30 For 30 Podcasts: "A Queen Of Sorts" Must listening on the Phil Ivey scandal.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 07-29-2017, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by dogman_1234

"seen an seditious"

Seditious means -- "inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 07-29-2017, 07:02 AM

Note: Not long ago, the Queen was playing at Foxwoods in CT.
The casino took her winnings and a million bucks [or was it two
million dollars?] that she had brought with her. Indeed, her error
in judgement was the result of her perhaps not realizing that while
on the property of a sovereign state, she had, de facto, surrendered
her ordinary legal rights, and so, could do absolutely nothing about it.
She was lucky that they didn't break her hands with a sledge hammer!

**elimagico369** · 07-29-2017, 07:22 AM

Guess you have to consider that into your ev when playing at Indian casinos.

**elimagico369** · 07-29-2017, 07:24 AM

Medical bills are -ev

**AndretheGiant** · 07-29-2017, 08:28 AM

So the real cheats here are the Pequot Indians.
They just flat out stole her money.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 07-29-2017, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by AndretheGiant

" ... stole her money."

Native American Casinos have, on (rather rare) occasions,
seized the "ill gotten gains" (and bankrolls) of Card Counters.
I remember that occurring in a rural Mississippi Indian Casino
a few years ago.

Then again, I met a Card Counter who was horribly beaten at
Foxwoods (in the mid '90's) spending a week in a hospital I.C.U.
He had a 6 figure hospital bill and had no health insurance.
His brother, a member of the bar in CT, had visited his bedside,
informing him that he had no means to be compensated and that
no police involvement was feasible.

**tomf23** · 08-02-2017, 11:25 PM

the stealing a car with the keys in it analogy is terrible. that car is your property. no game was being played for the car. your car example would be analogous to ivey walking by a table and taking chips out of the rack not what he has actually did.
in this case the casino offered a game,ivey wanted some additional tweaks to the game which the casino agreed to. he didn't break any rules- he should get paid.

**AndretheGiant** · 08-03-2017, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Three

On the podcast the Queen of Sorts said her request was I need this dealer. Not that I need a dealer that speaks Mandarin. That should tell you all you need to know about whether the dealer was in on it. Asian teams are notorious at corrupting Asian dealers (research the Tran team of felons and their plays. They corrupted Asian dealers all over the US).

It wasn't only asian dealers there were Hispanic ,Russian,And multiple others.

**AndretheGiant** · 08-03-2017, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Three

The correct analogy is you have a deck with no useful information gleaned from looking at the back of the cards at 2 different tables. At one table a player daubs all the 7, 8 and 9 so he knows when they are coming out of the shoe next. At the other table a player tells the dealer how to turn the cards so he can tell whether or not the next card is a 7, 8 or 9 before it is dealt. Both players have created the same marked deck from the same unmarked deck by definition of what a marked deck is (a deck that you can tell information about any card by looking at its back). They both have the same information gleaned from looking at the backs of the cards engineered by the players. The question is, why do some people want to deny that by directing the turning of the cards a marked deck was created when it is a marked deck by the definition of a marked deck? The two situations create the exact same situation for the player to use information gathered from looking at the back of the card. Why are people so stupid that they can't understand something that is true by definition? That is a one line proof in math. I know when we had a one line proof by definition situation in college I was the only one to solve it. Everyone felt like idiots when I put the solution on the grease board. Every gaming board has using a marked deck causes results to be invalid and in fact the one that manufactured the marked and caused it to be used in play to be guilty of a felony. Ivey and his team got lucky that the DA didn't pursue the felony angle. The DA probably thought justice was served by returning the ill gotten gains.

The casino approved the conditions under which the game was played. Anyhow you must feel quite special to be as smart as you are and everyone else being so stupid.

**Gronbog** · 08-03-2017, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by AndretheGiant

The casino approved the conditions under which the game was played.

This is the key for me. Offer and acceptance form a contract. The question then becomes one of whether it was a legal and binding contract - IANAL

**Frank Galvin** · 08-03-2017, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Gronbog

This is the key for me. Offer and acceptance form a contract. The question then becomes one of whether it was a legal and binding contract - IANAL

Contrary to others on this website, IAAL. But so is the Judge in New Jersey. Reasonable people can disagree on issues, and reasonable lawyers..... oops, let me restate that, lawyers typically disagree. That's why we have trials and judges (usually lawyers) issue orders and decisions.

In this instance, there is at least One user on this forum who argues that the law is the law is the law, and that Ivey engaged in collusion, as he caused the cards to be marked. Unfortunately, this case, like most, is not 100% black and white. What some fail to see is that there remains on appeal the issue of whether Ivey through his associate and the dealer's actions, caused the cards to be marked in contravention to NJ gaming regulations. Time (and the appellate court) will tell.

Gronbog, great insight again!

Off to a hearing to try to save someone's job.

**lij45o6** · 08-03-2017, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Galvin

Contrary to others on this website, IAAL. But so is the Judge in New Jersey. Reasonable people can disagree on issues, and reasonable lawyers..... oops, let me restate that, lawyers typically disagree. That's why we have trials and judges (usually lawyers) issue orders and decisions.

In this instance, there is at least One user on this forum who argues that the law is the law is the law, and that Ivey engaged in collusion, as he caused the cards to be marked. Unfortunately, this case, like most, is not 100% black and white. What some fail to see is that there remains on appeal the issue of whether Ivey through his associate and the dealer's actions, caused the cards to be marked in contravention to NJ gaming regulations. Time (and the appellate court) will tell.

Gronbog, great insight again!

Off to a hearing to try to save someone's job.

Frank, what are your professional opinions on the Ivey Case? Anything you agree/disagree with concerning arguments made by counsel on both sides? Could you explain the reason behind the judges ruling on the case? Where does the appeal for Ivey stand now? Would the SCOTUS take the case up or dismiss this?

**Banker** · 08-03-2017, 06:08 PM

You can think about the case any way you want but there was no collusion. The dealer did not know that he/she was turning the card. That was the whole clever part of the Queen gig. She got the dealer to do without asking for it. Enough said.