Judge: Poker pro Ivey, pal broke gambling rules in $10M win

Oct 21, 2016, 8:32 pm (16 comments)

Gambling

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — A federal judge ruled on Friday that poker pro Phil Ivey and a companion violated state gambling regulations in the way they won nearly $10 million at cards at an Atlantic City casino.

U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman determined that the pair did not meet their obligation to follow gambling regulations on four occasions in 2012 by having a dealer at the Borgata arrange Baccarat cards so they could tell what kind of card was coming next.

By shifting the odds in their favor, they violated the New Jersey Casino Control Act, the judge ruled. He threw out allegations by the Borgata that the pair had committed fraud, and the casino now has 20 days to outline the damages it says it suffered.

"Borgata and Ivey had the same goal when they entered into their arrangement: to profit at the other's expense," the judge wrote. "Trust is a misplaced sentiment in this context."

Ivey has won nine World Series of Poker bracelets. Lawyers for him and the casino did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The Borgata claimed the pair exploited a defect in cards that enabled them to sort and arrange good cards. The casino says the technique, called edge sorting, violates state casino gambling regulations. But Ivey asserts his win was simply the result of skill and good observation.

The Borgata claims the cards used in the games were defective in that the pattern on the back was not uniform. The cards have rows of small white circles designed to look like the tops of cut diamonds, but the Borgata says some of them were only half-diamonds or quarters. Ivey has said he simply noticed things that anyone playing the game could have observed and bet accordingly.

The judge noted that Ivey and companion player Cheng Yin Sun instructed dealers to arrange the cards in a certain way, which is permitted under the rules of the game, after Sun noticed minute differences in them. But he ruled those actions did violate state Casino Control Act and their contractual obligation to abide by it in gambling at the casino.

Ivey and Sun, the judge wrote, "view their actions to be akin to cunning, but not rule-breaking, maneuvers performed in many games, such as a play-action pass in American football, or the 'Marshall swindle' in chess."

He said "Sun's mental acumen" in distinguishing the tiny differences in the patterns on the back of the cards was "remarkable."

"But even though Ivey and Sun's cunning and skill did not break the rules of Baccarat," the judge wrote, "what sets Ivey and Sun's actions apart from deceitful maneuvers in other games is that those maneuvers broke the rules of gambling as defined in this state."

AP

Comments

TheGameGrl's avatarTheGameGrl

The casino is at fault for having defective cards and allowing the game ( hands ) to play out. But let's ignore that fact. This judge must have seen video to support the conclusion because the article isn't very clear on the evidence presented to conclude such a decision.

music*'s avatarmusic*

$10,000,000.00  Easy come, Easy go.  I would be upset.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

Quote: Originally posted by TheGameGrl on Oct 21, 2016

The casino is at fault for having defective cards and allowing the game ( hands ) to play out. But let's ignore that fact. This judge must have seen video to support the conclusion because the article isn't very clear on the evidence presented to conclude such a decision.

I agree that it's strictly the Casino's fault for using defective cards, but that doesn't mean the casino doesn't have a legitimate case. I've got no idea what the official state gaming rules say, but I'm comfortable assuming that the judge does know. Based on the ruling I'd guess that there's a rule that says players can't use defective equipment to their advantage just because the casino doesn't notice the defect.

American Indian's avatarAmerican Indian

I Agree with ALL that was said above.

I always liked Ivey thought he was a good Player but apparently Ivey's been cheating (was reading Related Stories) for awhile now.

I say It's the Casino's fault for having the bad cards they need too go after the Card Manufacture, their the one's that printed the default in the Cards!

It's pretty stupid Ivey had the Dealer turn the cards an make it easier to tell which were bad/good cards.

If it was obvious enough too tell that's Probably how he got caught! DUH

Sorry but I don't see how it's the Player's Fault that the cards were defective!

LottoAce's avatarLottoAce

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Oct 22, 2016

I agree that it's strictly the Casino's fault for using defective cards, but that doesn't mean the casino doesn't have a legitimate case. I've got no idea what the official state gaming rules say, but I'm comfortable assuming that the judge does know. Based on the ruling I'd guess that there's a rule that says players can't use defective equipment to their advantage just because the casino doesn't notice the defect.

you are correct it is the Casinos fault. the casino may have a case with the state. but maybe they shouldn't.
all the man did was take advantage of thier neglagence. whenever you gamble, sooner or later your going to lose.
I think the casino should pay up, shut up, learn from thier mistake and move on.
whats the difference between what he did, and someone counting cards in thier head while playing blackjack?

lucky6025

This is just the same thing when person wins at slot machine's and casino claims machine was faulty and doesn't want to pay. Should be Casino should be at fault no matter, unless it is cheating by means of the customer bringing something in that helps in winning. Casino then can go sue the manufactors of that product. Who can say how long a machine has worked improperly, so you keep pouring money in and not winning, yet win jackpot and casino now find its at fault. Same with the cards, who is to say casino did not notice this before and use it to their advantage. Their equipment, their responsibility, PERIOD.

reddog's avatarreddog

Being at the right place,(table), at the right time.

realtorjim

Quote: Originally posted by LottoAce on Oct 22, 2016

you are correct it is the Casinos fault. the casino may have a case with the state. but maybe they shouldn't.
all the man did was take advantage of thier neglagence. whenever you gamble, sooner or later your going to lose.
I think the casino should pay up, shut up, learn from thier mistake and move on.
whats the difference between what he did, and someone counting cards in thier head while playing blackjack?

You're forgetting LottoAce, it is illegal for someone to count cards in their head while playing blackjack.  How do they determine if this is occurring?  There is a distinctive play style when someone is counting cards.  Don't want a trip to the room without windows in the casino!  Bash  Why is it illegal?  Because it reduces the house edge.

RJOh's avatarRJOh

I wonder if lotteries have similar rules in case players discover a flaw in their games that can be exploited?  I've read they suspect players who continue to beat the odds of cheating but usually can't prove it without their cooperation. Wink  Bash

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Quote: Originally posted by realtorjim on Oct 22, 2016

You're forgetting LottoAce, it is illegal for someone to count cards in their head while playing blackjack.  How do they determine if this is occurring?  There is a distinctive play style when someone is counting cards.  Don't want a trip to the room without windows in the casino!  Bash  Why is it illegal?  Because it reduces the house edge.

I never got that rule. If one can remember 3 aces have been played, then why not? I have a very good memory so I am sure I would get kicked out. Lol It is hard Not to remember.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"I don't see how it's the Player's Fault that the cards were defective!"

Nobody has said it's the player's fault. The court ruling only says that the player can't use the defect to his advantage.

 

"all the man did was take advantage of thier neglagence."

Kind of like I'd only be taking advantage of your negligence if you drop your wallet and I keep it?

 

"it is illegal for someone to count cards in their head while playing blackjack."

Card counting isn't illegal in the US as long as you don't use some kind of device to do it, but casinos are generally allowed to ban people they suspect of counting cards. It's certainly true that counting cards is a legitimate skill, but casinos market it as a game of chance and the house plays their hand that way. Anyone who doesn't like playing it when the house has an advantage won't be forced to play.

Stack47

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Oct 22, 2016

"I don't see how it's the Player's Fault that the cards were defective!"

Nobody has said it's the player's fault. The court ruling only says that the player can't use the defect to his advantage.

 

"all the man did was take advantage of thier neglagence."

Kind of like I'd only be taking advantage of your negligence if you drop your wallet and I keep it?

 

"it is illegal for someone to count cards in their head while playing blackjack."

Card counting isn't illegal in the US as long as you don't use some kind of device to do it, but casinos are generally allowed to ban people they suspect of counting cards. It's certainly true that counting cards is a legitimate skill, but casinos market it as a game of chance and the house plays their hand that way. Anyone who doesn't like playing it when the house has an advantage won't be forced to play.

"Kind of like I'd only be taking advantage of your negligence if you drop your wallet and I keep it?"

It's similar to when Don Johnson won over $5 million playing Blackjack at the Borgata. The casino agreed to his stipulations that actually shifted the percentages to his favor. Ivey's stipulations that included a Mandarin Chinese speaking dealer should have raised a red flag but the Borgata agreed. Agreeing to the type of playing cards Ivey asked for was really stupid too.

Ivey is counter-suing the Borgata for destroying the playing cards they used.

grwurston's avatargrwurston

The cards aren't defective, it's just how they are made.

Edge sorting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edge sorting is a technique used in advantage gambling where a player determines whether a face-down playing card is likely to be low or high at casino table games by observing and exploiting subtle unintentional differences on the backs of some types of card, after persuading a croupier to cooperate by unwittingly sorting the cards into low and high.[1] Many packs of cards produced by manufacturers have unintentional edge irregularities. Typically all the backs of the cards in such a pack are identical, but the two long edges of each card are consistently distinguishable: the pattern is not symmetrical to a 180° rotation (half a full turn). During the course of a game, a player will ask the dealer, a casino employee, to rotate some face-up cards, perhaps saying they feel it will bring them luck. The dealer does not realise that cards are being turned so that low cards, typically, 6, 7, 8, or 9 are one way round, high cards the other way round, and that the edges are different. The dealer is also asked to shuffle the cards with an automatic shuffler, which does not change the orientation as a manual shuffle may do. The dealer is not obliged to comply with these requests, but will usually do so if thought to be due to gamblers' superstition or mistrust. Over the course of a game, low cards will tend to be oriented one way, high cards the other.[2] Once a significant proportion of cards have been rotated, any player who knows this can gain a statistical edge more than outweighing house edge by using the knowledge whether the card to be turned is likely to be low or high.[3]

A UK High Court judgement ruled that the technique, which requires the player to trick the croupier into rotating cards, is cheating in civil law, and that a casino was justified in refusing payment of winnings; this ruling would not be applicable if the player simply took advantage of an observed error or anomaly for which he was not responsible in, say, the backs of the cards.

grwurston's avatargrwurston

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Oct 22, 2016

I wonder if lotteries have similar rules in case players discover a flaw in their games that can be exploited?  I've read they suspect players who continue to beat the odds of cheating but usually can't prove it without their cooperation. Wink  Bash

I suppose if someone was able to hit Pick 4 straights 2 or 3 times a week every week, they would think they were cheating

because it would be way out of the 1:10,000 odds. Or they would say the person has to be spending thousands of dollars. But

who's to say it couldn't be done, and for a lot less than would be thought. Wink

RJOh's avatarRJOh

Quote: Originally posted by grwurston on Oct 22, 2016

I suppose if someone was able to hit Pick 4 straights 2 or 3 times a week every week, they would think they were cheating

because it would be way out of the 1:10,000 odds. Or they would say the person has to be spending thousands of dollars. But

who's to say it couldn't be done, and for a lot less than would be thought. Wink

Since the states know they are only paying out a 1000 and 10000 to one the winners has to be spending thousands of dollars or discounting tickets for other winners who want to avoid reporting their winnings.   If the a state was paying out more than the odds suggest, it would probably assume some of the winners were actually beating the odds and investigate.

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

Lotteries may be run by bureaucrats, but that doesn't mean they're all stupid or incompetent. They (or the people they employ) understand probability, and they rely on it.  That means that they know that unlikely things can happen, so they won't freak out if somebody happens to win a low odds game a few times in a row, even if they don't think that person is just cashing tickets from somebody else. They understand that  the law of large numbers means that some people will win more than average and some will lose more than average. Above all, they understand (far better than a lot of players) that each individual win results from beating the odds. Most importantly, they know that at the end of their fiscal year games like pick 3 and pick 4 come extremely close to the 50% payout expected to result from random probability.

End of comments
Subscribe to this news story