debates. I read and respond like any other anonymous member. Some obviously have more experience then others.
Keyser, showed a lot of style and class with his response. I must now assume it would be best if I didn't respond in fear of offending others.
Freedom of speech is the corner stone of this country. We have to respect and protect that.Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: 4ofakind
All this mathematical ass blowing smoke might impress some young rookies who are to dumb and wet behind the ears to know any better, and actually think they could win constantly if they keep listening to the endless bullshit that goes on here. But don't forget their are a lot of veterans also on these sites who get a great deal of laughter reading this endless ap nonsense.
Quote: Keyser
Wow, if I made a comment like that, then I'd be banned. Experience, and gaming discipline is meaningless if you can't get the edge in the first place. Without an edge, you simply can't win in the long run.
Keyser,
No, you wouldn't, because as rude and disrespectful as the post was, it just skirts insulting anyone in particular. However, he needs to mask his swears if he insists on using them.
4OAK,
Please consider this a warning. See above.
4OAK's choice of words "ASS/DUMB/WET" is a bit off.....IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G8ysnJ7v7g
https://web.archive.org/web/20100218100340/http://baccaratforums.com/t6125/
With this so called "cheating" scandal Ivey is being targeted because of his poker reputation. He is just the "money" portion of all of this fiasco. It is that "mysterious" female companion who was with him that made this all happen.
Quote: KeyserI You don't have to know exactly what that next card is going to be, only whether it's likely to favor player or the banker.
-Keyser
How could you know anything about what the banker card? It is hidden isn't it?
Quote: DMSCRIt is that "mysterious" female companion who was with him that made this all happen.
Do you know/read?, was it the same female companion in the London episode ? I doubt she's a cheap date. In addition, in London they had banned her some place for some activity related to gambling, not prostitution.
She is the same gal who accompanied Ivey to Crockfords in London. This gal is behind all of this and she is the one who devise this edge sorting "advantage play." She is the one who thought out the terms, conveyed them to Ivey and Ivey went to the casinos with those playing conditions. And the casinos agreed to them! LOL. Ivey is the front/money man it looks like and this female companion is the puppet master pulling the strings. Ivey in no way can be doing this on his own since his baccarat playing history is quite poor.
There is still much that we don't know most definitely.
If this becomes another one of those Greasy John gambling lores this is going to get interesting.
Quote: tongniThat's definitely not true. While I think it is legal, I don't think it's as clear black and white as you think.
2) Ivey did not just bet what he wanted to when he wanted to, he used a scheme involving deception to manipulate the cards to give him an advantage.
5:12-113 Swindling and cheating; penalties
a. A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or
knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or
fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another,
wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or
reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to
casino gaming
Fraud is defined as a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Was there deception in his requests? Most definitely. Was it used to secure an unlawful or unfair gain? Depends on who's on the bench.
5:12-115 Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty
a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be
conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or
device; or
(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play
any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any
combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or
tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of
which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection
of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or
alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards,
loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices
In this statute, Ivey might be found guilty because he knowingly played a game where the cards were marked and used those marks to gain an advantage. Borgata is not guilty because they were not aware of this defect as evidenced by the fact that they lost several million dollars before realizing the deception due to a related fraud at another casino. The idea that the casino was trying to freeroll him is very foolish - the chances of him losing after 100 wagers is very low due to the low variance and 1-1 payouts of baccarat, additionally, depending on his sort, he may only be wagering big when an 8 or 9 is his first card, in which case it's even more unlikely. The chance of him being down after the entire amount of time he played is probably 0.
If you think it's not a crime because you don't feel it should be, well, unfortunately the law doesn't work like that. I think it's a lot closer than you would think.
You are talking about the Casino Gambling Law. I understand Borgata has already tried to get the CGC Commission involved and was told to go fly a kite. Borgate case is filed under state/federal law for cheating i.e. under the Common Law.
I am not a lawyer but I don't think Borgate has a chance. The Canon of Law and Basic Principles of Interpretation always favour the consumer against the establishment where there is Ambiguity or 50/50 chance. In this case here I don't think there is Ambiguity or 50/50 chance. I agree with MrV in page 1 " a legal thought piece."
Just as a casino can use a CSM to circumvent counting, they should include a turn in their shuffle. If they don't, it's their own fault.
Doubtful. Do you have proof she is the master mind behind this? I'm not suggesting she is not a major part of this entire scheme. I know there are others involved as well taking action on this. Ivey is a front man and investor. It was not him who came up with this alone and its very doubtful she did either.Quote: DMSCRYup.
She is the same gal who accompanied Ivey to Crockfords in London. This gal is behind all of this and she is the one who devise this edge sorting "advantage play." She is the one who thought out the terms, conveyed them to Ivey .
I do believe the girl with him speaks a particular language this is a big part of there operation, she can speak with dealers almost privately her asking for the cards to be turned for "luck" probably does not seem that unusual.
Quote: AxelWolfDoubtful. Do you have proof she is the master mind behind this? I'm not suggesting she is not a major part of this entire scheme. I know there are others involved as well taking action on this. Ivey is a front man and investor. It was not him who came up with this alone and its very doubtful she did either.
I do believe the girl with him speaks a particular language this is a big part of there operation, she can speak with dealers almost privately her asking for the cards to be turned for "luck" probably does not seem that unusual.
It only doesn't seem unusual to completely untrained staff members...........
Quote: AxelWolfDoubtful. Do you have proof she is the master mind behind this? I'm not suggesting she is not a major part of this entire scheme. I know there are others involved as well taking action on this. Ivey is a front man and investor. It was not him who came up with this alone and its very doubtful she did either.
I do believe the girl with him speaks a particular language this is a big part of there operation, she can speak with dealers almost privately her asking for the cards to be turned for "luck" probably does not seem that unusual.
As I understand this she executed this very well. She would speak Cantonese and charm the Dealers, probably the $500 per month employees. Got the Manager to leave the room, saying he is bad luck in the room. By the time the casino found out about the huge hole they are in, it is too late.
Quote: togni(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play
any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any
combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or
tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of
which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection
of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or
alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards,
loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices
I suspect a knowledgeable and astute attorney could argue that the cards were basically already marked by the manufacturer, and that the casino was already aware of the problem, but did nothing. This is a violation according to what's written above.
The attorney could possibly prove that some members in management at the Borgata have attended some risk consultant seminars where either Dr. Elloit Jacobson or Bill Zender were guest speakers, warning members of management of the sloppy card defects, and the risk posed by the poorly manufactured cards. There's probably a guest registry, somewhere, showing exactly which members attended various presentations.
Risk consultants have been warning casinos of the risk for quite sometime now, and have even specified which card manufacture's brands pose the greatest threat to the games due to the poor printing of the cards.
The casino's position is shifty at best, bordering on bad faith. If the player loses, fine. If the player wins, sue them in court and tie up their money as long as you can by exploiting the patron dispute process with gaming, and or offer to pay them something less. In the end, you've got to snicker at the gross incompetence by both the casinos and the card manufacturers.
-Keyser
Quote: AxelWolfI know there are others involved as well taking action on this. Ivey is a front man and investor. It was not him who came up with this alone and its very doubtful she did either.
Since you know much more care to enlighten us then? Hehehe.....
I wouldn't be surprised that there is more to this and there are others involved. When it comes to money there are always twists and turns and the endpoint is always a - WTF?!?!? Who Knew!
Also now come to think of it Ivey is taking the heat. Talk about throwing someone under the bus. LOL.
Quote: 4ofaKindI of course will and have no choice but to respect the warning you gave me.
I also now understand in the future that I should mask my personal opinions and words if they offend or disagree with the majority here, or at least the few that could actually ban me.
Any comments, statements, opinions, etc. I or anyone else makes are certainly open to responses and or debates. I read and respond like any other anonymous member. Some obviously have more experience then others.
Keyser, showed a lot of style and class with his response. I must now assume it would be best if I didn't respond in fear of offending others.
4OAK,
No, you completely missed the point of what I said. You have the right to say what you said (without the profanity, which is what the warning was for), and that's what I'm telling Keyser, and you. Surely you're not going to argue it WASN'T disrespectful and rude towards the mathematicians and other people who post here? But your right to say it is why I told Keyser you wouldn't be suspended for it (nor would he have been, if he had written it). So don't try to claim I'm censoring you or you can only say what you think "the majority" want to hear. You said it, take responsibility for it. Respond if you have more to say, within the rules of the forum.
However, the The Borgata could claim that Ivey, et al were complicit (asking for re-orientation of "certain" cards such that the edge pattern would distinguish "certain" cards from all other cards) and used such complicit knowledge to their own advantage.
Nonetheless, The Borgata purchased and supplied the cards in question. Without such purchase and usage, the alledged incident could not have occured.
JMHO
