21–30 of 213 posts
"Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" Note that, according to the judge, the "fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" is for the house to always win.
Is this controversial? I assumed everyone knew that the casinos have an edge on every game they spread?
As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating, because they are designed to not only mitigate skill, but also luck, in favor of the house. The fact that the casinos have roped in John Law to steal back their winnings after they were taken fair and square is especially galling. If they were grown-ups, they would take their beating, ban Ivey and Sun for life, and change their processes to avoid being beaten aga…
Agreed. Ivey and Sun played by the house's rules, the house lost, and now they're trying their damndest to change the rules ex post facto into something that suits them. I find this a brilliant exploit of baccarat and I smile when the house gets pwned by something they didn't quite expect within their own rules. Borgata should probably be focusing their ire at Gemaco, not at Sun. Her skill is what won this, and I hop…
This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advantage. I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his characte…
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips…
As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating, because they are designed to not only mitigate skill, but also luck, in favor of the house. The fact that the casinos have roped in John Law to steal back their winnings after they were taken fair and square is especially galling. If they were grown-ups, they would take their beating, ban Ivey and Sun for life, and change their processes to avoid being beaten aga…
It's funny -- I'm as vulnerable as anyone else to a million addictive game mechanics that build on the same impulses that make gambling addictive. But actual real-life casino slot machines just don't work. I need to be like, evaluating the loot drop's fire resistance on a new helmet or whatever for it to be addictive. When you just push a button over and over again with no actual input it's just too obvious you are doing nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips…
The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result…
The (a) part of that law is written for casinos, not players, as it refers to dealing and operating games. The requirement is that they do this knowingly. The casino didn't know.
The operation of this game did not in any way deceive the public. No player was tricked. The operation of the game also did NOT alter the result of the game. The same side (banker/player) would have one irrespective of the rotated cards, as the rotation has no affect on gameplay and the outcomes are deterministic (no choices during play like in blackjack).
All that was changed as a result of the extra knowledge was which side to bet on. The game itself was not affected in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result…
Oh, so that's even more clear than what I thought. I didn't see that citation, my apologies. In that case, I agree even more with the judge's decision: a member of the public would not expect the meaning of the cards to be able to be "divined" by another player at the table in such a manner and the casino, had it known of the flaw, would not have used the cards, and Ivey undoubtedly used the mechanism to alter the re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips…
I have a few problems with this. The law DOES make a distinction based on who did the marking. Your quote clearly states that it refers to people playing the game, which would exclude the casino. The cards also weren't marked. The backs were identical. The dealer selectively rotating some cards is what made some identifiable. The law also says that the player must "substitute and use" marked cards. The casino made th…
This is not exploitable because it is within the casinos power to not use marked cards. Further, if the casino did use marked cards, and the player won; then the casino could invoke the same law and invalidate the winning.
This is essentially what happened in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco (the main precedent cited in this case); where the casino lost big as a result of using non-shuffled decks. Despite the fact that this was clearly the casino's fault, the court ruled that (regardless of fault) because the game was no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, it was illegal, and any contract based on it was void.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker. I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips…
The article links to the Judge's opinion [0]. The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b): "a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result…
I still think this was the wrong opinion. If the cards are not shuffled that is a clear violation of the rules of the game. No such violation occurred here.
There are no such rules about card orientation because usually casinos use ones with symmetrical backs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ivey did not substitute. The casino did not knowingly. I'm not convinced this was violated.
He did request that the specific cards be substituted for whatever the regular ones are, and that according to the impossible rules on being "identical" (see http://www.flushdraw.net/news/borgata-fires-back-at-cardmake... ) they were known to be effectively marked. I enjoy "Robin Hood" stories as much as the next person, but if he had walked in with his own deck of cards and asked to use them (and the casino agreed)…