Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back • Hacker News Board

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#31

Post by misja111 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 7:52 AM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #14

gizmo686 wrote: post #13

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…

2) is about operating or exposing a game with marked cards. So it forbids the house to use those cards, I don't read it as a criminal act for the player to play against a house which uses such cards.

Also I think b. is about the house: it is about owning or using such cards. The cards where not Iphy's, the casino was the owner and the one that was using them.

But apart from that, just imagine what the implications are if this verdict is correct. Imagine that you walk into a casino and play a card game, and you see that the dealer is consequently making a mistake so that the result of the game is not random anymore. The verdict is saying that you are still allowed to play, but only if you choose a losing strategy. If you would choose to turn this knowledge of the dealer's mistake in your advantage, you would commit a crime .. ?

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#32

Post by asher_ » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 7:57 AM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #28

asher_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As I mentioned in another reply, the particular clause referenced above is not what was used. However, your interpretation that the game was "invalidated" is correct. 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 happe…

I don't understand how it's not exploitable. The casino can't control whether cards get marked. They get marked all the time during regular gameplay.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#33

Post by baddox » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 7:57 AM UTC

6nf wrote: post #21

alasdair_ wrote: post #6

"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.

> 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?

It can't be controversial for anyone who is even barely informed. I mean, how do they afford to build the fancy casinos, pay the employees, etc.? There's no way it's a loss leader for the hotels or restaurants.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#34

Post by gizmo686 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:03 AM UTC

misja111 wrote: post #31

techsupporter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

2) is about operating or exposing a game with marked cards. So it forbids the house to use those cards, I don't read it as a criminal act for the player to play against a house which uses such cards. Also I think b. is about the house: it is about owning or using such cards. The cards where not Iphy's, the casino was the owner and the one that was using them. But apart from that, just imagine what the implications ar…

>The verdict is saying that you are still allowed to play, but only if you choose a losing strategy.

This is not my reading of the decision. Rather, my reading of the opinion is that, regardless of if you take advantage of it or not, the game is no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, and therefore is void.

Note, it is not clear to be that any "crime" was commited in this case. Rather, the ruling was that the game was invalid and therefore the appropriate solution was to return the parties to the state where they were in prior to playing the game. The precise wording (quoted from Golden Nugget) is:

"“Since the rescission of a contract essentially voids the contract, it follows that the remedy used in situations of rescission should be used in situations of voidance. Thus, since the contracts entered into here are void, returning the parties to their position prior to the formation of the contracts is the appropriate remedy.”"

Interestingly, in the Golden Nugget case, it was clearly the casino who made a mistake (failing to use a shuffled deck).

"The CCA isn't fault based, according to the judge, who explained that it's irrelevant whether the casino or the players are to blame for the mishap. It only matters whether the mini-baccarat game was authorized under the CCA, which it wasn't, the judge said." [0]

[0] http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5...

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#35

Post by zodiac » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:06 AM UTC

asher_ wrote: post #25

gizmo686 wrote: post #13

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…

Ok, let's get technical. 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…

I would say that the choice of what bets to place is definitely part of the game

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#36

Post by probably_wrong » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:18 AM UTC

lanius wrote: post #12

"Sun trained herself to identify aberrations along the left or right margins of the card backs, no wider than 1/32 of an inch" That is insanely impressive. Anyone have an example of what these look like?

Unfortunately I couldn't find those specific cards, but there's an example here [1] explaining how the system works.

[1] https://www.888casino.com/blog/baccarat-tips/edge-sorting-in...

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#37

Post by zodiac » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:19 AM UTC

josho wrote: post #2

Casinos where the rules ensure you loose even when you devise a method of skill and intellect to win, you still loose. Isn't that the very definition of a rigged game?

hmm, I've never heard that definition of a rigged game - do you have a source?

(Eg Webster defines rigging as, to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means)

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#38

Post by nstart » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:22 AM UTC

dm3730 wrote: post #7

The judge had a very odd interpretation of the contract and "maneuvered", it appears one sided to me. " “By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them,” the judge wrote, “Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling as set forth by [New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission.] Ivey…

> By this judge's reckoning, you have to just be a robot that sits passively and accepts all the hand exactly as dealt and not use any strategy to play the game to your advantage.

That's basically gambling. Which is exactly what the game they were playing was supposed to be. Pure chance. In fact gambling can be distilled down to that. Passively accepting your hand in the game and hoping for the best. That doesn't sound very appealing, but throw in human nature and biases and you get something quite addictive out of what is essentially a lopsided passive engagement.

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#39

Post by dnautics » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:23 AM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #14

gizmo686 wrote: post #13

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…

But that segment of the law is not MEANT to be an injunction against the players, but a regulation on the casinos. On appeal, the correct decision would be for the appeal judge to not require Ivey to pay back any restitution, and instead fine the casino for playing with marked cards (whether or not they knew they were marked).

Re: Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back

#40

Post by misja111 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 8:27 AM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #34

misja111 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2) is about operating or exposing a game with marked cards. So it forbids the house to use those cards, I don't read it as a criminal act for the player to play against a house which uses such cards. Also I think b. is about the house: it is about owning or using such cards. The cards where not Iphy's, the casino was the owner and the one that was using them. But apart from that, just imagine what the implications ar…

>The verdict is saying that you are still allowed to play, but only if you choose a losing strategy. This is not my reading of the decision. Rather, my reading of the opinion is that, regardless of if you take advantage of it or not, the game is no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, and therefore is void. Note, it is not clear to be that any "crime" was commited in this case. Rather, the ruling was that…

> my reading of the opinion is that, regardless of if you take advantage of it or not, the game is no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, and therefore is void.

If this is true, it means that any game ever played with those 'marked' cards is void. Since Baccarat is a winning game for the casino, it would mean that this verdict could cost the casino many times more than what it has won against Phil Ivy.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe that anyone who will now start a court case to claim his money back from a game with these cards has even the slightest chance to win. Surely the judge will find a way to interpret the law text in another way so that it again favors the casino.