The manufacturer marked the cards. Ivey and Sun used the marks to defeat the shuffle. 2+2 ain't 5.

So the actual issue is whether Ivey and Sun had a duty to notify the casino that they were sorting the deck.

While not the norm, i will say Judge Hillman does not have a great record with the third circuit, with his record of being overturned being above average in the NJ Federal District. For those living and practicing in the area, they may remember he was the Judge who kept Carl Lewis off the ballot in the State of New Jersey (which was overturned by the third circuit.) He was also overturned (and with rather pointed language) in relation to several eminent domain cases.

One question I have for the lawyers is regarding the potential freeroll the casino has with this interpretation. Edge sorting creates an advantage for the player, not a guaranteed win. Ivey has played more baccarat sessions than just the two that resulted in legal action. He has had large losses as well (as any advantage player has.)

By agreeing to Ivey's requests beforehand and only objecting after a win, this creates a situation where the casino is on a complete free roll; keeping all Ivey losses and recouping all wins. Since he was not found guilty of fraud (cheating) in the Borgata case, this seems like it should have some relevance.

To make the question more clear, let's assume that Ivey had lost $5 million under the same circumstances at the same casino on another trip. How would that affect the monetary ruling? Would he only be liable for net winnings? Does it matter at all that the casino either did, or would have, kept all losses?

+1

this seems especially relevant because it was ruled a breach of contract and not fraud,
it seems like the law should protect both parties

This is pretty accurate.

Once a million years ago I was card counting at Harrah's in AC spreading from 10-125 a hand. Some pit boss came over after a while and told me "i'm sorry but your style of play doesn't warrant any more comps" AKA "**** you you're counting" But in AC they can't kick you out for it so they started half shoeing me. With what other people were betting at the table they were probably losing money and definitely pissing them off by doing this. After a little while there were 3 pit bosses watching me.

I had time to kill so I decided to mess with them and play for a little while take a break etc. I would try to go to tables where people were betting the most to cost them the most with their half shoeing bs. And every time i switched tables the three pot bosses would follow me and half shoe me even when i just started flat betting the table minimum.

But when a guy is betting 6 figures a hand make some bs request just let him do it. Pretty funny stuff.

I assume the player bears responsibility for their actions under this "implicit contract". Yet, apparently the casino doesn't bear any responsibility for their actions.

To me an implicit contract would be intuitive. I don't believe most players are aware you aren't allowed to win. Maybe they should put up signs.

Overall It just seems like a slippery slope to have actions that aren't illegal, but if you take them you won't get paid.

If the Court's use of contract law is correct, then the issue of a "freeroll" is the same as the shopper at the yard sale:

1. If the buyer and seller BOTH know that a Van Gogh is being purchased for $5, then the sale stands.

2. If NEITHER the buyer NOR the seller knows that a Van Gogh is being purchased for $5, then the sale stands.

3. If the buyer knows it's a Van Gogh, and the seller doesn't, the sale is reversed. (Or if the buyer thinks it's genuine and the seller knows it's fake).

So if both parties actually KNOW that the casino will challenge a loss but not a win, then by implication both parties consent. E.g. Ivey impliedly consents to let a Court decide if he keeps his win.

This subject matter is generally known as "indemnification," and is usually found mentioned in partnership agreements. I doubt that many Courts have ever found that indemnification was IMPLIED by the actions of the parties.

An interesting sidebar would be the exact meaning of "...Casino reserves all rights..." which is often found in various spots and could be construed to be part of an implied contract.

Will send you PM to confirm terms but for anyone who wants the sweat, yeah, it's only a hundred for charity, but we all need action, right?

Dude.....the manufacturer did not "mark" the cards. The cards were cut in a manner that made the backs asymmetrical. Ivey and Sun caused the cards to be turned in such a manner so as they were able to identify the relative value of the cards. It was this manipulation (turning) that the judge found to be effectively marking the cards, NOT the fact the card backs were asymmetrical.

As to part 2 from your post the judge ruled Ivey and SUN were not allowed to use the deck they caused to be marked to play the game and profit from that play because the use of the marked deck was a breach of the implied contract of play.

If Gemaco did not mark the cards, Ivey could have turned the cards himself and kept every dollar under this crippled implied contract framework. DUCY?

No, I'm afraid I DNCY???

The fact that cards had imperfections is not what made the cards "marked" for the purposes of the judge's decision. It was the manipulation of the cards caused by Ivey that EFFECTIVELY marked the deck and made using the deck and the information provided him as a result of the manipulation a breach of the implied contract between Ivey and Borgata. You might want to read the judge's decision for a better understanding of his reasoning.

The judge has yet to rule on Gemaco's liability, if any, in the case. It is supposed to be part of another upcoming decision.

Ivey could never have "turned the cards himself", as he was playing mini-baccarat where the players do not touch the cards. He did this purposely because the cards in a mini-game are reused precisely because the players don't touch them and therefore it was believed couldn't be physically marked. Ivey's scheme certainly blew that notion out of the water. In the "big" baccarat game the cards are usually used one time and discarded, making edge sorting impossible.

Ivey and Sun sorted the cards, they didn't mark them. A lie doesn't become the truth by repetition, even by those in high places. See e.g. The Emperor's New Clothes.

A turn and a few riffles doesn't defeat a card marking scheme.

You are certainly correct, repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true or correct. My discussion was about the judges decision and his reasoning, which I fully agree with, on the subject of the cards being marked. If you read the decision you will find that per the judge Ivey and Sun "marked the cards". As I suggested earlier it might be best if you actually read the judge's decision before continuing with the same argument over and over. Here is the relevant portion of the judge's decision to help you understand his ruling and my posts:

Ivey and Sun’s view of what constitutes a “marked” card is too narrow. Such an interpretation would undermine in a fundamental way the purpose behind the regulatory ban on marked cards. “Marking” a card is to surreptitiously identify the value of the card to a player – and that player alone. The physical acts of a card being drawn on, daubed, or crimped are
several ways to inform a player of its value. But, as demonstrated by Ivey and Sun’s edge sorting technique, a physical act is not necessary to alert a player surreptitiously of a card’s value. Asking a card dealer to turn a card a particular way so that the pattern on the edge of the card will distinguish it from other cards such that it will inform the player of that card’s value also constitutes “marking” within the meaning and intent of the regulatory ban. The term “marking” therefore can be defined as having something done to the card that identifies the value of the card to a player but to no one else.

Moreover, it is not the act of “marking” a card that violates the CCA, but rather the “use” or “possession” of the marked card that violates the CCA. That is because using or possessing a marked card that reveals the value of that card leads to an artificial adjustment of the set odds in the
player’s favor....

STAHP

Ivey requested a specific deck of cards that are edge-sortable, and selectively asked certain cards to be turned around for "superstition". The security team would be well aware that he's edge sorting, would they not?

Also according to Ivey it was a pretty low % advantage, nowhere near "so much against them that they couldn't possibly win".

Wow. I wonder what Phil's definition of a medium to high advantage is if he regards a 6.765% advantage as "pretty low". Guy's on a completely different level of AP play than the average poor grinder.

The judge lied. You're repeating the lie. No amount of repetition will change that lie into a truth. Marking a card is an intentional act that changes, i.e. ALTERS, the appearance of the card.

The manufacturer marked the cards. Ivey and Sun DID NOT.

What are you talking about? The judge defined "marking" in a broad way and found that Ivey marked cards. You may think his analysis is wrong, as I do, but there is nothing dishonest about it.

Marking is marking, period. Marking can get a person killed or barred for life from unrelated casinos.

It is HIGHLY unethical to claim that someone marked a card without substantial evidence, which at a minimum would be... A MARKED CARD. It is exactly the same as alleging that a woman is a prostitute.

The judge is abusing his privilege and should be impeached.

Pretty terribly written IMO.

The truth is that the courts in the US are trash and the law is arbitrary. Most of the time the judges and/or the prosecutors (if its a criminal case) decide what the outcome is going to be before the trial even begins.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You might think that would be somewhat relevant to posting on this topic, but alas......

I can only wonder to whom you are referring. There appear to be several candidates posting here vying for the clueless award.

Check please!!

Personally I can't imagine who would have fallen for their trick to begin with. I am not associated with casino management in any way, but I know if anyone made the request to use a certain brand of cards and for them to be held in a certain way, I would have immediately assumed it was because they were trying to get an edge, and that the cards must be marked in some way.

Either the casino management was totally incompetent and everyone involved in permitting it was an idiot (which seems hard to believe), or they really were planning a freeroll, as others have suggested.