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 11-02-2016, 11:36 AM   #176
gregorio
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,421
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

The card backs were identical.
gregorio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 11:47 AM   #177
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

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.
Howard Treesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 11:55 AM   #178
TheDingy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sin City
Posts: 51
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Borgata is not a New Jersey casino, it was Boyd Gaming and MGM at the time this pair of cheaters went in.
TheDingy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016, 12:15 PM   #179
topdoll827
centurion
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Jersey (Channel Islands)
Posts: 105
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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.
topdoll827 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016, 01:02 PM   #180
Jackal69
old hand
 
Jackal69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,653
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ge-sorting-win
Jackal69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016, 03:22 PM   #181
davmcg
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,306
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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.
davmcg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016, 10:06 PM   #182
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 543
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong View Post
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.
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.
1938ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2016, 10:11 AM   #183
TeamKharmah
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 28
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Crazy how slow the judicial system is in some countries.
TeamKharmah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 12:03 AM   #184
Richas
veteran
 
Richas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the learning curve
Posts: 3,440
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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/

Quote:
The Borgata’s math for arriving at this $5.4m figure reveals the scale of Ivey’s per-hand wagering. On his first Borgata visit in April 2012, Ivey played 1,180 hands at an average of $25k per hand. The following month, he played 4,215 hands averaging $36k, rising to 1,373 hands at $93k in July and 1,850 hands at $96k in October.

The Borgata’s bid to force Ivey to pay these “expectation” losses may simply be a high bid the judge can reject in favor of simply getting their full winnings back. Regardless, Ivey’s legal team will now submit its own paperwork attempting to bargain down the Borgata’s demands.

I guess we can see what the comps were if we lookup the full doc,
Richas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 02:15 AM   #185
SuperSwag
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,639
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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.
SuperSwag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 06:50 AM   #186
Lovesantiques
A Classic
 
Lovesantiques's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Castle, Delaware
Posts: 3,850
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:

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).
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
Lovesantiques is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 07:39 AM   #187
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 SuperSwag View Post
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.
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.
RichGangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 10:41 AM   #188
Lee Jones
Semi-retired poker guy
 
Lee Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Station Inn
Posts: 2,095
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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
Lee Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 11:58 AM   #189
bot01101
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 225
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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)
bot01101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 12:53 PM   #190
LektorAJ
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LektorAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: none
Posts: 6,932
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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.
LektorAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 01:36 PM   #191
kerze
old hand
 
kerze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: whootyland
Posts: 1,708
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Jones View Post
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
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
kerze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 02:49 PM   #192
SuperSwag
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,639
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Jones View Post

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)?


Regards, Lee
This happened last year and the guy kept the money.
SuperSwag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 11:28 PM   #193
LowSociety
adept
 
LowSociety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cash advance window
Posts: 906
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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?
LowSociety is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 01:10 AM   #194
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 543
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Jones View Post
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
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.
1938ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 01:24 AM   #195
Moivey
newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 36
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

This should be on the next episode of Almost got away with it
Moivey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 02:09 AM   #196
SuperSwag
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,639
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

(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.
SuperSwag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 03:03 AM   #197
LektorAJ
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LektorAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: none
Posts: 6,932
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
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.
...
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.
It's almost as if you've read the judgement and Lee Jones hasn't, rather than the reverse.

Quote:
As a general matter, gambling is illegal. This is because the law considers gambling malum per se, a function of the age-old belief, arising perhaps from Judeo-Christian doctrine, that gambling is an immoral vice. Hence, it is prohibited by both the state and the federal government.
But like most vices, which would exist in some measure whether banned by governments or not, many states choose to allow, regulate, and tax some versions of it while preserving the ban on unregulated enterprises. The theory is a simple one. State-sanctioned gambling will be cleansed of its most unsavory elements and the games will be conducted under a defined set of published rules overseen by an administrative body.

Most importantly, the odds will be set up to benefit the “house”, and the state will tax the revenue. In short, and by design, over time every gambler who plays against the house will eventually bet - and lose - more than they win. Of course, some games allow for more skill than others and there is always lady luck. But the principle that the odds are against you is literally true and eventually wins out. This is something every gambler knows.
LektorAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 06:30 AM   #198
inmyrav
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 860
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovesantiques View Post
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.
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.
inmyrav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 06:48 AM   #199
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 13,069
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSwag View Post
(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.
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.
chillrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2016, 11:50 AM   #200
jjjou812
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,226
Re: Decision in Ivey/Borgata Case

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.
jjjou812 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 02:34 AM.


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