I think Ivey clearly lost in the US case; a win would have been keeping the money.

I was being fairly technical in my response to you. I remember our prior exchanges on this issue way back when; I recall your take then (as it is now) that Ivey was morally wrong. I entirely respect your position, although I disagree with it.

I actually think there's a fair chance that the US ruling gets reversed on appeal.

Thanks! I really respect your opinion as well.

As you know most judges hate to be reversed and more often than not many author their decisions precisely to avoid reversal. In this case I believe there is very little chance for reversal. The decision is carefully scripted to leave the appeal limited to an area of settled law, breach of contract, more specifically breach of the implied contract between a casino and a casino patron. The only grounds for appeal I can see would have to attack the judge's reasoning why manipulating, or causing the manipulation of, the cards thereby altering the "normal" odds of winning is a breach of the implied contract of play. I don't think that argument can be made successfully. The US judge went even further and said Ivey and Sun effectively "marked" the cards (I agree). It doesn't take a legal scholar to argue that something just ain't right if someone in the game is playing with marked cards.

I was addressing the idea that its not right to take advantage of a company's negligence. Does this include mathematical stupidity as well as carelessness? I don't want to feel so guilty that I give back several hundred thousands of dollars.

For the purposes of the discussion at hand I believe that as long as you accept and play the games as offered you shouldn't feel guilty about winning and I don't think the casino would find any legal recourse available to them to try to recover their losses. CLEARLY, this is a far different scenario than exists in the Ivey cases.

Did you ever watch the big to-do over "Press Your Luck"? I think it is available on YouTube. In any event one player managed to memorize the not so random patterns involved in their game and beat the game for record amounts. Everybody knew something was wrong while they were watching, but nobody could figure it out. In the end though the guy kept the money because he didn't cheat. He just beat them at their own game. They didn't know it was beatable. He did. It was clearly "advantage play" and nothing more. Great story.

Casinos are much in the same boat. The only game I know of where real advantage play is readily available is blackjack. As we know card counters can effectively make the game even money or better by playing and betting according to mathematical formulae based on the the probabilities of cards remaining in the deck by keeping track of cards exposed during play. The casinos don't like this and in Nevada they are allowed to exclude card counters from playing. Casinos have learned to protect themselves from card counters by adjusting the rules. They shuffle more often. They cut the decks deeper. They pay less on blackjack. They use new machines with shoes that hold many, many decks of cards. As a result of the Ivey case, I would suspect that you will find most casinos paying particular and renewed attention to the designs of their card backs to ensure the cards can not be manipulated so as to identify their value as Ivey and Sun did.

Another great question This case sets precedent for suits under those conditions to be filed in the future. So it'd be up to future Courts to distinguish any potential new suits from this one, perhaps by looking to see if players asked for any special courtesies, or if the casino did something (accidentally) to tip the system in players' favors.

Perhaps this Ivey/Borgata situation's akin to if a jewelry store forgot to lock the doors at night, and so someone entered and took everything that was there. Whereas a jewelry store is likely stuck if they decided it would be good business to offer 1ct diamonds for $50, and people actually bought some.

^ It's unconstitutional to impose foreign laws on American citizens in American Courts. If there are no American laws (or treaties) on point, the Court can look to foreign laws for guidance. But that would be a very rare case.

^ Actually, a skilled card counter can increase his EV by something like .00001% over a very long series of tries.

^ The people you refer to prefer certainty, when it works in their favor. They also tend to abhor litigation. For one thing, it upsets them when someone with no skin in the game is allowed to make a decision.

casinos already had a fix for edge sorting before ivey did this. they simply turn half the deck when shuffling. i guess when shuffle machines were introduced casinos forgot to include the turn.

Let's go lawyer to lawyer heads up here, Howard.

I'll take affirmed (result)

You take reversed

$100 to the charity of the other's choice

After all, if it involves Ivey, there ought to be action somewhere

For a charity hundo, I'll take it. For any serious action, I'd want odds. If Ivey has to repay on any cause of action, you win; if he keeps the money, I win. If it settles before appellate opinion, it's a push. Please send me a PM to confirm.

Does anyone have the details and/or outcome of this case? I saw that she lost the original go round in court and had her suit against Foxwoods dismissed for several reasons but I had read that she would be appealing. Does anyone know the outcome or status of the appeal?

wow..from what ive reado on page 1 seems like a bitch ruling

It would be like any business selling stuff at a loss - not the customers concern. If a loss is being made on the deal whether that loss leader of a promotion is deliberate or accidental matters not at all, nor does it mater whether the firm thinks t will profit via the promotion.

Firms have often messed up such promotions to customers whether as individuals or when supplying retailers. IBM with the PC & retailler bulk discounts, similarly luxury goods suppliers ending up destroying themselves by creating a grey market in their Giffin goods or financial firms misselling products so badly that everyone who ever bought that product can freeroll them.

Firms go bust by making mistakes, the consumer getting a bargain because of that mistake, even if it is a profit for the consumer, has no responsibility for the loss.

My biggest complaint about the ruling isn't the result but the reasoning. Finding +ev spots at a casino should IN NO WAY be a breach of contract that can void your winnings. That's what really pisses me off. What a terible precedent to make. In appeal, I hope they at least correct that, even if they still find that Ivey has to pay back the money. Ding Ivey for fraud or some other hodgepodge.

I'd also want some acknowledgment that the casino has some *duty* to watch/scrutinize/supervise a private game with *millions* on the line. they look out for card counters and hobos who scrounge for dropped chips and slots with credits. They have millions to gain by taking on Iveys requests, so they should bear some responsibility that nobody is being cheating.

Can't it be argued that the full amount is not what the casino has lost and just the EV gained by these actions?

If the ordinary bank accidentally transfers 1 million US$ to your account, as once happened to my grandfather, and you spend it, when they discover their error your have to pay them back or be charged with theft. Is taking advantage of the casino's technical error different conceptually?

The terms and conditions of a bank which you sign when you open the account say it's not your money.

It seems to me that it is different where, as here, you take the trouble to explain exactly what you want to the casino and they agree to it.

What Ivey wanted was to know the value of the first card out of the shoe and he never asked for that, nor was it "explained exactly" that his requests to have the dealer manipulate the cards effectively provided him with that information.

Had Ivey said upfront he was willing to play big bucks if the casino would "mark" all of the 7,8,9s in the deck so he could see the relative value of the first card on each hand and had the casino agreed there would not be an issue now. Who knows what might have happened had he asked? It's perhaps possible the casino might have agreed especially if they really didn't understand the significance of that "advantage". I mean, I doubt it and apparently so did Ivey, ergo his scheme to get that info.

that is a horrible law also. if a regular person transfers you money by accident and you spend it they get nothing and you have committed no crime but its a crime when the money belongs to a bank. when banks steal your money no one goes to jail.

Do you really think either casino was stupid enough to not realize Ivey was edge sorting? The odds being in Ivey's favor are irrelevant if you regain equity when you sue and win. The fact that one casino didn't sue right away doesn't mean they weren't planning to. They obviously weren't just offing him what they thought was a match in their favor and got hustled, then realized that after the fact and decided to sue. That's ridiculous.

Casinos just free roll high rollers. Give them what they want and usually the high rollers lose millions anyway. If they win, casino holds funds, sues in court keeps all the money and is reimbursed legal costs.

It seems almost better to give as many concessions as possible so you have grounds to sue.

Happened w a young Malaysian or Singaporean lady living in New Zealand or Australia recently. She spent like 1.5m of 2.5m the bank accidentally transferred to her on bags and shoes (hookers and blow) over a year or two and then tried to flee the country as the heat closed in, but they got her first and she will have to repay but no jail iirc.

I think your analogy and the example I cited are different because there was some logistical work and strategy that went into Ivey's win and I believe Ivey's case is more akin to a BJ team; they shouldn't have to give back the money. I think as a community of gamblers/poker players we'd all want to see Ivey keep it just for his cleverness and another Legend of Ivey. It'd be one thing if he cheated (cheating a company is just about as bad as cheating the player at your table in a poker game), but as the Crockford's judge said, Ivey's morals didn't seem to be in doubt.

https://www.winthebet.com/gamblingst...donjohnson.php

So why wasnt there an issue when the Borgata turned their blackjack games to a +ev to lure Don Johnson, who won $15mil from 3 casinos? I mean according to this ruling didnt the Brogata have an obligation to offer -ev games only?

This is a pretty sharp take but would probably be hand waived away by a court determined, which seems fair to say, to find for the casino.

errr ok