9 ms·

This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advant

by asher_ 10y ago

This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advantage. I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his character. The specificity of the conditions he asked for should have tipped his hand earlier than they did, but the casinos probably treated him like any other baccarat whale. Hopefully this decision is reversed. I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker.

6nf 10y ago
Card counting is negated by using more decks and not going past 60% or whatever of the shoe. Casinos know about card counting. This is different. They spotted marks on the back of the cards that gave away the value of the cards. If the casino knew about this they would not have used those cards. The judge ruled that both the casino and the player are obligated to play the game by the rules.
- harryh 10y ago
  Just to be clear the markings on the back didn't precisely give away the value of the cards. What they did do was allow Ivey to sort the cards into buckets (by flipping some cards 180 degrees) such that he could tell which of two buckets any given card was in based upon the markings.
techsupporter 10y ago
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips or gaming billets, or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards or dice that have been marked, loaded or tampered with." (Internal punctuation omitted.) He's not saying that Ivey had to just blithely take whatever happened; instead, I think the judge is making the argument that Ivey "rigged" the cards to function just like marked cards so they should be treated as such. He's not saying that Ivey committed a crime, just that the game was unlawful under the NJ CCA because the NJ CCA prohibits the use, by either party, of cards that seem to be marked. The law doesn't make a distinction as to who is using the cards or who did the marking, even if the marking is done by the manufacturer. Link to law (it's a long one but I do not like link shorteners): http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=520850958&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={34B6}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42 http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=5...
- bagels 10y ago
  Ivey did not substitute. The casino did not knowingly. I'm not convinced this was violated.
  - boulos 10y ago
    He did request that the specific cards be substituted for whatever the regular ones are, and that according to the impossible rules on being "identical" (see http://www.flushdraw.net/news/borgata-fires-back-at-cardmaker-gemaco-in-phil-ivey-edge-sorting-case/ http://www.flushdraw.net/news/borgata-fires-back-at-cardmake...) they were known to be effectively marked. I enjoy "Robin Hood" stories as much as the next person, but if he had walked in with his own deck of cards and asked to use them (and the casino agreed) is the fault with the casino or the player?
    - bagels 10y ago
      I guess that point hinges on whether asking the casino to use a particular type of card is legally equivalent to Ivey substituting.
    - Frqy3 10y ago
      Sun purchased a souvenir set of the purple Gemaco Borgata (with the punched hole) from the casino, so it sounds like these cards are in regular use by Borgata. Probably they use several different patterns, and Ivy requested this particular pattern for play.
- gizmo686 10y ago
  The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game. b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." [1] EDIT: The Judges opinion [0] also makes it clear that he is following the precedent set in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco, Inc. [2], where it was ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally used unshuffled decks. More specifically, without assigning fault to any party, the court argued that the game was not authorized into the Casino Control Act, thereby voiding the contract. In this case, the judge argues that, although the specific statute of the CCA that was violated is different, the difference is not relevent to the arguement set forth in Golden Nugget, so the same result applies. [0] http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pdf http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pd... [1] http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09... [2] http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5m-in-winnings-from-unshuffled-cards http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5...
downandout 10y ago
>I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. There's an interesting side story to this. While Ivey was conducting this scheme at the Borgata, a famous advantage gambler named Don Johnson happened to be there at the same time. Johnson is mostly famous for beating Atlantic City casinos out of $15M playing blackjack using their overly generous rebate policies for the highest of rollers, though he has also made hundreds of millions of dollars beating horse racing using algorithms that he paid to have created. Bloomberg did a 45 minute video on him [1] and here's a writeup if you prefer [2]. Johnson and Ivey are friends. When Johnson walked by the high limit room and happened to see Phil playing baccarat with piles of $100,000 plaques in front of him, accompanied by a woman that he normally wouldn't be with, he immediately knew that something wasn't right. He walked up and tried to talk to Phil, who told him "it's not a good time right now". Don said "au contraire my friend, I don't know what's going on but it looks like a great time" lol. Johnson actually sat down and, figuring that Ivey knew what he was doing, copied Ivey's bets until Ivey made it known that he was serious about being alone with his companion at the table. Johnson won but was not sued or asked to return the money. Johnson told this story on an advantage gambling podcast [3]. So yes, anyone that knew anything about Phil should have instantly known that he would not be playing a negative expectation game for such high stakes without an advantage. Having heard several gaming attorneys weigh in on this issue, I do believe that the current decision in the US will be overturned, although it is unlikely that the case in London will be. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpnnaksXNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpnnaksXNM [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-... [3] https://youtu.be/tpJ7djdrm_c?t=27m52s https://youtu.be/tpJ7djdrm_c?t=27m52s
toki5 10y ago
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke I mean, that's a pretty important thing to know before forming an opinion on this matter. In essence, the part of the contract that the judge is leaning on is that any manner of manipulation, by either party, invalidates the game and any winnings that came as a result of that game.

by asher_ 10y ago

6nf 10y ago

Card counting is negated by using more decks and not going past 60% or whatever of the shoe. Casinos know about card counting. This is different. They spotted marks on the back of the cards that gave away the value of the cards. If the casino knew about this they would not have used those cards. The judge ruled that both the casino and the player are obligated to play the game by the rules.

harryh 10y ago
Just to be clear the markings on the back didn't precisely give away the value of the cards. What they did do was allow Ivey to sort the cards into buckets (by flipping some cards 180 degrees) such that he could tell which of two buckets any given card was in based upon the markings.

techsupporter 10y ago

> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips or gaming billets, or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards or dice that have been marked, loaded or tampered with." (Internal punctuation omitted.) He's not saying that Ivey had to just blithely take whatever happened; instead, I think the judge is making the argument that Ivey "rigged" the cards to function just like marked cards so they should be treated as such. He's not saying that Ivey committed a crime, just that the game was unlawful under the NJ CCA because the NJ CCA prohibits the use, by either party, of cards that seem to be marked. The law doesn't make a distinction as to who is using the cards or who did the marking, even if the marking is done by the manufacturer. Link to law (it's a long one but I do not like link shorteners): http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=520850958&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={34B6}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42 http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=5...

bagels 10y ago
Ivey did not substitute. The casino did not knowingly. I'm not convinced this was violated.
- boulos 10y ago
  He did request that the specific cards be substituted for whatever the regular ones are, and that according to the impossible rules on being "identical" (see http://www.flushdraw.net/news/borgata-fires-back-at-cardmaker-gemaco-in-phil-ivey-edge-sorting-case/ http://www.flushdraw.net/news/borgata-fires-back-at-cardmake...) they were known to be effectively marked. I enjoy "Robin Hood" stories as much as the next person, but if he had walked in with his own deck of cards and asked to use them (and the casino agreed) is the fault with the casino or the player?
  - bagels 10y ago
    I guess that point hinges on whether asking the casino to use a particular type of card is legally equivalent to Ivey substituting.
  - Frqy3 10y ago
    Sun purchased a souvenir set of the purple Gemaco Borgata (with the punched hole) from the casino, so it sounds like these cards are in regular use by Borgata. Probably they use several different patterns, and Ivy requested this particular pattern for play.
gizmo686 10y ago
The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game. b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." [1] EDIT: The Judges opinion [0] also makes it clear that he is following the precedent set in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco, Inc. [2], where it was ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally used unshuffled decks. More specifically, without assigning fault to any party, the court argued that the game was not authorized into the Casino Control Act, thereby voiding the contract. In this case, the judge argues that, although the specific statute of the CCA that was violated is different, the difference is not relevent to the arguement set forth in Golden Nugget, so the same result applies. [0] http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pdf http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pd... [1] http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09... [2] http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5m-in-winnings-from-unshuffled-cards http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5...

downandout 10y ago

>I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. There's an interesting side story to this. While Ivey was conducting this scheme at the Borgata, a famous advantage gambler named Don Johnson happened to be there at the same time. Johnson is mostly famous for beating Atlantic City casinos out of $15M playing blackjack using their overly generous rebate policies for the highest of rollers, though he has also made hundreds of millions of dollars beating horse racing using algorithms that he paid to have created. Bloomberg did a 45 minute video on him [1] and here's a writeup if you prefer [2]. Johnson and Ivey are friends. When Johnson walked by the high limit room and happened to see Phil playing baccarat with piles of $100,000 plaques in front of him, accompanied by a woman that he normally wouldn't be with, he immediately knew that something wasn't right. He walked up and tried to talk to Phil, who told him "it's not a good time right now". Don said "au contraire my friend, I don't know what's going on but it looks like a great time" lol. Johnson actually sat down and, figuring that Ivey knew what he was doing, copied Ivey's bets until Ivey made it known that he was serious about being alone with his companion at the table. Johnson won but was not sued or asked to return the money. Johnson told this story on an advantage gambling podcast [3]. So yes, anyone that knew anything about Phil should have instantly known that he would not be playing a negative expectation game for such high stakes without an advantage. Having heard several gaming attorneys weigh in on this issue, I do believe that the current decision in the US will be overturned, although it is unlikely that the case in London will be. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpnnaksXNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpnnaksXNM [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-... [3] https://youtu.be/tpJ7djdrm_c?t=27m52s https://youtu.be/tpJ7djdrm_c?t=27m52s

toki5 10y ago

> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke I mean, that's a pretty important thing to know before forming an opinion on this matter. In essence, the part of the contract that the judge is leaning on is that any manner of manipulation, by either party, invalidates the game and any winnings that came as a result of that game.