Recent article about the Ivey/Borgata saga

**mrcharlie** · 12-30-2016, 11:55 AM

Although this has been discussed ad nauseam, I thought this was an extremely well-written article worth sharing to this little corner of the AP world.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/22/cheapsk...rs-10-million/

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 12-30-2016, 01:15 PM

Dreadful article:

It simply ignores the indisputable fact that Ivey
and Sun cheated via dealer collusion "touching"
the cards, for the sole purpose of sorting them.

RS · 12-30-2016, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

It simply ignores the indisputable fact that Ivey
and Sun cheated via dealer collusion "touching"
the cards, for the sole purpose of sorting them.

What?

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 12-30-2016, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

"What?"

What words baffled you?

**Bodarc** · 12-30-2016, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

via dealer collusion

Flash, I don't know why you keep harping dealer collusion. There was NO dealer collusion. The house gave the dealer permission to turn the cards (even though they got outwitted on the luck thing). If there had been collusion, they would have been arrested or sued for cheating and the dealer would have been arrested too. . The judge cleared them of cheating.

**AndretheGiant** · 12-30-2016, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

Dreadful article:

It simply ignores the indisputable fact that Ivey
and Sun cheated via dealer collusion "touching"
the cards, for the sole purpose of sorting them.

If they were cheating why weren't they arrested?
How it can be called collusion when it was sanctioned by the highest levels of casino management?
Thanks for the link Mr Charlie, this is the best article I've seen on this issue.
The casinos got beat at their own game and can't stand the fact that for once they were the suckers.

RS · 12-30-2016, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

What words baffled you?

The part I bolded (cheating).

How did you come up with such a conclusion?

**Three** · 12-30-2016, 04:44 PM

The judge said they were cheating. He simply decided the case via another ruling that allowed for restitution without putting Ivey et al in jail. He no doubt felt that served justice the best. If it would make you happy the judge could have decided the case via the cheating he had ruled happened. Ten I vey et al could go to jail. Is that what it takes for you to understand what the judge wrote in his ruling. He had 3 rulings that opened 3 avenues to base a decision on each of which had different consequences. He chose one that didn't put Ivey et al in jail but restored the cheated party. That is how the justice system works. It is like getting pulled over for over the speed limit and they find you are drunk. You ask the cop to be nice since you have been trying to clear your driving record and are almost there. Plus you will lose your job and likely your house if you are charged with drunk driving. Rather than giving you tickets for speeding and drunk driving he decides to be nice and give you no point tickets for not wearing a seat belt and talking on your cell phone. The state gets their revenue without having your insurance go through the roof or your drivers license revoked etc. You don't go scot free but get a huge break that keeps you out of jail. The fact that the cop chose an easier path for you to get what he felt was justice doesn't mean you weren't guilty of drunk driving or speeding.

**Three** · 12-30-2016, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

The part I bolded (cheating).

How did you come up with such a conclusion?

The judge ruled that the cards became marked by the decisions made by Ivey and Sun on which way to turn the cards. So Ivey and Sun marked the cards without touching them. Didn't you read the last thread's link? The judge simply chose to base his decision on a different aspect of the case that didn't open the door for Ivey and Sun to go to jail.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 12-30-2016, 07:02 PM

Just because the "cheating" aspect failed to meet the letter of the

(poorly worded) law; it easily zoomed way past the spirit of the law.

I am not going to lecture anyone re: this crucial distinction.

Ivey merely tricked the casino into allowing their dealer to collude.

It is ethically rather straightforward. Legerdemain by a dealer / player.

**Frank Galvin** · 12-31-2016, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tthree

The judge ruled that the cards became marked by the decisions made by Ivey and Sun on which way to turn the cards. So Ivey and Sun marked the cards without touching them. Didn't you read the last thread's link? The judge simply chose to base his decision on a different aspect of the case that didn't open the door for Ivey and Sun to go to jail.

Tthree, here you and I go again.

U.S. District Judge Hillman was presented with civil claims asserted by the casino, not a criminal prosecution levied by the U.S. District Attorney's office. This legal proceeding never had anything to do with any allegations that would have placed Ivey and/or Sun in jeopardy of criminal prosecution. To the contrary, the judge was merely stating, in dicta, that he was not charged with considering whether their action rose to the level of, or satisfied the various components for proof of, the commission of any criminal misconduct.

Disclaimers: Unlike the surgeon in that tv commercial, I didn't stay at at Holiday Inn Express last night. However, I did attend and graduate from law school, I did successfully pass a state bar exam, and I continue to maintain my own law practice.

**Norm** · 12-31-2016, 04:43 AM

Begging the question, did the judge stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

**Frank Galvin** · 12-31-2016, 08:05 AM

Norm, gentlemen don't discuss those sort of details.

But I will share that I fail to see the relevancy of your fallacy (assuming your referencing some sort of circular reasoning). My comments were directed to Tthree's position, and did not challenge Judge Hillman's credentials.