Seems a bit silly to me but not cheating. I can't say that i understand the why. Maybe that dealer is their most senior/trusted, maybe they are just idiots, I am also unsure what your allegation is against them apart from tilting you. Seems you quit whilst ahead which if anything is a bad thing for them in a -ev game.

I have a couple for you as well!

First Questions:

Assuming any of this really happened, which is very difficult for me at least, what "procedure" are you talking about that was broken?

Do you know for a fact that this casino had a written procedure that says the pit boss can not change dealers whenever they want?

Do you know for a fact that there was not a procedure that demands a pit boss change dealers whenever a customer unexpectedly wins $7K?

I think you said you were playing at the Imperial Palace. I have played there as well. When I played there I could add, change or remove bets after the ball was spun. This is true in every casino I play in. They all allow bets just after the ball has spun, some even up to the last several seconds of a spin, just before the ball is to drop. Are you saying the Imperial Palace had a different rule for you?

More questions:

Which Imperial Palace were you playing at where they had 5 roulette wheels (much less 6 or 7) in a single pit (or even in the whole casino for that matter)?

Which Imperial Palace were you playing in that went to all this fuss over a $7K win? The one in Vegas that sold to Caesars for nearly $400MM a couple of years later?

Assuming this happened, I do not believe this to be cheating. But, please explain how it is you were cheated? Did the dealer use an illegal ball? Did the dealer use an illegal spinning technique? Did the dealer somehow interfere with the natural order of the game to increase the house odds of winning?

The rest of my questions:

What was the "angle" the casino was "shooting?"

Do you think they were having their "lucky dealer" following you so you would lose?

Do you believe that one dealer is "luckier" than another?

Do you honestly think the casino was trying to get you to quit playing a game where they enjoy at least a 5.26% edge and where they know the longer you play the more likely it is they will win back at least some if not all of your money?

How can they get their money back if they make you quit?

Why do you think the Imperial Palace would devote this much time and energy to try to recover a $7K loss? Was it a personal vendetta? Did they think you were cheating?

Do you think $7K is a big loss for a casino like the Imperial Palace to have to absorb?

Do you think your $7K win affected the casino's bottom line so much so they had to take extraordinary efforts to recoup their loss?

Could it be your $7K win put the entire casino's operations in jeopardy of bankruptcy?

As I recall 2003 was a big year for the Imperial Palace. I remember they opened up a new blackjack pits with free champagne and dealers that were celebrity impersonators. It was a very popular place to play back then. Do you really believe they were truly concerned about a $7K loss?

You see, your experience here is not at all like mine. I have been fortunate enough to have winning sessions (many for far more than $7K) at roulette and other pit games. Whether I win or lose I have found the casino's reaction to be almost the exact opposite. Whether I am ahead or behind I find the casino anxious, able and willing to accommodate almost everything I ask for.

I can ask to play with the same dealer, same ball, same cards, same dice and usually have those requests allowed. You see, the house knows that the longer I play the more likely it is that the house odds will prevail. Their entire goal is to keep me happy so I will keep playing. If I wind up losing the money back they are happy. If I win, they take the loss in stride, as it is just a numbers game for them. The more money I, and other gamblers bet, the more money they ultimately will win. They don't care if I win on this trip, they know, or assume, I will be back and that as long as I keep coming back the chances are they will ultimately win. You know what.....I know it too!

even if the bs stories this guy just told were true that just proves there are idiots working in casino management.

i've seen guys hammer the tables in a casino and everyone is always super friendly to them, comps them out the ass etc bc they know the casino wins in the long run

the casino isnt worried about some donk on a heater at a roulette wheel

To answer the questions, during my dark degen days of back in 2003 - 2005 I had a bunch of runs at various Vegas strip casinos. If you name the casino, I've easily played there. The experiences I describe above, the Imperial Palace for example, were anomalies.

As for not allowing me to remove my bets, it's kinda hard to "remove" your bets when there are mounds and mounds of chips on top of yours, 7+ people are crowded around the board, and the ball is spinning after you've placed your bets. However, I will "recant" a portion of what I said when I said, "I was unable to remove my bets." I didn't mean it in the sense that they prohibited me from removing my bets, what I meant to say was I was "unable" to remove my bets based on simple physics and the time allowed and all the arms, hands, bodies, and bets being placed in that last rush to get chips down before they wave us off.

At the time this happened, I remember thinking it was strange that the dealer looked similar, then after the 3rd or 4th one it clicked that she was actually following me WTF? I remember being completely taken aback because $7k is peanuts, I've won and lost more than that... But the fact was, the pitboss in charge believed in all the typical stuff gamblers believed in, and once he saw me get coolered by the dealer I guess he just thought it was good management to have her follow me around.

Remember, according to a lot of you, casino staff and dealers aren't sophisticated enough to know about edge sorting, therefore these same people would easily be able to believe in stuff that gamblers believe in...

But for the sake of argument, lets assume that I'm telling the truth. My questions still stand.

And the point of my questions => argument was basically just showing how casinos will have no problems stepping into the gray if they believe it gives them an advantage. That was my point. Not whether or not they actually get an advantage, that is a separate argument. I was merely showing that they have no problems working within their rules and procedures to give themselves a "perceived" edge. Thus, because of this, I have no problem with what Phil Ivey did. He out hustled a hustler.

Yes, it was very silly, super silly, ridiculous in fact, but that is not the point. The point was for right or wrong, that particular idiot pitboss tried to gain some advantage on me and he had no problems twisting their procedures to do it, ie. having that dealer follow me around.

Same with the other idiot pit boss that closed the table I was on the instant I stepped back for a few seconds.

You seem to be arguing from the standpoint of casinos offering clean, honest games and that they are institutions of fairness and integrity. If that were the case 100% of the time, then I would 100% agree with you.

But my argument is that casinos have no problems operating in the gray area to their advantage (hence my repeated spiel about pretty girls, comps, alcohol, etc) and that because of this, I don't consider what Phil Ivey did to be cheating. In the gray, yes. Dripping in gray, certainly, but not crossing the line. Hence, my repeated spiel that he just out hustled a hustler...

Ivey didn't just notice a flaw in the cards. He requested cards he KNEW were marked to be brought in and then made sure the cards were positioned so he and his accomplice could read them.

Harris, You got schooled by the casino using the oldest trick in the book. They brought in the "cooler" to throw you off the hot streak. You should have recognized them bringing in the "cooler" and immediately racked up your chips. The blame is all yours.
You can watch the movie called "The Cooler" to see how this works. It came out in 2003, so if you got victimized after that, it is your own fault.
P.S. This a different situation from someone trying to defraud a casino.

Outstanding. Just because you hate casinos and want them to eat it doesn't mean it's okay to cheat them.

If you can't see that they are offering clean, honest games and that your choice about what you drink whilst gambling is up to you, that hiring attractive staff and being nice to punters to help people enjoy themselves as part of the whole ambience is clean and honest, just normal entertainment industry stuff then maybe you should never set foot in a casino again. Your whole case that casinos have an edge so I don't like them/they are hustlers is a crock.

If you have a casino offering a crooked game - that is with worse odds than advertised then they are cheating but in the regulated casino world you just don't get cases of that so you are falling back on beers and pretty girls as being grey which is nonsense.

The part of my argument that falls back on pretty girls and free alcohol is the part of my argument that says that casinos attempt to get our money using OTHER factors besides the game. It is their "meta-game".

Your argument is focused on the game itself and that anything beyond the straight game is cheating. I am merely showing through reciprocity that the casinos are able to use "other factors" to influence our play. I consider the other factors beyond the game itself to constitute a gray area and thus, since in the gray I can forgive Phil Ivey likewise operating in the gray. Phil Ivey "tricked" the casino into AGREEING AND GIVING THEIR CONSENT to actions which gave Phil Ivey an edge. I live in a world where if you are an adult and you agree and give consent, then you don't later get to cry foul just because you got outsmarted in a field you are supposed to be an expert in.

I consider this "meta-game" in a similar sense as all the pretty girls and free alcohol and comps are part of the casino's meta-game.

I consider what Ivey did no different than if I asked the blackjack dealer to tell me his hole card because I consider it "lucky" to know what he has. If he is stupid enough to agree to that action, an action that gives me an advantage, and the pitboss likewise agrees, and then I win a boatload of money, I don't see how later they get to say, "sorry, we didn't know that we were giving you an advantage therefore your winnings are void."

Yes, Ivey's requests were more complicated than that, but fundamentally the principle is exactly the same. They agreed and gave consent, his meta-game was stronger than theirs, he out hustled them.

bull, he cheated, he changed the game not put on a cabaret.

I am convinced you really don't understand casino gaming at all. Casino gambling is supposed to be for entertainment. Patrons are not supposed to win. This is an important concept for you to understand. The games are designed so that the casino will always win over the long haul. Of course, players do win from time to time. The casinos need winners. The casinos would quickly be out of business if they didn't have winners AND losers. This is one reason why the house edge in most games is relatively small. The casino relies on volume to make money. The more money people bet, the more money the casino can EXPECT to win. It is just a numbers game for them. So, it logically follows that the single most important business principle for a casino is to find ways to make players come to their casino and bet. Everything else will take care of itself.

So, how do casinos attract patrons? The competition for gambling dollars is very stiff. Consequently, the casinos offer patrons certain amenities designed to attract the players to their casinos, not to "cheat" them or "trick" them into losing, but so that they will choose their casino to bet their money in. There is nothing sinister, shocking, surprising or "gray" about this.

Most casinos offer free drinks to gamblers. Clearly, I believe, this increases the daily take, as alcohol tends to change people's inhibitions and habits. It dulls the senses and likely makes most people into poor decision makers. I personally don't drink when I gamble, but that fact does not provide me with any advantage in casino games. The casino does not force anyone to drink. For many people drinking while they are gambling makes gambling more entertaining, which is the reason why most people are in the casino to begin with. If you are a serious gambler and want to win money then playing pit games in a casino is likely a mistake. But, if you do play anyway then I suggest you just say no to the free booze.

It has been said there is no such thing as a free lunch. So, does it surprise you that the casinos expect to win money by offering pit games in their fabulous billion dollar casinos? Do you think they build casinos, hire thousands of workers, pay them salaries and insurance, pay the electric bill, hire entertainers, yada yada yada because they expect to lose money? How are they supposed to earn money to cover the expenses if they lose at their own games? When you sit down at a roulette game do you really expect to win money?

By the way, have you ever been to Crockfords? It is nothing at all like a Vegas casino!

Any manipulation of the cards in a card game that provide any participant (house or player) in the game with an advantage not allowed for in the normal course of the game IS cheating. Period! You don't believe me? Ask the judge!

Ivey didn't "trick" the casino. He LIED to them in order to cheat them! This is not operating in any "gray" area it is black and white cheating.

Please show me where the casino ever consented to, or agreed to, allow Ivey to stack the deck in a manner that they knew he was able to determine the value of cards as they were introduced into the game.

Again, you need to understand the casino does not care if you win or lose. They care that you continue to play. The winning and losing will take care of itself. There is no "meta game" involved for the casino, only mathematics! They don't care what you think they are thinking. What they are thinking is simple. I don't even have to guess at it. Casinos are always thinking.....how do we get more people in the doors to bet more money?

And if Ivey had asked to see the first card and the casino agreed then he would not have been cheating. The fact that he lied and concocted a scheme to accomplish his goal of "seeing" the first card is what makes him a cheater.

I think that is the crux of the matter. Where is the line drawn to define "cheating"?

Ivey made a series of simple requests (but deceptively requested) that, when agreed to by the casino, gave him an unfair advantage beyond the normal playing of the game. The judge's ruling boils it down to the two elements (i) deception and (ii) unfair advantage beyond the norms of the game. Note that the judge gave no weight to the fact that the casino agreed to those requests (given the other two elements existed).

I think we can all agree that if Ivey told the casino staff about this new thing called edge-sorting, and he'd like to give it a try, the casino would not have agreed to his requests. Alternatively, if for whatever bizarre reasons they had agreed to these requests, knowing that Ivey was edge-sorting, then this would not have been deemed "cheating".

If I go to a casino to play roulette, and ask the croupier to use my "lucky" ball and they agree to do so, and later it is discovered that the ball was designed to land in only single-digit numbers (or something less than random), and I win a million dollars by placing all of (or most of, if I want to disguise what I am doing) my bets on only single-digit numbers, then I think we would agree that I "cheated" and the casino would not have to pay me my winnings. At least, that is how the judge ruled.

The roulette case is so ridiculous that it would never happen in a million years. What casino would let a roulette player introduce his own "lucky" ball? Well, would you believe that a casino let a punto-banco player, essentially, choose his own deck of playing cards, prohibit any hand-shuffling, allow the high cards to be turned 180-degrees before being placed in the shuffle machine, and that deck (shoe) be re-used over and over again for more than 24 hours?

Finally, if Ivey thought that this was legitimate, why did he go to all the trouble to deceive the casino in his requests (change his luck, lucky cards, etc.)? Of course, edge-sorting requires specific cards to be turned. Ivey could have just said that he'd like the high cards be to be turned over differently than the low cards (even asking the croupier to do the vertical vs horizontal exposing thingy). I wonder how the judge would have ruled in this case had the casino agreed to this.

Anyway, trying to determine where the "cheating" line lies is a fascinating look into the human condition.

I think this is the crux of the matter for me. I do not consider a casino a court of law. I did not raise my right hand and swear to tell the casino the truth.

I consider it perfectly acceptable to lie to a dealer or pitboss if that lie will gain me an advantage. A lie is just words, I'm not marking cards or slipping them weighted dice, I'm just lying.

Let's go to roulette. Let's say I go to a casino and I identify a particular roulette wheel and a particular manufacturer. I go home and I buy this wheel to practice. I also buy the same balls that the casino uses (various sizes A, B, and C).

This particular roulette wheel is made of a very low density metal. When a high density ball hits this low density metal the ball does NOT bounce very far. I develop a skill where I can "clock" the ball if the wheel is spinning at 100 RPM or less (a "slightly" slower than normal roulette spin) to where if the ball is counter rotating and if I'm allowed to place my bets when the ball is cycling at 200 RPM or less than I can get successful predict that the ball will land on half of the wheel and I'm 80% for this prediction when using ball B. Since I can now eliminate half of the numbers, roulette has become a +EV game for me. (this actually isn't that far fetched, this is a similar principle to listening for beat frequencies for airplane props, a skill lots of flyers have)

So, now I'm ready to use my skills against a casino.

Is it cheating if I "lie" to the casino and tell them that I feel Chinese dealers are lucky and I want them to only use this particular Chinese dealer who incidentally spins the wheel slower than everyone else.

Is it cheating if I tell them that I want them to use the medium size ball because I think small and big balls are unlucky, and the medium size ball conforms best with my Ball B that I practiced with at home...

ANd I guess that is why I just don't think Ivey cheated. I don't think the above is cheating, it is advantage play.

Have I manipulated the situation to my favor? Sure. Did I lie to accomplish my manipulations? Sure. So what. They agreed to my requests and my conditions, the reasons for my requests are irrelevant. They are experts in the field, I do not have to divulge to them why I want what I want when I want it. That should have no bearing on their "expert" opinion on whether or not to grant my requests.

But, in case you don't know by entering the casino and playing in their games you did agree to an implicit contract to play by the law, casino rules and to not cheat.

And if that was all Ivey did he would not have had any problem.

Dude, I promise you any casino in the world would welcome your action under the circumstances you describe. No need to lie. You could tell them exactly what you have done and how you have prepared yourself to beat them. If you plan on betting enough they would even send the jet for you! You don't think this "strategy" has been tried before? You aren't cheating.....you're dreaming!

You are correct this type of play is "advantage play" and will result in the house maintaining their minimum advantage of 5.26%. But, cheer up.....there's always the "pretty girls" and "free booze" to make things better!

Ivey did not manipulate the "situation" to his favor. He manipulated the CARDS to his favor. Big difference, one which you refuse to address or acknowledge. Ivey caused the cards to be manipulated so that he KNEW the value of the cards as they were being introduced into the game. THIS IS CHEATING!!! THIS ILLEGALLY DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE GAME!!!THIS IS NOT LEGAL, HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE!!!!

Instead of continuing to post nonsensical hypothetical situations why not stick to the facts of the Ivey case. Why not rebut the logic of the judge who ruled that Ivey cheated by using the dealer as his tool to manipulate the deck. Why not find some law and argue why this specific manipulation and specific deceit was NOT illegal. Why not provide an example where you or somebody else PHYSICALLY manipulates (or causes the manipulation of) the physical elements of a gambling game (dice, cards, roulette wheel, balls, etc.) so as to ensure them an advantage over any and/or every other player in the game and explain to us how that would be okay. You see, this is the element you continue to ignore in all your posts and hypotheticals.

Ivey caused a physical change in the normal and random position and order of the cards. In other words, he caused the "deck to be stacked" so that he could determine the value of the cards as they were introduced into the game. Please find me a game and offer a hypothetical where this kind of physical intervention in the normal and random chance associated with the game would be acceptable to you if you were the party losing money to the scheme.

Ivey and his cohorts concocted a plan to gain knowledge they could not have obtained without the lie and the plan. The end result of the lie(s), manipulations and the plan was that Ivey KNEW what the value of the cards were before they were introduced in the game. How could that EVER be allowed?

Would you like to play in games against people that knew what likely outcome was going to be and you didn't? You see, your entire "logic", as illogical as it is, is that it is okay to cheat, as long as it is a casino you are cheating. Your reasoning for this seems to be because you don't like casinos. Well, here's a newsflash. If you don't like casinos stay out of them. Then, they can't "cheat" you as you seem wont for us to believe they have done in the past.

BTW, I hope you notice Ivey didn't try this in Nevada. If he did he and OJ would likely be good friends by now!!

Good post. If you ask 1,000 people where they draw the "cheating" line, I am sure that you'll get 1,000 different answers. Each person's own definition will be influenced by their upbringing, their background, their past dealings with casinos, their experiences with gambling, their experiences with cheating, etc. That is why we have judges -- to make the hard calls.

On your specific scenario, I agree with you that I would probably not consider that "cheating". You may or may not have been deceptive (probably yes) but I don't think you created/achieved/realized an unfair advantage beyond the norms of the game in question.

If someone would ask the roulette table pit boss after you won a lot of money on that table (with that dealer, wheel, ball combination) if he would be comfortable with Dealer D dealing on Roulette Table R with Ball B the following night (assuming that, if they lost enough money, they tested the wheel and ball, and checked the dealer's procedures in the interim), I am confident that he would say yes of course. That setup is part of their normal gambling alternatives available to the gambling public. That particular table, ball, and dealer combination falls within the acceptable range of roulette wheels.

On the other hand, if someone would ask the Punto-Banco pit boss after Ivey won his money if the pit boss would be comfortable if a player asked for a specific type of playing cards, had all the high cards turned, prohibited hand-shuffling, and asked for the deck (shoe) to be reused over and over again for 24 hours, I am extremely confident that the pit boss would say hell no (especially, of course, after the casino learned about edge-sorting). Ivey created/achieved/realized an unfair advantage beyond the normal playing of the game.

So, as you can tell, I draw the "cheating" line between your roulette scenario and the Ivey Punto-Banco edge-sorting scenario. However, I readily admit that the "cheating" line is a fine line, and not some sort of neon sign flashing brightly.

I’m going to dissect a couple of his honour’s paragraphs from his judgment that I see as having some bearing on Ivey’s case:

The argument being put forward here seems to contradict what was earlier said in the judgment that his honour didn’t believe Ms Yau was complicit in the perceived deception and cheating from Ivey and it was believed that she followed all of the house policies when dealing the game.

The question that arises is how could Ivey persuade Ms Yau to do something when the above was accepted?

I understand that using statute law in this context to establish a definition of fraud or deception in the winning of any gambling game is useful given the lack of common law cases on the issue but it doesn’t, IMO, take into account at all the contribution that the Casino made in these events occurring.

Now, I am not saying his honour is wrong to cite them but he should have also stated that these provisions did not factor in any mitigating considerations such as agreements made between the parties and the bargaining positions that these parties find themselves in.

The omission is made even more stark given that his honour did not turn his consideration to Ivey contravening the criminal law but relied simply on civil law to decide Ivey did not have a claim.

The judge fails to mention that the casino ought to have known the likelihood or the odds that either party would win given the stakes involved, the reputation they have and the licensing responsibilities they have as a casino. Moreover, this isn’t a question of what the croupier knew or ought to have known but the casino given it was their game and their employee.

But the game was conducted according to the rules agreed to between both parties, how is that prejudicing the integrity of the game?

It may have been a different thing (barring CCTV footage, interviewing employees to be able to investigate the legitimacy of it post-game) if he did these things without asking or letting the Casino know but he was upfront about it all. Whilst the superstitious elements to which were later disproved were immaterial to the outcome of the agreed game.

You are entitled to your own opinion. The judge disagrees with you. (See post 2763 just above.)

There have been many cases where judges ruled one way and were later overruled. I am not a big fan of the single judge rulings because the odds of a bias increase. Basically the ruling states the casino has a license to steal. You agree to lose long term.

You interpret the judge ruling that a casino is not compelled to pay the winnings to a player who deceptively and purposefully affected the operation of a gambling game in such a way to give him an unfair advantage as tantamount to saying that casinos have a license to steal.

Glad to know we are remaining level-headed and not stooping to exaggeration or hyperbole.

Okay, first the judge's ruling makes clear that Ms Yau's actions in the cheating scheme were only as a direct result of Ivey's and Sun's actions. He explains that Ms Yau was asked to rotate cards in manner that allowed Ivey and Sun to determine the value of the cards before they were introduced into the game "in circumstances in which they knew that she did not realise that she had done so and that if she had, she would immediately have stopped play and sought the advice of her supervisors who would inevitably have put an end to it".

This is the judge's legal finding as to Ms Yau's involvement in physically turning the cards as requested by Ivey and Sun. Later in his decision he describes Ms Yau as Ivey's "innocent agent or tool". He finds Ivey admitted to edge sorting the cards, adding "He did so by using the croupier as his innocent agent or tool by turning the 7s, 8s and 9s differentially."

The judge makes clear he heard and considered Ivey's position of his actions as being "advantage play" by finding "He was not simply taking advantage of an error on the part of the croupier or an anomaly produced by a practice of the casino for which he was not responsible", which is one REAL definition of what REAL advantage play is. He is clear that he finds Ivey responsible for the cards being manipulated, not the casino or the croupier.

If you really believe it is legal and lawful to physically manipulate cards or cause cards to be physically manipulated into a non-random order or position in a gambling game so as to allow a participant to be able to determine the value of the cards in the deck before they are played please try this at home on your friends. Let's see if they agree.

You can not be this obtuse can you? The entire crux of this case is that Ivey manipulated the cards. He stacked the deck in his favor. Clearly, the casino NEVER "accepted" this and no matter how many times you say it it will never be true. The casino did not accept or agree that Ivey could manipulate the cards so that he could determine their value. He concocted an elaborate scheme to fool the casino in order to do so and then he cheated the casino with the knowledge gained from his deceit.

The judge is quite clear he did not consider the criminal law defense Crockford pled. He did not need to. Crockford's prevailed on their second defense. Because of this the criminal law defense had no need to be addressed.

If you read and understand the judges decision it is clear he understood EXACTLY what happened. He simplified the case down to the only thing that mattered "If the claimant cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings, if he did not, he is". Nothing complicated about that.

He then, for reasons he articulates in great detail, determined that as a matter of civil law, Ivey cheated. He makes clear the decision was as simple as that with the statement "Given that conclusion, which I can only express briefly and bluntly because it does not bear elaboration".....

He did not forget to mention this at all. He paid particular attention to evidence of the odds of the parties winning and losing in his ruling. He even commented on the progression of who was winning and losing.

With respect to reputations, not that they mattered, the judge did include Ivey's reputation as a poker player and high stakes gambler in his decision.

I don't know what "licensing responsibilities" you speak of, but to my knowledge there is no requirement in the licensing of a casino that the casino allow itself to be cheated if they discover the cheating after the cheating is done.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean, but if it is your point that the casino should have known they were being cheated the judge dealt with that as well, saying "It is immaterial that the casino could have protected itself against it by simple measures. The casino can protect itself by simple measures against cheating or legitimate advantage play. The fact that it can do so does not determine which it is".

Cheating is cheating. The conduct of a party being cheated can not be used as an excuse for cheating them!

I don't know if anybody here knows this but ... did the dealer/croupier realize that she was being asked (or, after the fact, was asked) to turn only the 7, 8, and 9's? Perhaps she was an inexperienced Punto Banco dealer/croupier and did not realize the importance of these cards in that game? Was she so obsequious that it did not dawn on her to think about what she was being asked to do?

How did the pit boss or anyone else monitoring the table not notice this? I have never played Punto Banco and cannot really tell from the judge's opinion when the cards were turned. Were they turned as the dealer/croupier initially took the cards from the shoe? In relation to the shoe (dealer/croupier) where were Ivey and his companion seated? They had to be able to see the edges of the next card to be dealt as well as close enough to see the face of the card as it was being dealt? Is this the normal seating arrangement or should it have seemed strange to the pit boss?

Of course, I need to emphasize that my opinion on whether Ivey "cheated" or not will not change based upon this information. I am simply curious as to the logistics (you have to admit, at some level this entire episode would make a good mystery novel).

They have to have turned them as they were put back in the deck because otherwise they would not have known which ones to turn.

Of course, cards are dealt face up (out of a shoe) in Punto Banco. And, I think, after a hand is over they are placed in a "used cards pile" (where this pile is I do not know). So they have to be turned either as they are dealt out of the shoe or when they are placed in the "used" pile. I think it must have been initially as they come out of the shoe since this is the only time they are handled one card at a time (I think). When cards are swept to the "used" pile, I imagine that all the cards in the hand are swept together. But I do not know the logistics of dealing Punto Banco.