Ivey Loses!!

[Three]

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.

[Frank Galvin]

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.

T3, to summarize your answer: The players caused the deck to be marked by getting the house to agree to allow the players to give directions in Mandarin to a dealer, who arranged the cards once played, as requested. The players cheated, just as if they personally marked the cards with a magic marker.

Correct?

[Three]

Well not exactly but that comes close to the gist of it. There are 3 points:
1) A marked deck is a deck where info on a card or cards can be obtained by looking at its back. Edge sorting is a play where just that is made to happen.
2) The marking of the deck doesn't come from the person turning the cards but from the person deciding how the cards are turned. The players decided how the cards would be turned so they marked the deck without touching the cards.
3)They chose a Mandarin speaking dealer so the casino would have trouble understanding the exchange of words and possibly so they would know who the dealer would be or a small group of possible dealers in advance. This is evidence of an attempt to deceive and/or collusion.

[Zach Black]

Unmarked cards ruled by a judge to be marked. Sounds like poppycock.

It was a weak casino not protecting it's game then getting a free roll in the courts.

If it's really cheating why not put Ivey in handcuffs?

[Three]

Unmarked cards ruled by a judge to be marked. Sounds like poppycock.

Did Ivey have knowledge about the next card by looking at its back? The answer is yes. He knew whether the first card of the next round was in or out of a range of cards. Therefore the cards were marked. How as it possible for Ivey to get added info on the next card? It was because someone decided how the cards would be turned in order to mark the deck as good card or bad card. Who marked the deck? The person deciding how to turn the cards. Random turning of the cards does not mark the deck. Sorting the cards to a certain criterion does. The one deciding that criterion is guilty of marking the deck not the one turning the cards.

If it's really cheating why not put Ivey in handcuffs?

Because his friend decided how to turn the cards. But the same question could be asked about his friend. The answer is the people that decide who gets arrested chose not to arrest him. Guilty people don't get arrested all the time and innocent people get arrested as well. Whether or not an arrest occurred has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They decided it wasn't worth the resources to prosecute under the current statute. Why? Because the play is exposed so they shouldn't get away with it anymore. The case is somewhat gray because both parties were involved in allowing the cards to be marked; however, only one party understood that was what was going on and that party made the decisions that marked the deck. The judge decided the game was not a far game and we all know the judge was right. We know they gained advantage by manipulating the turning of the cards in a way to create a marked deck that would allow them to gain advantage betting by looking at the back of the first card dealt on each round. We all know this to be true so what are we discussing.

The moral of the story. If you aren't greedy you can get away with these kinds of things forever. If you are greedy you will eventually expose the play. If the play is illegal, as this certainly could be, you might go to jail. It would seem to me that this should fall under marking cards just as any other form of marking cards to gain info on cards you can only see the back of.

At this point we have a dead horse. It isn't going anywhere.

[AndretheGiant]

So to play devils advocate, What if the cards came from the factory but for some reason the picture cards because they had more ink on them could be distinguished without being turned or edge sorted,what would your opinion be then?

[Three]

So to play devils advocate, What if the cards came from the factory but for some reason the picture cards because they had more ink on them could be distinguished without being turned or edge sorted,what would your opinion be then?

You didn't engineer the deck to be marked so it is not your problem and you can't be held culpable. I guess the judge could call that an unfair game but I think gaming enforcement law has already ruled that to be the casinos responsibility. In my view the edge sorting was a clear case of the guy deciding how the cards were turned was marking the deck. This unfair game stuff was just nonsense. Ivey and his crew came to the casino with the intent of engineering a marked deck and later that fact was exposed. Your example would be like the case of dealing unshuffled cards in order by suit and rank. Again I suppose this judge might call that a freeroll for the casino but it should be the casinos responsibility. If everyone at the table figured it out why didn't the Floor, dealer, PitBoss, Surveillance, or the Shift Supervisor figure it out. Most likely collusion but they can't prove it.

[RS]

What happens if......

I wire $1M to a casino. Ask to be dealt BJ DD. I want 2-9's to have black backs, T-K's green backs, and A's have orange backs. Also to be dealt out of shoe type X (where I can see back of next card). Casino agrees to all this.

Tthree, what do you think should happen? Did I cheat? Should I have to pay back my winnings? What else?

[Frank Galvin]

RollingStoned,

Based upon his previous lengthy responses, I believe that Tthree would opine that you caused the cards to be marked in a manner that violated the terms of the gaming statutes. Rigged or not against the house, is actually irrelevant.

Tthree, correct?

[Three]

RollingStoned,

Based upon his previous lengthy responses, I believe that Tthree would opine that you caused the cards to be marked in a manner that violated the terms of the gaming statutes. Rigged or not against the house, is actually irrelevant.

Tthree, correct?

There is a difference between RS example and what happened. The casino should understand it is using a marked deck in that example. Ivey made requests to assemble a series of innocuous ingredients and then direct things to make them a marked deck without the casinos knowledge. Plus RS requested a violation of the law. The casino would be knowingly dealing an illegal game. Ivey tricked the casino into unknowingly creating a marked deck with a legal set of cards. It was the direction of how to turn the cards that marked the deck. Who turned the cards doesn't matter. To say they didn't do it is like saying I didn't kill you the bullet did or the gun did so you can't charge me. I assume you all are capable of understanding the difference in the RS example and what Ivey did.

[Frank Galvin]

Tthree,

Please respond to the question posed to you, and not to the question as you would have preferred it to be structured.

Based upon RS' hypothetical, would you have been causing the deck to be marked in violation of the gaming statute? Casino knowledge that the decks are sorted/marked is irrelevant.

Yes or no?

[Three]

It is a bullshit question. The statute which the game is dealt under specifies the cards be a uniform color. Basically a complete matched set of playing cards. Not a frankenstein deck of multicolors. If the casino violated this they would have to refund my losses. I have had it happen a few times. If the casino violated the trust of using a fair set of playing cards the casino refunds your losses and if you won you get to keep the winnings. I never actually got a refund because my situation was the latter in both cases but everyone else at the table got a refund of losses. It was a player freeroll because the deck was found to be missing a card or cards by the shuffle machine. This is what the judge did. Ivey caused the deck to become a marked deck. The casino got a freeroll since Ivey was at fault for the dealing of a marked deck. This is the way dealing with illegal cards is handled. The injured party gets a freeroll. If the casino dealt from a frankenstein deck with different colored backs it would be dealing an illegal game and Ivey would get the freeroll. The difference is the casino used a legal deck when Ivey played and Ivey manipulated it through his friends instructions to become sorted into a marked deck.

[Three]

Tthree, what do you think should happen? Did I cheat? Should I have to pay back my winnings? What else?

Yes or no?

I was not posed with a yes or no question. Trying to get a yes or no answer on a complicated issue is a typical lawyer trick to twist what you think into something else. I had to represent myself once because the lawyer was pissed I would never give a yes or no answer when an explanation was required to understand what happened. The judge decided in my favor and I got an award larger than the lawyer thought we could get.