Very interesting.
http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=12026...20140311150944
Printable View
Very interesting.
http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=12026...20140311150944
Wow, so he did this at the Borgata, too, and now they're suing him to get the money back.
They must have figured it out after the Crockfords situation.
I am on Ivey's side on this one, though. The article says he "cheated" a casino out of $9.6 million. No, he didn't. He noticed a flaw in the cards and used it to his advantage. Part of any casino card game involves using all information available to you, provided you don't utilize outside devices or casino insiders. Ivey simply used his eyes and a companion to help convince the casino to turn the cards a different way. That is not cheating. That is advantage play.
If Ivey loses this suit, it spells bad news for any advantage players, as they can be accused of "cheating" if they simply use their heads to exploit previously unknown edges in casino games.
Borgata has more of a reasonable suit against the playing card company, however, as their providing of a defective product caused this vulnerability in the game to exist.
I agree with Druff. This is 100% on the dealers for not recognizing that the cards were flawed when they brought them into the game and the pit boss for not shutting the game down at least momentarily if they suspected something was up. Ivey did nothing "illegal".
To play devil's advocate:
If you go into a bank and the teller accidentally gives you $10,000 instead of $10 do you keep it?
If you notice an ATM machine is malfunctioning and spitting out money do you get to keep it?
Theoretically, in both cases it should be up to the bank and ATM machine owner to make sure things are working properly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the charges seem applicable: "breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and racketeering" It's not as if he was playing and recognized the flaw. this was premeditated, evidenced by the woman and his growing history.
A similar edge sorting case was won by the casino btw.
It's a very interesting case that I don't find clear-cut at all
I see what you're saying from a moral standpoint and I understand that the casino hates losing in such a fashion, but in my mind it shouldn't be illegal. If the player, in this case Phil Ivey, played no part whatsoever in the flaws occurring or marking the cards then they have done nothing wrong. If a casino chose the ban this player like a BJ card counter then so be it but they should not be trying to prosecute someone for the results of their own incompetence as either the dealer, the pit boss, or the surveillance team should catch these types of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Any casino edge you can find as long as it don't require you to use any sort of "device" is fair game imo. If the casino leaves themselves vulnerable because of something on the back of the cards or whatever it might be that wasn't placed that way from the player then they need to suck it up, fix the problem, and eat the money they are out.
Any casino can tell a player not to play there anymore for whatever reason refusing a guy like Ivey action but they shouldn't be able to collect on a lawsuit or withhold paying him for their own leaks.
Your examples don't really apply since if you withdraw and keep money that the bank accidentally credits to your account you can and will get in some deep shit. Banks can choose to prosecute you if you don't pay up and you will probably get a fine on top of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
And I highly doubt that there is any video proof of the Borgata's claims unless they suspected something was amiss at the time. Most tapes are only keep for 30 days, UNLESS something is suspect and they burn a few copies off and save the possible evidence for a later date.
-
Added: Now if a person or persons acted in concert with a person or persons inside a playing card company to design said flaws, and had a listing of orders, deliveries made of certain card designs, then there may be something to this and more...
they ain't still using tapes, and haven't for years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by RileyG
edit: I assume.
Thread is sad. Ivey, Ivey, Ivey.
Money is powerful stuff. If you know an angle, do you take it?
Here is another article with more details. It's basically the exact same story as the Crockfords situation:
http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...ing-card-scam/
I still don't see this as cheating.
By contrast, I was on the casino's side in a recent case against two video poker players.
These guys found a flaw in a certain type of video poker machine to where certain specific actions caused the machine to erroneously pay out 10x what it was supposed to. While these guys did not tamper with the machine in any way or use outside devices, they were engaging in a very specific, non-typical series of button pushes that clearly intended to exploit a bug in the machine. Thus, they weren't simply employing the optimal strategy to beat a game, or using extra information accidentally given to them in order to increase their edge. They were exploiting a flaw in the machine to make it erroneously pay out. That's totally different than noticing cards were manufactured poorly and talking the casino into turning them in a way to where you can see the flaws better.
Ivey was engaging in advantage play and should be allowed to keep the money.
Can you link this story or give us more details? How did they get caught? What were the consequences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Isn't it the casinos responsibly to replace the cards?
Exploit every edge possible.
Learn how to beat the casinos out of tens of millions.
http://www.iveyleague.com
:popcorn
I am loosely reminded of the 1966 Warren Beatty movie, "Kaleidoscope".
http://youtu.be/jzjzYo5-6zg
I reckon they're pissing in the wind, and will never be able to prove he did this... less he or an associate confess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Any video evidence will not be able to pick up the defect, he can simply say his actions were based on nothing more then a gamblers superstition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Na363glDoY
True to tapes vs computers, but nothing is archived for longer than 30 days unless a complaint is made with that 30 day period. This is not the NSA...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
More details.
http://www.flushdraw.net/misc/borgat...orting-scheme/
LOL @ the Borgota letting him play even after knowing about what he did. How could the casino be so stupid?
I spent quite some time researching this, and the NJ laws, so I'll do a tiny bit of spamming my own article as to why he might be found guilty. Mind you I don't think he cheated personally (seems more like an angle shot to me), but the way the NJ statutes are written it appears they have a case. it's not a slam dunk but they certainly have enough to move forward.
http://www.4flush.com/opinion/is-phi...rsey-law/16809
I'd liken it to calling a store and asking about their policy when items do not have price tags, and then looking for stores you can exploit by easily brushing the price tags off.
Maybe Ivey could strengthen his case if he could proved that he traveled with this companion and played that game on several occasions, while employing his "superstitious" behavior and actions, but my guess is that he only had those "superstitious" feelings once or twice, while in the presence of a guy who happens to be an expert at reading the flaws in cards.
I don't see beating a flawed video poker machine as cheating either. The casino sets up the machine - as long as the players don't tamper with the machine it's not cheating.
I disagree, because there it starts to bear similarity to the faulty ATM situation -- which is actually a crime if you keep the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueodum
Basically, if you can knowingly trick a financial device into overpaying, I see that as outright stealing. You aren't just using strategy or taking advantage of flawed gaming materials to give yourself an edge. You are actually telling an electronic device, "I know I really won $10, but pay me $100."
Now, let's say you are playing a video poker machine that is accidentally programmed to pay 90 credits for a full house instead of 9. That would give you a big edge, and you would crush it. That shouldn't be illegal (and in fact you should be able to keep the money), as you are playing the game with the paytable set by the casino, and you are not manipulating anything. It is not the player's responsibility to ensure that the paytable is designed to give the casino an edge. This would be different than playing on a regular paytable and then tricking the machine to pay out 10x the amount, even if that trick is a built-in flaw in the machine.
I want to know who the hell has the time money and effort to figure out a flaw like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI disagree, because there it starts to bear similarity to the faulty ATM situation -- which is actually a crime if you keep the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueodum
Basically, if you can knowingly trick a financial device into overpaying, I see that as outright stealing. You aren't just using strategy or taking advantage of flawed gaming materials to give yourself an edge. You are actually telling an electronic device, "I know I really won $10, but pay me $100."
Now, let's say you are playing a video poker machine that is accidentally programmed to pay 90 credits for a full house instead of 9. That would give you a big edge, and you would crush it. That shouldn't be illegal (and in fact you should be able to keep the money), as you are playing the game with the paytable set by the casino, and you are not manipulating anything. It is not the player's responsibility to ensure that the paytable is designed to give the casino an edge. This would be different than playing on a regular paytable and then tricking the machine to pay out 10x the amount, even if that trick is a built-in flaw in the machine.
I'm on Ivey's side, I was on his side when the news of Crockford's came out but I am thinking this one might not go his way. He is getting a lot of negative publicity right now and having two identical advantage play lawsuits going at the same time against two big corporate Casino's is a lot of Legal heat for even Ivey to handle, especially now that he isn't getting paid 900k a month and currently in a downswing online.
The Casino waited for a good time to strike with there lawsuit. Probably the last thing he needs right now is to lose a judgement for almost 10 million dollars. in my opinion it would hurt worse then not being paid like the Crockfords case because that moneys most likely come and gone, paid taxes on it, cashed out the associate etc.
It would be epic if he wins both and walks away with 20 million! but I think theres a decent chance he loses one & breaks even; if he loses both that would be a terrible precedent.
The ATM situation may be illegal, I don't think it should be illegal. I find it completely morally right to keep money an ATM pays you in error as long as you don't directly cause the flaw. God knows that there will be situations where a bank makes an error in their favor and innocent customers will never become aware of it. Banks should suffer the financial burden caused by their own mistakes.Quote:
I disagree, because there it starts to bear similarity to the faulty ATM situation -- which is actually a crime if you keep the money.
Basically, if you can knowingly trick a financial device into overpaying, I see that as outright stealing. You aren't just using strategy or taking advantage of flawed gaming materials to give yourself an edge. You are actually telling an electronic device, "I know I really won $10, but pay me $100."
There is no way to "trick" a financial device. Machines aren't sentient so they can't be tricked. The flawed machine is exactly like the faulty cards that Ivey took advantage of. The situations are similar and I think Ivey/video poker players are equally in the right, morally speaking.
The key for me is that the player is not CAUSING the fault, which would be sabotage and morally wrong, merely taking advantage of mistakes made by others. I liken it to finding a $100 in the street: someone made a mistake in losing it, but YOU did not cause it. While some would take the money to the police station or donate it to charity, I think keeping it is ALSO morally correct.
Thanks for the link-up; I've been super-super busy traveling and helping a friend (her mom passed on Saturday) and haven't had the chance to check in.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamGreek
I've been trying to keep the various stories I've written on this as objective as possible while still being entertaining and sharing some of the juicier allegations, but I've thinking about the case's viability.
I've read the full complaint two or three times. The Borgata lays out a pretty good case of premeditation and deception by Ivey and his companion, but if you were suing for nearly $10M, you'd write a good case, too. I think that both the Borg and Ivey can make some strong arguments in support of their positions. It depends upon whether the court finds that the premeditation/deception crosses the line into fraud, as the Borg asserts.
I actually think the case against Gemaco is a long shot on its face, but I think it's designed to induce an insurance settlement. If it was the Borgata that insisted on using a "full bleed" card design, I'd go as far as to say they have no chance of winning that portion of the case. When one considers that these decks came out of an order for something like 200,044 decks being shipped to the Borg, you realize there's no way that each deck can be microscopically inspected by hand, and the variations were very small and only appeared in certain decks. I have the photo from the case filing, and I doubt there was more than 1/32 of an inch in variance on the cards.
What does each deck cost in bulk on that scale? 25 cents a pack? 40 cents? I have no idea, but it can't be too much. So any examinations beyond occasional random sampling would never be done.
And... If the Borg doesn't use full-bleed cards, just as Crockfords did, this sort of edge sorting cannot take place. I suspect Ivey and Sun were hunting for casinos where full-bleed card designs were being used, just to exploit them, but I doubt they'd admit to that.
This is wrong. Borgata didn't know about the Crockfords stuff until his final of four visits, and they questioned him about it. I don't know why they let him play that last time, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna
I think thats one of the biggest things Sun & Ivey have going in their favor. They have zero incentive to turn on each other and cooperate in any way. They will keep their mouths shut and let there attorneys do the talking because there are no criminal charges being filed. They can't do the first to talk gets to walk thing the police use all the time so a lot of what they're alleging is going to be difficult to prove.Quote:
And... If the Borg doesn't use full-bleed cards, just as Crockfords did, this sort of edge sorting cannot take place. I suspect Ivey and Sun were hunting for casinos where full-bleed card designs were being used, just to exploit them, but I doubt they'd admit to that.
Also won't it be difficult to explain why you waited two years to file a suit to a jury? And how would they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the exact cards used in that game 2 years ago were defective?
If Phil Ivey wins this lawsuit, it's only because he spent a fortune on attorney's fees.
I'm sure the casinos win their cases in court almost 100% of the time.
This case will take years to resolve and probably cost $500K on each side.
Just for once, I would love to see Phil Ivey or some high-roller win $50 million at the Bellagio and force the casino to close down because they don't have the cash to continue operating.
:popcorn
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueodum
Let's say you win $10 in the freeroll here, and when I'm attempting to send it to you, Benjamin bangs on the keyboard and it goes through as $10,000.
Let's say I ask for it back and you give me the middle finger.
I would consider that stealing from me, even if the fault for it happening was on my end. You should not be able to keep money that was sent to you by mistake. Whether it should be illegal is a different story. I believe it's only illegal in a banking situation, whereas keeping money you're otherwise not entitled to (such as a company erroneously sending you a check when they don't owe you anything) is just a civil matter, where they can sue you and easily win.
But forgetting the law, I think it's morally wrong to see that a device can pay you money in error, and then take advantage of it to get that payment. That's why I feel those video poker guys were actually stealing, while Ivey was simply playing at an advantage and should be allowed to keep his winnings. Huge difference there. I'm sure you agree with me about Ivey, but your opinion is even more extreme, basically that anyone who finds money in any way should be able to keep it.
Yes, it is an interesting case for exactly that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by haleyh
There is no doubt that Ivey engaged in both premeditation and deception, so the courts may not be too impressed by the "advantage player" argument that Ivey is going to use as a counter. Personally I would rule in Ivey's favor, but I could easily see him losing this one.
Unfortunately, a victory against Ivey here could be a landmark case against advantage players, to where any time the casinos can prove deception/premeditation, they can successfully sue players to get money back. If you think about it, the old card counting teams were definitely engaging in deception and premeditation (albeit a bit differently than what Ivey did), yet their actions were considered legal.
I just hope that advantage play doesn't eventually become synonymous with cheating. CNN already had an article with the headline, "Casino sues poker star for cheating".
Federal Judge yesterday ordered Borgata to tighten its case up against Ivey. U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman noted the Borgata complaint
"did not properly allege the citizenship of the parties and
WHEREAS, Federal courts have an independent obligation to address issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and may do so at any stage of the litigation; [and]
WHEREAS, the complaint alleges that plaintiff Marina District Development Co., LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa (“Borgata”) is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in New Jersey; but
WHEREAS, the complaint does not list each member of the LLC, and each member’s citizenship; and
WHEREAS, the Third Circuit has held that the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of each of its members; and
WHEREAS, the complaint alleges “upon information and belief” that defendant Phillip D. Ivey, Jr., is a “citizen of the United States currently residing in Mexico”; but
WHEREAS, the complaint does not allege the particular State within the United States in which Ivey is a citizen; and
WHEREAS, the complaint alleges “upon information and belief” that defendant Cheng Yin Sun is a “resident” of the State of Nevada; but
WHEREAS, the complaint does not allege the State in which Sun is a “citizen”
Therefore, it is on this 14th day of April, 2014,
ORDERED that plaintiff shall have ten (10) days to amend its complaint to properly comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...pro-phil-ivey/
Very interesting. Looks like the federal judge, on his own, is asking the Borgata for more info to prove that the federal court has jurisdiction over the case. Note: If any parties on both sides of the "v." (i.e., Borgata v. Ivey, etc.) are citizens of the same state, then the federal court will dismiss the case for lack of "diversity" and it must be filed in state court instead. This apparently INCLUDES the citizenship of EACH member of the Borgata limited liability company. Dismissal from federal court due to lack of diversity would be a huge blow to the Borgata, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrett
I'm a little less sympathetic to Ivey than most of you, just because he's been a dick on earlier occasions. When I wrote a story for fuse about the initial Crockfords case, Ivey's lawyers threatened to sue fuse because I used the word "cheating" in it somewhere, despite the fact that that's exactly what Crockfords claimed by not paying his winnings. Now that the Borgata lawsuit specifically includes the word "fraud," I doubt anyone else will have to put up with any more crap like that, particularly if big mainstream outlets are using "cheating" and other like-meaning words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Mind I get threats like that all the time, and they do usually come from asshats. Objectively, I don't really care who wins, but personally, fuck Phil Ivey.
Transactions between two individuals are different. I would feel morally bound to return the $10,000 because this is a transaction between "equals". Video poker is much different. The casino sets out a machine to provide "entertainment" at a profit. If it sets the machine in a faulty manner and someone is smart enough to take advantage of the fault THAT THE CASINO CREATED/ALLOWED, then the individual should be entitled to benefit. Normally, the large corporation has a big power advantage over the individual and in fact controls the gambling experience to a very large degree. Because of this, I think we should always err on the side of the individual in any dispute unless tampering can be proven.Quote:
Let's say you win $10 in the freeroll here, and when I'm attempting to send it to you, Benjamin bangs on the keyboard and it goes through as $10,000.
Do you remember Cherry Masters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daly
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...ddyjPUdyk4_r6E
I bought a pdf off of Ebay back around 2000 for $10 that detailed a software glitch that could be exploited. Back during that time, Alabama allowed those machines but the operators were legally only able to pay out in $5 denomination gift certificates to retail stores. I hit an "arcade" near the bar I worked at that had quarter machines(most cherry masters were a nickel a point) for over $2K in one day then turned around and sold the gift certs back to the owner for 80 cents on the dollar. I hit every place within 50 miles of me that had them for around 2 months before that model machine was pulled. I probably profited somewhere in the neighborhood of $8K in that time and never got caught.
It's actually illegal to keep it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav...nk_errora1.asp
I'm not sure about NJ law when it comes to cheating at a casino, never mind the rules on the books on taking advantage of a house-created flaw (I know casinos do have the right to 86 anyone for anything at anytime).
It should be gentleman's rules........but lobbyists and lawyers don't abide by those.
Here's a report on the motion to dismiss filed by Ivey's lawyers. I honestly think that the judge may take a good long look at their assertion that the Borgata allowed him to keep playing in hopes that he would lose it all back and only decided to sue when he didn't.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...of-sheer-skill
Quote:
Phil Ivey, who just won his 10th career WSOP bracelet last month, has responded to the Borgata’s $9.6 million lawsuit against him by trying to get the case dismissed. Ivey’s legal team filed a motion on Wednesday, saying that the poker pro didn’t cheat while playing high-stakes mini-baccarat in 2012, but instead used skill to take the house for bundles of money.
“Each and every penny of [Ivey’s] winnings was the result of sheer skill,” his lawyers wrote in the scathing 23-page motion. They said that in no way was Ivey’s method of “edge sorting” illegal. “Plantiff alleges that Ivey’s exquisite power of discernment somehow transforms his play into cheating and swindling,” Ivey’s camp shot back in response to the 58-page complaint.
Ivey and a partner were accused of being able to spot manufacturing defects in the back of playing cards to gain an edge over the house and take the joint for more than $9 million. The casino eventually went after Ivey for the money he won, saying it was won illegally. The casino said it violates New Jersey gaming rules—implying it’s harmful to the casino industry in Atlantic City.
Lawyers for Ivey argued that the Borgata’s “complaint is…nothing more than an attempt to justify its own negligence, motivated by its subjective intent to take as much money from Phil Ivey as it could during his specially arranged and agreed visits” to the casino.
At no point did Ivey or his female companion touch the cards or any other gaming equipment, the motion to dismiss said. Lawyer’s for the defendants said that any casino employee could have noticed the asymmetrical patterns in the cards that gave Ivey the 6.765-percent edge.
Ivey’s lawyers also said that a six-month statute of limitations has passed.
Borgata “voluntarily chose to grant every single request because it wagered defendant Ivey would lose his multi-million dollar deposits and hopefully more. Plantiff only now alleges that its own game was illegal because it lost that wager,” the motion added. In other words, Ivey’s legal team claimed the casino wouldn’t have cried foul if the edge sorting didn’t result in Ivey winning.
Atlantic City is stuck in crisis mode, as two casinos there have closed this year so far, and a third could soon be on the way. Casino revenues have been declining since 2006.
The Borgata vs. Phil Ivey saga is especially dramatic considering it’s the town in which the now-legendary gambler got his first taste of casino gambling during the mid-1990s.