How A Professional Poker Player Conned a Casino Out of $9.6 Million (washingtonpost.com) 406
Phil Ivey is a professional poker player who's won ten World Series of Poker bracelets -- but he's also got a new game. An anonymous reader write:
In 2012, Ivey requested that the Borgata casino let him play baccarat with an assistant named Cheng Yin Sun while using a specific brand of playing cards -- purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards -- and an automatic shuffler. He then proceeded to win $9.6 million over four visits. The pair would rotate certain cards 180 degrees, which allowed them to recognize those cards the next time they passed through the deck. (They were exploiting a minute lack of a symmetry in the pattern on the backs of the cards...)
But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not use cards whose values would be known to them -- and ordered them to return the $9.6 million [PDF]. "What this ruling says is a player is prohibited from combining his skill and intellect and visual acuity to beat the casino at its own game," Ivey's attorney told the AP, adding that the judge's ruling will be appealed.
The judge also ruled Ivey had to return the money he later won playing craps with his winnings from the baccarat game -- though the judge denied the casino's request for restitution over the additional $250,000 worth of goods and services they'd "comped" Ivey during his stay.
But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not use cards whose values would be known to them -- and ordered them to return the $9.6 million [PDF]. "What this ruling says is a player is prohibited from combining his skill and intellect and visual acuity to beat the casino at its own game," Ivey's attorney told the AP, adding that the judge's ruling will be appealed.
The judge also ruled Ivey had to return the money he later won playing craps with his winnings from the baccarat game -- though the judge denied the casino's request for restitution over the additional $250,000 worth of goods and services they'd "comped" Ivey during his stay.
Remember kids! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!
That's exactly it though, the local government grants an exception to the casino allowing it to run rigged games of chance in return for a portion of the profits.
The only winning move is not to play.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of "winning".
If you are entertained by playing games of chance, the small percentage the house takes is your bill for the night's entertainment. Everybody knows the deal going in.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody knows the deal going in.
Sort of. Some people think they're "lucky", or have a gambling addiction. Casinos know this and actively try to exploit this (very real) weakness in humans. The casino is using its intelligence to maximize the profits, and exploit a property it's noticed about players. They'll go as far as call up people (often problem gamblers) to encourage them to come to the casino through comps, etc. This isn't a secret, and it genuinely ruins peoples lives. Real harm is done here. What if your bartender called an alcoholic patron he hadn't seen in a while and asked them to come on down to the bar for free drinks on him?
When a person does the same thing and exploits a weakness in its system (that was NOT ruled to be illegal) it's considered wrong? Turnabout is fair play.
Re: (Score:3)
$DEITY forbid they should have a marketing department.
The casino doesn't know (and may in fact not be allowed to know) who has a gambling problem. All they know is that a long-time customer has stopped coming, so they fire up the marketing machine and incentivize future business. To use your analogy, the bartender might pass a known regular on the street, say "I haven't seen you in a while", and offer a drink on the house next time the customer comes in.
Yes, some people think they're lucky. Some people are
Re: (Score:3)
The casinos know who has problems, just like they know they tamper with the air to make people feel more euphoric
How do they tamper with the air? Do they increase the level of oxygen? That's insidious! It would also make cigarettes burn faster, assuming people were allowed to smoke indoors.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Insightful)
Turnabout is fair play.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Marked cards are cheating, period. He knew it was cheating and is only sorry he got caught.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Informative)
They agreed to the cards (Score:2, Insightful)
The Casino agreed to the cards, so this forms part of the rules. This agreement was also up front, a choice both sides were free to agree or not and the Casino agreed it.
Reversing this decision is cheating for the Casino.
Re:They agreed to the cards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They agreed to the cards (Score:5, Informative)
Marked cards are cards that allow you to distinguish different cards (or here: different card orientations) without seeing their front side. It is of no importance if these marks where printed in the factory or added manually to an originally unmarked set.
You can buy marked cards in any magicians store that are specifically designed to be marked and are in no way tampered with.
Re: (Score:3)
This same trick works with the common "bicycle" brand cards most home players use. Look at the wheel in the center of the back pattern. There are three wings attached- and two are on the same side - so if you take a deck with all cards sorted same-way up, and flip one over, you can tell it apart later.
We used to do a simple "is this your card" trick in school using exactly that approach, sort the cards upfront so all the wheels are two-wings-up, let the person draw a card, then ask them to put it back - loo
Re: (Score:3)
These look pretty symmetrical to me?
http://playingcards.wikidot.co... [wikidot.com]
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Funny)
I once went to LV and came back with 10x more than I took. It was the only time I've been there and no desire to go back
Same thing happened to me, Shit, I was on intravenous antibiotics for a month, my dick nearly fell off. Never going back there again.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Funny)
I went there in a $20,000 dollar car. I came home on a $300,000 bus.
Re: Remember kids! (Score:5, Informative)
They are not rigged. It's a tax on those with poor reasoning skills. Twenty some odd years ago I worked as a dealer in a casino. One night this really drunk guy swore the big six wheel was being stopped by the carpeted box under the table. Security handed him the box and kicked him out the front door.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They exploit human weakness in a deliberate manner to harm those that play the games. That's "rigged" even if it doesn't explicitly change the payout numbers.
Re: Remember kids! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. It's actually rigged. Watch the slots.
Modern slot machines don't use the mechanics of the spinning wheels to decide if you win or lose. When you pull the lever (or push the button) the computer generates a random number and decides immediately if you are going to win or lose. The spinning wheels are just a display or a user interface to indicate the result to you. Where the wheels are going to stop is decided by the computer before they even start spinning. Yes, when the computer has decided that you are going to lose, it will spin the wheels and stop them so it looks like you were going win - it's part of the psychology of the game. Is it psychologically rigged, yes. Is it mathematically rigged, no.
Re: Remember kids! (Score:5, Interesting)
but it's amazing the number of times they cheat people out of big jackpots by declaring that the machine had malfunctioned...
https://newsone.com/3578167/ca... [newsone.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the newer machines are fairer, but ones that operate that way certainly are mathematically rigged because the expectation is that the player influences the outcome.
Where is it ever implied that the outcome is affected by the way the player spins? The different buttons (on the very few machines I have experience on) just tell the machine how much you want to spin on this play. When playing, I in no way inferred that there was a "winning" button vs a "losing" button. On the older machines, did people train to pull the lever "just right" for a jackpot? No - They just spun and accepted the outcome. I suggest that there is no expectation that the player influences the outc
Re: (Score:3)
Only a fool goes up to a slot machine and expects to have a chance of winning.
Of course you have a chance of winning.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Interesting)
The games are mathematically in the house's favor...is that what you consider rigged? The odds are known for anyone who cares to look.
A casino wouldn't dare rig a table to make sure they win, if they got caught they would lose their gambling license. And, considering the amount of underpaid workers that roll through casinos, one of them would inevitably rat them out.
Personally I think Ivey should keep the money here, but he was an idiot about it. Had he done it just once he would have gotten away with it, but he dug too deep like the dwarves of Moria.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember kids! Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!
Its not cheating you out of anything when you ignore the fact that the statistical probabilities are against you. As my statistics 101 professor explained (literally, he used casino games examples all the time) you are either:
(1) Paying the "I didn't pay attention in math class" tax.
or
(2) Paying someone else to play cards with you.
Re: (Score:3)
I got your point. However, please not that (state sponsored) lottery, scratch-offs etc. have waaaay worse payout than blackjack or roulette.
If you go to a casino, you go in order to be entertained (yes, partly pay someone to play cards with you, but also): watching dressed up people lose and win money and observe how they react to it and experience the thrill of occasionally winning yourself. Now, if you go with the intention to make a fortune, you will be most likely utterly disappointed.
When I am in Vegas
Re:Its not cheating (Score:5, Informative)
Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law. Any contract you may sign is void when the deal is illegal under current law. If the casino wasn't told upfront the cards were marked, it would also void the contract even if the law didn't make it illegal to use marked cards in the first place, because the casino would never have gone through with it if they had known upfront.
Re: (Score:3)
Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law
So why isn't the casino getting reamed? They're the ones who supplied the marked cards. Presumably, they're using them in other cases as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the hell did they allow him to select the cards to use anyway? Doesn't that seem like a really obvious scam, with no other reasonable purpose other than rigging the game?
Re:Remember kids! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!
How exactly are the casinos cheating?
The odds are certainly in their favor, as any reasonable person knows. They don't have to cheat to make lots of money.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How exactly are the casinos cheating?
They paid politicians to write the law in their favor.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK there was a campaign about a related issue that Fruit Machines* would offer a gambles with a pre-determined outcome.
See http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/fairplay/fruit/fruit1.htm [excellentcontent.com]
The outcome of this is that manufacturers were required to add a small sticker saying this was the case.
*Fruit Machines are similar to Slot Machines but a difference is that they're compensated not fully random. This basically means that the more money has gone in the more likely it is to pay out and visa-versa.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Informative)
"They don't have to cheat to make lots of money"
But they go to great lengths to prevent card counters from playing or where they're prevented by law from banning them, they harass or physically threaten them
Re:Remember kids! (Score:4, Insightful)
"they harass or physically threaten them."
i suspect that they first ask them to leave, and after that formally evict them, and inform them that they are trespassing. maybe they skip the asking nicely part; that's okay.
but if the silly gits still don't leave, well, yeah, willful trespassers are often treated poorly. this is hardly unique to casinos; i've seen more than a few slashdotters commenting in gleeful terms about how they'd not hesitate to shotgun anyone trespassing on their property.
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Informative)
If casinos weren't cheating, they'd actually display random results for every win and loss. They don't. They are cheating, and they know it. They cheat as much as allowed by law. That it's legal cheating doesn't make it non-cheating.
Remember kids: Only Losers Quit (Score:3, Informative)
The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss.
They are at least quasi-random, they are not programmed to give specified outcomes (you can look up how they work).
It is the game design (i.e. the inherent probabilities) which make it appear as if there are near-jackpots so often. The situation is comparable to the error people make when they think that 5 heads in a row is less likely than H-H-T-H-T. That is it is humans ascribing meanin
Re:Remember kids! (Score:5, Funny)
Unless your name is Donald J. Trump
So let me get this right? Realizing the great damage gambling causes poor families, Trump, out of the kindness of his heart, took over some casinos to put them out of business for the greater public good and at considerable personal loss I might add ... And this is the thanks he gets from you libtards? I can only imagine how ungrateful you're gonna be once he makes America great again!
Re: (Score:3)
He substituted the cards before the game started, by conning the casino in using that specific (flawed) brand of cards.
How did he "con" them? He asked to use that brand and they agreed. He never touched the cards nor did he alter them in any way.
He cheated OTHER players (Score:5, Insightful)
When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?
Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?
Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.
Re: He cheated OTHER players (Score:2, Interesting)
When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?
Yes, yes they did. Did you not read the article?
Guess not. What a goose...
Re: He cheated OTHER players (Score:2, Insightful)
He also got a green light from the casino on all the things he requested. I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all. They should have just denied his request knowing he was asking for these things to gain an advantage. They gambled that his requests would give him no advantage and they lost, but yet cry foul after the fact. A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He also got a green light from the casino on all the things he requested. I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all. They should have just denied his request knowing he was asking for these things to gain an advantage. They gambled that his requests would give him no advantage and they lost, but yet cry foul after the fact. A
As TFA explains, some baccarat players have may superstitions. The casinos have no problem indulging such superstitions when, on their face, they don't appear to impart an advantage to the player. The fact that the casino didn't notice what these players were doing until later is irrelevant. The players cheated. The judge made the right decision in finding with the casino.
Re: He cheated OTHER players (Score:5, Insightful)
The players cheated.
They did not mark any cards, they noticed a flaw that could be used as a mark. No rule of the casino was broken, they're nullifying it because state law says the presence of marked cards means the game is not lawfully played and thus void regardless of whose fault that is. But this means that all games played with this deck should be declared void, every win and every loss. Otherwise you're saying the casino can write the values on the back of the card, they win it was a fair game but you win and they call foul. So I'm actually with Ivey on this one, he's played with the same deck under the same rules as other players but they're cancelling just his games because he won. That's not a legally sound reasoning.
Re: He cheated OTHER players (Score:5, Insightful)
No rule of the casino was broken, they're nullifying it because state law says the presence of marked cards means the game is not lawfully played and thus void regardless of whose fault that is.
Exactly. A lot of people posting here are missing the legal reasoning of the ruling, which is NOT based on the fact that these two guys acted fraudulently, but rather the fact that the game was VOID from the start because it did not conform to the rules for LEGAL gambling and gaming under state law.
But there's something very odd about using that reasoning in this case, because the casino explicitly agreed to the terms of these guys -- including offering a specific card deck, instructing the dealer to turn cards based on player's instructions, instructing the dealer NOT to disturb card rotation prior to reshuffles, etc. That all is suspicious enough, and casinos generally do NOT allow players to dictate that many rules to avoid PRECISELY these kinds of problems. I'd imagine the only reason they allowed it in this case is because they hoped to sucker more money out of a high profile gambler. Unfortunately, their strategy of offering a MODIFIED GAME failed when it was they who were suckered out of money.
But why does the fault then fall only on the players? From the ruling conclusion:
As we previously found, by their own design, Ivey and Sun played games at Borgata that violated important provisions of the CCA and thereby breached their agreement with the casino. They must disgorge the benefit they received as a direct result of the breached contract
Yes, "Ivey and Sun played games" but the casino offered the marked deck and agreed to numerous manipulations that ultimately modified the odds. If this was indeed an "illegal game" under state law, why is the casino not culpable, at least for negligence for failing to adhere to reasonable gaming standards and thereby offering illegal gaming? If a private person ran a flawed game like this, they'd likely end up fined or even in prison. And likely any money transferred during illegal gaming would be confiscated.
I'm fine if the casino wants to argue that it engaged in offering an illegal game, but by doing so, they should submit to being punished according to provisions for offering illegal gaming in their state (including government confiscation of winnings). But if they don't want to argue they were engaging in illegal gaming by THEMSELVES offering marked cards, etc., then they'll likely just have to admit they were fools and just live with banning these people from their casino in the future, rather than recovering money. Or, they could actually prove the defendants committed FRAUD in some way to void the contract. (And maybe there is enough evidence to support that; I don't know. But it's not the legal reasoning used here.) The way the case was decided is not very consistent legally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The judge made 3 decisions. 2 very bad ones and 1 marginally good one.
1) The players cheated at baccarat, those winnings are forfeit. This is a judgement call, but yeah I agree this is cheating.
2) The players bet ill-gotten money on craps and won, those winnings are forfeit. Bullshit. Doesn't matter what they did with the winnings. Maybe they owe interest on it but not unrelated fair winnings.
3) The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a
Re: (Score:2)
3) The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a game that they are favored in. They were cheating. The players broke their obligation.
In this instance, "comp" is short for "complimentary", not "compensation".
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure, sounds like a superstition to me"
"Can I alter the position or appearance of the cards, I think it will make me win" should always be viewed with suspicion especially since inverting key cards known way of cheating at card games (at least in the TCG community, I don't know much about casinos.)
The casino decided a cheat move was a superstition and
Re: (Score:2)
The condensed version of the casino's argument, afaiui, is that the state only allows non-rigged games (with some technical definition of "rigged" i can't be arsed to look up), and that since one party conspired to rig this game, the contract should be voided regardless of whether or not the casino specifically agreed to the details. It's not a totally ridiculous defense, given that the regulatory framework exists (whether anyone likes or not).
Re: (Score:2)
I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all.
The judge made a ruling based on the law. The law is on the side of the casinos. Yet another of many ways that the casino stacks the deck against you.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course casinos always win. Nobody with a casino loses money, unless they're really clueless or trying to cheat more powerful players.
I mean, can anyone think of someone so stupid and/or crooked that they lost money owning a casino?
Did you play in Europe? (Score:2)
Did you play baccarat in Europe. There are three major varieties of baccarat. In North American casinos, Punto Banco is common. I understand in Punto Banco all players are playing against the house, similar to blackjack.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Money is fungible, he made those bets and won." It isn't always that simple. If he didn't have the money in advance, then he wouldn't have been able to use it to play for scraps and hence couldn't have won that money, making his winnings proceeds of crime.
In fact, in many jurisdictions it's possible, and common, to have criminals hand over not just the direct proceeds of crime, but indirect proceeds like the returns on investment of stolen money as well. This is done precisely because if you cannot force c
Re: (Score:2)
When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
From the article:
In each of his visits to the Borgata, the casino accepted the same five requests. Ivey asked: that he play in a private area...
Re:He cheated OTHER players (Score:5, Informative)
When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?
Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?
Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.
incorrect, there are multiple variants of Baccarat including ones where you are playing against the house
Re: (Score:2)
In some form of baccarat, the players take turns being the bank (or house). In the baccarat you play at the casinos, the casino is the house. Phil Ivy and the casino's dealer were the only two people pushing money across the table.
Completely wrong!!! (Score:3)
When you play Baccarat in AC or in Europe, you play against the casino. Other players only bank games in places like non-Indian casinos in California.
Also, he did not cheat.
The casino has a duty to protect the game. They agreed to all his requests. This is the equivalent of the dealer accidentally flipping over the hole card at Blackjack and you taking advantage of it. The judge made a very boneheaded ruling and I hope that Ive appeals.
I get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I get this particular instance, it is sort of "cheating", but I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino. Yes, I know it is not illegal to count cards (I mean how would someone go around proving it beyond reasonable doubt), but casinos (except in NJ) are allowed to ban players who can win, which is mostly the same thing. ;)
Anyway, I try not to think about it too much (to avoid having my brain explode), and I just enjoy going to Las Vegas, with the inexpensive luxurious hotels, nice buffets, shows etc and before I leave I try to do my part sustaining the system by dropping a quarter in a slot machine
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know why you say you enjoy Las Vegas. The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap. The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.I did not find the shows enjoyable, and as a former wagering services IT guy, I don't waste money on wagering. I know the odds. Sometimes I was programming them.
As for the person doing the wagering - yeah, security folks have a saying - "JDLR" - just doesn't look right. Alarm bells should have been sounding at the oddly specific requests ma
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why you say you enjoy Las Vegas. The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap.
The best hotel rooms are not on the strip, or they cost a thousand dollars per night and up. The best place to stay inexpensively is a business hotel. They have lots of them, for obvious reasons. I liked Doubletree while I was there, it didn't smell bad and they had nice beds.
The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.
I haven't been in some time, but the buffet at the Rio was pretty good IMO.
If you can win, and you won't break even, why play?
To me the reasons to go to LV are drinking and fucking. But I quit smoking tobacco, so now it's pretty fucking gross.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's been 5-6 years, since I am currently in Europe, but last time it was $90/night to get a pyramid suite with jacuzzi at the Luxor. Turn off the lights, and relax in your jacuzzi under the starry sky - since, you know, you're in a huge glass pyramid (the largest one intended for the living) and so the glass "wall" in your jacuzzi room is also the ceiling... A year later I paid 500 euro/night in Rome for a seemingly well-rated hotel with jacuzzi suites (yes, I like my jacuzzis), and it was mediocre compar
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.
That's funny... that's exactly what they do.
I saw a segment on some TV show a few years ago that featured a guy who collects the abundant leftover buffet food from Las Vegas hotels, mixes it all together, and then delivers it to hog farms. The animals did seem to be enjoying it quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind where the leftovers go, that's an apt description of the guests at most casinos, especially those willing to scarf at a buffet.
Re: (Score:2)
I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino. Yes, I know it is not illegal to count cards (I mean how would someone go around proving it beyond reasonable doubt), but casinos (except in NJ) are allowed to ban players who can win, which is mostly the same thing.
It's the same in Las Vegas (in fact, all of Nevada.) Counting cards is not illegal, but casinos have the right to expel you and blacklist you if they suspect you're doing it. And they'll rat you out to other casinos, so you can't just go to a different one.
Generally, casinos are good at spotting cheaters, because their business model depends on it. In the case of counting cards, they start to get suspicious when your luck is significantly out of line with the laws of probability.
Re: (Score:2)
Borgota is in NJ.
Re:I get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly the rule "only the house is allowed to get ahead because they pay shitloads in taxes and you rubes don't" is enforced by the governments that get money this way. Breaking that rule by using your brain to take advantage of an edge case violates that rule.
Unfair, but deep down did you every really think it was supposed to be fair?
Con? (Score:2)
Con: ... is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. [wikipedia.org]
Persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them [oxforddictionaries.com].
A confidence trick
I don't see where he lied, so I think the word is misapplied. The second definition comes a little bit closer, but casinos are very much aware that gamblers are adversaries, not allies.
Re: (Score:2)
Con is the wrong word.
These players did not "con" the casino. They cheated.
It was clever, it was under the radar of the casino, and it was seemingly benign. That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It was not cheating. They never touched the cards and they didn't collude with the dealer. The casino management was dumb enough to agree to their requests because Ivy cultivated an image of a sharp poker player but a degenerate gambler in other areas.
It's the casino's job to protect the game, not the player's.
Every pit boss involved in allowing this play should be fired.
There is a legal definition for cheating in each jurisdiction that allows gambling, and Ivy's actions didn't come close to meeting the leg
Re: (Score:2)
Ivey was able to study the reverse side of cards in order to learn what was on the other side. It's similar to the referees handing Tom Brady's center lineman a wrongly inflated football.
FFS, I know exactly what was done... (Score:5, Insightful)
I get how edge sorting (the name of the technique used) works. It's been a known advantage play move for decades and explanation of this exploit has been in print both in advantage play (Abram's casino tactics book) and casino game protection literature(Steve Forte's book). Shame on paid casino managers/executives for not being aware of it.
It's not illegal to use marked cards if neither you nor a compatriot marked the cards. Look up the case law if you don't believe me. If someone accidentally bends a corner of a card, you don't have to pretend not to notice; you can legally use that info as long as you didn't do it yourself and the guy didn't do it for your benefit.
I've made the point in other posts, but it's the casino's responsibility to protect their games. The casino provided the cards, the casino trained dealer rotated the cards thus allowing edge sorting to be used, the pit personnel and surveillance observed this, and had no problems with it. Ivy and his partner never touched the cards and didn't alter the cards in any way. This was a social engineering attack on a casino's greed and incompetence, but it was not cheating.
This was a horrible decision by the judge.
Re: (Score:3)
They cheated if they broke the rules. Without knowing in details what the rules were, we can't say whether they cheated.
However we do know that a judge who knew in detail what the rules were required them to return the money. This being a civil case, we don't know if what they did was criminally illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Only half the people will agree with you, casinos are a shady business to begin with. What I don't understand is the other players, I would never agree to play with someone who wanted to alter things.
You haven't played much poker then. Players often make quirky requests that don't run afoul of any rules, whether out of superstition, to create side bets, or just to give other players something extra to think about. A buddy of mine played a cash game with noted player Phil Hellmuth once, and Hellmuth never stopped talking or suggesting all sorts of things, for hours. This is more common when playing with acquaintances but not unheard of at random cash games, while tournaments allow fewer shenanigans.
And
Opening Arguments made a podcast about this case (Score:2)
A "mutual obligation" ? (Score:2)
I wonder if this judge also believes that casinos have a "mutual obligation" to problem gamblers to make sure that they're not gambling money intended for other purposes? Because the way I always notice the headlines, it's usually "Man embezzles funds, gambles it all away at the casino." No one ever seems to ask the casino for that money back.
This
Re: (Score:2)
From the Story (Score:5, Interesting)
Playing with marked cards (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
and back in the mob days they bated you up or killed you for doing stuff like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Mutual Obligation (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand exactly how they violated any 'mutual obligation'. Ivey and Cheng made certain requests of the casino about how they would like to play. The casino agreed to their terms. Granted, Ivey and Cheng had some knowledge that the casino was not privy to, specifically the asymmetrical pattern on the cards. But this was something that the casino should have known (casinos provide the cards). Ivey and Cheng made no attempt to conceal anything from the casino.
If I engaged in some game with an opponent and I had a better understanding of the mechanics and probabilities than they did, would I be cheating? Would I be under some obligation to explain a playing or betting system that I had developed to my competition?
Player can play as "House" in baccarat (Score:2)
You're missing something here blackjack commenters. Baccarat's decision is to bet on "Player" or "House" to win the hand... so you can steal the house's advantage and turn this into a player advantage game. Play as "House" too much and you're offered an investment into the casino and the game is over. This is really a reason to invite a rich guy into the office space and take his money as either a loser or an investor.
Other player advantage games such as "Beat the Deck" are played to reward people who have
Fake news != Flawed news (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late.
Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
And BTW, it doesn't matter that it was the dealer who was rotating the cards, not the players. The players tricked the dealer into rotating them so as to change the odds of the game. You can't do that.
Re:Fake news != Flawed news (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late.
Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
And BTW, it doesn't matter that it was the dealer who was rotating the cards, not the players. The players tricked the dealer into rotating them so as to change the odds of the game. You can't do that.
Actually you can it's quite common in the game for players to have superstitions like this. Rotating certain cards for some mystical/superstitious benefit. The players asked the Casino if they could use this special brand of cards and the Casino agreed. The players asked the Casino if they could rotate the cards and they agreed. The casino got played. They didn't trick anyone, the casino shouldn't have agreed to that brand of cards being used without verifying that they were symmetrical.
They assumed no one could tell the cards apart and that's on them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the stuff about superstitions is all in TFA. That was the premise the players used to justify their requests.
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
Why not? The casino agreed to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
Why not? The casino agreed to do it.
It's not allowed because it's illegal. [shouselaw.com]
It doesn't matter if the casino or the law don't realize what they did until later.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess a lawyer could make a decent case out of it. Technically the casino altered "the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria" for the game, not the players.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Because the casinos wrote the law. That's basically why. Is it fair? No.
Re: (Score:2)
The law says that a player cheats when they "alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit."
My point is, they did not. They did not surreptitiously switched the shuffler nor the deck of cards; they openly asked about it and the casino agreed to the terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not something you would get away with at any Vegas Casino, but a known cheat is to simply increase your bet (slide another chip on the pile) when you have a winning hand.
Re: Fake news != Flawed news (Score:4, Interesting)
No different than getting casino to use dice you provide that pass the casino's checks for loaded dice but you otherwise know something special about that increase your odds playing craps.
If one learns that blowing on the dice for luck changes the outcome (say the breath causes that side of the die to be stickier), then the player, without touching the dice asks the dealer to let someone, anyone, blow on them, and you note the side that's blown on, and change your bet accordingly, you've not changed the long-term odds of the game, but have increased your knowledge of the next outcome of the roll.
The problem with these laws is that they confuse the short-term odds, the long-term odds, the odds of winning, and the odds of pulling a random card. Card counting is explicitly legal. Using skill to "change the odds" is explicitly legal. These people used a skill to change the odds. They didn't didn't change any element of chance. They didn't stack the deck. They just used x-ray vision to look at the cards, when the house still thought them unknown. The house played the wrong odds with them, but they did nothing that altered the fundamental element of chance. They could have lost money with this trick. Each hand was random. The house had just mis-calculated the odds with these skilled players. That doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like using skill to gain an advantage in a game of chance, much like counting cards in blackjack.
Re: (Score:2)
Very obviously you can do that. Well, maybe you cannot, but those two could.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything at a casino is now RFID/Camera/Magnetic tracked... there's computers recording video of your every move. This is a case of a hack to defeat the casino's randomness.
Re: (Score:2)
Electronic shufflers are USB devices connected the the casino's backroom servers. The hack here was that the cards were marked by uneven backside designs, so the random result was revealed too early to the player.
Re: (Score:2)
Forced error... they shouldn't have let Ivey select a deck that gave him the down cards' identity.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Baccarat is a game where the player selects to bet on "Player" or "House" where "House" has a slight advantage... a player who bets on "House" too often is likely to be given an offer to invest in the casino.
It's a money-losing party for the casino, but a chance to meet people associated with a potential investor. Ivey cheated with his selection of the cards, giving him more of a win ratio than the house would have paid in a fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice anti-gambling speech, but this is about baccarat where if you bet on "House" you have an advantage. This is why this game is only offered to potential new investors and not the general public.