I do know who Jeff Ma is - just not aware of the cases being referred to but thank you, I will read and come back to you.

I don't buy it. I wouldn't have bought Ivey's tricks either if I was on your side and I'd have damn sure paid him if I had.

I appreciate you idiots. It doesn't change the fact that you are idiots. It doesn't change the fact that the laws that encourage and even reward your idiocy are laughable.

My argument in favor of Ivey is the same as yours. Caveat emptor. If you're going to play the game honor your bets. It should be enough for you that the law allows you to make a very easy living off of all the suckers, when somebody beats you pay them. Not that hard.

The fact that you gloated about Ivey's lack of intelligence is flat out laughable. Just understand you play on the side that doesn't have to think in real time. I'll say it again, you are going absolutely as far as you can. In a more competitive industry you'd be handed your lunch. Just quietly thank your lucky stars. Seriously, you understand all that ruling says is the casinos are so bad at legally stealing they need laws to protect them in the cases where they are dumber than a streetwise adolescent? Go back to your hole and collect your checks, just don't act like you've accomplished anything or deserve any respect. You're a used car salesmen with a gaming license don't act like you can sit at a table based on merit.

The fact is, Ivey played within the rules of the game that the casino agreed to. The fact that the cards were marked, and that Ivey was able to benefit from that, falls under operational risk from the casino (the risk that there is a flaw in their operations, in this case, a marked deck). The casino should be pricing for this risk or insuring against it. The player played according to the rules.

He was quite a bit better at it than me. I don't have to be I can figure out card games in real time unlike your side. You should look up his posts. He basically spelled out the function of a typical gaming employee. He also would have pegged you within a post.

Seriously, this chump is proud of the fact that in his industry incompetence is no big deal. He's proud that that's where he's able to make his living. The "what do you do when you SCREW UP a line" topic is something he's actually PROUD of. That's so laughable it's absurd. Quietly count your money you pos.

On top of that he plays the integrity card, is told that an example he gives is completely bogus and still acts like he's got the high ground on that end. What a joke. Again, may you and yours have long careers.

Finally!

You might want to consider that you have now moved from "cheated" to "manipulated" to "asked".......


Thank you! This one sentence strips through all the bull **** and clearly summarizes what occurred. Forget "cheated", "manipulated", "outsmarted". One hustler out hustled another hustler. Whoever is Iveys attorney in the Borgata case. This should be the entirety of your opening and closing statements. And then show the jury how he did it for the middle part. Thats it!

Wow, Jeff Ma says it all so well.

He just asked?

Did he/she feel coerced into complying?

This. /thread.

A good read but it is wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, let's pick up on the quote "I really see very little difference between what Ivey did and what we did." Well the difference is enormous. What Jeff and his team did was to apply a count to a shoe based on what cards had already been delivered with, I might add, absolutely no indication on what the next card would be. They were effectively working on a probability basis in the hope that it would work out in their favour but it was still all down to chance. What Ivey did was to give himself an absolute indication of what the first card out the shoe would be which is a world apart from applying your brain to a situation where it's still all down to chance.

Secondly. let's pick up on "You might think about either case and say that the gamblers had an obligation to fully disclose their actions, but that would be like saying casinos have the obligation to explain to you how unfair their games are." - actually, if asked, casinos in the UK do have an obligation to explain the percentages and probabilities.

Thirdly, let's look at "Casinos rely on deceiving their customers. They give you free drinks, shine bright, colorful lights at you and show you big jackpots, all to convince you that winning is possible and to keep you gambling." Casinos in the UK do not deceive customers. Admittedly, casinos make their establishments an attractive place for you to visit - why wouldn't they, they are a business after all, but there is no deception here. If you are a good enough customer, most night clubs will give you free drinks and shine bright colourful lights at you and as for the jackpots, ludicrous; that is simply telling you what could be won. Its a marketing ploy of course but it's no different from a shop with a 50% sale - it either entices you to "buy" or it doesn't but the difference is that in UK casinos, the percentage payout is clearly displayed and as already mentioned, if you ask, you will be told the answer.

The rest of his post is pretty much about gaining an additional edge when it comes to card counting which is a world apart from what Ivey was practising and has absolutely no bearing on this case whatsoever.

He even goes on to state that "While Ivey certainly relied on deception" - well lets look at the definition of cheating which is "the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means" so I ask you, do you believe that deception is honest? The dictionary describes deception as "something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice." None of this smacks as honest to me- in particular the word "fraud" so by his own words Jeff is saying that Ivey's actions were fraudulent.

I appreciate you providing the link but my stance has not changed.

This is not true. I could report this "crime" to the police and they should investigate it on my report. How seriously they would investigate from my standing is another matter.

Examples of recent times where police have been involved without the complainant have included Twitter abuse cases. Of course, a more obvious example would be every homicide ever committed.

Shocking!

Carry on.

In all fairness the casino managers agree with him that they should have won their case and stole the maneys.

Hi Rich, love the pics but would be good if you could defend your position with words rather than some random google image - it would carry far more weight.

Only to the supporters of the cheat I would guess.

But Ivey's edge was due to the dealer's incompetence. The casino should retrieve its losses by deducting them from the dealer's paycheck - for the next 14,000 weeks.

I'm not gloating about Ivey's lack of intelligence - I'm laughing at his self inflated opinion of his intelligence - two different things.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear a sensible argument from you.

Definition of integrity "A word that has no meaning or relevance to NineNatural"

Phil knows what he is, he just doesn't care.

Maybe.

They also cut the deck to a specific card. How do you view that? No probability involved there. It's the same thing you're describing as what Ivey did.

You're not wrong.