Frenbar. I may disagree with you, 1938, but your posts are certainly reasonable.

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.

haha, I was wondering the same thing.

Benger, is that you!?? Should the judge check his privilege?

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.

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.

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.

Yup.

This whole thing is just so ludicrous and, imo, an awful pr move by the casino.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sklansky is bummed that he didn't think of it. Regardless of the outcome, the bragging rights would have been invaluable.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

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?

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?

would this help Iveys appeal and other storys like this? http://www.lovebscott.com/news/say-w...s-to-sue-video

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

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.

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.

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?