30 For 30 Podcasts: "A Queen Of Sorts"
https://overcast.fm/+JQI9pNCys
30 For 30 Podcasts: "A Queen Of Sorts"
https://overcast.fm/+JQI9pNCys
Phil Ivey's absurd defense is beyond epic credulity.
He cleverly side-steps the crucial part of his crime.
In order to cheat he MUST collude with the dealer,
directing her (in a foreign language) to sort the most
crucial cards, the 7's, 8's, 9's so that he could identify
them before the cards are dealt. Never mentioned is
the additional fact that the dealer ALSO had to pull out
the first card from the shoe so that the edge could be seen.
That too, is absolutely forbidden in baccarat and in blackjack.
That is why there are brushes and/or a drop-down gate at
the 'business end' of the shoe.
Collusion smells like very rotten eggs, cat feces, and toxic waste.
Ivey did not instruct the dealer in a foreign language: Hit protégée did.
With all do respect, this is an example of poor casino game protection. There are numerous punters from Asian countries who speak their native tongue with the dealer. It is no surprise that the casino allowed the foreign communication to commence during play.
There are several ways a casino can protect themselves from another Ivey:
1.) Enforce an English only system. All communication must be in English unless the table is dead (no action at all). If the cards are in the dealers hand (or shoe), then English is only allowed. Otherwise, at the discretion of the pit, they can get clearance to burn extra cards per round.
2.) Coordinate with the EITS and table game Manager to ensure all house procedures are followed. When Ivey's partner instructed the dealer to change procedures should have been a red flag even without said instructions from partner. Investigation will either reveal poor dealer skills or AP'ing at the table.
3.) Review all procedures and ensure that all gambling devices are secure, all communication is in English or hand signals, and that procedures are in line with corporate and gaming. Changing procedures, at the request of a professional casino protecting agent or a gaming agent is paramount and should be called into question.
Also, all casinos should NOT have diamond-back cards any more. All cards should be solid-border.
I would also call into question the allegations of "cheating" and/or "collusion" on Ivey's part. Where did he "cheat"? What "collusion" with the dealer occurred? Was there a promise of anything of value for participating in the altercations of dealer procedures?
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 07-29-2017 at 06:50 AM.
His partner, speaking Mandarin Chinese, sorted the key cards and spun them as per her explicit directions. One can assume that she was handsomely rewarded after the fact, probably a hefty percentage for risking her job. But that is entirely moot. She surreptitiously violated several casino regulations, creating the equivalent of a shoe of marked cards, and dealing them 'improperly' so that he and she could see whether or not the first of the initial two cards dealt to the "player" hand was a 7, 8, 9, affording them knowledge of the cards, not available to other players. In losing the case against him brought by the Borgata Casino in A.C. the judge understood the foregoing. The collusion and cheating are actually perfectly self-evident. The greed and stupidity of the casino personnel is also self-evident.
The cards were marked prior to the entry onto the table...by the manufacturer. A faulty gambling device was allowed to be operated by the public.
I understand the point of the keys in the car scenario, but if I know that if I leave my keys in the car, theft is most likely to happen. While failure to perform due diligence does not exonerate the criminal, the damage has been done and I should be more careful next time.
I was not implying that collusion was legal. I was calling into question whether the acts performed therein could be constructed as "collusion". I was not debating what collusion was.
As for the English only rule, does that make poker rooms racist? All instructions are to either be verbally English or physical-if needed/wanted. If I am talking with another person in a freight language, does the poker room reserve to right to enforce an English room or should everyone shut up and let them speak their language? For the room, no big deal until the other players bitch. Then the casino has two options: Comply with the angry customers and come off as 'racist', as you put it OR allow foreign speech at the tables.
Personal attacks and insults are unnecessary.
By the way, if I knew there were a surplus of Aces in a newly-shuffled single deck and I were given the cut card to then cut the deck where the aces were on the top of the pack, would that constitute cheating? If so, to what degree? How could you prove intent?
Thanks for correcting the typo. I may need a thesaurus next time I use that word.
Anyway, back to Ivey:
As per the previous statement: I understand the key in car scenario. It does not free the criminal to commit his crime, but it is my fault that damage was done to myself due to personal negligence. if I know that leaving keys in the ignition will results in an increase chance of theft, why would I leave my keys(marked cards) in the car(decks in play)? Again, illegal for the theft, but damage has been done and should have been avoided.
The backs of the cards are broadcast to all players at the table. It is information the casino allowed to be publicly broadcast via a faulty gambling device. What they (the players) do with that information is up to them.
I will refrain from making statements about the judges ruling. Not because I disagree, but for the fact that any questioning of legal authority is seen an seditious. I have already called into question what collusion and cheating has been done and already personal insults were hurled. I will allow a legal scholar to critique my statements.
Last edited by lij45o6; 07-26-2017 at 08:23 PM.
Enjoyed listening to the podcast.
Here's an older thread on same topic:
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...y-Borgata-saga
Let's also not forget the implications of this whole situation. Casinos are going to start feeling like they can get away with free rolling. Let us not forget that Phil and Kelly simply had an edge, not a guaranteed win. They still could have lost. Would Crockfords and Borgota have cried foul if Phil and Kelly lost money? Yeah, right.
Now casinos in London have refused paying card counters (again, would they refund the card counter if they had lost?). We even have the Borgata suing for their EV had they played without an edge! I mean for crying out loud!
We're all here because we believe the casinos do NOT have an inherent right to win. Be careful if you agree with what the rulings have been in the Ivey/Sun case.
This podcast was awesome. Only wish they would be doing more AP related podcasts in the future. On a side note the queen of sorts was the team and it was her play long before Phil. Phil was ask to join the team because of his high roller status and joint bankroll.
Bookmarks