Apparently they were very ignorant and very greedy.

I'm pretty sure that every casino has more than a 98% chance of winning on any given day. I guess they're freerolling their customers as well.

Big slot jackpots and ultra hi rollers are the main reasons you are wrong.

I don't think I have seen the situation accurately described anywhere. This is what I understand is happening. Ivey loses in the Borgata case. He then appeals. Normally (I say normally as that is the case in the jurisdiction where I live) you do not have to pay anything while the appeal is proceeding. You appeal, the judgment is stayed and then when the appeal is heard you either pay if you lose or don't pay if you win (the parties would also have the option of appealing to a higher court if that court will hear the appeal).

In the case of New Jersey there needs to be a bond equal to the amount of the judgment before an appeal is perfected. This means that Ivey would have to post his ~ 10 million before he can move ahead with his appeal. Ivey's lawyers filed a motion where they sought the court to allow Ivey not to have to post the money before the appeal went ahead. The caselaw established a test for this this, which criteria includes courts ability to dispense with the need for a bond if the party can show his/her ability to make a living will be affected substantially or it would cause undue hardship where it would unconscionable to have to have them post the money. Thats kind of what they were trying to do, which they clearly did a piss poor job of as the judge found there was nothing beyond bald statements showing he couldn't pay and make a living at the same time.

Given that he lost, he still has a chance to appeal this decision. Which I am guessing that he will, and then go from there. So I am guessing we will now have another appeal heard in a year or so.

I know they can lose on some days, but I guessed it was less than 1 out of 50.

So they don't have a 98% chance of winning on any given day because of the one day out of a thousand when the mega bucks jackpot hits or the one day a year the Kerry Packers would win? I thought math was your subject?

I haven’t gone back and looked recently but my recall of this issue is that the basis of the judgment against Ivey was a breach of contract. As I recall it, Ivey won he fraud case. I can pull the opinion and reread if there is any question about this

Bottom line to all of this is good luck collecting. Not a chance in hell MGM ever collects a dime

LOL.

But while it's not a true freeroll, it sure is a nice spot for the casino. Rulings like this allow for this sort of thing:

No. There is no freeroll either way, but saying Ivey is the one freerolling is even sillier than saying the casino is.

Unless you believe this:

How do you figure? Slam dunk appeal, or you figure he's completely busto, or...?

You all seem to be talking about two different things.

Chillrob talking about house edge which of course varies by game from a low of Odds bet on Craps (house edge 0%) to high of Keno (house edge infinity )

Sir Slansky obviously talking about variance where a guy betting $100,000 a hand Baccarat can go on a heater and put a material dent in casinos profit for that day.

ftr.. major slot jackpots on participation games (eg Wheel of Fortune) are for the most part accrued by the manufacturer or other entity and don't impact house variance ( I think)

Not as much as you’ve got condescending sarcasm and being a word-nit down pat.

While I can understand that wantonly throwing out the “Omg ivey got freerolled” version doesn’t correctly portray the gist of what occurred, I’m using the term in a less than literal sense. Iirc, after ivey and sun had pulled the move off more than a few times, casinos had shared dossiers that speculated on the method. Once the ruling came down in London, borgata realized they could simply amend their mistake thru the courts.

So no, ivey and sun weren’t literally freerolled the minute they walked into borgata. But the lawsuit itself, in a jurisdiction that depends more on borgata money than London depends on crockfords, after a judge in London already ruled against them, became a freeroll of sorts for borgata.

While I don’t question the pedigree or dopeness of the legal minds who ruled in these cases - I do think that if experienced gambling minds can’t come to a unanimous decision on whether ivey was cheating or gambling unethically, I don’t expect these judges to sort out the specific gaming dynamics at play any easier. So in such a 50/50 or 55/45 spot, the standard play (I would think) is to side with the corporation that provides more revenue, jobs, and other benefits for the jurisdiction than any individual possibly could. And that’s what I think happened.

I’m not a big ivey fan (or a fan of any player, other than some friends/poker buddies). I believe I know more about his general financial situation than most itt and less than a few. I’m not shedding tears for a guy who gets to golf w the most powerful man in the universe. While he’s not anywhere near broke, I’m pretty sure, based on conversations I’ve had w people that actually know him, that this judgement decimated 25%-75% of his net worth. I feel comfortable speculating on multiple aspects of this topic, though I’m not a lawyer, iveys accountant, a casino employee, etc. I’m relying on some common sense and some hearsay and I could still be wrong about everything.

Thanks for your gracious post.

Let's all agree to never again say that Ivey got freerolled.

kthxbai

Very well could be true but Sun did an interview which can be found on YouTube and it was said that they busted up a Macau casino pretty bad, no amount was specified so you can draw your own conclusions here. All things considered, it seems like having a net worth of 40-50 m is a bit low. just pure speculation.

My recollection is consistent with yours. I believe the debt is probably dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Whether PI could successfully declare bankruptcy is a separate question, as is whether doing so would harm him in other ways. As you know, in a bankruptcy, you are required to declare all assets, income, and debts. Misstatements in a bankruptcy can lead to prison sentences. I can think of a number of reasons why someone in PI's position might not want to risk that.

So while the bankruptcy conversation is interesting, I doubt it's a likely course.

How about moving the monies to an offshore account out of the reach of US courts? I'm sure some, if not most, of it already is.

Seems like that might get him arrested, unless he plans to stay out of the US for the rest of his life.

Edge sorting is when you sort a deck of cards so that the location of the assymetry on the back indicates the value of the card.

That's a thing that the IRS would take a great interest in: A person who makes a lot of money in cash w/ overseas bank accounts. IF he's got the money to pay AND he has overseas bank accounts I think that he's better off paying.

In my opinion it was a perfectly calculated decision. If they lose, they win. If they win, they win.

I meet people like you every day, who are almost totally oblivious to how the real world works and are the definition of the word sheep. Most detractors in the thread aren't concerned with iveys celebrity status anymore than you are. They are concerned with the obvious fact that a major casino freerolled someone and the courts have as vague and ignorant and brainwashed an opinion on the matter as any uneducated normie. The principles of the situation remain, namely, that the casino agreed to every change Ivey and his companion requested, knew exactly what he was doing the entire time, and simply refused to pay him when he won. They then, pleading ignorance instead of due diligence, sued him in court and won the case.

A good analogy would be a drug addict who gets abused by the police. Because the drug addict has a bad reputation and the cops have a good one, the drug addict has almost no chance in a court of law because the system is biased towards professionals and against drug addicts. In this case, the casino was obviously freerolling Ivey and his companion, but because iveys companion had a bad reputation and the casino is a professional corporation with a pretense of 'fair gaming' they won the case.

That's the point and I find it amazing you dont seem to grasp it.

You can have a moral opinion on what Ivey did but to call the ruling 'justice,' like you continually insist upon, is ridiculous.

rofl

Well you have a big nose, Fanboy, and your Mom wears Earth Shoes, so there! Nanny nanny boo boo pfft!

For you to refer to somebody as a sheep in this drivel is a beautiful example of unintentional irony, so well done. But if you really think that the members of The Supreme Court of Great Britian are akin to ùneducated normies,`I won`t bother trying to explain it to you. I would have to discuss Liberal conspiracies like Education and Rule of Law, so I won`t bother.

Regarding your analogy comparing Ivey to an abused Drug addict, it kinda sucks.

You`ve obviously never been around famous people or high rollers, or you would know how people like casino lackeys bend over backwards to accommodate their every whim. Sun claiming she wanted to turn the cards for `luck`must have seemed like penny-ante stuff compared to the kind of requests they usually receive from high rollers.

Now lets get this straight. Sun and Ivey lied to the staff about why they wanted to rotate the cards. that makes it cheating, as in lying cheaters. And the staff were unaware that the cards could be edge sorted. If you can`t at least acknowledge that there is no point discussing this with you. If you truly believe that the casino was trying to buck the one- in 50 odds that the sorting gave them, intending to later pay Ivey and sue him if they suffered the 49 times in 50 loss, then I give up.

The smartest part of the casino`s scheme to freeroll Ivey was the part where they gave him the money and let him walk, and have now had to chase after it it for several years. Because everyone knows how dope it is to pay lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to try and recover pilfered money.

You obviously don`t understand who the actual victims of Iveys thieving actually are (hint: it`s you if you gamble in casinos or online.)

Me personally, I don`t care to support guys that are serial scammers, especially when I happen to be among their many victims, which you are as well if you gamble where they steal, but you do you.

We are not re-hashing the "casino freerolled ivey" argument here. I thought I have made it perfectly clear.

It adds NOTHING to the thread, adds nothing to NVG, adds nothing to 2+2.

The other thread was mercifully closed once it devolved into an endless stream of insults and trolling.

People can read the other thread if they want to see all the arguments made on "both sides" of the issue.

I plan on closing this thread later today which will give people time to get in final insults if they so desire.

After that, if there is any real news related to this case, the thread can be re-opened at that time.

Closing the thread later instead of right now is an obvious freeroll imo

Oh please. Any pit boss worth his salt would smell a rat at any of these requests. The casino knew from minute one they were getting hacked. If they didnt then they deserve to go out of business for being incompetent.

1. Edge sorting has been around for decades. If this casino didnt know about it, they shouldnt be in business.
2. Not telling the dealer you're counting cards doesnt make card counting cheating, so not telling the dealer you're edge sorting doesnt NECESSARILY make edge sorting cheating either, despite your ever increasing hysteria in claiming it does.
3. Ivey didnt have a 98% edge. He estimated his edge in an interview he gave about it. Cant remember what it was, but even if he was being conservative he had a very good chance of coming out losing in the short term.

The casino in London definitely knew what was going on, that's why they didn't pay him after he won.

Seems to me that the Borgata was just incompetent, but the casino in London was free-rolling him.