Ivey Loses!!

[RS]

For the life of me, I can't figure this one out.......The casino agreed to turn the cards as well as his other requests. IAMAL, but it seems fairly clear cut -- casino agrees to a deal and then cries foul. As I understand it, the Borgata dealt the game which "broke the rules of gambling"....I can only assume dealing such a game must be against the law/regulations/statutes/etc.

Unfortunately, it's cases like this that start to set a precedence leaning towards "the casino must have the advantage" or "a player must not attempt to gain advantage over the house."


Interesting how "Ivey broke the rules of gambling", but not convicted of fraud nor cheating. To me, this is similar to the asset-forfeiture thing where the cops charge the money with a crime, not the person. IE: Nothing needs to be proven.

[Frank Galvin]

...This was a terrible decision and basically it gives casinos a freeroll.
Under this decision Ace location shuffle tracking could all be considered against the rules....

+1.

Exactly my concern after reading court's analysis as to why it found edge sorting to run afoul of statutory prohibitions against "marking". As CallSaul stated, quite a legal reach.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The inability of (most) card counters to be objective and declare that "card sorting"
with the collusion of a dealer is unethical and virtual criminal via trickery is amazing.

[Bodarc]

collusion of a dealer

If the casino instructs the dealer to comply with a high roller's request, is that collusion?

[AndretheGiant]

So if the dealer is instucted to only cut of half a deck,or if a casino gives a high roller surrender is that collusion?
You have to remember what the dealer did was sanctioned by the casino.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I do not believe that the casino knew that the Mandarin-speaking dealer was to collude by
following Sun's directions re: turning cards and by dealing via pulling the first card out of
the shoe far enough to be viewed BEFORE the bets are made. I assume that a 10% or 20%
payoff to the dealer had been arranged.

[Zach Black]

I assume that a 10% or 20% payoff to the dealer had been arranged.

False. If a dealer was paid off it would have been clearly made a fact in the case.

The judge decided that he would protect his employer's income (government revenue from the casinos).

I don't see how edge sorting is any different than hole carding or card counting.

The casino clearly did not protect the game. Now the Casinos have a free roll against any AP technique that shifts the odds to favor the player as that would violate the implied contract.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"If a dealer was paid off it would have been clearly made a fact in the case."

Did you expect the dealer to volunteer that information ?

I don't see how edge sorting is any different than hole carding or card counting.

It would be the same if you had the dealer 'flash' hole cards for you.

[CallSaul]

I do not believe that the casino knew that the Mandarin-speaking dealer was to collude by
following Sun's directions re: turning cards and by dealing via pulling the first card out of
the shoe far enough to be viewed BEFORE the bets are made. I assume that a 10% or 20%
payoff to the dealer had been arranged.

The two key words in this post are "believe" and "assume." I am not aware of any evidence of these (felonious) acts, and to the best of my knowledge, no evidence of such acts was before the Court.

[AndretheGiant]

The casino knew that the dealer was turning the cards,What they didn't know was why,they thought it was for superstitious reasons.Was this deceitful on Ivey's part Yes of course it was.But what card counter or advantage player hasn't attempted to deceive the casino in one way or another?

[Three]

The casino knew that the dealer was turning the cards,What they didn't know was why,they thought it was for superstitious reasons.Was this deceitful on Ivey's part Yes of course it was.But what card counter or advantage player hasn't attempted to deceive the casino in one way or another?

Did they? Why do you think a mandarin speaking dealer was requested? They may have already known the only dealer that fit the bill or the small group of dealers that spoke Mandarin. The possible purposes was so they knew who would be dealing and the instructions of what cards to turn could not be understood by the casino staff observing. Obviously the former implies collusion and the latter allows for collusion to be arranged right in front of the casinos noses. Imperfect cards were requested and agreed to be used. Turning the imperfect cards caused a marked deck. That can't be denied because that is how edge sorting works. The person that sorted the cards was the one telling the person to turn them. You don't have to be the one acting to be guilty of a crime. It is pretty hard not to understand these basic facts. If I pay a guy to murder my enemy the fact that I didn't pull the trigger or was not involved in the act of killing my enemy that I am not guilty of a crime. The only reason card sorting works is the deck becomes a marked deck. Who is guilty of marking the deck? The one who had no clue what was happening but turned the cards? No way. The ones that made the decisions of how the cards would be turned? Of course. The only way the deck would become a marked deck is if the cards were turned a certain way. It is a given that a marked deck was used. That is the way the play works. The only way the deck could become marked is to have someone deciding how to turn the cards to make the deck marked. Anyone that understands what a marked deck is knows it is a deck of cards that allow an observer to have information on the next card from looking at the back of the card. Once again it was greed that got them in trouble. They won sums that could not be ignored. It amazes me that someone as smart as Ivey wouldn't understand that the play revolves around creating a marked deck and therefore could be called as illegal.

[Zach Black]

It would be the same if you had the dealer 'flash' hole cards for you.

No it isn't. Did you read the case? Paragraph 128 clearly states Borgata (not the dealer) made accommodations to allow dealer to turn the cards. This fact is not in dispute.

Borgata clearly did not protect the game by using cards with defects and allowing the dealer turn.

Borgata was lucky in finding a judge that stretched the facts in the case and protected "the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" which is casino profit and tax revenue.

[AndretheGiant]

Did they? Why do you think a mandarin speaking dealer was requested? They may have already known the only dealer that fit the bill or the small group of dealers that spoke Mandarin. The possible purposes was so they knew who would be dealing and the instructions of what cards to turn could not be understood by the casino staff observing. Obviously the former implies collusion and the latter allows for collusion to be arranged right in front of the casinos noses. Imperfect cards were requested and agreed to be used. Turning the imperfect cards caused a marked deck. That can't be denied because that is how edge sorting works. The person that sorted the cards was the one telling the person to turn them. You don't have to be the one acting to be guilty of a crime. It is pretty hard not to understand these basic facts. If I pay a guy to murder my enemy the fact that I didn't pull the trigger or was not involved in the act of killing my enemy that I am not guilty of a crime. The only reason card sorting works is the deck becomes a marked deck. Who is guilty of marking the deck? The one who had no clue what was happening but turned the cards? No way. The ones that made the decisions of how the cards would be turned? Of course. The only way the deck would become a marked deck is if the cards were turned a certain way. It is a given that a marked deck was used. That is the way the play works. The only way the deck could become marked is to have someone deciding how to turn the cards to make the deck marked. Anyone that understands what a marked deck is knows it is a deck of cards that allow an observer to have information on the next card from looking at the back of the card. Once again it was greed that got them in trouble. They won sums that could not be ignored. It amazes me that someone as smart as Ivey wouldn't understand that the play revolves around creating a marked deck and therefore could be called as illegal.

Yes the casino knew the cards were being turned. This was not done secretly,the dealer would slowly lift up the card then Sun would see the card, then would tell the dealer to turn the card end over end or sideways obviously depending on which card it was and the orientation of the card.This was done in front of the floor,the pit,the shift boss,the casino manager and surveillance.They all observed the turning they just didn't realize why they thought it was superstition.Pretty ignorant on Borgatas part to not realize what was happening, but all they could see were dollar signs and the big payday they were going to get from a SUCKER.