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

Post by misja111 » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #134

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…

There was no criminal ruling in this case. The ruling is that the implicit contract of the game was voided, according to the Casino Control Act. Returning the funds is just unwinding the executed contract. You'll note that there are not even any punitive penalties being applied. Only the money earned during the game is to be returned.

Post by nommm-nommm » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 6:12 PM UTC

Steeeve wrote: post #128

at-fates-hands wrote: post #101

Two things. One - Ivy got greedy. Had it make it appear as though he was losing some of the games, he probably would've gotten away with it. If you lose, then win, then lose and are up at the end of the night, it's more plausible you weren't cheating. The way all of the articles I've read about it, he basically ran the table for several hours and then left. Two - you go into any casino and use card counting technique…

> Two - you go into any casino and use card counting techniques (like the ones the MIT team used) and within ten minutes, the pit boss will cut you off because its obvious what you're doing. When I was a blackjack dealer we had people counting cards all the time. Most were very easy to spot and were touristing. They never got harassed, but when you got one you would usually chase him away because for some reason they…

Post by nommm-nommm » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

gtlondon wrote: post #62

Interesting case. The real question for me is: Why does a Casino use card patterns that are not symmetrical? Considering how much resource is invested to make sure everything else is as precise as possible, this seems suspicious / unusual.

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

EdHominem wrote: post #147

pavel_lishin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know it now ; they did not know it previously.

Right, but it's not dependent on intent. The other casino didn't intend to leave the deck unshuffled, this casino didn't intend to buy marked cards. But, they did. So the games played with those cards(/unshuffled decks) shouldn't count. If the law doesn't function in both directions it isn't law, it's codified graft.

Post by georgespencer » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

solatic wrote: post #143

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…

Still convinced that it won't hold up on appeal. If the judge considers the cards to be marked because of manufacturing flaw that made the cards not perfectly symmetrical, then that manufacturing flaw would be present in all the casino's card games, rendering them all invalid and illegal and opening up the casino to lawsuits for return of losses from illegally operated games, which were illegal essentially because of…