Shouldn't Borgata be held someway accountable for destroying the decks? Everytime they lose they could argue the player was marking decks/edge-sorting. Considering the amount of money on the line it's an extremely suspicious policy.

In an earlier thread, most people thought Ivey resorting to edge sorting was a fall from grace. He's supposed to be the best poker player in the world, so why's he doing stuff even you Admit is a 'close call', and getting sued?

Judges do have the right to read into statutes an implied cause of action. There's nothing legally wrong with that, although it is a strange line.

I do think the amount in question matters, as a practical matter.
.

Sure, although that's not what the court did here -- and I think there may be precedent under that statute saying there's no private right of action. Interestingly, Borgata argued that there is no private right of action for gamblers but there IS one for casinos. That argument struck me as laughably bad absent some specific statutory language supporting it, which didn't appear to exist.[/quote]

I agree: if the amount in controversy were $10,000, I suspect that the Borgata would have simply barred Phil and let it go. $10M is enough to fight over. I don't think, though, that the amount influenced the judge or the ruling at all; at least, there's nothing in the opinion that so suggests.

Casino successfully freerolled Ivey; by allowing the rule changes they keep their winnings but sue to recover their losses. Well played by them, looks like Ivey was actually the one getting hustled here.

The only reasonable judgement would have been to go by the rules both parties agreed to, which included the modifications that put the game in Ivey's favor... because they were agreed to. Otherwise the casino is just scamming people by agreeing to rules that only get enforced when the player loses, and go out the window when the casino loses. Unless of course Ivey can sue to recover his losses.

Could one of the lawyers here answer the simple question as to whether the judges reasoning could be used against card counters.

Utter nonsense. For a start if they were aware of what was actually happening they would have realised that the odds were so much against them that they couldn't possibly win. In addition to this they didn't actually take action till after they heard about the Crockford's case.

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.

This would only be considered a terrible ruling in a forum filled with gamblers and degenerate gamblers.
If you asked any businessman, corporate type, or professional they would undoubtedly agree with the outcome.

I don't think that's correct. Being a corporate lawyer, I took an informal survey of non-law business types around my office when this first happened. It was about fifty-fifty. My survey was of course entirely unscientific, so who knows.

c'mon dude was definitely cheating in a way, he learned a flaw, used a partner to speak mandarin to ensure boss didn't hear about them requesting to sort the cards,
relied on dealer saying they were "superatitious".... superstitious, yeah, in ensuring they banged Borgata outta 9 thousand dimes..obv it's jersey, borgata has the best and most well connected gaming lawyers who know judges. I'd say with the known intent to defraud, the Borglawyers connects, and dude taking an L in the British case, it had be 10-1
he was given a favorable ruling.

-Guy makes 20+million from FTP over the years, takes little heat in downfall.
-known huge degen who has more gamble in him than anyone, tries table game 9dvantaglol play, musta thought he was king of the world when he got paid from the Borg. then he gets snagged and not paid from those British wankers. Judge in UD says "lol Ivey? yah bro cheated house always wins broz".

What if you can see almost imperceptible differences on the backs of cards without doing anything?

If there was anywhere with corrupt judges it would be Jersey. Of course the judge would favor the house.

Ivey was always a big pit degen but why all of a sudden would he use borderline tactics. Will he be barred from atlantic city after this?

Well I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me a card counter is not changing the rules of the game. But turning some of the cards around as Ivey was doing does change the rules. So the argument might be that Ivey violated the contract while the card counter does not.

Best wishes,
Mason

Yes, those are important points. The Court/judge did bring up those two differences to distinguish edge sorting from card counting: he pointed out that card counting is an exception to the rule because it requires skill, while Ivey's edge sorting involved asking the dealer to turn cards and use a shoe.

The judge probably should have gone farther and pointed out that card counting doesn't require any special requests or special cards, but it looks like that point didn't get raised in the opinion

The court premised its analysis on Ivey causing the cards to be turned, which the court said was "marking" under the NJ gaming control statute. That premise doesn't exist in your hypothetical, which instead takes the cards as they already exist. I don't think the court's analysis would apply to the situation you suggest.

I just don't get this attitude Ivey got screwed, This Degen was given considerations from the dealers/casino none of us could have received because he was Ivey, He exploited those considerations and used it against the casino. He had zero chance of winning this in court.

There's a massive conflict of interest because when the state views the case they think do we 1) rule for the casino which guarantees us 250k+ in tax revenue we desperately need and help ensure the solvency of this huge tax revenue generator (borgata). Or do we 2) let Phil Ivey (a degenerate gambler whose already rich and has huge income potential) keep the money we could have; and put more financial strain on the borgata who is a big employer and probably politically powerful in NJ

Even though the case isn't framed this way they undoubtedly have throught about it this way.

Rigged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The case was in federal court, not state court. I highly doubt this line of thinking had anything at all to do with the ruling.

If you wired $2 million to the Borgata in 2012, then called them and said you wanted to play baccarat at $50K a hand, I suspect you'd get similar treatment. Probably not as quickly.

I think he has a fair shot of getting this reversed on appeal -- probably 25%. I don't think it's an easy case on the law, and the judge had to really reach to find a doctrine that fit to find in Borgata's favor.

have the NJ, and i guess Nevada, casinos tightened up since that player took them for $15MM to $20MM in Black Jack a couple of years ago.

did that player get lucky? did they change any rules? or was it just make-up of losses?

ties into my paragraph above, but do casinos change the actual rules ever for whales? is changing a payout from 1-1 to 1.5-1 on something a change in rules?

not that i care that much or have much insight, but it seems like a bad decision. the casino is free to say "no"

Ivey's craps losses are probably reason they were so generous with him about the rules.

Well based on the rationale provided by the court I guess you are 100% wrong in this case despite being ("highly" confident in your position). Read the rationale it exactly supports the view the point of casinos is to generate revenue at the state level.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just surprised Ivey didn't have the common sense to know not to hustle the casino, regardless of whether it's technically legal or not.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

He was given the same considerations random people betting large amounts had already been given when they took millions off other casinos.

IIRC edge sorting was public knowledge by the time Ivey was hitting anyone, but I guess the courts don't care borgata was utterly negligent.

What if borgata loses to another edge sorter? Can they sue again? I'd think no, but it was already reasonable to expect someone accepting $100k wagers to know about this play before Ivey beat them so I have no idea.

We now have 2 different opinions from 2 different cases with 2 different casinos as litigants from 2 different Judges from 2 different countries and in the 2 opinions BOTH judges agree that the same conduct described in both cases was wrong. One judge called it "cheating" as a matter of civil law and one judge called it a "breach" of an implied contract. It makes no matter the severity of the words used to describe the conduct, it matters that the conduct was improper.

With all respect to Howard Treesong, I have always felt the outcomes in both cases would be the same. Ivey's conduct was a breach of the implied contract between a casino and it's patrons. In it's most simple form this contract means you don't cheat us and we don't cheat you. A "real" gambler can ask for nothing more. I think the first judge was more courageous than the second judge when he said the actions of Ivey and Sun were cheating, but the "breach" found by the other judge is defacto cheating, just wrapped in a nicer word package.

I wrote the excerpt (I know it's long) below 2 years ago in another thread. I think it predicted this outcome and may help some here differentiate the difference between Ivey's actions and card counting. For what it's worth, in reading the post if you substitute "breach of contract" for where I use "cheating" you might find the similarities between my opinion and the judge's opinion fairly striking.

From October 2014:

I continue to struggle with reading posts from people that can not recognize what Ivey did was cheating. How could it be anything else? How can you reconcile Ivey's actions with those of a card counter? They are not even remotely close.

Ivey CAUSED the deck to be stacked in such a manner so as to provide him, and only him, with an unfair advantage, which is the very definition of cheating:

Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means or finding an easy way out of an unpleasant situation. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation.

It is DISHONEST to lie and, in this case manipulate cards and even people, into situations where a competitor is deprived of the fair and ordinary chance they are presumed to have to win the competition. I don't care if the victim is the Mother's of Mercy Orphanage or a huge greedy casino. For the purposes of cheating it does not matter who is being cheated and for anyone to suggest otherwise is just plain ignorance.

Baccarat is a game of absolutely ZERO skill (I suppose the one exception is a "skilled" player will avoid betting the tie). So, when Ivey boasts about "a person of my skill" playing baccarat he is just huffing and puffing to inflate his own ego. There is nothing a "skilled" player can do, aside from cheat, to alter the odds of the game. The "best" baccarat player of all time is no different from the "worst" baccarat player of all time. One is just "luckier" than the other. Once the cards are shuffled and placed in the shoe the outcome of every single hand is determined. The only "skill" is in choosing to bet player or bank and how much to bet, none of which improves a player's odds to win. This is unlike almost every other card game, where a players "good" decisions can improve their chances of winning and their bad decisions decrease those chances.

When Ivey talks about his "strategy" and his "advantage" play it is almost laughable. When he says he was a well known advantage player it is completely laughable. Casinos don't send jets for "advantage players". They send jets for degenerate gamblers that have historically lost millions and millions of dollars gambling in their pits, just like Ivey. Does the fact casinos prey on these weaknesses make them unsympathetic? Yes. Do I approve of that method? Not really. Does that give me the right to cheat them? No.

Modern casinos do not cheat. They don't have to. They know over the long term they are going to win money. That is the entire premise of their business. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it! So why are people here so angry with the casinos for doing EXACTLY what they are designed to do; win money? Do the people here see the casino owner as some big rich person lounging in his billion dollar mansion, smoking cigars after lighting them with hundred dollar bills? Most casinos are public companies.

For those who continue to argue, like Ivey, that the casino should have done more to protect themselves I say you are 100% correct. They should have. As a owner I am very upset they were not able catch this scheme before the casino was damaged by it. I am sure the casinos would even readily agree they made mistakes. But, how does that make Ivey cheating them somehow okay? IT DOESN'T. One can not choose when, where, how and whom to cheat and then, when discovered, blame their cheating on the incompetence of the victim, in essence saying I could never had cheated them had they been more aware and better prepared.

Ivey did not manipulate the "situation" to his favor. He manipulated the CARDS to his favor. Big difference, one which you refuse to address or acknowledge. Ivey caused the cards to be manipulated so that he KNEW the value of the cards as they were being introduced into the game. THIS IS CHEATING!!! THIS ILLEGALLY DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE GAME!!!THIS IS NOT LEGAL, HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE!!!!