The card backs were identical.

Greg is correct, as usual. Where I take issue with the court is its conclusion that Phil's request to rotate some particular cards is "marking" them.

Borgata is not a New Jersey casino, it was Boyd Gaming and MGM at the time this pair of cheaters went in.

Now he has lost his court of appeal case in the UK.Seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court but I would be surprised if they are prepared to hear the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ge-sorting-win

This is def a worse judgement as two of the judges have now said that he was cheating in terms of criminal conduct, whereas the first judge avoided that.

Howard, For reasons I have posted more than a few times over the years I think that this was the ONLY logical and legal conclusion available to the judge. The judge did a meticulous job of articulating his reasoning for this conclusion. I'd be interested in hearing your legal theory for attacking and appealing the judges reasoning and decision.

I'd like to revisit a discussion we had on the topic a couple of years ago to illustrate my prediction of how this case would ultimately be decided.

Originally Posted by Howard Treesong:

I just read the complaint. From a technical legal perspective, it's pretty weak sauce; many of the causes of action are likely to fail. Just by way of example, the breach of contract count doesn't actually quite articulate an exchange of promises that Ivey breached. It discusses how Borgata "expected" that Ivey would follow the rules, but it never articulates a spoken exchange in which Ivey promised to do so. If that term isn't part of the contract, then Ivey didn't breach by breaking the rules.


Originally posted by 1938Ford:

I don't do a ton of contract law, but this complaint is very similar to almost every "verbal" contract lawsuit I generally see. It's not great. But, it's not bad either. It is imaginative where it needs to be and concise when called for. It is interesting because as I read the breach count I think it is compelling. In most "gambling states", like New Jersey, it is implicit that there exists a contract between parties to be bound by the rules set by the state. The complaint also claims there was an explicit agreement from Ivey and Sun. Further, this is the count that has the NJ statutes and details and charges the violations of NJ gaming laws. So for me, counts 1 and 2 are the winners.

Crazy how slow the judicial system is in some countries.

Borgata asking for $15.5m including a cheeky $5.4m for lost ev or "expectation damages", oh yeah and $249k for comps on the four trips.

http://calvinayre.com/2016/11/10/cas...ges-phil-ivey/


I guess we can see what the comps were if we lookup the full doc,

Isn't the casino killing future action with this case?

What if I'm a whale and I play at Aria in Vegas. The regs start telling the story about Ivey. Normally I'm a big pit degen but after hearing this story no way I'm taking the risk, or I'm sticking with Vegas and not AC.

Really? I would very much like to know the reasoning behind this. I deal in antiques - and my profit margin (and the profit margin for all antique dealers) depends in a large part on what I know. Spotting value where others miss it. Finding the diamond in a tray of zirconium, sterling in a pile of silver plate, etc.

If I try to talk someone out of their Van Gogh, when I know it is real and they don't - that might well be actionable in court. But if they freely offer it to me, and I pay the price that they ask - why should they have a right to get it back? And who covers my loss when I'm wrong (which happens to all of us on occasion, I'm no exception)?

Suppose I'm offered an item for $10, and I know I can sell it for $20 - is that actionable? What if I can sell it for $50? Or $100? Or $1,000? When does the potential profit become actionably large? And why?

I've heard of cases where a seller tried to recoup under your theory, but never of one where the seller did recoup. I'ld really like to learn more.

Thank you.

Lee

Ding ding ding. This is why it's such an awful, short-sighted, dumb move by them. If he had lost, would they have said a thing? Of course not. Irieguy touched on this already. Just gross.

IANAL, but the part of the opinion I found most "interesting" was that there is a requirement, per the CCA, that the house must have an edge. As DavidS wondered: suppose a NJ casino unknowingly offers a promotion that has (or has under the right circumstances) a player edge. Now somebody, (I don't know - Andy Bloch?) goes in and clobbers the casino for a massive win.

When the casino figures out what happened, can they sue Andy and say "This game was illegal so you owe us that money back."?

Or suppose they offer (e.g.) 2:1 on blackjack, which won't make most blackjack players +EV, but would certainly make any perfect basic strategy player +EV (given typical blackjack rules)?

The logic of the judge's ruling puts me in fear for all the advantage players out there.

Regards, Lee

Whales typically do not cheat.

Whales do not care if cheaters get caught.

No one cares if "advantage players" make money or have a shot to make money. (except advantage players)

Well the casino is just another advantage player.

Particularly in a country like the US which taxes gambling winnings it's hard to see why one advantage player should be favoured over another.

I mean this is basically the Don Johnson case. It wasn't a promotion but he did negotiate loss rebates and slight rules changes to Blackjack and then used a playing strategy that was +EV under those conditions. BOrgata was one of the AC casinos. His wins were well publicized. I believe Tropicana lost money on BJ the month he played there

This happened last year and the guy kept the money.

The judge knew he wanted to find against Ivey and needed some framework within which that decision would make sense. To nitpick the laws/rules/concepts cited is like interpreting the output of a RNG. It's not the point. The questions are the sensibilities of the judge and the motivations of the judge. (Was the precedent this sets intended? Is he beholden to anyone?) Secondarily, how exposed to appeal is this decision?

This is not at all what the Judge said. The judge's ruling does nothing to restrict REAL advantage players from working to increase their likelihood of winning. An "advantage player" doesn't mark the cards, or manipulate employees, or alter equipment in order to gain their advantage. The judge ruled that Ivey's actions effectively manipulated the cards, thereby "marking" them and providing Ivey with information known only to him. In doing so the judge ruled that Ivey breached the "implied contract" between the Borgata and Ivey, wherein both sides agreed to play by the rules of Baccarat as presented by the casino. It IS NOT WITHIN THE RULES THAT ONE PARTY CAN MARK THE DECK, OR CAUSE THE DECK TO BE MARKED, TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE NOT INHERENT IN THE GAME WHEN PLAYED WITHOUT THE MARKED DECK. You can not CHEAT. If you CHEAT the game is not valid per the implied contract between a casino and patron.

If the casino were to offer a game where the player has a known and documented advantage and the casino uses marked cards to defeat the advantage the player was supposed to have then the casino would be in breach of the implied contract and the game would be invalid. Could you even imagine the uproar here if that had happened?

If the casino offers a game where the house has an expected advantage and if both sides play the game as presented, read "no cheating", then the game is legitimate and the results would stand, win or lose by either party, even if that anticipated advantage wasn't actually a mathematical certainty. Thus people, like Andy Bloch, who use the legitimate information available to them as they watch and play the game and apply math to that information provided soley by their observations to TRY to predict when they might have an advantage are playing the game as offered and the results would stand, win or lose. There is no law anywhere that I know of that construes this (card counting) as CHEATING, because it is not.

Also, it seems some casinos offer "promotions" where players sometimes may have an actual edge, or the normal edge enjoyed by the casino is less than when the game is played outside of the promotion (like 100X the odds on craps, or 2-1 on a blackjack, or bet $25 and get a "free" voucher for a $25 bet...whatever). These promotional games are offered by the casino and licensed by the state and are valid and legal as long as no one cheats by doing something like MARKING THE CARDS, to gain an advantage not offered by the rules of the game as presented.

It was Ivey's actions in causing the manipulation of the cards, thereby effectively marking the cards, that separates his actions from an advantage player, like a card counter. If he had asked to know if the first card out of the shoe was a 7,8 or 9 and if the casino had said okay and given him that information then he would not be in the position he is now. But, he didn't. He schemed to find a way to get that information by effectively marking the cards unbeknownst to the casino, which is CHEATING.

This should be on the next episode of Almost got away with it

(4) one 8-deck shoe of purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards to be used for the entirety of each session of play

I was under the impression Ivey brought some "marked" cards into the game. This makes it sound like Borgata provided the faulty cards themselves.

It's almost as if you've read the judgement and Lee Jones hasn't, rather than the reverse.

I am not agreeing that the court would find for a seller who sold a Van Gogh for $20 is protected by a contract, implicit or otherwise. But if they did, this is how they would decide on a particular sale.

They would ask if the loss of value being received is reasonable given the informal method of sale.

No court would say that taking a million dollar loss on a twenty dollar item is reasonable.

There is no precise measure in these sorts of decisions. That's why we hire judges. The laws dictating such matters tend to be necessarily vague. The entire idea of judicial objectivity is a bit of a joke.

The casinos did provide the deck, but I thought they were specially requested by Ivey and company. Where was your quote from? That is what I was trying to find again. I mentioned it recently here and someone said the cards were not specifically requested, but were just what the casinos happened to be using.

While I don't agree with 99% of 1938Ford's analysis, dicta or analogies nor find the judge's decision anything but results-oriented, I have come to the conclusion that Ivey "used" "marked" cards in his advantage play.

I think it is important that Ivey did not mark or alter the cards himself, did not put the marked deck in play (with a conspirator) and did not use any special tools, other than the casino's own stupidity, to mark the cards. I also think the casino use of the flawed cards should bar recovery.

But given that Ivey knew of the flaw (the mark), made the flawed (marked) cards useful by requesting they be turned opposite of the other cards, equates to using marked cards.