Has anyone ever heard what manager or pit boss actually approved the changes to the game that Ivey asked for, and if that person was held accountable in any way?

^^

now thats a good question.

The casino chose to not play by the rules of the game that the casino had laid out.

If the casino had won, they would have kept the money. Because Ivey won the money, the casino want's its money back.

The casino free rolled Ivey.

I take it that you realize that this happened in 2012 and that the casino paid Ivey over $9 million at the time.

You realize that the casino hasn't gotten any of the money back despite prevailing in court (it is now six years later by the way) and Ivey is hinting that he is not going to pay the money back.

You realize that the edge-sorting scheme Ivey used made it very likely that Ivey would win untold millions before he lost his initial stake.

In light of the above (among many other reasons), I am very confident that the casino did not knowingly "free roll" Ivey. To think that the casino employees knew what Ivey was doing and let him do it is beyond my comprehension.

To put these "free roll" comments in the most charitable light, I suppose you can say that I "free roll" other drivers on the road since I will only fill out an insurance claim against them if they cause an accident.

I am beginning to think that people who maintain that the casino free-rolled Ivey have little understanding of the facts of this case.

So a court rules that $9 milly isn't Ivey's, he doesn't pay and it's just whatever? WTF seems like a normal person woulda been thrown in prison by now. Weird wild stuff.

Many folks -- the more wide-eyed and idealistic types -- don't seem to appreciate the importance of the above. As I wrote earlier ITT, "the law's written ambiguously enough to allow for casino-friendly interpretations from home-field advantage judges who have a vested interest in the continued profitability of casinos in their State, and in practice the casinos have a massive informational advantage in detecting irregularities and having them resolved in their favor. It's an edge you're giving up every time you walk into a casino."

And come on guys, with the nit-fighting over whether this was or was not a "freeroll"; it's painfully obvious that you're each choosing to define the term in a way that supports your argument when you know good and well what the other means. Did the casino know at the time that they were in a no-lose situation, in that they'd be guaranteed to win a court case and recoup from Ivey anything he'd won from them, such that they were laughing and high-fiving each other from the security control room? Of course not. But given the outcome of the case and the reasoning of the NJ court, it's clear that in practice he was in a massively -EV spot...as I pointed out earlier ITT, a curious implication of the court's reasoning is that had Ivey lost, he'd actually have been entitled to recoup his losses...the problem being that the informational advantage in this situation was extraordinarily skewed in the casino's favor: they have access to the cards, security footage, etc. Ivey would have had an infinitely harder time proving his case. So yes, the court's reasoning ostensibly allows for recovery of losses by either Ivey or the casino, but only 1 of those parties would have a realistic chance of succeeding on that claim. Is that a "freeroll"? Close enough to plausibly use the term without inviting a slap-fight imo.

Debtor's prison was eliminated long ago. His every hint of money will be gone after, mercilessly and tirelessly until he's paid up. Someone above said he's hinting that he won't pay. He can't simply refuse to pay hence a possible bankruptcy.

It's more like a semibluff, where they can either win right away or they can suck out in court.

When I imagine that I am playing with Ivey and he will spot pattern on cards and he will take all the money I would consider it cheating. Ivey is supposed to win only in frame of predefined rules that he accepted by playing. I am not fan of casinos, but even dumb judge must see that. And it doesn't matter he has consent about changing cards or flipping them. He had no agreement on using marked cards.

If that happened to me, I would be much more upset with the house running the game and the manufacturer of the cards.

Except the case was decided in a federal court by a judge that has no vested interest in the profitability of a New Jersey casino. No reason to let the facts interfere with a theory.

Ivey is given 9 million dollars after playing a game. The casino has the right to sue Ivey, hopefully win a judgment and, after transferring the judgment to NV (and hiring more counsel) then attempt to collect it, all the time paying its attorneys and cannot recoup its expenses? Who is -EV?

Wow. Good points. I completely change my mind now with respect to the casino "free rolling" Ivey. Of course, even under your strained argument it surethehell has not been "free" for the casino to get its money back (which has not yet happened by the way). But, okay, I suppose most people would agree that the casino sued Ivey in the hope and expectation that it would get its money back. (I won't try to figure out how that makes it a free-roll, but whatever.) I pledge not to belabor the free-roll point unless some other Ivey advocate trots it out again.

P.S. If you think about, it was Ivey who was free-rolling the casino! DUCY?

For those who think that the courts are in the pocket of the casinos, Ken Uston won a court case that meant that New Jersey casinos could not ban card counters, leading the casinos to compensate by changing the rules, such as adding more decks.

Bankruptcy wouldn't save him, because the basis for the judgment was fraud, which is non-dischargeable.

Ahh...I hadn't considered the basis of the judgement which is an embarrassing thing to admit. It is the case, however, that no criminal charges were filed as far as we know, which is my only excuse for not having thought of it.

He had a mope face back when he was making Main Event final tables and superusing on Full Tilt. He has a real reason to look like that now.

I'm confused about the freeroll argument. Is there some law that says there are no situations where you can win if you can't lose? Would not the exception be if the "can't lose" part requires you to win a court case even if it is a slam dunk. I'm pretty sure that when casinos spot what they are almost sure is cheating they let it go on for a while if the player is losing and not so much because they want to make absolutely sure. They know that when they bar him or arrest him they keep the money if he is losing and confiscate his winnings if he is not.

No. Even when he was playing with an edge, he still could have lost.

Finally, someone gets it.

There are post in both threads about it, hunt them down if you really care. But as I recall the math said that his edge after setting the deck was so great that his actual chance of losing was something like one time in 50. And that could have happened at Crockfords or The Borgata, so I suppose that technically he could have lost. He could expect to lose his buy-in once for every 50 times he pulled the scam, who says it could't be then.

This point is just as specious as the rest of the "Casino freerolled Ivey" argument.

I only mentioned that because someone said that Ivey freerolled the casinos.

The math was presented in either this thread or the other Ivey edge-sorting thread. There I estimated that Ivey's edge via the edge-sorting scheme he employed gave him around a 98% chance of winning $10 million before he lost his initial $1 million stake.

Once he got to play with the edge-sorting deck, he was indeed free-rolling the casino.

I really cannot believe that so many people on a poker website do not understand how edges work and/or how large an edge edge-sorting provides.

without reading all the volumes of this case, why didn't the casino management just tell Ivey no to manipulating the cards?

What’s edge sorting?

The casino didnt freeroll ivey, they lost at their own game, with their own rules, and went crying to mommy to get their money back. its pathetic.

fwiw i think its scummy that he did this, and something i would never do. but its his money