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 10-28-2016, 12:08 AM   #151
Howard Treesong
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Howard Treesong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In for the long con!
Posts: 12,085
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
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!!
Frenbar. I may disagree with you, 1938, but your posts are certainly reasonable.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 12:12 AM   #152
bot01101
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 225
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
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.

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.
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. The edge sorting team identifies a casino that is using the cards in question. Then they move in to defraud the casino.

They do not ask the casino to use the defective cards. The casino is already using them.
bot01101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 12:31 AM   #153
gregorio
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,417
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
I can only wonder to whom you are referring.
haha, I was wondering the same thing.
gregorio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 12:45 AM   #154
junky monkey
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 562
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadlyBeaten View Post

The judge is abusing his privilege and should be impeached.
Benger, is that you!?? Should the judge check his privilege?
junky monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 01:02 AM   #155
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 13,065
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by bot01101 View Post
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. The edge sorting team identifies a casino that is using the cards in question. Then they move in to defraud the casino.

They do not ask the casino to use the defective cards. The casino is already using them.
I don't remember the details as it has been several years, but I'm sure when I originally read about the incidents, the description of at least one of them (either Borgata or the place in the UK) said that the cards were specifically requested.
chillrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 02:24 AM   #156
cheeseisgood
grinder
 
cheeseisgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 465
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong View Post
You have no idea what you're talking about.
from what i see almost anything can be interpreted as being illegal in court. when a judge sentences someone to juvenile detention for mocking his principal on the internet and ppl accept that ruling then something is obviously wrong with our courts. prosecutors charge ppl with 20 crimes for doing one thing so they get plea deals and even conspire with public defenders. i dont see how you can argue our courts arent arbitrary when the supreme court votes on party lines.
cheeseisgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 03:01 AM   #157
Lawnmower Man
veteran
 
Lawnmower Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,277
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Of course law is arbitrary. Most of the great logicians become mathematicians and philosophers. What is left are sociopaths and try-hards just clicking buttons. There is no order of logic in law (it isn't even designed that way). It's rife with contradictions and tautologies.
Lawnmower Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 06:49 AM   #158
RichGangi
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RichGangi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unearned income my a**!
Posts: 8,559
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irieguy View Post
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?
Yup.

This whole thing is just so ludicrous and, imo, an awful pr move by the casino.
RichGangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 07:26 AM   #159
restorativejustice
veteran
 
restorativejustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by bot01101 View Post
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. The edge sorting team identifies a casino that is using the cards in question. Then they move in to defraud the casino.

They do not ask the casino to use the defective cards. The casino is already using them.
Was there any evidence that the woman had an associate at the card manufacturer that told her where in the world these "defective" cards were being sent?
restorativejustice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 08:11 AM   #160
Howard Treesong
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Howard Treesong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In for the long con!
Posts: 12,085
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by restorativejustice View Post
Was there any evidence that the woman had an associate at the card manufacturer that told her where in the world these "defective" cards were being sent?
no.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 09:35 AM   #161
LowSociety
adept
 
LowSociety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cash advance window
Posts: 906
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_AA View Post
Such BS- just goes to show the gross legal manipulation that goes on to fix legal disputes in favor of the most powerful. Ivey's face probably looked just like my avatar after he heard the news : /
I think it actually goes to show the ineffectiveness of a judge who isn't an expert on the subject matter that surrounds the case. Similarly, you see silly verdicts regarding tech all the time.

My attorney once advised me before going into a case: if you're 100% right, you have an 80% chance of winning in court.
LowSociety is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 09:45 AM   #162
davmcg
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,306
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowSociety View Post

My attorney once advised me before going into a case: if you're 100% right, you have an 80% chance of winning in court.
If this was correct, your lawyer would be rich beyond his wildest dreams simply by suing random people/businesses where amount sued for is more than 5 times the legal costs.
davmcg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 10:55 AM   #163
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,179
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadlyBeaten View Post
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.
That is not what indemnification means. Indemnification is an agreement by one party to reimburse another party for certain losses with specifics depending on the particular deal. This is very common in stock sales and asset sales between the buyer and seller; limited liability company operating agreements or partnership agreements between the limited liability company or the partnership on the one hand and the members and managers or the partners on the other hand; bank loans either between the bank and the borrower(s) or if there is a guaranty and there are multiple joint and several guarantors, then often the various guarantors will indemnify each other in accordance with certain percentages; etc.


What you described is contract law relating to whether an agreement was reached and is a valid contract. Specifically, it looks as though you are referring to the general doctrine of "mistake," whether unilateral or mutual. I think it is pretty uncommon for a contract to be voidable due to a unilateral mistake, although possible. And it is possible for contracts to be voidable based on mutual mistake.

Last edited by Lego05; 10-28-2016 at 11:11 AM.
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 11:26 AM   #164
TheJacob
veteran
 
TheJacob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,492
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by restorativejustice View Post
Was there any evidence that the woman had an associate at the card manufacturer that told her where in the world these "defective" cards were being sent?
They aren't really defective. They are just cheap cards where the hatch pattern doesn't match on both sides of the card because of how they are cut.

No conspiring necessary.
TheJacob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 07:52 PM   #165
frommagio
Pooh-Bah
 
frommagio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,457
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower Man View Post
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?
It's unfortunate that DUCY is now used most often by those who DNC. Sklansky must be bummed out.
frommagio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 12:37 AM   #166
Lawnmower Man
veteran
 
Lawnmower Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,277
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by frommagio View Post
It's unfortunate that DUCY is now used most often by those who DNC. Sklansky must be bummed out.
Yeah you don't get it.
Lawnmower Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 02:20 AM   #167
golfnutt
Foremost ESA Secretary
 
golfnutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,193
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

How many people were on it? Was it just the two of them? I imagine that this went on for years with other people and then she perhaps made the mistake of drawing attention by using Ivey and "gambling" for millions.

Freeroll by the casino but that still doesn't mean they lose their rights to prosecute. Winners are obviously much more heavily scrutinized. Why would they ever care to examine how a loser loses their money.
golfnutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 08:28 AM   #168
Crane
old hand
 
Crane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,265
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by frommagio View Post
It's unfortunate that DUCY is now used most often by those who DNC. Sklansky must be bummed out.
Sklansky is bummed that he didn't think of it. Regardless of the outcome, the bragging rights would have been invaluable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower Man View Post
Yeah you don't get it.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Crane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 09:22 AM   #169
LowSociety
adept
 
LowSociety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cash advance window
Posts: 906
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by davmcg View Post
If this was correct, your lawyer would be rich beyond his wildest dreams simply by suing random people/businesses where amount sued for is more than 5 times the legal costs.
You know those commercials for attorneys that ask you if you've been in any kind of accident or possibly exposed to certain chemicals or medications?
LowSociety is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 01:40 PM   #170
jjjou812
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,224
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Howard,

I agree with your posts. Three other thoughts:

1. Campion v Aldamar cited by the judge indicates the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the payment of the bets and reversed the trial court.
2. Does the regulation of the gaming impose any express duties on a patron?
3. if gambling is illegal, but regulated, the implied contract should be void.

So, if the dealer is unintentionally exposing a card, are we breaching an implied contract by not telling the house? Or slumping in our chair?
jjjou812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 04:45 PM   #171
RV-reboot
stranger
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 3
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

would this help Iveys appeal and other storys like this? http://www.lovebscott.com/news/say-w...s-to-sue-video
RV-reboot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:15 AM   #172
TheDingy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sin City
Posts: 51
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

What burns me is that PI is still allowed to play in Bobby's room at Bellagio, and if anyone says anything to the cheater they are looked at like they are trash by the staff. PI is worthless in my opinion, I hope he loses everything, he was getting crushed this weekend at Chinese poker LOL
TheDingy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:36 AM   #173
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 13,065
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

I can't imagine how anyone here seriously thinks this is cheating and doesn't like Ivey because of it.

If you played headsup poker with him and he asked you to show him your hole cards, and you were stupid enough to do it, I would say you were an idiot, not he is a cheater.
chillrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 05:37 AM   #174
Toupee Jay
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 541
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

None of the above! This is a clear case of a "hometown decision." A New Jersey judge ruling in favor of New Jersey casino shouldn't surprise anyone. This is how life works in case you didn't know. What went on behind the scenes no one (except the NJ consortium) will ever know. Can you spell conspiracy?

Ivey's only chance lies at a jurisdiction outside the confines of the NJ legal system. Been there, done that. I got run down in Texas in a similar fashion years ago. Fortunately it only cost me 18K.
Toupee Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 10:48 AM   #175
discgolfing
journeyman
 
discgolfing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 361
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

The thing that gets me about this case is that Ivey and Sun did not mark the cards themselves. By my understanding, the casino provided cards with imperfections which Ivey and Sun noticed and subsequently took advantage of.

When I play a card game at a casino, both me and the casino agree that I will be playing with THIS deck of cards to play THIS game with THESE rules.

Say that the casino provides a deck in which the card back of all 7's are blue, the back of all 8's are green, the back of all 9's are purple, and the rest of the card backs are red. We play baccarat with this deck. Over the course of the game, I pick up on the pattern of the card backs and adjust my betting strategy accordingly to beat the game. I would not think I was doing anything wrong or breaking any rules in this scenario because both me and the casino agreed to use this particular deck.

In Ivey and Sun's case - they, "manipulated," the employees into unknowingly providing a deck with much more subtle imperfections and then continued to, "manipulate," these employees into helping them pick up on these imperfections.

All this case comes down to is a question of accountability. If a casino's intention is to provide a deck with 52 identical card backs and they fail to provide a deck like this - should they be held accountable for any losses they take on from this error?
discgolfing 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 10:44 PM.


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