The turning of the cards in a certain matter cased the deck to be marked. A deck becomes marked when the deck is altered so you can have info about the unseen card from observing its back. Turning the cards randomly didn't mark the deck. The instruction on how to turn the cards did. the guy making the decision on haw to turn the cards marked the deck without touching the cards. Creating a marked deck was the entire intention of all the instructions and we all know it. It is cheating just as much as a player marking each card with a H or L with a marker. There is no difference. Whether the law decides it is cheating or not is another matter but we all know this is how the move works. Did the dealer create a marked deck? Obviously the answer is no. The dealer didn't know how the cards must be turned to mark the deck. The dealer turned them on the instruction of the players. The players instructions created a marked deck and that is the entire intention of the move. It is the sole reason for the instruction. It sucks that the move was outed but the move is to create a marked deck and will be viewed as such. The semantics of saying the deck was marked by the dealer is ridiculous and we all should have known would not prevail in the long run. The deck was marked by the one making the decision about how to turn the cards. It doesn't matter how the info is gained from the back of the card if info about the card is gained from the back of the card the deck is marked. So once the deck is sorted the cards are marked by definition. No reasonable person could argue the deck was marked by the dealer. The act of turning the cards didn't mark the deck. The decision on how to turn the cards marked the deck. Without knowing which cards to turn the cards can't mark the deck. The more I think about it the more clear it becomes that Ivey was cheating by intentionally creating a marked deck.