He'll be alright

Do you honestly believe it is okay to cheat a person or even a business because they are negligent, even if they are "utterly" negligent? If your bank leaves its cash on the counter can you pick it up and take it for yourself to punish their negligence?

Of course Borgata could sue any other person that cheats them (or "breaches" the implied contract) in any way, including edge sorting, because the players are not supposed to cheat, or breach the implied contract.

The casinos "accepted" Ivey's $100K wagers because they were, like every casino in the world, expecting that the laws of probability, the odds inherently build into casino games that favor the casinos, would make them winners in the long term. Is there risk involved for the casinos? Of course there is. Their edge is fairly small in most games and it doesn't take a very long run of short term variance from a big player to put the hurt on them. They accept this risk, just like their customers accept the fact that the casino games favor the casino. We play hoping to buck the odds and win, not cheat to change the odds.

You clearly have not read the actions by Ivey while playing, He simply cheated the casino and got caught, again, he is very lucky to not be doing jail time...because he should

It's possible the Court could require the Borgata to pay Ivey's legal fees, since this situation never would have came up in the first place if they'd been more on the ball.

Grunch: Is Ivey responsible for the entire judgment even though there's no way that he's getting the other's split back?

What if the casino offers a promotion where they unwittingly give the player an edge because they can't do probability problems properly?

iicr, him and his partner are named in the suit, so they're both responsible for paying it back. However I think since Ivy would be the only one the government could likely go after (it's unknown where the chinese partner is) he is responsible for the whole 10mm

Well this is the idea - gambling is by default not allowed because of what the presumably somewhat elderly judge thinks of as the United States' judeo-christian established religion, and is only legalised in order for the vig to be taxed in various ways - hence no vig, no reason for it to be legal.

The trouble with this reasoning is that it suggests that various vig-free forms of gambling between citizens, such as having a bet with your friend on the football, or playing in an unraked poker home game would be illegal whereas my understanding is that those things are legal (depending on the state) in much of the US precisely because there is no vig.

Isn't it the case then that most state laws are saying that charging vig is a sin whereas gambling is ok?

I'm just surprised you didn't have the common sense not to post something so ******ed.

Sorry if a little wannabe scammer got his feelings hurt.

But it is common sense to know a casino is not going to just let someone take them for 10 million. He's lucky they handled it in court.

Well, then after you're done watching the pigs fly I guess you could mosey into the casino and beat the bejesus out of them.

Have you ever seen the testing and analysis casino games have to pass before the State allows them to be offered for play???

^ Beatable casino promos are an actual thing though.

I'm sure David can say more but here's a quick example from Pokerstars blackjack:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/31...kjack-1540179/

but their promotions dont have to pass any state testing. several casinos negotiated improper discounts to don johnson and lost 15 million in blackjack.

It seems to me that the implied contract is less clear than it is made out to be.

Does playing pit games imply that the player will be -EV?
If a promotion offered by the casino allows a +EV strategy, is playing this strategy a breach of this contract?

What if you ask the casino for this promotion and they grant it?

hmmm not really - the US judge said:

"Therefore, the ultimate question is whether Ivey and Sun committed fraud by misrepresenting their true reasons for their five requests and card turning, even while none of the game’s rules had been technically broken. The Court finds that the answer to that question is no"

The UK judge said:

"...He did so by using the croupier as his innocent agent or tool by turning the 7s, 8s and 9s differentially. He was not simply taking advantage of an error on the part of the croupier or an anomaly produced by a practice of the casino for which he was not responsible......

...He was doing so in circumstances in which he knew that she and her superiors did not realise the consequence of what she had done at his instigation. Accordingly, he converted a game in which the knowledge of both sides as to the likelihood that player or banker will win - in principle nil, - was equal into a game in which his knowledge is greater than that of the croupier and greater than that which she would reasonably have expected it to be.

This in my view is cheating for the purposes of civil law"

So the UK judgement relies completely on the deception element whereas the US states that the deception is unimportant. Also note that the UK judgement clearly states that simply taking advantage of casino errors is fine.

The US judgement seems very tenuous to me in that it basically says that you have a contract with the casino to lose (although I am probably misunderstanding something).

Is the implied contract that you're meant to be playing a game where the casino has an edge, between the player and casino, or between the casino and the state? Or even between the player and the state (that they allow you to gamble on the contract that you'll be losing in the long term)?

How soon until Ivey declares bankruptcy? Borgatas lawyers won't be cheap

Hmmmmm, yes really! What the bottom line in both decisions is exactly what I said :

"BOTH judges agree that the same conduct described in both cases was wrong"

The 2 judges each found their own way to come to the same conclusion and that is a person cannot manipulate, or CAUSE the manipulation, of the cards (or any other instruments) in the playing of a game in a casino that materially changes the odds of the game as offered by the casino to the manipulator's favor. That is the bottom line in both opinions. Call it fraud, cheating or breach of contract it really doesn't matter the label the net result is the conduct was wrong.

I don't get the judges tax argument . Isn't Ivey as a professional gambler obligated to pay taxes on his winnings? And gambling winnings are taxable in any event right? I mean if anyone walks away up $10m I believe they owe income tax - or am I wrong on that?

Whether they pay or not is a completely different discussion.

Howard,

Chen Ying Sun is also a defendant. There is a concept called "joint and several liability" that could apply here. In somewhat plainer English, that would mean that both Sun and Ivey are each responsible for the total damages. In that situation, Borgata could choose who to go after to pay the judgment but isn't permitted to double-dip.

If I were Sun, I'd argue that Borgata didn't suffer any damages from my actions: Borgata paid out to Ivey, not to Sun. That might create a situation where Ivey has a cause of action against Sun, but that's not this court's problem.

Sun filed an edge-sorting case against Foxwoods in 2011. She apparently deposited $1.6M with Foxwoods and won $1.1M in a couple of days. Foxwoods didn't pay her winnings and confiscated her deposit.

The theory is that there is an implied contract between Ivey/Sun on the one hand and the Borgata on the other.

1938,

Let me go all law-geek on you for a moment. You'd be correct to assert that Ivey lost both cases. But there's a significant difference between a breach of contract theory and a fraud theory. Fraud implies moral wrongness, while a breach of contract does not, and -- under US law, at least -- they're treated fairly differently in many ways. For example, a fraud judgment can and often does lead to punitive damages; a breach of contract never does. Bankruptcy can protect you from paying a breach-of-contract judgment, while it protects you much less in a fraud circumstance.

Or better yet what if you simply request a rule change(S17 for example) that flips a game to positive EV. It's happened before.

Also, have cases been brought in Nevada over edge sorting?

They hire the person who exploits it a consultant?

Howard, what I was referencing was the judgement in both cases of the improper conduct of Ivey and Sun, not the remedies provided by the courts or available to the winning sides. It is inarguable that in each case the judges found the conduct of causing the cards to be manipulated thereby providing Ivey and Sun with a unilateral advantage not proscribed by the rules of the game as offered by the casino was prohibited, which has always been my point of view.

As mentioned, I find the ruling by the judge in the UK case to be more appropriate. I do believe it was cheating and I do believe the conduct was morally wrong, but that's just my opinion. In the US case the judge found a way to rule that potentially makes the Borgata whole for their loss without having to call Ivey and Sun actual cheats, allowing both sides to crow about their "victory". Ivey can say we won. Borgata can say we won. The money can go back to Borgata. No harm no foul. Forgotten will be that the only winners are the attorneys! Ain't life grand?