7 ms·

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,

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
  In that case anyone who lost a game of baccarat (or any card game) played with those type of cards at anytime in NJ has a case against the casino and could sue to get the money back because the contract was illegal. I wonder if those are standard cards used at the casino ... they do offer them as souvenirs so it seems like they might be. If they are used by the casino or other casinos for games, that's probably thousands of games and potential court cases. Sounds like a class action lawsuit actually.
  - bluesign 10y ago
    if you can prove, casino knows[1] that the cards are not symmetrical, yes. "knowingly to use or possess any marked cards"
    - croon 10y ago
      Isn't the ruling above saying just that? Otherwise they're having their cake and eating it too. So which is it?
      - jpatokal 10y ago
        My reading of that is that at least one party has to knowingly use the marked cards. If neither party is aware that the cards are not symmetrical, there is no unfair advantage and the game is fair.
      - pavel_lishin 10y ago
        They know it now; they did not know it previously.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        Right, but it's not dependent on intent. The other casino didn't intend to leave the deck unshuffled, this casino didn't intend to buy marked cards. But, they did. So the games played with those cards(/unshuffled decks) shouldn't count. If the law doesn't function in both directions it isn't law, it's codified graft.
asher_ 10y ago
Ok, let's get technical. The (a) part of that law is written for casinos, not players, as it refers to dealing and operating games. The requirement is that they do this knowingly. The casino didn't know. The operation of this game did not in any way deceive the public. No player was tricked. The operation of the game also did NOT alter the result of the game. The same side (banker/player) would have one irrespective of the rotated cards, as the rotation has no affect on gameplay and the outcomes are deterministic (no choices during play like in blackjack). All that was changed as a result of the extra knowledge was which side to bet on. The game itself was not affected in any way.
- zodiac 10y ago
  I would say that the choice of what bets to place is definitely part of the game
- DanBC 10y ago
  > c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000. This para seems to say that it applies to any person, including corporate persons.
asher_ 10y ago
Response to your edit. I still think this was the wrong opinion. If the cards are not shuffled that is a clear violation of the rules of the game. No such violation occurred here. There are no such rules about card orientation because usually casinos use ones with symmetrical backs.
- twothamendment 10y ago
  Casinos use cards that they hope have symmetrical backs. In this case they were not symmetrical. Now who's fault is that? The player didn't bring the cards to the table, the casino did. If they want to cry foul and say those games are void so they don't have to pay out $10M, how much do they have to give back to players who used those same cards? They can't have it both ways. Were the games that were played with faulty cards valid or not? If not, time to start refunding a lot of money.
  - pauloday 10y ago
    It's not that the cards were marked because they were asymmetrical, it was the combination of the asymmetry and Sun manipulating them that caused them to be marked. So other games with those cards are fine as long as none of the players were manipulating the game so that asymmetry gave them an advantage. The player didn't bring the cards, but they did purposefully manipulate them to effectively play a game with marked cards, and that's why the game wasn't legit.
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
From the judgment: "The Court found that Ivey and Sun breached their contract with Borgata to play Baccarat in compliance with the CCA by violating N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b) when they knowingly engaged in a scheme to create a set of marked cards and then used those marked cards to place bets based on the markings." That's the finding I disagree with, and seems to be the point that the entire judgment rests on. Section 12 of the act [1] falls under "Sanctions", which to me is the first clue that this section is intended to apply to the casino, not the customer. I do concede that the wording "any person" would also include customers. Let's take a look at 5:12-115(a)(2) and see if we can narrow down exactly what Ivey and Sun are supposed to have done here: "It shall be unlawful...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 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." Well they certainly didn't deal, operate or expose the cards to play - the casino did that. There is an argument that without players, the game can't exist, so let's accept that both parties are responsible for "conducting" and "carrying on" the game. The cards were weren't tampered with - they were imperfect, but is that the same as "marked"? I don't believe so, and I think the judges assertion that they are should be challenged on this. Regardless, "Placed in a condition, or operated in a manner" does seem like a reasonable way to describe the rotation of specific cards. The CCA makes no assumption or distinction about who places or operates them, so we don't need to get into whether it was the casino or the player who did this. It happened and that's enough. Strip out the bits that Ivey/Sun can't possibly have done and we're left with this: "It shall be unlawful...knowingly to conduct [or] carry on any game or games played with cards, which have in any manner been marked, 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." So, to the result. The use of the words "tends to" means that it doesn't matter that it's a private room with no public to be deceived. The question the law asks as it applies to this case is: Given that Baccarat has a predetermined result at the time of dealing (there is no option for either player or dealer to influence the cards which will be drawn in the course of the game - the only variable is the stake), does the act of rotating a card, without changing its position in the deck: - tend to deceive the public? I don't see how it possibly can. - OR tend to alter the normal random selection of cards? Certainly not. - OR tend to alter the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game? It can't alter the result. It can't determine the result - there are still three to five cards which are entirely chance. It DID alter the normal chance of the game in this case, but does it "tend to"? From the article: "Baccarat is a casino game well known for unique and superstitious rituals," Hillman noted in an October opinion. "Thus, Sun telling the dealer to turn a card in a certain way did not raise any red flags for Borgata." That suggests to me that it does not "tend to" affect the chance, which is the test required by the law. On the argument above, I would suggest that Ivey and Sun were not in breach of 5:12-115(a)(2) at all. 5:12-115(b) simply says "It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." They didn't posess them, and I don't believe using the casino's standard cards, which meet the casino's own quality requirements, can be considered to be using "marked" cards. If they are, and the casino are still using the same cards, they're now knowingly in possession of marked cards themselves. Then we get to 5:12-115(c): "Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may up to $200,000." The Golden Nugget case hinged on the point that the deck wasn't shuffled. Since the CCA requires random decks, it has no provision for games played with a non-random deck. The argument is that because the CCA made no provision for the game, it can't have been a legal game under the CCA, and therefore it should be void. This case is completely different - even if we accept that Ivey breached the CCA, the CCA already makes provision for such a breach, and specifies the appropriate remedy should it occur. There's also the small point that the DGE has investigated the Golden Nugget case and concluded that there was no breach of the CCA [2] - while it may not be a court decision, it should have some weight. It looks to me like the judge has this very wrong, and any lawyer worth his money should be able to deal with it on appeal. [1] http://www.nj.gov/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09.pdf http://www.nj.gov/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09.pdf [2] https://www.casino.org/news/golden-nugget-new-jersey-unshuffled-baccarat-ok-says-dge https://www.casino.org/news/golden-nugget-new-jersey-unshuff...
solatic 10y ago
Still convinced that it won't hold up on appeal. If the judge considers the cards to be marked because of manufacturing flaw that made the cards not perfectly symmetrical, then that manufacturing flaw would be present in all the casino's card games, rendering them all invalid and illegal and opening up the casino to lawsuits for return of losses from illegally operated games, which were illegal essentially because of a technicality. This would likely result in the casino going bankrupt. If the judge considers the cards to be marked because they were rotated, then the judge has effectively outlawed a consensual agreement between the casino and the player regarding game conditions, which is neither in the spirit not the letter of the referenced law. True, the player exploited information asymmetry because he was aware of information that the casino was not, but that's a perfectly acceptable advantage which casinos exploit all the time when they don't explicitly explain to casual players how the rules of their games mathematically guarantee a house advantage over the long term.
- georgespencer 10y ago
  > rendering them all invalid and illegal The crucial word is "knowingly". You would have to demonstrate intent for all of the games with those cards to be under scrutiny.
  - betenoire 10y ago
    Crucial? "...ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally..." How does one accidentally knowingly do this?

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
In that case anyone who lost a game of baccarat (or any card game) played with those type of cards at anytime in NJ has a case against the casino and could sue to get the money back because the contract was illegal. I wonder if those are standard cards used at the casino ... they do offer them as souvenirs so it seems like they might be. If they are used by the casino or other casinos for games, that's probably thousands of games and potential court cases. Sounds like a class action lawsuit actually.
- bluesign 10y ago
  if you can prove, casino knows[1] that the cards are not symmetrical, yes. "knowingly to use or possess any marked cards"
  - croon 10y ago
    Isn't the ruling above saying just that? Otherwise they're having their cake and eating it too. So which is it?
    - jpatokal 10y ago
      My reading of that is that at least one party has to knowingly use the marked cards. If neither party is aware that the cards are not symmetrical, there is no unfair advantage and the game is fair.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      They know it now; they did not know it previously.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        Right, but it's not dependent on intent. The other casino didn't intend to leave the deck unshuffled, this casino didn't intend to buy marked cards. But, they did. So the games played with those cards(/unshuffled decks) shouldn't count. If the law doesn't function in both directions it isn't law, it's codified graft.

asher_ 10y ago

Ok, let's get technical. The (a) part of that law is written for casinos, not players, as it refers to dealing and operating games. The requirement is that they do this knowingly. The casino didn't know. The operation of this game did not in any way deceive the public. No player was tricked. The operation of the game also did NOT alter the result of the game. The same side (banker/player) would have one irrespective of the rotated cards, as the rotation has no affect on gameplay and the outcomes are deterministic (no choices during play like in blackjack). All that was changed as a result of the extra knowledge was which side to bet on. The game itself was not affected in any way.

zodiac 10y ago
I would say that the choice of what bets to place is definitely part of the game
DanBC 10y ago
> c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000. This para seems to say that it applies to any person, including corporate persons.

asher_ 10y ago

Response to your edit. I still think this was the wrong opinion. If the cards are not shuffled that is a clear violation of the rules of the game. No such violation occurred here. There are no such rules about card orientation because usually casinos use ones with symmetrical backs.

twothamendment 10y ago
Casinos use cards that they hope have symmetrical backs. In this case they were not symmetrical. Now who's fault is that? The player didn't bring the cards to the table, the casino did. If they want to cry foul and say those games are void so they don't have to pay out $10M, how much do they have to give back to players who used those same cards? They can't have it both ways. Were the games that were played with faulty cards valid or not? If not, time to start refunding a lot of money.
- pauloday 10y ago
  It's not that the cards were marked because they were asymmetrical, it was the combination of the asymmetry and Sun manipulating them that caused them to be marked. So other games with those cards are fine as long as none of the players were manipulating the game so that asymmetry gave them an advantage. The player didn't bring the cards, but they did purposefully manipulate them to effectively play a game with marked cards, and that's why the game wasn't legit.

TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago

From the judgment: "The Court found that Ivey and Sun breached their contract with Borgata to play Baccarat in compliance with the CCA by violating N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b) when they knowingly engaged in a scheme to create a set of marked cards and then used those marked cards to place bets based on the markings." That's the finding I disagree with, and seems to be the point that the entire judgment rests on. Section 12 of the act [1] falls under "Sanctions", which to me is the first clue that this section is intended to apply to the casino, not the customer. I do concede that the wording "any person" would also include customers. Let's take a look at 5:12-115(a)(2) and see if we can narrow down exactly what Ivey and Sun are supposed to have done here: "It shall be unlawful...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 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." Well they certainly didn't deal, operate or expose the cards to play - the casino did that. There is an argument that without players, the game can't exist, so let's accept that both parties are responsible for "conducting" and "carrying on" the game. The cards were weren't tampered with - they were imperfect, but is that the same as "marked"? I don't believe so, and I think the judges assertion that they are should be challenged on this. Regardless, "Placed in a condition, or operated in a manner" does seem like a reasonable way to describe the rotation of specific cards. The CCA makes no assumption or distinction about who places or operates them, so we don't need to get into whether it was the casino or the player who did this. It happened and that's enough. Strip out the bits that Ivey/Sun can't possibly have done and we're left with this: "It shall be unlawful...knowingly to conduct [or] carry on any game or games played with cards, which have in any manner been marked, 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." So, to the result. The use of the words "tends to" means that it doesn't matter that it's a private room with no public to be deceived. The question the law asks as it applies to this case is: Given that Baccarat has a predetermined result at the time of dealing (there is no option for either player or dealer to influence the cards which will be drawn in the course of the game - the only variable is the stake), does the act of rotating a card, without changing its position in the deck: - tend to deceive the public? I don't see how it possibly can. - OR tend to alter the normal random selection of cards? Certainly not. - OR tend to alter the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game? It can't alter the result. It can't determine the result - there are still three to five cards which are entirely chance. It DID alter the normal chance of the game in this case, but does it "tend to"? From the article: "Baccarat is a casino game well known for unique and superstitious rituals," Hillman noted in an October opinion. "Thus, Sun telling the dealer to turn a card in a certain way did not raise any red flags for Borgata." That suggests to me that it does not "tend to" affect the chance, which is the test required by the law. On the argument above, I would suggest that Ivey and Sun were not in breach of 5:12-115(a)(2) at all. 5:12-115(b) simply says "It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." They didn't posess them, and I don't believe using the casino's standard cards, which meet the casino's own quality requirements, can be considered to be using "marked" cards. If they are, and the casino are still using the same cards, they're now knowingly in possession of marked cards themselves. Then we get to 5:12-115(c): "Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may up to $200,000." The Golden Nugget case hinged on the point that the deck wasn't shuffled. Since the CCA requires random decks, it has no provision for games played with a non-random deck. The argument is that because the CCA made no provision for the game, it can't have been a legal game under the CCA, and therefore it should be void. This case is completely different - even if we accept that Ivey breached the CCA, the CCA already makes provision for such a breach, and specifies the appropriate remedy should it occur. There's also the small point that the DGE has investigated the Golden Nugget case and concluded that there was no breach of the CCA [2] - while it may not be a court decision, it should have some weight. It looks to me like the judge has this very wrong, and any lawyer worth his money should be able to deal with it on appeal. [1] http://www.nj.gov/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09.pdf http://www.nj.gov/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09.pdf [2] https://www.casino.org/news/golden-nugget-new-jersey-unshuffled-baccarat-ok-says-dge https://www.casino.org/news/golden-nugget-new-jersey-unshuff...

solatic 10y ago

Still convinced that it won't hold up on appeal. If the judge considers the cards to be marked because of manufacturing flaw that made the cards not perfectly symmetrical, then that manufacturing flaw would be present in all the casino's card games, rendering them all invalid and illegal and opening up the casino to lawsuits for return of losses from illegally operated games, which were illegal essentially because of a technicality. This would likely result in the casino going bankrupt. If the judge considers the cards to be marked because they were rotated, then the judge has effectively outlawed a consensual agreement between the casino and the player regarding game conditions, which is neither in the spirit not the letter of the referenced law. True, the player exploited information asymmetry because he was aware of information that the casino was not, but that's a perfectly acceptable advantage which casinos exploit all the time when they don't explicitly explain to casual players how the rules of their games mathematically guarantee a house advantage over the long term.

georgespencer 10y ago
> rendering them all invalid and illegal The crucial word is "knowingly". You would have to demonstrate intent for all of the games with those cards to be under scrutiny.
- betenoire 10y ago
  Crucial? "...ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally..." How does one accidentally knowingly do this?