No OP, but IMO the Ivey incident can be distinguished because he tricked the croupier into acting on his behalf, whereas Larson just observed normal behaviour a

No OP, but IMO the Ivey incident can be distinguished because he tricked the croupier into acting on his behalf, whereas Larson just observed normal behaviour and didn't seek to influence it (beyond normal play of the game). Indeed, I would say the Supreme Count (in Ivey) made reference to this distinction: > It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. Whether this means Ivey shouldn't be paid is more debatable IMO. On one hand, he didn't hide his actions and the casino in some sense accepted them into the game, nor did he tamper with the cards. On the other, he deceived the casino into acting outside the normal and intended rules of the game and in in his favour, which, regardless of the means used to do it, can be seen as cheating/dishonest. I'd come down on the side of the latter, but it's not a particularly firm opinion. I can envision cases why I might feel differently, such as if someone _genuinely_ asked for the cards to be rotated due to superstition then _later_ realised that the cards are aligned as such (though I'm not quite how you'd show that was the likely order of events).