8 ms·

> 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 sucke

> 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...
- techsupporter 10y ago
  Oh, so that's even more clear than what I thought. I didn't see that citation, my apologies. In that case, I agree even more with the judge's decision: a member of the public would not expect the meaning of the cards to be able to be "divined" by another player at the table in such a manner and the casino, had it known of the flaw, would not have used the cards, and Ivey undoubtedly used the mechanism to alter the result of the game and affect his actions based on the "random" selection. I disagree with the people in this thread who say that the judge expects Ivey to be a patsy.
  - lkjhgfdsa1 10y ago
kornish 10y ago
Seems like, from the excerpt you quote, the relevant few words are "...or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards..." But he didn't substitute them, did he? The cards were already in play and he noticed and took advantage of an irregularity.
- boulos 10y ago
  See my other note below. He requested these specific cards, and that the dealer adjust specific cards, and that they use an automatic shuffler (so that they didn't change order). He may not have done so directly, but he caused them to be substituted which is likely more than enough (IANAL, but I deal with too many).
  - ec109685 10y ago
    You mean "so they didn't change orientation"
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
asher_ 10y ago
I have a few problems with this. The law DOES make a distinction based on who did the marking. Your quote clearly states that it refers to people playing the game, which would exclude the casino. The cards also weren't marked. The backs were identical. The dealer selectively rotating some cards is what made some identifiable. The law also says that the player must "substitute and use" marked cards. The casino made the substitution. The cards were marked or tampered with. Moreover, if this interpretation is correct, and the game is simply invalidated, then it is far more exploitable. In the case of any kind of marked card a player could simply bet huge (randomly) and if they lose invoke this law, invalidating the game.
- gizmo686 10y ago
  As I mentioned in another reply, the particular clause referenced above is not what was used. However, your interpretation that the game was "invalidated" is correct. This is not exploitable because it is within the casinos power to not use marked cards. Further, if the casino did use marked cards, and the player won; then the casino could invoke the same law and invalidate the winning. This is essentially what happened in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco (the main precedent cited in this case); where the casino lost big as a result of using non-shuffled decks. Despite the fact that this was clearly the casino's fault, the court ruled that (regardless of fault) because the game was no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, it was illegal, and any contract based on it was void.
  - asher_ 10y ago
    I don't understand how it's not exploitable. The casino can't control whether cards get marked. They get marked all the time during regular gameplay.
    - evgen 10y ago
      If the cards are damaged or marked during play the deck is punched and disposed of. After a certain small number of uses, where normal card handling by dealer or players might mark there cards, there deck is punched and disposed of. I would be surprised if a big Vegas casino does not go through a shipping container of card decks every night.
gremlinsinc 10y ago
wouldn't that same law then negate any and ALL winnings the casino has ever had from Baccarat, because anyone who has ever lost could come forward and counter sue them for breach of the same contract and there'd be no way to prove one way or the other, they'd have to nullify out all past/present games. I think it's best not to set a legal precedent, and for the casino to take their hit, and tighten up security of the game moving forward.
- Steeeve 10y ago
  It would negate winnings from games using those specific cards where some of the cards were specifically rotated.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Right, but the casino has a great opportunity to rotate the cards in every game. Can you definitively state that the dealer never rotated one of your face-up cards after a hand? We only have their word that they didn't know the deck was marked. They could have been cooperating in fraud for years. Let certain players win, especially against a troublesome high-roller. Save it to invalidate a huge win, etc. It's improbable that their anti-fraud team didn't catch the issue because it's so obvious. Do a manual shuffle and fan the cards. 1/32nd of 2.5 inches is 1/80th of the width. Greater than 1%. I used to manually grade gems. In the beginning I could hardly tell 3mm from 4mm, in the end I could spot a 3.05 in a tray of 3s, and gems don't sit flush in your hand while you compare them. (At any rate, they will check after this, and mechanically I hope!) The best way to deal with this is make the casino eat the loss. If they're innocent it'll teach them to be more careful.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      Baccarat is a purely mechanical game from the house perspective. Even if the dealer had perfect premonition and telepathy, the behavior of the house would not change. > Sun trained herself to identify aberrations along the left or right margins of the card backs, no wider than 1/32 of an inch, the Times reported. Also, the imperfection was 1/32 of an inch, not 1/32 of the card width. Though the wording is ambiguous; it may be that the margin was 1/32 of an inch, in which case the imperfections within the margin were even smaller.
codedokode 10y ago
I wonder if Ivey would lost the game, could he request to get his money back because the game was "unlawful"?
- mattmaroon 10y ago
  No. The casino doesn't know the cards are "marked".
  - plafl 10y ago
    Probably, but we really don't know
  - codedokode 10y ago
    As I understand from the quotes above it doesn't matter which party knows about marked cards - the game is unlawful anyway.
- grkvlt 10y ago
  I guess he could go, play using the same mechanic (i.e. rotating cards to give him an advantage) but deliberately make losing bets. Then reveal that because of the rotations he could have won (I guess, show them that ke knew the card values and give an alternative series of winning bets he ought to have placed) therefore the game was unlawful, and demand his losses be returned. Quite why he would do that is anyone's guess - trolling the casino for the lulz because he has millions of dollars he can afford to lose?
randomnumber314 10y ago
In the broader scheme of things, isn't the casino setting itself up for trouble? If someone lost significant money, can't they now file suit claiming the casino likely used a similar scheme to force the game in the casino's favor?
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  No - the only choices in baccarat seem to be related to betting, so marking the cards wouldn't benefit the casino.
metaphorm 10y ago
it's not clear to me whether cards with consistent patterns due to manufacturing process ought to be considered marked or not. certainly Ivey and his colleague were able to utilize those patterns as if the cards had been marked, but in truth neither Ivey nor his colleague did anything to the cards at all before playing. I think the argument comes down to spirit of the law (which Ivey broke, in my opinion) vs. letter of the law (which he didn't break, in my opinion).
elastic_church 10y ago
so the casino always uses these cards. Sun bought a set of the cards from that casino and studied them. Sun was also not a player, she was just the interpreter while Ivey was the better. if the rationale of this case stands, then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata under the New Jersey Casino Control Act If that fails then the New Jersey Casino Control Act should be challenged on constitutional grounds of unequal application of the law Would love to see this case moved to federal jurisdiction, no federal judge is going to take a favorable view of New Jersey State's enshrinement of casino superiority.
- gspetr 10y ago
  > then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata I'm probably missing something obvious, but why would the dealers of all people sue Borgata?
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    because they are participants in the game

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...

techsupporter 10y ago
Oh, so that's even more clear than what I thought. I didn't see that citation, my apologies. In that case, I agree even more with the judge's decision: a member of the public would not expect the meaning of the cards to be able to be "divined" by another player at the table in such a manner and the casino, had it known of the flaw, would not have used the cards, and Ivey undoubtedly used the mechanism to alter the result of the game and affect his actions based on the "random" selection. I disagree with the people in this thread who say that the judge expects Ivey to be a patsy.
- lkjhgfdsa1 10y ago

kornish 10y ago

Seems like, from the excerpt you quote, the relevant few words are "...or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards..." But he didn't substitute them, did he? The cards were already in play and he noticed and took advantage of an irregularity.

boulos 10y ago
See my other note below. He requested these specific cards, and that the dealer adjust specific cards, and that they use an automatic shuffler (so that they didn't change order). He may not have done so directly, but he caused them to be substituted which is likely more than enough (IANAL, but I deal with too many).
- ec109685 10y ago
  You mean "so they didn't change orientation"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

asher_ 10y ago

I have a few problems with this. The law DOES make a distinction based on who did the marking. Your quote clearly states that it refers to people playing the game, which would exclude the casino. The cards also weren't marked. The backs were identical. The dealer selectively rotating some cards is what made some identifiable. The law also says that the player must "substitute and use" marked cards. The casino made the substitution. The cards were marked or tampered with. Moreover, if this interpretation is correct, and the game is simply invalidated, then it is far more exploitable. In the case of any kind of marked card a player could simply bet huge (randomly) and if they lose invoke this law, invalidating the game.

gizmo686 10y ago
As I mentioned in another reply, the particular clause referenced above is not what was used. However, your interpretation that the game was "invalidated" is correct. This is not exploitable because it is within the casinos power to not use marked cards. Further, if the casino did use marked cards, and the player won; then the casino could invoke the same law and invalidate the winning. This is essentially what happened in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco (the main precedent cited in this case); where the casino lost big as a result of using non-shuffled decks. Despite the fact that this was clearly the casino's fault, the court ruled that (regardless of fault) because the game was no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, it was illegal, and any contract based on it was void.
- asher_ 10y ago
  I don't understand how it's not exploitable. The casino can't control whether cards get marked. They get marked all the time during regular gameplay.
  - evgen 10y ago
    If the cards are damaged or marked during play the deck is punched and disposed of. After a certain small number of uses, where normal card handling by dealer or players might mark there cards, there deck is punched and disposed of. I would be surprised if a big Vegas casino does not go through a shipping container of card decks every night.

gremlinsinc 10y ago

wouldn't that same law then negate any and ALL winnings the casino has ever had from Baccarat, because anyone who has ever lost could come forward and counter sue them for breach of the same contract and there'd be no way to prove one way or the other, they'd have to nullify out all past/present games. I think it's best not to set a legal precedent, and for the casino to take their hit, and tighten up security of the game moving forward.

Steeeve 10y ago
It would negate winnings from games using those specific cards where some of the cards were specifically rotated.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Right, but the casino has a great opportunity to rotate the cards in every game. Can you definitively state that the dealer never rotated one of your face-up cards after a hand? We only have their word that they didn't know the deck was marked. They could have been cooperating in fraud for years. Let certain players win, especially against a troublesome high-roller. Save it to invalidate a huge win, etc. It's improbable that their anti-fraud team didn't catch the issue because it's so obvious. Do a manual shuffle and fan the cards. 1/32nd of 2.5 inches is 1/80th of the width. Greater than 1%. I used to manually grade gems. In the beginning I could hardly tell 3mm from 4mm, in the end I could spot a 3.05 in a tray of 3s, and gems don't sit flush in your hand while you compare them. (At any rate, they will check after this, and mechanically I hope!) The best way to deal with this is make the casino eat the loss. If they're innocent it'll teach them to be more careful.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Baccarat is a purely mechanical game from the house perspective. Even if the dealer had perfect premonition and telepathy, the behavior of the house would not change. > Sun trained herself to identify aberrations along the left or right margins of the card backs, no wider than 1/32 of an inch, the Times reported. Also, the imperfection was 1/32 of an inch, not 1/32 of the card width. Though the wording is ambiguous; it may be that the margin was 1/32 of an inch, in which case the imperfections within the margin were even smaller.

codedokode 10y ago

I wonder if Ivey would lost the game, could he request to get his money back because the game was "unlawful"?

mattmaroon 10y ago
No. The casino doesn't know the cards are "marked".
- plafl 10y ago
  Probably, but we really don't know
- codedokode 10y ago
  As I understand from the quotes above it doesn't matter which party knows about marked cards - the game is unlawful anyway.
grkvlt 10y ago
I guess he could go, play using the same mechanic (i.e. rotating cards to give him an advantage) but deliberately make losing bets. Then reveal that because of the rotations he could have won (I guess, show them that ke knew the card values and give an alternative series of winning bets he ought to have placed) therefore the game was unlawful, and demand his losses be returned. Quite why he would do that is anyone's guess - trolling the casino for the lulz because he has millions of dollars he can afford to lose?

randomnumber314 10y ago

In the broader scheme of things, isn't the casino setting itself up for trouble? If someone lost significant money, can't they now file suit claiming the casino likely used a similar scheme to force the game in the casino's favor?

jakelazaroff 10y ago
No - the only choices in baccarat seem to be related to betting, so marking the cards wouldn't benefit the casino.

metaphorm 10y ago

it's not clear to me whether cards with consistent patterns due to manufacturing process ought to be considered marked or not. certainly Ivey and his colleague were able to utilize those patterns as if the cards had been marked, but in truth neither Ivey nor his colleague did anything to the cards at all before playing. I think the argument comes down to spirit of the law (which Ivey broke, in my opinion) vs. letter of the law (which he didn't break, in my opinion).

elastic_church 10y ago

so the casino always uses these cards. Sun bought a set of the cards from that casino and studied them. Sun was also not a player, she was just the interpreter while Ivey was the better. if the rationale of this case stands, then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata under the New Jersey Casino Control Act If that fails then the New Jersey Casino Control Act should be challenged on constitutional grounds of unequal application of the law Would love to see this case moved to federal jurisdiction, no federal judge is going to take a favorable view of New Jersey State's enshrinement of casino superiority.

gspetr 10y ago
> then every past player at Borgata and the Attorney General and dealers should sue Borgata I'm probably missing something obvious, but why would the dealers of all people sue Borgata?
- elastic_church 10y ago
  because they are participants in the game