Why are you being disingenuous to simply be right? Did the croupier agree to a certain brand of deck, and a certain type of shuffler that didn't rotate the cards? Of course she didn't. Did the croupier have the authority to rotate the cards on request without the pit boss' approval? Unlikely. Quit making this out as Ivey/Sun vs. the innocent croupier----it wasn't that.

Ahaaaaaa, the penny drops. The reason you are pushing this side so hard and disingenuously is because of your personal hatred of Ivey. Thanks for letting us know.

Including a strange SJW analogy for good measure....odd.

Not the essential card rotation. That request was made in Cantonese in a conversation between Sun and the dealer. That is accepted by both parties and undisputed in court.

It's pretty funny you think you have a monopoly on what constitutes cheating. Is it cheating if you use unknown information to gain an edge? Like if there is a weak dealer and you are using hole card info to play perfectly, is that cheating? Cause that's far worse than what Ivey did here.

You can only see the backs of the cards though, you can't see specific cards. You can only estimate what cards are what, it's not certain, and from what I can tell it was only 1 deck of a 6 deck shoe that was sorted (by the casino). Not only that the information is literally available to everyone that is watching the game, including the casino. The second day the casino agreed to using the same shoe----how incompetent can you be---it's actually amazing people think the casino is not culpable for their own loss here.

Again, this is the casinos fault. There is some vicarious liability here. Every time I go to my local casino and there is any mistake in payment or card dealing/flipping or anything whatsoever, the dealer calls the pit boss over. Why Crockfords didn't do it is beyond me, but a lot of things they did are beyond me. The rotation isn't enough to edge sort FWIW. You also have to have edge-sortable cards (requested and granted by a higher authority than the croupier) and a shuffler that doesn't include a rotation (also granted by the casino. They also, amazingly, allowed the same shoe to be used on day 2, which was, again, not the croupiers decision. There are many things that were 'essential.'

disingenuous: not candid or sincere, pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness, calculating

I don't see how my posts are any of those things. But since this comes from a guy that thinks Ivey should be cleared because the definitions of cheating include avoiding death or disaster by means of luck or skill, I see your point (?)

I've always been clear that I think Ivey is lying thieving scum, and that he and every one of the sleazebags that took the poker community for tens of millions of dollars should be scorned, ostracized, and jailed. They mostly got away with it though. It sticks in my craw that so many think pulling off these scams makes him some kind of hero, even while they become his victims.

It's a pretty apt analogy though. The more this guy thieves, the more you guys love him, the more excuses you make for him, even when you should understand that it is you that are his victims.

You are on here day after day ranting, calling people casino shills and haters and once again you show that you have not got the slightest clue what went on in Ivey's scam.

I don't think you do, you should probably look up what edge sorting actually is and then get back to us. You can't tell specific cards, you can only estimate whether cards are low or high. It's not like turning the cards face up, to be sure.

Except this really isn't an argument for or against what kind of caliber person Ivey is. If the casino had thought like you do, which they pretty much have the responsibility to do for everyone ESPECIALLY AT HIGH STAKES TABLES, then they wouldn't have lost at punto banco. The issue at stake here is what hand the casino had in their own losses (pretty significant), and whether or not what Ivey did crossed the line into cheating from what most people consider advantage play.

I for one don't think he had any information the casino didn't have, so it's not considered cheating in my eyes. For cheating to take place you have to take direct action to gaining a one-sided edge. Ivey made requests and the casino granted them. Even if what he did could be considered 100% cheating, the casino is still responsible for their loss.

So you are part of a gang now?

Ivey sorted the whole shoe. Six decks. He could tell whether a 7 8 9 was or was not about to be dealt. He crushed the casino with this information.

You have continually showed your ignorance throughout this thread and persistently insulted other posters. I am done with you.

Is that why he lost $500k until he found the deck that was sortable? Ivey didn't sort the shoe. Iveys companion asked the croupier to rotate cards, and that sorted the deck into all cards facing the direction they were originally cut in (like cut off the big sheet of cards), and it gave someone watching the edges a statistical likelihood that a certain card was high or low. You can then place bets for or against the dealer based on what you think he has. You don't always win this way. It's not 100% that your hand will be lower/higher than his. But it does give you a slight edge. What if the casino had changed out the shoe at the end of the day? What if they used a shuffler that included a deck rotation (standard)? How in the hell could they reasonably plead ignorance when something is obviously going on?

It's a typical cya when things go bad.

Your analysis focuses solely on what the casino did to excuse Iveys conduct. Iveys conduct is the basis for the courts opinion. Three judicial bodies applied the facts to the law and determined he cheated. Your theory that 4 out of 5 gamblers think edge sorting is advantage play means nothing. Perhaps you should first read the rulings before you preach about my lack of understanding. Frankly it surprises me that people continue to debate the issue when you clearly have not read the courts analysis and reasons for concluding he cheated.

I call.

Yeah sure. He has posted incorrect accounts of what went on eg from what I can tell it was only 1 deck of a 6 deck shoe that was sorted and continues to do so eg this drivel and that sorted the deck into all cards facing the direction they were originally cut in (like cut off the big sheet of cards). There is no point in debating with him.

i did think hmmm when I read that.

But then court “is a cat and mouse environment, it is an adversarial environment,".

I get what you mean.

Here's the thing though. The judgement didn't make much reference to what the casino staff should have known, or should have done etc. The judgement was largely focused on whether Ivey and Sun's actions were fair play or cheating.

I understand the desire of the "Evil Casino, Bad, Bad" crowd to harp on the casino's lack of oversight and the acquiescence of the casino's staff being major factors in the success of the scam. But in reality this aspect of the case is just a sidetrack which did not factor much in the decision.

No one here is advocating for legitimately scamming or cheating casinos. But geez, if I ask a casino to give me 7 million dollars and they willingly do then I'll ****ing take it. The fact they can get their idiotic decisions they made thrown out by a court doesn't make their decisions any less stupid, and it doesn't make the courts look good either. Stop quoting the judgement like it makes your position Ivey cheated unknowing innocents any more legitimate, because it doesn't. The casinos in question should have known better, and they should have done a dozen things to prevent their loss, but they didn't, so they're culpable in part for their losses, regardless of what the court says.

Well, since we're actually in a thread about the court case (see: thread title,) I'll have to decline your request to stop discussing the judgement.

As I pointed out in my previous post, you can go on all you want about what the Casino and it's staff should have known or done, it didn't really factor much in the decision. The decision was based on whether or not Ivey and Sun cheated and not on what the casino might have done to prevent it. Here's a really basic analogy if you can handle it: I leave my door open. You rob me. I could have locked my door. You are still a thief.

It's unbelievable that you have spent so much time posting about this topic while never bothering to read the judgement or familiarize yourself in any way with the details of the scam or the logic and case law behind the decision.

My feeling about Iveys behavior has not wavered one iota since since my first posts in this and the other thread. The court's verdict only supported my belief that Ivey cheated.

I find you to be the worst sort of troll; a somewhat noxious mix of Ivey fanboy fervor and "Evil Casino, Bad, Bad" irrationality combined with a level of ignorance that is probably only equaled by the amount of your dole that you dump in the penny slots, which you inevitably lose, thus feeding your your conviction that the games (and everything else) are rigged against you.

Let's make a deal: you go ahead and rant to your heart's content, and I won't bother reading your posts or responding. Mmmmkay?

That analogy is piss poor, because it assumes that Ivey is a thief when in fact he is a professional gambler looking for edges, that there is no knowledge that a thief is coming over to your house, and that what he did constitutes thievery, all of which you assume because the judgement says as much.

A more apt analogy, if you can handle it, would be that you knew a well-known professional burglar was in town and was going to be in your neighborhood, and when you saw him, you offered to play a game with him called 'can you burgle me?' Your safe and jewelry boxes are all fitted with loss prevention devices, your doors are locked and the alarm system is set. If he can successfully dismantle your systems, he gets to keep what is inside your house. If he can't he loses the $500000 watch on his wrist. Before the game starts, he asks you to disable the alarm and leave the key under your door, and open all your safes and jewelry boxes for him so he doesn't have to open them himself to which you agree. You wait for him to come over, he 'burgles' you while you were home, you did nothing whatsoever to stop him, and then later in court argued that you didn't know what burgling was.

That's great that the court's verdict reinforced the view you already had. You have a really interesting perspective.

You sound like the kinda guy who confuses ethics with legality, and uses appeals to authority to back up tenuous logical viewpoints (some might argue, the "worst kind of troll").

You're right. I should be nothing but abashed and ashamed that the top court of a western nation gave a decision that supported beliefs that I hold. What kind of troll must I be to feel that the decision of the court validated my previously stated opinion.

I'm pretty clear about the difference between ethics and legality. I was always comfortable with stating that in my opinion, Ivey's actions were unethical and dishonest. Not being a lawyer, I was less sure about my belief that his actions were cheating in the legal sense of the word. Of course, only a troll would say at this point that the court's decision validated that belief as well.

If it offends you that many of us who believed Iveys actions dishonest before the verdict now feel validated in that opinion, I say Suck it up, Snowflake. The court has spoken. The verdict is in. Ivey cheated. Case closed.

I just think its ironic you used a battered girl friend analogy to describe others

Please explain why.

I have stated very few opinions in this thread or anywhere else on this site where I have not explained my reasoning behind them. If you're going to slang me I'd like to know your reasoning. Are you being nasty in hopes of offending me? Is this just another Ivey fanboy cheap-shot?

My somewhat bombastic analogy about the girlfriend was based on my opinion that the Ivey fanboys in this thread only became more vehement in their defense of Ivey about this casino scam, even though these actions harm pretty much anyone who goes to a casino, even the poker players. Much like so many defend him about the Full Tilt scam, which hurt every one of us who plays or played online poker. And from which (despite popular belief among the fanboys) not everyone was made whole. And from which the beneficiaries made little to no restitution and faced little to no repercussions.

So please explain your post. Or go crawl back under your rock. I'm kinda getting past it anyway, now that the case is closed and Ivey is a proven cheat.

Hahaha, only the worst kind of trolls are still using the old "why u mad bro?" GTFO.