IANAL, but that logic seems to be pretty similar to "If that old Lady believes me that I am her rarely showing grandson, and gives me her money, it's her fault".

In both cases, deception was used. In both cases, villain got a financial benefit they wouldn't have had without the deception. There is a difference in degree, but no fundamental one.

Do you have the link to the complaint? Haven't seen it in any of the articles I've clicked on so far. Thanks!

Borgota is co-owned by Boyd and MGM

At Crockfords, at least, Phil Ivey insisted the cards be dealt before the bet, but he couldn't touch them. This is also not a rule in normal Punto Banco.

Because they were catering to Phil Ivey's demands. Most casinos don't even reuse baccarat cards at games where players can touch them.

Franxic 100% correct , Zen you are wrong

when are they gonna make this into a movie

Most interesting thing in the article is that Ivey lives in Mexico and keeps his money in Mexican banks.

Anybody know what part of Mexico?

Here's a part of the NJLJ article I found particularly interesting:

Hopefully someone with a background in relevant law can explain this, but since the Borgata supplied both the cards and the shuffler, how can Ivey and his companion be guilty of using them?

The Borgata supplied the equipment, according to the article and lawsuit. Wouldn't Borgata, if anyone, therefore be guilty of breaking the laws as alleged??

Or, if Ivey and his companion are guilty of using marked cards in a casino, and their use of the automatic shuffler does run counter to the statute barring the use of any cheating device in a casino, then wouldn't EVERYONE who played with ANY of those 200,000 decks also be guilty of a crime? And wouldn't EVERYONE who plays in ANY game using an automatic shuffler also be guilty of committing a crime?

Be interesting to see what would happen if, say, a blackjack player demanded that all the cards be hand shuffled, because that player doesn't want the Borgata accusing him/her of using a "cheating device" if they should happen to win.

Or if a poker player were to do the same thing.

Actually, it would probably make sense for Ivey's legal team to send someone into the Borgata and do just that. Probably multiple people, at multiple times, in different games. And then have them testify that the Borgata (as I would expect, perhaps erroneously) refused to allow hand dealing.......

What would that do to at least this part of the Borgata's case?

What now prevents ANYONE who lost money in a card game at Borgata from suing - alleging the same use of "marked cards" and a "cheating device"??

Also, I wonder if Borgata is still using GEMACO cards, or if they have a new supplier... If they are still using GEMACO cards, what new procedures to check security of them are in place?

Why didn't the Borgata or NJDGE independently check the quality of the printing?

The list of questions here goes on and on, it seems.

Frankly, I don't see how this ends well for the Borgata.

Lee

Someone should sue him for the 20 million he allegedly "won" on his own site.

They may not get their money back from Ivey but someone will, man is a degen if there ever was one.

Haven't had much experience with table games.

Is it common to have dealers rotate the cards for "good luck?" It just seems like such a bizarre request that it would raise some red flags.

I was imagining this:

It's not super uncommon for a high stakes player to make such a request, but casinos should be trained to turn down any requests such as this for obvious reasons.

I once saw a "deal" Phil Ivey had to play craps somewhere in LV. Based on discounts and rules, he actually had a very slight advantage in the game. A wise operator once told me, "If a poker player wants a deal, always say no because they obviously have worked out the math."

In this case Ivey worked out a deal in advance to have the cards dealt as he desired. Using edge sorting is apparently illegal in NJ so the Borgata won't have to pay.

Ivey could have used "first card knowledge" or had all the cards deal and observed them before he bet. In either case, at least one card had to come out of the shoe before he bet. Depending on the card, "first card knowledge" can increase player advantage significantly - I think as much to +15% over the house. I can't remember.

I'm wondering what the NJDGE has to say on the use of shuffling machines. I've just sent them the following email, and will post any response that I get from them when/if I receive one. In the meantime, maybe we should all be demanding that the cards be hand shuffled? Especially at the Borgata?

So we know now of 2 casinos Ivey has scammed, worth 20 million dollars. He's been on the felt so long there must be much more of these.

And yeah, most certainly a scam no doubt about it...

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...er-pro-cheated

Atlantic City Casino Sues Phil Ivey For $9.6 Million, Says Poker Pro Cheated




"Ivey is accused of spotting manufacturing defects in the cards while playing high-stakes baccarat. The suit also names the manufacturer of the cards, Gemaco Inc. of Blue Springs, Mo. In addition, Ivey’s alleged accomplice, Cheng Yin Sun, is named in the complaint. According to the report, she was Ivey’s companion on his trips and gave instructions to the dealer."

.............................................

I predict a counter suit by Ivy.





I reposted this because my link did not work in my prior post.

I find it noteworthy that no criminal charges have been brought in England or Atlantic City.

One thing is clear, several casinos disregarded standard game protection rules.

Foolish on the casinos end to agree that new procedures be instituted for Phil that violate industry standards for game protection.

The casinos used their own cards and mutually agreed gambling terms were followed (something like): keep these cards in play, spin them around before replacing them, let me look at the backs of the cards before I wager. I am not sure all of these are the exact procedure changes, but you get the idea.

Legally, since both sides agreed on various rule changes- and no extraneous factors have been alleged, such as Phil bribing anyone to put in special decks- this probably is not considered a criminal mater. However, will be interesting to see what happens in this civil proceeding...

odds and wagers anyone? ))

seriously. we'll never know and nobody seems to want to talk about it or believe it - but i'm convinced he was cheating to win all of that money. just doesn't make any sense that he was such a huge winner when everything about him screams old school live pro who would suck playing online.

Although I have an overall negative opinion of Ivey - due to his involvement with FTP (which is for a different thread) - in this case I'd have to side with him.

Wrongdoing/cheating at the pits is based on tampering directly with casino equipment, or using a mechanical aid (e.g., a clocker at a roulette wheel). Ivey did neither. I'd consider Ivey similar to a BJ card counter. It was Borgata's failure/greed to not keep with the news (Ivey and the London casino) and stop Ivey from playing further, or at least putting in the countermeasure needed to eliminate the player's edge.

I'm guessing Borgata's angle is to play up Ivey's request to have cards rotated as somehow being the same as tampering. Borgata has a very weak case imo.

Reminds me of a nice movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleido...281966_film%29

I haven't seen the complaint hosted anywhere (which is weird). I downloaded it from PACER but I'm not sure I want to host it myself and become like, someone who is somehow involved in this because I'm the lawyer who distributed the complaint or whatever.

This

Well said.