Ivey- skill- really cmon
Think of roulette wheels. It's a business decision on what quality of wheel to buy. And it's a business decision on how often you want to re-balance them.
obviously in this case, the casino didn't make a smart business decision.
http://www.theday.com/article/20130723/NWS02/130729918/1047
Mohegan Sun's director of operational accounting, David Thomlinson, testified Friday that based on the casino's "theoretical hold" calculation, Hu was expected to lose $150,000 at mini-baccarat between October 2010 and February 2011 but instead won $468,500. Leung was expected to lose $51,297 during the same period but won $165,370.
Quote: tongniLook at this case: In this, the dealers actually physically marked the cards and the players were not found guilty, because the law is different there. If you go by common sense, these guys should be in jail and Ivey should get to keep his money, but strange things can happen.
http://www.theday.com/article/20130723/NWS02/130729918/1047
Wow....this is akin to declaring "you are hereby found innocent - because you were only acting in collusion with a crime." That is to say, a full member of the conspiracy.
I guess it pays to be THE correct member of a team - when the crew carries out a criminal conspiracy.
Quote: PaigowdanWow....this is akin to declaring "you are hereby found innocent - because you were only acting in collusion with a crime."
I guess it pays to be THE correct member of a team - when the crew carries out a criminal conspiracy.
I think that the problem here is that the prosecution never actually proved that the two gamblers charged actually conspired with the dealers.
The idea that it can be proven through circumstantial evidence is ridiculous. If I walk by a table and notice that all the 7s, 8s, and 9s are marked, and bet accordingly, and win, I am not guilty of a crime. It's possible that the dealers conspired with someone else to do the marking, and I just walked by and happened to notice, and took advantage of it. As the article pointed out, it's not illegal to participate in a game with marked cards, only to do the marking or conspire with someone else to do the marking.
Don't get me wrong -- they are probably guilty. But that's not enough -- their guilt actually has to be proven, and there is at least some reasonable (though admittedly slim) doubt here.
Quote: EdgeLookerFrom the article:
Mohegan Sun's director of operational accounting, David Thomlinson, testified Friday that based on the casino's "theoretical hold" calculation, Hu was expected to lose $150,000 at mini-baccarat between October 2010 and February 2011 but instead won $468,500. Leung was expected to lose $51,297 during the same period but won $165,370.
"Your honor, the rules of the game are such that they should have lost. They did not. We would like to present this simple fact as evidence of cheating."
Quote: tongniLook at this case: In this, the dealers actually physically marked the cards and the players were not found guilty, because the law is different there. If you go by common sense, these guys should be in jail and Ivey should get to keep his money, but strange things can happen.
http://www.theday.com/article/20130723/NWS02/130729918/1047
There is a Fundamental difference between this case and the Ivey case.
In this case the Gaming commission took action and the AG acted in this case. Hence it is a criminal prosecution with possible jail sentences.
In the Ivey case the Commission decided not to do anything hence Borgate decided to file a Civil case in court to try and recover their money. No jail sentence is possible.
My bet is that Borgata has got no chance with the cheating claim if the Commission and AG decided not to take up this Ivey case.
Let me give you an example. If a bank goes to the police (the Commission here) and said a bank robbery is committed. The police will investigate if it is actually bank robbery or prize money given out. If the police decide it is prize money and do nothing the bank can still file a Civil suit against the defendant. But such a suit will have little merit as this is actually a criminal case in nature and the police decide not to pursue it.
Quote: Venthus"Your honor, the rules of the game are such that they should have lost. They did not. We would like to present this simple fact as evidence of cheating."
lol.
Imagine if casinos could just compile a list of who is winning in the "long term" and then charge them all with cheating, lol.
Quote: supergrassNo cards are 100% perfect if examined under a microscope. If you want better cut playing cards, then you have to pay for the extra precision/quality. The casino makes a business decision to purchase cards at a particular quality; ie they weigh the benefits of having better quality cards VS paying a higher price per deck. In blakjack, some casino rotate 50% of cards when they are shuffled, so the casino can buy lower quality cards but still prevent edge sorting.
Think of roulette wheels. It's a business decision on what quality of wheel to buy. And it's a business decision on how often you want to re-balance them.
obviously in this case, the casino didn't make a smart business decision.
True.
It's also very much like a business decision to buy poorer quality locks when owning a store or business when business is poor: so, the question becomes: "does buying lower quality locks justify burglary, or make burglary more legal - because you bought cheaper locks?"
I will say it was a foolish business decision, but nonetheless....
Quote: PaigowdanTrue.
It's also very much like a business decision to buy poorer quality locks when owning a store or business: so, the question becomes: "does buying lower quality locks justify burglary, or make burglary more legal - because you bought cheaper locks?"
No, but noticing imperfections in cards and betting/playing accordingly is absolutely legal.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, but noticing imperfections in cards and betting/playing accordingly is absolutely legal.
Yes it is.
I do exactly the same thing when I case houses for weak security, for people I know who are on vacation from Facebook.
just looking is legal, after all. I fully agree.
A cheap card with an edge pattern on the back that is randomly turned is not marked. A cheap card with an edge pattern on the back which is intentionally turned is marked, just as if its been daubed with face powder. The daubing may not be dead center and perfect, but it is still cheating.
Getting a card turned by an ignorant casino dealer and keeping the casino ignorant by doing it in Cantonese is simply clever daubing. Its still cheating. Even if Ivey doesn't speak Cantonese.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, but noticing imperfections in cards and betting/playing accordingly is absolutely legal.
I never said it wasn't fully legal.
In fact, I said that I agreed that it was 100% legal.
But that wasn't the point I was making.
Quote: FleastiffGetting a card turned by an ignorant casino dealer and keeping the casino ignorant by doing it in Cantonese is simply clever daubing. Its still cheating. Even if Ivey doesn't speak Cantonese.
This I agree with.
"Technically Legal" isn't the point. If I could "get away" with something, - I still wouldn't.
Quote: FleaStiffIt has nothing to do with imperfectly manufactured cards or imperfectly marked cards.
A cheap card with an edge pattern on the back that is randomly turned is not marked. A cheap card with an edge pattern on the back which is intentionally turned is marked, just as if its been daubed with face powder. The daubing may not be dead center and perfect, but it is still cheating.
Getting a card turned by an ignorant casino dealer and keeping the casino ignorant by doing it in Cantonese is simply clever daubing. Its still cheating. Even if Ivey doesn't speak Cantonese.
No, there is a difference between asking someone to do something, and having them be dumb enough to do it, and doing it yourself.
If I say to you, please give $100, with no coercion, and you do it, that is not stealing. If I take your money from you, or force you to give it to me, that is stealing. The panhandlers on the streets may be annoying, but they are not stealing when they ask for your money.
If I tell the casino, please turn the cards a certain way (or, for that matter, please daub these certain cards) and they do, that is not cheating. Just like, if I tell the casino, please set this Jacks or Better video poker game to 10/7, and they do, that is not cheating.
If I mark the cards myself, or if I break into the machine and change the payout myself, that is cheating. There is a world of difference. In one case the casino had the right to say no, and they chose not to exercise that right. In the other, they did not, and that is a key difference.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf I mark the cards myself, or if I break into the machine and change the payout myself, that is cheating. There is a world of difference.
No. It's about your own dirty hand grabbing the cash in the end, - even if someone else had set it all up for you.
Quote: AxionofChoiceIn one case the casino had the right to say no, and they chose not to exercise that right. In the other, they did not, and that is a key difference.
No, it's about oneself saying no to it in either situation.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, there is a difference between asking someone to do something, and having them be dumb enough to do it, and doing it yourself.
If I say to you, please give $100, with no coercion, and you do it, that is not stealing. If I take your money from you, or force you to give it to me, that is stealing. The panhandlers on the streets may be annoying, but they are not stealing when they ask for your money.
If I tell the casino, please turn the cards a certain way (or, for that matter, please daub these certain cards) and they do, that is not cheating. Just like, if I tell the casino, please set this Jacks or Better video poker game to 10/7, and they do, that is not cheating.
If I mark the cards myself, or if I break into the machine and change the payout myself, that is cheating. There is a world of difference. In one case the casino had the right to say no, and they chose not to exercise that right. In the other, they did not, and that is a key difference.
On top of that, they MUST have been watching and knowing what's going on. By not restricting what was going on, they permitted it to happen.
Imagine if you have a $20 bill in your pocket. Someone slowly reaches into your pocket and takes the bill and you didn't try to stop them. You just stood there and permitted it to happen.
Quote: RSBy not restricting what was going on, they permitted it to happen.
So....If a woman is unconscious, she is therefore "permitting" her rape. Interesting definition of consent. Thank God for Rohypnol. (Don't date a member of an AP forum.....)
And...if I am away from my home, therefore I am "permitting" the burglary.
Unawareness = Consent. How did I miss that....
Silence = .......
Quote: RSImagine if you have a $20 bill in your pocket. Someone slowly reaches into your pocket and takes the bill and you didn't try to stop them. You just stood there and permitted it to happen.
This is called pick-pocketing.
Gotta love this forum, people really let it rip.
Let your sociopathy bounce and be free, it's called AP.............
Quote: PaigowdanSo....If a woman is unconscious, she is therefore "permitting" her rape. Interesting definition of consent. Thank God for Rohypnol. (Don't date a member of this forum.....)
And...if I am away from my home, therefore I am "permitting" the burglary.
This is called pick-pocketing.
Gotta love this forum, people really let it rip.
Let your sociopathy bounce and be free.............
Are you serious???
I mean if you are standing there, fully aware, fully capable, etc. seeing someone reach into your pocket. You aren't unconscious or roofied or anything else.
Quote: RS
I mean if you are standing there, fully aware, fully capable, etc. seeing someone reach into your pocket. You aren't unconscious or roofied or anything else.
No. You might not be aware, or you might be aware, and just fear the thief is dangerous...in the Ivey case, the dealers weren't aware.
And the victim's awareness or ability, - or non-awareness - doesn't justify the actions. Watching or not watching someone else steal...doesn't change that act of stealing.
The hand going into someone else's pocket is the action in question, whether or not someone else's eyes are watching or not.
Quote: PaigowdanNo. You might not be aware...in the Ivey case, the dealers weren't.
the victim's awareness or ability, - or non-awareness - doesn't justify the actions.
Surveillance, pit bosses and floor people.....they weren't aware? None of them watched the game?
Quote: RSSurveillance, pit bosses and floor people.....they weren't aware? None of them watched the game?
Maybe not. Maybe surveillance was watching the slot machines, or a pretty lady, or watching something else.
Or, they may have watched it, and not caught it.
So you guys are saying "if you didn't catch it right at that moment, - it's then okay, right?"
On a side note: I suspect Phil Ivey got some sort of legal advice before he moved forward with this venture.
I know a lot of AP's have sought advice before proceeding with various angles.
Quote: AxelWolfPeople need to stop comparing this to robbing people or rape, this is a totally different ball of wax.
Well, to quote RS: "By not restricting what was going on, they permitted it to happen" is a akin to saying "She was asking for it" - or to otherwise say that the inability to fight him off is tantamount to consent. Very revealing and similar attitude.
There are two camps here, I feel, one that says "if it's technically legal or if you're found acquitted, then it's exactly the same as being totally ethical all along,"
and the other that says, "some stuff really does cross the line; it's a swindle or scam gotten away with. A thief for a dime is a thief for a dollar, and getting away with it legally doesn't make it clean."
Quote: AxelWolfOn a side note: I suspect Phil Ivey got some sort of legal advice before he moved forward with this venture.
I know a lot of AP's have sought advice before proceeding with various angles.
Also very revealing. Great quote.
The court in the "Skipper" case ruled: "Skipper, however, sought to prevent the dealer from detecting and invalidating his method of play by utilizing a confederate to obscure the dealer's vision. In effect, Skipper was blindfolding the dealer while placing the dice on the table in a winning combination. This method of altering the elements of chance clearly constitutes cheating. Innocent players would not engage in this type of deceptive, manipulated play."
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, there is a difference between asking someone to do something, and having them be dumb enough to do it, and doing it yourself.
If I say to you, please give $100, with no coercion, and you do it, that is not stealing. If I take your money from you, or force you to give it to me, that is stealing. The panhandlers on the streets may be annoying, but they are not stealing when they ask for your money.
If I tell the casino, please turn the cards a certain way (or, for that matter, please daub these certain cards) and they do, that is not cheating. Just like, if I tell the casino, please set this Jacks or Better video poker game to 10/7, and they do, that is not cheating.
If I mark the cards myself, or if I break into the machine and change the payout myself, that is cheating. There is a world of difference. In one case the casino had the right to say no, and they chose not to exercise that right. In the other, they did not, and that is a key difference.
Did you not read the applicable statutes that I pasted earlier? If you asked the dealer to mark the cards for you, then you played the game knowing the cards were marked, according to NJ state law that is cheating. Cheating is a legal term that has an actual definition that varies from state to state.
(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.
I will say that in Nevada, I doubt the casino would have any recourse.
If that is determined to be the case, they should lose their licenses. As should the casino. Fat chance of that happening in Jersey.Quote: PaigowdanIn the Ivey case, the dealers weren't aware.
I would think a better example would be if you witness someone drop some money and what you do. In most cases it would not be illegal to keep it, but most of us would still think it is unethical not to tell the person or pick it up and return it to them.
According to the Oxford Dictionary the meaning of this word is "to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage"
Now if you were a member of the Jury would you say Ivey did this and rule against him. I personally think you would not rule against him.
Was it unethical? Perhaps to a degree, As long as he is not cheating individuals: friends, family, business partners, strangers then I don't think I have a problem with this.
If he should give back the money due to ethics, then the casinos should be required to give back all the money they have taken due to ethics. Lets start a list of unethical casino practices. I will start a few.
1)OVER SERVING DRINKS to THOUSANDS of players per day(we all know exactly why they serve free drinks). First think about how many drinks one should be served per hr, lets say and obvious low weight person. Then If DAN or anyone wants to make a bet on how many drinks I can get served at a casino from a single bartender or server, let me know a fair( something that's obviously to much) then give me a over/under number.
2) letting under aged people gamble and drink.
3)Hosts offering illegal perks for gamblers. (don't say the casinos don't know this is going on)
4)Blatant faults advertising.
5) revoking comps and players points.
6) changing promotions after the fact. Even after you have accumulated 90% of a goal goal oriented promotion.
7) 86ing players for only winning. (not even counting or APing)
8) rigging drawings
9) enticing people to lose more money then they have.
10)physically beating customers.
11) tossing people out of rooms in the middle of the night.
Quote: AxelWolfWhat he did was not cheating.
Was it unethical? Perhaps to a degree, As long as he is not cheating individuals: friends, family, business partners, strangers then I don't think I have a problem with this.
If he should give back the money due to ethics, then the casinos should be required to give back all the money they have taken due to ethics. Lets start a list of unethical casino practices. I will start a few.
1)OVER SERVING DRINKS to THOUSANDS of players per day(we all know exactly why they serve free drinks). First think about how many drinks one should be served per hr, lets say and obvious low weight person. Then If DAN or anyone wants to make a bet on how many drinks I can get served at a casino from a single bartender or server, let me know a fair( something that's obviously to much) then give me a over/under number.
2) letting under aged people gamble and drink.
3)Hosts offering illegal perks for gamblers. (don't say the casinos don't know this is going on)
4)Blatant faults advertising.
5) revoking comps and players points.
6) changing promotions after the fact. Even after you have accumulated 90% of a goal goal oriented promotion.
7) 86ing players for only winning. (not even counting or APing)
8) rigging drawings
9) enticing people to lose more money then they have.
10)physically beating customers.
11) tossing people out of rooms in the middle of the night.
+1000
Outstanding post!Quote: AxelWolfWhat he did was not cheating.
Was it unethical? Perhaps to a degree, As long as he is not cheating individuals: friends, family, business partners, strangers then I don't think I have a problem with this.
If he should give back the money due to ethics, then the casinos should be required to give back all the money they have taken due to ethics. Lets start a list of unethical casino practices. I will start a few.
1)OVER SERVING DRINKS to THOUSANDS of players per day(we all know exactly why they serve free drinks). First think about how many drinks one should be served per hr, lets say and obvious low weight person. Then If DAN or anyone wants to make a bet on how many drinks I can get served at a casino from a single bartender or server, let me know a fair( something that's obviously to much) then give me a over/under number.
2) letting under aged people gamble and drink.
3)Hosts offering illegal perks for gamblers. (don't say the casinos don't know this is going on)
4)Blatant faults advertising.
5) revoking comps and players points.
6) changing promotions after the fact. Even after you have accumulated 90% of a goal goal oriented promotion.
7) 86ing players for only winning. (not even counting or APing)
8) rigging drawings
9) enticing people to lose more money then they have.
10)physically beating customers.
11) tossing people out of rooms in the middle of the night.
Quote: tongni(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.
This applies to the people operating the game (ie, the casino and its employees), not the players. It specifically says "to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game". It says nothing about playing in such a game once it is offered.
In other words, if the dealers knowingly mark the cards, then they are guilty of this crime. If you conspire with the dealers to mark the cards, then you are guilty of conspiracy (because you conspired with the dealers to commit the afore-mentioned crime). However, if the dealers mark the cards of their own accord, and you notice this and sit down and play, then you are not guilty of anything, even if you take advantage of this fact. This is why the cheating charge was thrown out. And, the conspiracy could not be proven.
Again, don't get me wrong -- I think that they are probably guilty. However, that is not enough to put people in jail -- their guilt must be proven. It sounds to me like the prosecution really dropped the ball on this one. The players were smart enough not to talk to the dealers directly -- they went through a third party. So, the dealers could only testify that they had contact with this third party. The prosecution failed to investigate fully and prove that there was a link between the players and this third party, and, without that link, conspiracy could not be proven. So they end up standing in front of the court, telling them, "well, they won, so they must be guilty!". What an embarrassment.
Quote: AxelWolf3)Hosts offering illegal perks for gamblers. (don't say the casinos don't know this is going on)
How high does my ADT have to be to get comped hookers, and how do I bring this up with my host?
Quote:4)Blatant faults advertising.
I am going to destroy you in our 1-on-1 spelling bee.
I don't see a problem with the way faults is spelled :-)Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI am going to destroy you in our 1-on-1 spelling bee.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHow high does my ADT have to be to get comped hookers, and how do I bring this up with my host?.
Actually, I'm kind of curious how that DOES work.
"Do you have any suggestions for some in-room entertainment tonight?"
"How about Barbarella?"
(Cue disappointment when it arrives with a bag of popcorn.)
Quote: AxelWolfWhat he did was not cheating.
Was it unethical? Perhaps to a degree, As long as he is not cheating individuals: friends, family, business partners, strangers then I don't think I have a problem with this.
If he should give back the money due to ethics, then the casinos should be required to give back all the money they have taken due to ethics. Lets start a list of unethical casino practices. I will start a few.
1)OVER SERVING DRINKS to THOUSANDS of players per day(we all know exactly why they serve free drinks). First think about how many drinks one should be served per hr, lets say and obvious low weight person. Then If DAN or anyone wants to make a bet on how many drinks I can get served at a casino from a single bartender or server, let me know a fair( something that's obviously to much) then give me a over/under number.
2) letting under aged people gamble and drink.
3)Hosts offering illegal perks for gamblers. (don't say the casinos don't know this is going on)
4)Blatant faults advertising.
5) revoking comps and players points.
6) changing promotions after the fact. Even after you have accumulated 90% of a goal goal oriented promotion.
7) 86ing players for only winning. (not even counting or APing)
8) rigging drawings
9) enticing people to lose more money then they have.
10)physically beating customers.
11) tossing people out of rooms in the middle of the night.
Being unethical is not cheating by a long shot.
Let us just focus on the 2 words use in the dictionary as this is often use in court.
Unfairly.
If give $1 to one poster here and nothing to you that is treating you "unfairly". But it is not cheating.
Dishonestly.
Ivey just said the manager in the room is bad luck. And these cards in this orientation is bad luck if not turned in the 180 degree position. This is because the player is a very superstitious man. If I tell the casino about the 180 degree position turn the casino will laugh at me. But because Ivey is a high roller they gave him special treatment. It is their own decision and mistake.
Quote: NokTangIs Mr. Ivey playing in the current World Series Of Poker now at the Rio?
Playing it? He's winning it.
Quote: beachbumbabsPlaying it? He's winning it.
Thanks for the quick reply. Do you have a link or suggestion for a search method? I'd love to read how this "cheat" is now winning at the WSOP. The entire industry must be on edge which is a good time to take advantage of their lack of attention and try to cheat yourself, not that I would.
Quote: BuzzardBabs darling, somebody should tell that to the 36 players with more chips than him.
bazinga
speaking of the WSOP, is there an easy way to see where notable people went out without looking through the entire 6800 people or by searching for names? Surely they would have this in a list somewhere.
Quote: Ibeatyouraceshttp://www.wsop.com/tournaments/chipcounts.asp?grid=1052&tid=13665
Got it, thanks. My last visit to this event was at the old Binions downtown some 15 years ago. I found the crowd lurking around to be less than interesting but it takes two to tango. There was one off duty cocktail waitress from the Four Queens looking for a trick but she laughed at my kind offer of friendship only.
Quote: BuzzardBabs darling, somebody should tell that to the 36 players with more chips than him.
Ivy was the chip leader at the end of last night. It looks like he got passed today. But right now being the chip leader doesn't mean anything. It's way to early. Happy recuperation from your surgery, Buzz.
Not gonna look again.
