Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 213 posts

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

#61

Post by blhack »

While I initially thought that he and Sun should be able to keep their money (I assume she was paid handsomely for this?), after thinking about it more, I realize how livid I would be to find out that the casino had done this to better their own odds.

I think that the situation is maybe slightly more complicated than it seems at first glance.

To those who didn't read the article: the backs of the cards were not perfectly symmetrical, so by asking the dealer to rotate the cards so that some were oriented one way, and some were oriented the other, eventually they were able to get themselves an advantage by knowing some data about the value of those cards before they were flipped.

Although I guess if everyone knew about this asymmetry (both casino and player), then perhaps observing it would just become a part of the skill aspect of the game?

Really interesting!

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

#63

Post by taejo »

dagw wrote: post #55
6nf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Obviously everybody knows that the house as an edge. The question here is if that is fundamental or an implementation detail, ie can the casino give up its edge in certain situations and still be considered legalized gambling.

Casinos certainly do give up their edge in certain cases: apparently they'll mix in slot machines that have positive EV in some cases, which can give them an advertising advantage (and the additional players looking for these machines will presumably play enough on other machines while looking that the casino comes out on top overall).

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

#64

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

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…

In Baccarat, the only variable is the stake - neither player nor dealer can influence the cards which are drawn, so the result is unchanged. Even if it hadn't been a private table, no other players could possibly have been impacted by Ivey's play. The result can't be determined or changed by seeing a single card, although the odds certainly were.

I've made a longer post explaining why I don't believe this judgment was correct, but suffice to say, you can't choose half a sentence of a law and decide that because that bit fits, your case is made.

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

#66

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

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…

The problem is that the jugde is trying to read the case two ways at the same time. Golden Nuggets argument was that a non shuffled deck removes the chance element, therefore the game wasn't governed by CCA at all. If you're pointing at a section of CCA and telling somebody they breached it, then by definition you're saying the game falls under the conditions of that act, and the remedy must therefore also be the one defined in that act (CCA 5:12-115(c) specifies for a $50,000 fine for an individual).

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

#67

Post by joshka »

probably_wrong wrote: post #36
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...

http://www.casinotop10.net/edge-sorting has a pictures of the Borgata / Gemaco cards.

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

#69

Post by Frqy3 »

boulos wrote: post #19
bagels wrote: post #10

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)…

Sun purchased a souvenir set of the purple Gemaco Borgata (with the punched hole) from the casino, so it sounds like these cards are in regular use by Borgata. Probably they use several different patterns, and Ivy requested this particular pattern for play.

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

#70

Post by joshka »

TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #59
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…

From the judgment: "The Court found that Ivey and Sun breached their contract with Borgata to play Baccarat in compliance with the CCA by violating N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b) when they knowingly engaged in a scheme to create a set of marked cards and then used those marked cards to place bets based on the markings." That's the finding I disagree with, and seems to be the point that the entire judgment rests on.…

For the most part, I agree with your reading / interpretation, but IANAL. There's a slight missing piece however. Often the regulations that cover each game in a casino state that the game is concluded at the paying of bets. In this context the "result" referred to is not the result of the cards shown or the Banker / Player result that are the two outcomes of Baccarat. It is the paying of the bets that is the result. If this interpretation is implied here, perhaps this would come up against Ivey.
Post reply on HN