Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Could one of the lawyers here answer the simple question as to whether the judges reasoning could be used against card counters.
Sure. It is unlikely. Taken literally, the rule the court articulates suggests that yes, it could -- but then the court writes that there is a difference between the physical act (turning cards) Ivey uses and the "memory and statistics" that card counters use. Here's the language:
"Allowing a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his
favor would violate the essential purpose of legalized gambling." Opinion at 17.
That is of course exactly what card-counters do. The court then goes on:
"The difference between card counting and edge sorting is that a card counter uses memory and statistics, not a manipulation of the cards, to create an advantage for himself. " Opinion, fn. 25.
That distinction seems pretty silly to me, and is one of the reasons I think the opinion is results-oriented.