41–50 of 213 posts
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-player-l...
http://www.flushdraw.net/news/eight-surprising-details-phil-...
The full legal judgment is available here, and may provide insight into why this activity was also ruled illegal in the USA:
https://www.888casino.com/blog/sites/default/files/ivey_croc...
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…
There's an interesting side story to this. While Ivey was conducting this scheme at the Borgata, a famous advantage gambler named Don Johnson happened to be there at the same time. Johnson is mostly famous for beating Atlantic City casinos out of $15M playing blackjack using their overly generous rebate policies for the highest of rollers, though he has also made hundreds of millions of dollars beating horse racing using algorithms that he paid to have created. Bloomberg did a 45 minute video on him [1] and here's a writeup if you prefer [2]. Johnson and Ivey are friends.
When Johnson walked by the high limit room and happened to see Phil playing baccarat with piles of $100,000 plaques in front of him, accompanied by a woman that he normally wouldn't be with, he immediately knew that something wasn't right. He walked up and tried to talk to Phil, who told him "it's not a good time right now". Don said "au contraire my friend, I don't know what's going on but it looks like a great time" lol. Johnson actually sat down and, figuring that Ivey knew what he was doing, copied Ivey's bets until Ivey made it known that he was serious about being alone with his companion at the table. Johnson won but was not sued or asked to return the money. Johnson told this story on an advantage gambling podcast [3].
So yes, anyone that knew anything about Phil should have instantly known that he would not be playing a negative expectation game for such high stakes without an advantage. Having heard several gaming attorneys weigh in on this issue, I do believe that the current decision in the US will be overturned, although it is unlikely that the case in London will be.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpnnaksXNM
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. Ma…
Further, in order for a marking to count, it has to "tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game." If the only mistake that the dealer makes is some form of an information leak, and no one modifies their behavior based on the information being leaked, then this condition would not be met.
If, instead, the dealers mistake changed the odds of the game regardless of if the player acted on it, the this clause would be invoked. Indeed, this is likely the intended case of this clause, as the alternative is that the house can cheat.
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…
>As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating 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 aga…
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…
In that case anyone who lost a game of baccarat (or any card game) played with those type of cards at anytime in NJ has a case against the casino and could sue to get the money back because the contract was illegal. I wonder if those are standard cards used at the casino ... they do offer them as souvenirs so it seems like they might be. If they are used by the casino or other casinos for games, that's probably thous…
"knowingly to use or possess any marked cards"
This is the real wtf. Ivey could have easily used his own money to play craps, what does this have to do with ANYTHING?
"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?
So, sure, everyone knows the house has an edge, but saying that the purpose of legalized gambling is to enrich the casino is a very different claim.
> reflecting the baccarat cash as well as $500,000 won using some of the winnings at craps This is the real wtf. Ivey could have easily used his own money to play craps, what does this have to do with ANYTHING?
If you are going to not cheat like those guys - quit while you are ahead.
"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?