The 4/5 rulings on interpreting the law that applies to the facts are exactly why Ivey might win an appeal.

The card marking is a fact, not a point of law, and not one judge out of five who have looked at Ivey's edge sorting has any issue with it as a fact. Some on here are getting hung up on their definitions or personal thoughts on people who mark cards in poker.

With the level of gaming industry competence laid bare ITT you...want to propose a wager to be decided based on what a smattering of casino social media managers have to say about what they consider 'cheating'? That's awesome.

All I'm relaying is what the law has to say about this. It's not cheating, end of story. No court has ever claimed it was -- in fact they've said the opposite. It's simply a casino game unauthorized by the NJ CCA, whose results are void. What a casino "thinks" is cheating is entirely immaterial.

bot01101 said that knowing the next card is cheating in the eyes of the casino. You disputed that. I am willing to bet that casinos do think it is cheating. That's all.

Nothing at all to do with any laws. Just what constitutes cheating in the eye of a casino.

That is a slightly incorrect view of how CSMs work, but that said, if all blackjack games were CSMs, card counting would be pretty worthless. It is just that CSMs have existed for decades and yet there are more non-CSM blackjack games, at least in the US, than ever before. So while they are an effective counter-measure to card counters, their existence hasn't stopped card counting and there is no evidence that it ever will.

There are way more unanimous Supreme Court cases than there are 5-4 cases.

You would be completely wrong about this, as you are with so many of your comments regarding the application of law to this case.

"This in my view is cheating for the purposes of civil law. …" This is a direct citation from the first Judge's decision in the Crockford case. It was also cited in the appellate decision.

In the appellate decision Justice Arden only makes clear around 93 points she considered before writing:

"In reaching the conclusion that there was cheating in this case,"

She also writes:

"It is for the court to determine whether the interference was of such a quality as to constitute cheating.

In my judgment it had that quality for the reasons given above, which reflect the reasons given by judge."

Justice Tomlinson lays it out even more clearly:

"In my view most right-minded people would regard what was done by Mr Ivey and Ms Sun as cheating. I am surprised that Mr Ivey did not so regard it, but his own view of his conduct is not in this context determinative. This was a case of physical interference with the cards brought about in a consciously deceptive manner. I am quite satisfied that this was conduct which falls within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word cheating..."

He also lays waste to the argument that Crockford's was to blame:

"I cannot conclude that Crockfords' surprising ignorance or even naiveté transforms Mr Ivey's conduct into something other than cheating. "

You are citing the british judges, in england Edge Sorting is considered cheating under civil law. In USA there is no such law. Just because a corrupt AC judge says it's cheating doesn't mean it is under USA law.

Does anyone know the date when the appeal is in London?

What I was doing was refuting the statement "It's not cheating, end of story. No court has ever claimed it was -- in fact they've said the opposite." posted by another member ITT.

Noel L. Hillman is NOT a corrupt AC Judge. He is a very highly regarded FEDERAL Judge. He is a former prosecutor and has been on the bench since 2006. His opinion in the Ivey case was exceptionally well reasoned and explained. Maybe you should read it?

I agree with all of this except the "well-reasoned" bit. The reasoning he offered was dog ****. He explained his dog **** reasoning quite clearly.

I'm speaking to US law and the decisions published, which I know well. Go ahead and enumerate the "many" other comments that are "completely wrong." I'll wait.

First, your claim was that "no court" had called it cheating. That is not correct. EVERY court that has heard this case has determined it was cheating, although Judge Hillman arrived at his decision without having to call the cheating, cheating! With respect to my comments since many comments posted ITT include the UK case I assumed you were including "ALL" courts as part of the "NO court" that have ruled on the case. If you want to talk only about US courts the discussion narrows because only one US court has heard the case.

With respect to my post wherein I indicated many of your comments as to the application of the law are incorrect, I apologize. I meant the post to address the many comments ITT that are misstating or misinterpreting the law and the courts decision and not specifically your comments. Most of the errors are NOT from your posts.

However, I will take a minute to address your claims as to was "cheating" involved. You wrote:

"It's not cheating, and using the word 'cheating' is a gross distortion of what this or the unshuffled deck cases are all about. In both cases, the court's reasoning was that the casino was offering an unauthorized game. In the Ivey case it was because the deck was marked."

I think often interpreting legal decisions is a lot like understanding Chinese Algebra when you don't understand Chinese. Judges spend a lot of time and effort crafting civil decisions that provide the aggrieved party with the relief they deserve all while protecting the decision from assault by the losing party on appeal.

Judge Hillman wrote in his opinion that "Ivey and Sun's view of what constitutes a 'marked card' is too narrow. Such an interpretation would undermine in a fundamental way the purpose behind the regulatory ban on marked cards ... a physical act is not necessary to alert a player surreptitiously of a card's value."

You are one of the people ITT that actually seem to understand that this part of the decision renders the defendants actions as having defacto MARKED the cards.

If you mark cards in a card game you are cheating. When you use those marked cards in a game you are cheating! You can not use marked cards in a game and not be cheating. There cannot be any rational argument to those statements can there? If you have another way to describe marking cards and using the knowledge gained from marking the cards to win at a casino game I'd love to hear it.

In this case Judge Hillman judiciously decided he did not have to call Ivey an actual cheat in order to make the aggrieved party whole. But, if you read the decision carefully you will note the Judge's conclusion that Ivey's actions broke "the rules" of gaming. For me, and almost any rational person not invested in the it's us against them casinos nonsense, that is cheating. If you break the rules by using a marked deck you are cheating.

Clearly, Ivey didn't break the "rules of baccarat". Every hand was played according to the rules of baccarat. But, every hand was also played with a marked deck, marked by Ivey, that provided him with information he was not allowed to have. Ivey used that information to win. That is cheating!!!

Hillman ruled that Ivey and Sun violated their obligation under the state Control Casino Act to provide the casino with a fair "gaming experience."

Here the Judge clearly writes that Ivey and Sun had an obligation to play the game under the guidelines, read LAWs or Regulations, of the Control Casino Act and that they did not meet that obligation. Why? Because they marked the deck and used the information to win. That is cheating.

“Ivey and Sun, and perhaps others, view their actions to be akin to cunning, but not rule-breaking, maneuvers performed in many games,” Hillman added. "Even though Ivey and Sun’s cunning and skill did not break the rules of baccarat, what sets Ivey and Sun’s actions apart from deceitful maneuvers in other games is that those maneuvers broke the rules of gambling as defined in this state."

Here Hillman rules that Ivey and Sun's "manueuvers" that marked the deck broke the rules of gambling in New Jersey. They did. They broke the rules by marking the deck and using the marked deck to win. That is cheating.

So, at least to me, it is unsupportable, as a matter of law, that you claim there "was no cheating". There was. Ivey cheated and he got caught. Judge Hillman's decision makes that especially clear when he ordered Ivey to pay the casino back the monies he won by cheating.

Both sides have asked Judge Hillman to make his decision final so that the case can move on to the 3rd Circuit COA. It is my opinion this appeal will go nowhere. Judge Hillman's decision is crafted so as to prevent attack on appeal. It is interesting and important to note that none of the facts of the case are in dispute. This case was settled without argument or hearing beyond court filings. For me, this makes the likelihood of a successful appeal even more remote.

Maybe this was covered and I missed it, but how did the casinos figure out what Ivey and Sun were doing?

They lost.

Remember, it's only a fair gaming experience if the casino wins!!

This case is LOL funny. I do find it hilarious that judges aren't mentioning the obvious angle that the casino was running - "we know he's edge sorting (because they obviously did), but we think we'll win, so we'll let him play.... if he loses, he owes us. If we lose, we won't pay him anything, and we'll point out that he edge sorted and manipulated the odds in his favor."

Update: a $27 judgment

https://nypost.com/2018/03/29/legal-...ium=SocialFlow

I wonder if Gemaco can afford that judgment?

Phil Ivey Loses Fight For Stay On $10 Million Judgement In Borgata Case Pending Appeal

They were not playing by the rules of the game that the casino had laid out. Good job courts, imo.

I'm pretty sure they were playing by the rules the casino allowed. And I'm pretty sure Ivey got freerolled. When individuals (even globe trotting pro gamblers) take on corporations in court in a jurisdiction that depends on gaming revenue to prop it up, in such a unique case, there seem to be many ways for the corporation to come out on top. And I've got nothing against corporations.

Ivey's rep wrt cheating is solid (from the outside looking in). I don't think Ivey and co. ever stood a chance, but it's disheartening to think that any random gambler would've been rooting against him in a spot where he didn't appear to act immorally or unethically (idk enough about the legal minutiae of the case to make a strong argument on those grounds). They accepted the bettors' terms, accepted the wagers, and got beat. Pay the man his money imo

Actually, the casino allowed Ivey and friend to make the rules for the game they played that day. Ivey requested changes in the procedure, and the casino agreed to it.

Casinos are allowed to void winnings when glitches occur.

LOLGLITCH LOLTXDOME
All of this ^

****ing joke, but unsurprising.

can we get a legal opinion on what this means for Ivey if he refuses or is unable to pay?

In the absence of a stay, the prevailing party may begin procedures to execute the judgment. Practically, that means that the party may, through the sheriff/marshal, seize property like a bank account, or wages
(which I realize doesn't necessarily apply here).

In order to locate the property, the judgment debtor may be compelled to provide information about the location of assets. So, for example, Ivey could be compelled, through an information subpoena, to provide Borgata with the locations of bank accounts/brokerage accounts. I suppose that Borgata would ask if Ivey holds any casino chips and would ask to seize those. Because these examinations are under oath, lying would carry with it the potential penalty of a perjury case so that's not a viable course of action. Deadbeat debtors tend to avoid information subpoenas without consequence, but Ivey does not have the luxury of being difficult to locate and the judgment is large enough that he won't get away with ignoring process.