Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2016, 01:27 PM   #26
fromchmm
stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInBrass_KAOS View Post
The article doesn't list where you can find the full judgment, so I can't figure out which provisions of the CCA the Borgata alleged were violated. Anyone have a link to the judgment?
The full judgment is here http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...83/302463/107/
fromchmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 01:51 PM   #27
ESW
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 235
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjb511 View Post
Sounded to me that the judge, through tortured reasoning, was saying that the state permits casinos in games where the house has the edge so that the state benefits by getting a percentage of the house win.
With the majority of cases that go through the judicial system, the law is pretty clear and settled, and all that remains to be looked at are questions of fact. In those cases, the outcome will tend to hinge on the evidence: was the car speeding? Were they texting at the time? Did they have any drinks at the bar before getting behind the wheel?

In this case there was a novel question of law, so it'll look a lot different from most cases. This happens when legislators at the time they're drafting the law, don't anticipate a situation that's actually come up in real life. And so now the judge has to figure out what they would have wanted to happen, had they known at the time that such a scenario was possible.

The question of law is whether the legislature meant for edge sorting to be a way for customers to gain an advantage over the house, or not.

The judge maybe could have spent more time comparing and contrasting edge sorting with card counting and card marking, but there's nothing unusual about him trying to figure out legislative intent to arrive at his decision. However, it might have been more appropriate for him to rely in equity on the 'implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing', rather than contract law.
ESW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 02:12 PM   #28
phunkphish
veteran
 
phunkphish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,902
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Read through the 30 pages.

Yup.

The judge's main reasoning for ruling against Ivey is because he turned the odds against the house and towards the player. This constitutes a breach of contract with the CCA.

Cliffs notes:

Main reasoning:
All gambling is illegal and immoral based on historic judeo-christian values.
States can make exemptions for gambling. gambling is permitted if you follow the state legislation, in this case the CCA
Any time you gamble at a casino, you have an implied contract to follow the rules set out by the CCA.
The CCA states that the purpose of legalizing gambling is for the economic health / wealth of the state of New Jersey.
By gaining an advantage on the casino, Ivey 'breached' this implied contract [lolol]

Other points:
-Asking for some cards to be turned amounts to 'marking cards'
-This term is to be applied broadly
-Borgata sued based on breach of contract and on fraud.
-Ivey not found guilty of 'fraud' since saying "I want the cards turned because I'm superstitious" doesn't amount to fraud.
phunkphish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 02:37 PM   #29
RecreationalPlayer
journeyman
 
RecreationalPlayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 413 miles from Kells
Posts: 311
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerFan2008 View Post
Casinos never lose, Ivey is lucky he is not going to jail...
He didnt break any laws, so jail was never gonna happen.
RecreationalPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 03:50 PM   #30
AntoniusBlock
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by phunkphish View Post
Read through the 30 pages.

Yup.

The judge's main reasoning for ruling against Ivey is because he turned the odds against the house and towards the player. This constitutes a breach of contract with the CCA.

Cliffs notes:

Main reasoning:
All gambling is illegal and immoral based on historic judeo-christian values.
States can make exemptions for gambling. gambling is permitted if you follow the state legislation, in this case the CCA
Any time you gamble at a casino, you have an implied contract to follow the rules set out by the CCA.
The CCA states that the purpose of legalizing gambling is for the economic health / wealth of the state of New Jersey.
By gaining an advantage on the casino, Ivey 'breached' this implied contract [lolol]

Other points:
-Asking for some cards to be turned amounts to 'marking cards'
-This term is to be applied broadly
-Borgata sued based on breach of contract and on fraud.
-Ivey not found guilty of 'fraud' since saying "I want the cards turned because I'm superstitious" doesn't amount to fraud.
From the judgment: "Allowing a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor would violate the essential purpose of legalized gambling." Which is to enrich the operator and the state of New Jersey through taxation, apparently. Seriously.

Also WTF with the U2 lyrics at the beginning? Is this serious? The gambler's job at a casino is to lose, according to New Jersey?

Last edited by AntoniusBlock; 10-22-2016 at 04:03 PM. Reason: Quote the judgment
AntoniusBlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 05:27 PM   #31
Ray Zee
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: montana usa
Posts: 14,356
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

it is more of a case of the judge knowing that ivey isnt entitled to the rewards of his scheme, fitting the law to make the result of the case correct in his mind.
Ray Zee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 05:40 PM   #32
AntoniusBlock
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Zee View Post
it is more of a case of the judge knowing that ivey isnt entitled to the rewards of his scheme, fitting the law to make the result of the case correct in his mind.
Sure, but doesn't it set a precedent that means any advantage player is breaking contract?
AntoniusBlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 05:49 PM   #33
CRMartin11
journeyman
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 250
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjb511 View Post
the judge, through tortured reasoning, was saying that the state permits casinos in games where the house has the edge so that the state benefits by getting a percentage of the house win. Therefore, Ivey breached the "contract" with the casino by avoiding the casinos guaranteed edge.
The idea that Ivey has a contractual obligation to make sure the casino is getting the best of him seems absurd. Logically this obligation should rest solely in the hands of the casino.

There's no written or verbal contract in casinos with regards to this matter. I've never heard of "unspoken" legally binding contracts. Can any Lawyers/ law students speak to this idea?

This seems like blaming the dog for eating food that you left on the ground haha
CRMartin11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 06:59 PM   #34
ESW
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 235
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

The Judge can only use the law that the parties cite to render a verdict, so if a different civil claim like 'larceny by trick' or 'false pretenses' was more fitting than fraud or breach of contract, the judge could have dismissed this case and asked Borgata to refile. That might have been a more fitting option.
ESW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 07:38 PM   #35
phunkphish
veteran
 
phunkphish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,902
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Zee View Post
it is more of a case of the judge knowing that ivey isnt entitled to the rewards of his scheme, fitting the law to make the result of the case correct in his mind.
Judge opened by referencing the illegality and immorality of gambling going back to Christian virtues. My view is that Judge hates gambling. Only accepts it as a means to profit the state.
phunkphish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 08:55 PM   #36
LektorAJ
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LektorAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: none
Posts: 6,915
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by phunkphish View Post
Judge opened by referencing the illegality and immorality of gambling going back to Christian virtues. My view is that Judge hates gambling. Only accepts it as a means to profit the state.
Yep. I like how he dismisses the traditional Chinese beliefs which were pupportedly the reason for turning the eights as so nonsensical as to be equivalent to no justification at all, but judeo-christian religion is the basis for the whole decision.
LektorAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 08:58 PM   #37
Crane
old hand
 
Crane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,264
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

I'm heartbroken.
Crane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 10:04 PM   #38
Nick_AA
old hand
 
Nick_AA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,447
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

This ruling put me to tears.
Nick_AA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 10:42 PM   #39
Howard Treesong
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Howard Treesong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In for the long con!
Posts: 11,851
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

A couple of thoughts:

1. I think the breach-of-contract ruling is poorly reasoned. The stereotypical law school example of an implied contract is one in which a restaurant patron chokes on food. A doctor in the restaurant saves the patron's life using the Heimlich, and then sends the patron a bill for his medical services. The patron, under an implied contract theory, might well owe the doctor. This doesn't seem at all similar -- with the doctor, the patron, choking, doesn't have the capacity to work out a contract, and it would be unjust to let the patron reap the benefit of the doctor's work without compensation. In Ivey's situation, Ivey made a number of requests and the casino agreed. The court didn't cite any implied contract cases for support, so this looks like an issue of first impression.

2. The court's argument that "any player advantage is against the purpose of the gambling rules" seems almost purely results-oriented. Card counting in blackjack is not really different; the court's distinction about marking cards isn't at all persuasive to me.

3. The court's use of "mark" in the sense of "distinguishing something from other things" is a technical copyright use and is not the sense in which the statute uses "marked." That argument is to me laughably bad.

4. I'm not a New Jersey lawyer, but I'd be fairly surprised if Ivey owes attorney fees on a ruling like this.

5. An appeal of this ruling should not be particularly expensive: in federal court, that's an opening brief, a reply brief, and an oral argument that is almost always between ten minutes and half an hour per side. The arguments are generally restricted to arguments each side made in the trial court, so the briefs on summary judgment are usually pretty good source material for appellate briefs. It can get a little more complex here if Borgata appeals the dismissal of its fraud claims, but not all that much. Costs for an appeal might be a couple of hundred thousand. On appeal from summary judgment, the court of appeal gives zero deference to the trial court's ruling.

6. The court got the fraud ruling right. One element of fraud is that the plaintiff must have reasonably relied on a statement from the defendant. Borgata argued that it relied on Ivey's statement that he's superstitious. The court ruled that reliance on that statement wasn't reasonable, and that seems correct.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 11:26 PM   #40
PasswordGotHacked
banned
 
PasswordGotHacked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: With your sister
Posts: 2,913
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong View Post
A couple of thoughts:

1. I think the breach-of-contract ruling is poorly reasoned.
PasswordGotHacked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 11:28 PM   #41
ESW
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 235
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong View Post
A couple of thoughts:

2. The court's argument that "any player advantage is against the purpose of the gambling rules" seems almost purely results-oriented.
Not sure why you would think that when he listed out the history of the legalized gambling, which shows that he was looking to legislative intent to guide his ruling. There's even less that makes it sound like lawmakers would have preferred for edge sorting to be legal.

Just because there's no law saying something's not legal doesn't mean it's legal. It's the judge's job to resolve open questions of law, so he had no choice but to try and fit the case into the laws that lawmakers have actually passed (using legislative intent as the guide. Because there's no law on the books that would make it a perfect fit.

His decision-making was pretty standard for a case where there's no laws on the books that are more germane to the case at hand. Although the reliance on an implied contract was surprising. There might be some grounds for appeal because of that, and because of the amount at stake.

Not sure an overturn on appeal's got that much of a chance though. Some of the other checks and balances built into the system are that lawmakers can pass a law making it clear whether they intended for edge sorting to be legal or not. And future courts can choose to distinguish future cases from this one, to minimize any precedent set by this ruling.
ESW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 12:06 AM   #42
Mike_McDee
grinder
 
Mike_McDee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 484
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

I'm glad Ivey lost the case. He probably got a ****-ton of casino staff fired over this in both cases.
Mike_McDee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 12:16 AM   #43
walkby
adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_McDee View Post
I'm glad Ivey lost the case. He probably got a ****-ton of casino staff fired over this in both cases.
Some might look down on Phil's mechanics, call it immoral. But as Canada Bill Jones said, "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

Like they teach you in One-L... caveat emptor, pal.
walkby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 12:35 AM   #44
tuccotrading
adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,180
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

I hope the case is appealed
tuccotrading is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 12:46 AM   #45
Lawnmower Man
veteran
 
Lawnmower Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,136
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Allowing a player to unilaterally adjust the odds of a casino game in his favor would violate the essential purpose of legalized gambling.
Quote:
By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them, Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor.
What is this Mickey Mouse bull**** logic?
Lawnmower Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 08:08 AM   #46
bbfg
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bbfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,567
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Are there any legal experts here that can say whether this contract they are referring to is an international standard or not? It sounds ridiculous, and open for abuse imo. Casinos can try and sue big winners for getting money back by making it look like they used an edge.

I wonder how Ivey will prepare for this if he has to pay a huge amount. The obvious way would be to transfer his assets in a way that he can file for personal bankruptcy, but then he probably can't gamble for years.
bbfg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 08:19 AM   #47
Einherjer
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 49
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Wow. Even the legal system over there is in the pockets of the casino owners.
Einherjer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 08:49 AM   #48
Crumblepie
journeyman
 
Crumblepie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 372
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Poor Ivey.
Crumblepie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 10:05 AM   #49
Howard Treesong
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Howard Treesong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In for the long con!
Posts: 11,851
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg View Post
Are there any legal experts here that can say whether this contract they are referring to is an international standard or not? It sounds ridiculous, and open for abuse imo. Casinos can try and sue big winners for getting money back by making it look like they used an edge.

I wonder how Ivey will prepare for this if he has to pay a huge amount. The obvious way would be to transfer his assets in a way that he can file for personal bankruptcy, but then he probably can't gamble for years.
Implied contracts are based in common law, which comes from the British system. The US case won't establish formal precedent anywhere, though, not even really in New Jersey -- and definitely not in the UK or in the many other jurisdictions that operate under common law.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2016, 10:21 AM   #50
Howard Treesong
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Howard Treesong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In for the long con!
Posts: 11,851
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESW View Post
Not sure why you would think that when he listed out the history of the legalized gambling, which shows that he was looking to legislative intent to guide his ruling. There's even less that makes it sound like lawmakers would have preferred for edge sorting to be legal.
The Court's discussion of legislative history is weak, but that's no real surprise. There often isn't a great deal of accessible history material from state legislatures, and I wouldn't expect what is there to be relevant to an edge-sorting case.

Quote:
His decision-making was pretty standard for a case where there's no laws on the books that are more germane to the case at hand. Although the reliance on an implied contract was surprising. There might be some grounds for appeal because of that, and because of the amount at stake.
As a legal matter, the amount at stake isn't at all relevant to the liability merits. I've spent a ton of time litigating breach-of-contract cases, and implied-in-law contracts are very, very rare.

Quote:
Not sure an overturn on appeal's got that much of a chance though. Some of the other checks and balances built into the system are that lawmakers can pass a law making it clear whether they intended for edge sorting to be legal or not. And future courts can choose to distinguish future cases from this one, to minimize any precedent set by this ruling.
To really understand this ruling, you have to go back and read the ruling on the motion to dismiss. Ivey's arguments there look quite good to me, and those arguments will be live on the appeal as well. One argument he has that I like is that what Borgata is really doing is saying Ivey violated the gambling statute. But the statute doesn't have what's called a private right of action. For many statutes, the state can convict you if you violate them. But a private person can't sue you for violating them -- and that's the case here. The court clearly understands this issue, and I think it's why the court went to this implied-contract theory to find Ivey liable.

To your checks and balances point, I don't think the legislature needs to get involved, if only because casino countermeasures against edge sorting are so easy. This is a one-off event and a one-off case.

The collection issue is interestng. Ivey at the moment has a fair amount of public support in what is definitely a close call and an interesting case. I for one think he's right. But ducking enforcement by taking assets out of the United States and declaring bankruptcy is pretty sleazy, and I would imagine he'll lose a ton of public support by doing so.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online