If You Were a Juror In P. Ivey Case How Would You Vote
Thread Rating:
Poll
 | 34 votes (82.92%) | ||
| | 7 votes (17.07%) |
41 members have voted
July 11th, 2014 at 7:03:35 AM
permalink
Bare in mind that in real life you will be disqualified after the first question. Are you a gambler? And hence biased in favour of Ivey.
So try to be subjective here. Your previous encounters with any casino should be forgotten.
Borgate has file a civil claim against Ivey for "cheating" their casino. The state casino commission which has detailed legislation on the conduct of the casino operation has decided to sit on their hands in this case.
You can also follow the arguments in this companion thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/18767-ivey-skill-really-cmon/10/#post376139
Do tell us the reason for your decision.
So try to be subjective here. Your previous encounters with any casino should be forgotten.
Borgate has file a civil claim against Ivey for "cheating" their casino. The state casino commission which has detailed legislation on the conduct of the casino operation has decided to sit on their hands in this case.
You can also follow the arguments in this companion thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/18767-ivey-skill-really-cmon/10/#post376139
Do tell us the reason for your decision.
July 11th, 2014 at 7:13:29 AM
permalink
I completely agree with Axiom and some of the others on the companion thread that Ivey didn't cheat by the legal definition(s) that were presented. He never touched the cards, and used skill to turn the advantage to his side. The Borgata needs to take responsibility for poor game protection and stop this nonsense.
July 11th, 2014 at 7:32:21 AM
permalink
Quote: MidwestAPI completely agree with Axiom and some of the others on the companion thread that Ivey didn't cheat by the legal definition(s) that were presented. He never touched the cards, and used skill to turn the advantage to his side. The Borgata needs to take responsibility for poor game protection and stop this nonsense.
Remember this is a civil claim and the gaming commission rules like touching the cards has no meaning here.
If Ivey had touch the cards I have no doubt the Commission would have step in and go after him.
July 11th, 2014 at 7:45:23 AM
permalink
Quote: Deck007Remember this is a civil claim and the gaming commission rules like touching the cards has no meaning here.
If Ivey had touch the cards I have no doubt the Commission would have step in and go after him.
Sure it makes a difference. He isn't manipulating the cards himself, he and his partner simply made requests that the casino agreed to. This would be akin to me asking the casino to show me the hole card in blackjack. If the dealer, the pit, and surveillance all are agreeable to it, and I wasn't in cahoots with them, that hardly makes me a cheater. It just makes the casino management stupid.
July 11th, 2014 at 7:45:33 AM
permalink
If one person could be a jury, something would be very wrong with the system.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 11th, 2014 at 7:51:02 AM
permalink
Being a gambler or being familiar with the game in question would not disqualify a venireman from sitting on the jury.
Jurors do however have to wait to hear all the evidence.
Jurors can not speculate as to whether Ivey was mastermind or pawn or as whether others are being brought to justice also.
It may from time to time be a great joke when the players exploit some carnival game neophyte dealer and convince him about deuces being wild or something but misleading a dealer as to the rules, while a terrible dark spot on the casino's reputation, is indeed criminal.
Telling the MiniBacc dealer to "turn the cards for luck" is no different than telling him to 'turn the cards for cheating'. He is an idiot if he does it and the casino is full of idiots letting him be there and be so incredibly stupid, but the vote would still be guilty.
Jurors do however have to wait to hear all the evidence.
Jurors can not speculate as to whether Ivey was mastermind or pawn or as whether others are being brought to justice also.
It may from time to time be a great joke when the players exploit some carnival game neophyte dealer and convince him about deuces being wild or something but misleading a dealer as to the rules, while a terrible dark spot on the casino's reputation, is indeed criminal.
Telling the MiniBacc dealer to "turn the cards for luck" is no different than telling him to 'turn the cards for cheating'. He is an idiot if he does it and the casino is full of idiots letting him be there and be so incredibly stupid, but the vote would still be guilty.
July 11th, 2014 at 7:59:23 AM
permalink
Although I had to look up "venireman", I would have made similar comments.Quote: FleaStiffBeing a gambler or being familiar with the game in question would not disqualify a venireman from sitting on the jury.
Jurors do however have to wait to hear all the evidence.
I'd also need a legal definition of the term "cheat".
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, irrational, childish rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 11th, 2014 at 8:02:16 AM
permalink
If I am playing in a card,game and the other guy can read the cards from the back, Damn if I would not feel I was being cheated.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 11th, 2014 at 8:08:47 AM
permalink
I don't know about New Jersey, but I can't imagine ever seating a jury of non-gamblers for anything in Clark County, Nevada. Though you probably could pretty easily assemble 12 people who said "WTF is baccarat?" as they pause from feeding quarters into a Lobstermania machine on their way out of the supermarket or car-wash or whatever on the nearest corner.
Nothing to read here. Move along.
July 11th, 2014 at 8:21:27 AM
permalink
Really? I'm biased AGINST Ivey. His actions are costing the casino money. They'll have to replace that money somehow and that hurts all the other patrons.Quote: Deck007Bare in mind that in real life you will be disqualified after the first question. Are you a gambler? And hence biased in favour of Ivey.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, irrational, childish rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 11th, 2014 at 8:59:48 AM
permalink
How can anybody vote before you here the evidence presented? It is possible there is more to this case than what has been presented to the media so far.
You can't know everything, but you can know anything.
July 11th, 2014 at 9:06:59 AM
permalink
Quote: DRichHow can anybody vote before you here the evidence presented? It is possible there is more to this case than what has been presented to the media so far.
Fair point Rich, just basing my opinion on what I've read thus far regarding this incident and the one at Crockfords. I reserve the right to change my vote if there is something more that comes up at trial (if it really ever gets that far).
July 11th, 2014 at 9:09:02 AM
permalink
Probably with Ivey, although it depends on if there are details we don't know.
July 11th, 2014 at 9:44:08 AM
permalink
The hell with this question, he should still be in jail along with "The Professor" and "Jesus" just for the stupid answers they gave about not knowing Full Tilt was paying out more money than it was taking in.
July 11th, 2014 at 9:55:46 AM
permalink
I am shock by the result.
I expected a 100% vote for Ivey. Instead there is only 62% for and 38% against. I must read through the comments here again carefully and see how I could get it so wrong.
Something just caught my eye from DJTeddyBear on what is the legal definition on the term "cheat". I don't think there is a legal definition.
The judge may explain that the dictionary meaning of this term is "to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage".
I expected a 100% vote for Ivey. Instead there is only 62% for and 38% against. I must read through the comments here again carefully and see how I could get it so wrong.
Something just caught my eye from DJTeddyBear on what is the legal definition on the term "cheat". I don't think there is a legal definition.
The judge may explain that the dictionary meaning of this term is "to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage".
July 11th, 2014 at 11:02:55 AM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardIf I am playing in a card,game and the other guy can read the cards from the back, Damn if I would not feel I was being cheated.
Even if the cards belonged to you, and the markings were put there by you?
July 11th, 2014 at 11:17:44 AM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceEven if the cards belonged to you, and the markings were put there by you?
Great comment. He is so not guilty UNLESS he colluded with the dealer by paying the dealer.
July 11th, 2014 at 11:40:13 AM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceEven if the cards belonged to you, and the markings were put there by you?
So now you are saying the casino KNOWINGLY marked the card to help Ivey. Get a refund from that online law school. Lol
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 11th, 2014 at 11:42:36 AM
permalink
The law refuses to define fraud so as not to give fraudsters any sort of escape clause. Limitations on fraud do not exist because there are no limitations on the inventiveness of the minds of con men.Quote: Deck007Something just caught my eye from DJTeddyBear on what is the legal definition on the term "cheat". I don't think there is a legal definition.
July 11th, 2014 at 12:02:15 PM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardSo now you are saying the casino KNOWINGLY marked the card to help Ivey. Get a refund from that online law school. Lol
The casino knowingly turned the cards. Whether or not they knew that it helped him was irrelevant.
Say we were playing a card game, and we were using your cards. I asked you to put a mark on each of the aces, and you agreed. Would you feel cheated then?
July 11th, 2014 at 12:40:16 PM
permalink
Do Ivey ask them to mark the 7 8 and 9's or to turn the cards as he was superstiyous ? DUH
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 11th, 2014 at 1:22:30 PM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardDo Ivey ask them to mark the 7 8 and 9's or to turn the cards as he was superstiyous ? DUH
So let me get this straight...
If a player is under the mistaken belief that turning the cards will help him win because it's lucky, and the casino turns the cards for him in order to trick the player into gambling when he thinks he has the edge but actually doesn't, that's ok.
However, if the casino is under the mistaken belief that turning the cards won't help the player, and the player gets the casino to turn the cards in order to trick them into gambling when they think they have the edge but actually don't, THAT'S CHEATING!
So, in other words, if the casino tricks the player, that's fine, but if the player tricks the casino, that's cheating? Sorry, no. The casino is just unhappy because usually they outsmart the player, and this time they got outsmarted. They are just being sore losers.
July 11th, 2014 at 1:36:22 PM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo let me get this straight...
If a player is under the mistaken belief that turning the cards will help him win because it's lucky, and the casino turns the cards for him in order to trick the player into gambling when he thinks he has the edge but actually doesn't, that's ok.
However, if the casino is under the mistaken belief that turning the cards won't help the player, and the player gets the casino to turn the cards in order to trick them into gambling when they think they have the edge but actually don't, THAT'S CHEATING!
So, in other words, if the casino tricks the player, that's fine, but if the player tricks the casino, that's cheating? Sorry, no. The casino is just unhappy because usually they outsmart the player, and this time they got outsmarted. They are just being sore losers.
EXACTLY! How the casino reportedly accommodated a request for a certain brand of cards to be used, a certain dealer who spoke Mandarin, and allowed the player to request cards to be turned under the nose of a presumably good dealer, high limit pit staff, and extra surveillance is embarrassing and borderline incompetent. They'd be better off tightening their procedures, releasing incompetent employees, and trying to keep the noise down on this one.
I don't have too high an opinion of Ivey in general, but he didn't do anything illegal here (hence no criminal charges), and in my opinion will prevail in the civil case.
July 11th, 2014 at 2:15:13 PM
permalink
Quote: MidwestAP
I don't have too high an opinion of Ivey in general, but he didn't do anything illegal here (hence no criminal charges), and in my opinion will prevail in the civil case.
Wow, my exact sentiments.
You can't know everything, but you can know anything.
July 11th, 2014 at 2:24:13 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 11th, 2014 at 2:28:16 PM
permalink
I'm on Ivey's side. I've explained my reasons in the thread on Crockford's vs. Ivey.
Also, the all caps in the title is obnoxious.
Also, the all caps in the title is obnoxious.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 11th, 2014 at 2:38:08 PM
permalink
If I were a jury, I would probably look to go on a diet because I don't want to weigh as much as 12 guys.
July 11th, 2014 at 2:56:32 PM
permalink
Ivey cheated. Somehow this statement applies that casinos don't cheat. Try to beat blackjack by playing perfect strategy. How about VP, not a single win in 20 hands.
July 11th, 2014 at 3:20:17 PM
permalink
Can we get Jesse Jackson to do his thing in this court, I really want Ivey to win this.
I'm usually against using the race card but I think this time the situation calls for whatever method necessary to win
I'm usually against using the race card but I think this time the situation calls for whatever method necessary to win
July 11th, 2014 at 3:30:21 PM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo let me get this straight...
If a player is under the mistaken belief that turning the cards will help him win because it's lucky, and the casino turns the cards for him in order to trick the player into gambling when he thinks he has the edge but actually doesn't, that's ok.
However, if the casino is under the mistaken belief that turning the cards won't help the player, and the player gets the casino to turn the cards in order to trick them into gambling when they think they have the edge but actually don't, THAT'S CHEATING!
So, in other words, if the casino tricks the player, that's fine, but if the player tricks the casino, that's cheating? Sorry, no. The casino is just unhappy because usually they outsmart the player, and this time they got outsmarted. They are just being sore losers.
#retweet #reblog #share #+1 #like
very well said
July 11th, 2014 at 6:45:02 PM
permalink
While good and thought-provoking arguments have been made on BOTH sides, when it is such a gray area, I am going to have to go with the Defendant, and side with IVEY that he was not TECHNICALLY cheating.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
July 11th, 2014 at 6:58:20 PM
permalink
Sorry for the late reply because I am on the opposite side of the world and hence the time difference.
Here is the argument from Borgata
http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowlandsmatters/8898/poker-star-phil-ivey-says-borgata-has-no-right-to-sue-him-for-9-6m-in-baccarat-winnings/
Here is the argument from Ivey
http://www.flushdraw.net/news/phil-ivey-attorneys-file-motion-dismiss-borgata-edge-sorting-lawsuit/
It is interesting to note that amongst the other points raised by Borgata they say Ivey requested and used an illegal equipment which is none other than their own CSM.
Ivey admitted to card sorting and he says he win due to pure skill.
Here is the argument from Borgata
http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowlandsmatters/8898/poker-star-phil-ivey-says-borgata-has-no-right-to-sue-him-for-9-6m-in-baccarat-winnings/
Here is the argument from Ivey
http://www.flushdraw.net/news/phil-ivey-attorneys-file-motion-dismiss-borgata-edge-sorting-lawsuit/
It is interesting to note that amongst the other points raised by Borgata they say Ivey requested and used an illegal equipment which is none other than their own CSM.
Ivey admitted to card sorting and he says he win due to pure skill.
July 11th, 2014 at 7:56:37 PM
permalink
Its not just that the casino voluntarily changed the orientation; its that they did it in ignorance.
Its as if a dealer had been asked to daub face powder on the back of the cards... its still illegal even if it is the dumbest dealer.
Its as if a dealer had been asked to daub face powder on the back of the cards... its still illegal even if it is the dumbest dealer.
July 11th, 2014 at 8:29:52 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffIts not just that the casino voluntarily changed the orientation; its that they did it in ignorance.
Its as if a dealer had been asked to daub face powder on the back of the cards... its still illegal even if it is the dumbest dealer.
You say it is ignorance. I don't think it matters.
You say it is illegal or more precisely "cheating" but you have to show the court how this is so. How do you argue that Ivey was dishonest and unfair to the casino.
July 11th, 2014 at 8:34:29 PM
permalink
Easy he was reading the cards from the back. DUH
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 11th, 2014 at 9:14:17 PM
permalink
Everyone can do. There is nothing wrong with that. Definitely not illegal or cheating.
July 11th, 2014 at 10:22:50 PM
permalink
I'm holding my line of reason throughout this embarassment. In a civil case a good barrister says the cards were marked, and the Cassino put them into use. A Customer noticed they were marked and asked for certain cards to be re-oriented. It does boil down to wether the jury thinks the Customer was complicit. When the jury discovers the manner of marking the cards by not having a 2-Dimensional symetry, and that the vast majority of (physical) playing cards suffer from this "defect" causing the cards to be "marked", Ivey slides. The Borgata was ill-advised in placing such cards into play, and such cards are not illegal to use. So Borgata must absorb the losses incurred in the incident. (We all know Borgata never complains about winning money using the same cards, and the Commission sees nothing wrong here either situation.)
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
July 11th, 2014 at 10:29:41 PM
permalink
Please save me a lot of time....Did the Borgata civil case get filed before the incident in London or was the London matter the cause for review and filing of the Borgata/U.S.A. case? It's odd to me with such huge amounts of money involved the casino's didn't/don't talk with each other. In London, they refused to pay him his winnings within a matter of a day/hours.
July 11th, 2014 at 11:03:43 PM
permalink
can someone please explain how he used the edge sorting to gain an advantage. in blackjack, if you can see the next card in the shoe (or the dealers hole card) is a high denom., i see how that information can cause you to stray from basic strategy. but in baccarat, you make a bet and hand plays itself. no decisions to make. so, could knowing the next card in the shoe really give him an advantage or am I missing something?
July 11th, 2014 at 11:06:56 PM
permalink
Quote: Stoneycan someone please explain how he used the edge sorting to gain an advantage. in blackjack, if you can see the next card in the shoe (or the dealers hole card) is a high denom., i see how that information can cause you to stray from basic strategy. but in baccarat, you make a bet and hand plays itself. no decisions to make. so, could knowing the next card in the shoe really give him an advantage or am I missing something?
I asked that elsewhere about the banker bet. No reply. However, my understanding from reading about the London case was he bet the player when he knew/read the first card out of the shoe was an eight or nine. Someone then posted this gives the customer a 17percent advantage overall.
July 12th, 2014 at 12:35:11 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearReally? I'm biased AGINST Ivey. His actions are costing the casino money. They'll have to replace that money somehow and that hurts all the other patrons.
Well said. I voted against. But mainly because I feel the "swindling" law covers his and his cohort's actions. And if the judge that took care of the Golden Nugget presides, he and his cohort are in HUGE trouble.
July 12th, 2014 at 3:26:07 AM
permalink
I would most likely be excused from jury duty as soon as I answered the question asking what I thought of casinos.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
July 12th, 2014 at 4:03:13 AM
permalink
Casinos are great. Unfortunately some people run them poorly. Over all I would say I'm happy with the casinos.Quote: 1BBI would most likely be excused from jury duty as soon as I answered the question asking what I thought of casinos.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 12th, 2014 at 4:12:10 AM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneAnd if the judge that took care of the Golden Nugget presides, he and his cohort are in HUGE trouble.
And here's an interesting quote from the Associated Press article on the AC Golden Nugget case:
"A preliminary court ruling two years ago went against the casino, which said it would appeal. But hours later, owner Tilman Fertitta overrode his lawyers and said the casino would pay the remainder of the disputed winnings. That deal fell apart days later when some of the gamblers refused to dismiss their claims against the Golden Nugget".
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
July 12th, 2014 at 10:41:41 AM
permalink
Players should boycott Borgata. It's Bovada time.
July 12th, 2014 at 12:13:05 PM
permalink
I can't vouch for the percentage advantage,,, but the idea is that PRIOR to placing his bet he decides to bet LOW or HIGH, based upon his seeing the card that is about to be dealt from the shoe. This information is the basis of the cheating.
July 12th, 2014 at 1:28:00 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffI can't vouch for the percentage advantage,,, but the idea is that PRIOR to placing his bet he decides to bet LOW or HIGH, based upon his seeing the card that is about to be dealt from the shoe. This information is the basis of the cheating.
+$6,000,000. The amount he owes FULL TILT players.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 12th, 2014 at 1:30:06 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 12th, 2014 at 1:54:13 PM
permalink
I don't know about owing online players.. it seems ALL those famous faces endorsed the various websites and then only later claimed ignorance of what was going on. Females claimed they were hired for cleavage, males claimed they were hired for reputation, but nobody never knew nothing about suitcases full of cash or those debit and credit things.Quote: Buzzard+$6,000,000. The amount he owes FULL TILT players.
July 14th, 2014 at 11:17:12 AM
permalink
There is one thing I do not understand at all in in the Ivey case.
The whole purpose of a casino is to get money out of gamblers. In order to do that, ie convince a gambler to hand over his money, Variance is used (gambler can win in the short run), marketing (promises of riches) etc. Also the thrill of putting one's money on the line with the possibility of a win in the short run, for some people is 'entertainment'. That's basicly the casino operting strategy and reason for existence.
Advantage players (APs) go against this basic principle (ie everyone hands over their money and get in exchange his 'entairtement') and are persona non grata in a casino. So the casino puts some resources (expense) to identify these APs by monitoring players games and keeping databases and other info about APs.
And it should also be very probable that if someone is AP in a game then he is probably an AP in another game he is playing (especially if he is playing it for high stakes) even if the casino does not know what method the AP is using (unless the AP is playing for small stakes for cover).
This guy, Ivey, is a well knownn Professional Poker player, you cannot get more AP than that. It's like he has a big sign on his forehead 'AP'.
The casino not only allows him to play another game for high stakes, but they agree to every weird demand he makes about changing the rules of the game.
It is beyond me, the stupidity of the casino manager who agreed to that.
Somehow they believed that this AP (with the sign in his forehead) has suddenly become a gambler and they found the fat cow to milk
Based on the above, I can also see a defence strategy for Ivey in court.
Your honour, I am a professional Poker player and professional gambler. By that I mean that I only play in games that I have a statistical advantage to win (like the casino does). As a pro, I find statistical weaknesses in casino games that the casino has overlooked and exploit them (exactly like the casino does against an average gambler). Not only that, but this fact that I am Pro is well known and publicized and for the sure the casino is aware of that. The casino knew that I am a Pro and I did not misrepresented this at any time. Since they allowed me to play, they knew (or should have known - a reasonable man would have known) that since I am playing this game especially for significant amounts, then I was using my skills as a Pro to find a statistical advantage and I was playing with an advantage. And since they allowed me to play, they agreed to this (even if they did not know how I gained this advantage)
The whole purpose of a casino is to get money out of gamblers. In order to do that, ie convince a gambler to hand over his money, Variance is used (gambler can win in the short run), marketing (promises of riches) etc. Also the thrill of putting one's money on the line with the possibility of a win in the short run, for some people is 'entertainment'. That's basicly the casino operting strategy and reason for existence.
Advantage players (APs) go against this basic principle (ie everyone hands over their money and get in exchange his 'entairtement') and are persona non grata in a casino. So the casino puts some resources (expense) to identify these APs by monitoring players games and keeping databases and other info about APs.
And it should also be very probable that if someone is AP in a game then he is probably an AP in another game he is playing (especially if he is playing it for high stakes) even if the casino does not know what method the AP is using (unless the AP is playing for small stakes for cover).
This guy, Ivey, is a well knownn Professional Poker player, you cannot get more AP than that. It's like he has a big sign on his forehead 'AP'.
The casino not only allows him to play another game for high stakes, but they agree to every weird demand he makes about changing the rules of the game.
It is beyond me, the stupidity of the casino manager who agreed to that.
Somehow they believed that this AP (with the sign in his forehead) has suddenly become a gambler and they found the fat cow to milk
Based on the above, I can also see a defence strategy for Ivey in court.
Your honour, I am a professional Poker player and professional gambler. By that I mean that I only play in games that I have a statistical advantage to win (like the casino does). As a pro, I find statistical weaknesses in casino games that the casino has overlooked and exploit them (exactly like the casino does against an average gambler). Not only that, but this fact that I am Pro is well known and publicized and for the sure the casino is aware of that. The casino knew that I am a Pro and I did not misrepresented this at any time. Since they allowed me to play, they knew (or should have known - a reasonable man would have known) that since I am playing this game especially for significant amounts, then I was using my skills as a Pro to find a statistical advantage and I was playing with an advantage. And since they allowed me to play, they agreed to this (even if they did not know how I gained this advantage)
