Borgata Suing Phil Ivey for $9.6 Million: Claims Cheating at Baccarat Table
M
marteix
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Just to say that he's not an asshole.. in a world like ours you have to be smart haha
Ok, being honest(...) Well I agree that it can't happen no more and yes he has to be punnished... but not from all others casinos, just from this one. I believe he will change to a better person in poker tables on the tournaments, I believe people change
one appart is about this casino, security system was workin' well? hmm
Sorry i will read better this story... cause i didn't yet. Just said what I think
Ok, being honest(...) Well I agree that it can't happen no more and yes he has to be punnished... but not from all others casinos, just from this one. I believe he will change to a better person in poker tables on the tournaments, I believe people change
one appart is about this casino, security system was workin' well? hmmSorry i will read better this story... cause i didn't yet. Just said what I think
H
HomeBrewer
Visionary
Silver Level
I still have yet to read anything about what he actually did that was AGAINST the law. On what grounds is the casino suing? Did he force the dealer/pit boss/manager, anyone, to do this against their will? If he was simply asking and them obliging, then what did he do wrong? I would very much like to sit on that jury panel and hear the casino put on their case.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
IANAL, but after a 10-second internet search I suspect they'll be referencing the New Jersey Casino Control Act, which in its Cheating at Casino Games section states:
a. A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.
Long story short, where there are legal casinos it is typically against the law for player to try to cheat them.
I expect the casino will be trying to characterise Ivey's behaviour as fitting the above definition of "swindling and cheating". Whether they'll be successful in that is another question, but it's a very broad definition they've got to work with there...
IntenseHeat
Legend
Bronze Level
As to whether or not Phil Ivey should be banned from casinos if he is found guilty, I think he should be treated as any of the rest of us would be treated. Any of us would find ourselves banned. Yeah, I know, he's a professional poker player/gambler and casinos are where he makes his living. That's probably something that he should have considered before attempting to take advantage of the casino.
I'm not sure that there is any across the board casino ban that can be issued. I would, however, expect Borgata to ban him from their casinos and properties regardless of the outcome of the legal suit, as is their right. Remember, card counting is not illegal. Because it gives players an advantage, it is frowned on by casinos. Once discovered card counters are usually banned from the casino in which they were caught, even though haven't committed any illegal act. If casinos share information, an individual might find themselves unwelcomed at any number of casinos. In fact a person doesn't necessarily have to be found guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever to find themselves banned from a casino. Quite simply, casinos, like any other business, reserve the right to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason. If they suspect you of being or consider you to be a cheater, it wouldn't surprise me for them to refuse service to you.
I'm not sure that there is any across the board casino ban that can be issued. I would, however, expect Borgata to ban him from their casinos and properties regardless of the outcome of the legal suit, as is their right. Remember, card counting is not illegal. Because it gives players an advantage, it is frowned on by casinos. Once discovered card counters are usually banned from the casino in which they were caught, even though haven't committed any illegal act. If casinos share information, an individual might find themselves unwelcomed at any number of casinos. In fact a person doesn't necessarily have to be found guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever to find themselves banned from a casino. Quite simply, casinos, like any other business, reserve the right to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason. If they suspect you of being or consider you to be a cheater, it wouldn't surprise me for them to refuse service to you.
Last edited:
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Again IANAL... but do you mean they'd have to prove that he went to the casino intending to exploit this flaw in their card printing?
I'd have thought that would be pretty trivial - he's on record describing himself as an advantage player, he specifically brought an expert in edge sorting to the game with him and the Crockfords case shows that this wasn't the only time he's tried this specific advantage play.
My non-lawyerly reading was that the "trick, sleight of hand performance or fraud" test would the the stumbling block for them since he never touched or altered the cards and it was the casino staff that obliged his request to arrange the cards for him.
I'd have thought that would be pretty trivial - he's on record describing himself as an advantage player, he specifically brought an expert in edge sorting to the game with him and the Crockfords case shows that this wasn't the only time he's tried this specific advantage play.
My non-lawyerly reading was that the "trick, sleight of hand performance or fraud" test would the the stumbling block for them since he never touched or altered the cards and it was the casino staff that obliged his request to arrange the cards for him.
R
rawone
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Phil Ivey without a doubt is a really intelligent and perceptive guy. You can't reach the top of the poker world without smarts and great skills of perception, especially of small things that turn into tells over time.
He is so perceptive as to have noted a feature of play card design that could be used to his advantage, if he was able to manipulate the cards. With an accomplice at the table, and playing a single deck game, they were over time able to arrange the cards in the deck in a manner that would allow them to determine a "10 not 10" status of a card. You have to be pretty smart, pretty observant, and more than anything incredibly patient to get to that sort of situation.
Is it cheating? IMHO, yes it is. It's not playing the game, it's exploiting a flaw. I am also sure it's a flaw that the casinos are addressing. I suspect that the dealers are now spin shuffling cards (cut in half, spin one side 180, shuffle together before putting them in the shuffling maching), and I wouldn't be shocked if the shufflers are modified over time to spin cards during the shuffle.
Ivey may be a great card player, but two such episodes (caught) seem to indicate something else.
He is so perceptive as to have noted a feature of play card design that could be used to his advantage, if he was able to manipulate the cards. With an accomplice at the table, and playing a single deck game, they were over time able to arrange the cards in the deck in a manner that would allow them to determine a "10 not 10" status of a card. You have to be pretty smart, pretty observant, and more than anything incredibly patient to get to that sort of situation.
Is it cheating? IMHO, yes it is. It's not playing the game, it's exploiting a flaw. I am also sure it's a flaw that the casinos are addressing. I suspect that the dealers are now spin shuffling cards (cut in half, spin one side 180, shuffle together before putting them in the shuffling maching), and I wouldn't be shocked if the shufflers are modified over time to spin cards during the shuffle.
Ivey may be a great card player, but two such episodes (caught) seem to indicate something else.
Tammy
Can I help you?
Administrator
If this is true, then it changes my mind about the casino being responsible (quoting from this article: [old link~tb]
I suppose you could say the casino still has some fault because a) they should have known the cards were flawed through some type of auditing or inspection process of the equipment, and b) allowing the player to dictate how the cards were dealt, but still, as I said, if the above is true, then it is pretty suspect, and I'm not going to buy the "superstition" excuse.
That to me is different from just noticing on his own that the cards are flawed. Actually having an accomplish with him to instruct the dealer on how to deal the cards, and then saying it's because of "superstition" is disingenuous at best. I remember reading elsewhere that his "accomplice", Cheng Yin Sun, actually asked the dealer for these specific cards, but I can't remember where I read that; will have to find the source later if I can.
I suppose you could say the casino still has some fault because a) they should have known the cards were flawed through some type of auditing or inspection process of the equipment, and b) allowing the player to dictate how the cards were dealt, but still, as I said, if the above is true, then it is pretty suspect, and I'm not going to buy the "superstition" excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Debi
Forum Admin
Administrator
Yep - he was purposely asking that specific cards be used. And in the UK case he convinced them when he left to use the same cards the next day.
He was claiming to be superstitious which was a blatant lie. He was cheating them imo.
If he had not asked that the cards be used I would feel differently.
He was claiming to be superstitious which was a blatant lie. He was cheating them imo.
If he had not asked that the cards be used I would feel differently.
SANDYHOOKER KY
Rock Star
Silver Level
I agree with dakota-xx, and the few other members who realized having interpreters and the deck placed certain ways, is irrefutable evidence of exploitation of a card defect along with the aid of another conspirator. Shameful actions by a supposedly upright citizen of the gambling world. As far as his guilt, makes no matter his defense, this is the second incidence of such behavior leaving little to no chance of him being totally innocent. Shame shame shame. The greedy shall perish by their own hand.
aa88wildbill
Visionary
Silver Level
Morally speaking I would agree with you. Legally speaking I would not.
LeanAndMean
Legend
Silver Level
Was Ivey cheating?
Just read the article at the top of the forum about Ivey being accused of cheating by Borgata because he was "edge sorting". This means he exploited flaws in the cards to read them. Because of tiny flaws in the edges, he could tell what the cards were. In fairness, Borgata is also suing the card manufacturer. In my opinion, if he used flaws to read cards, that is not cheating. If he had actually marked the cards, that would be another matter. But to use flaws already there? I am anxious to see the outcome of this case. There may be a grey area here, in that somehow he and a friend talked the dealer into dealing them a certain way. Hmmmm, shouldn't the casino have rules for the way the cards are dealt? So I am unsure of what that can mean. This was in mini-baccarat. Seems to me that if his eyes are good enough to see these flaws, he could make a lot more at black jack.
Just read the article at the top of the forum about Ivey being accused of cheating by Borgata because he was "edge sorting". This means he exploited flaws in the cards to read them. Because of tiny flaws in the edges, he could tell what the cards were. In fairness, Borgata is also suing the card manufacturer. In my opinion, if he used flaws to read cards, that is not cheating. If he had actually marked the cards, that would be another matter. But to use flaws already there? I am anxious to see the outcome of this case. There may be a grey area here, in that somehow he and a friend talked the dealer into dealing them a certain way. Hmmmm, shouldn't the casino have rules for the way the cards are dealt? So I am unsure of what that can mean. This was in mini-baccarat. Seems to me that if his eyes are good enough to see these flaws, he could make a lot more at black jack.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Here's the thing - Ivey is an unashamed advantage player. Casinos know this and they let him play anyway because they want to be the ones to take his money when he loses.
What he's done here isn't really that different to sitting down at a poker table with someone that he knows he's much better than (which, when you're Ivey, is pretty much everyone). He found an edge and he exploited it.
That's very much the question here: is advantage playing the same thing as cheating? Especially when the casino staff were the ones turning the cards and arranging them for him.
My personal opinion is that the casino left themselves open to this as soon as they let him continue to play. They jump all over the average blackjack card counter, and Ivey's behaviour in these games shouldn't have been hard to spot either. If they spotted it and let him continue to play then it's basically their own fault if they went on to lose money. If they didn't recognise it, or didn't implement procedures to negate the advantage... then they need to fire their game security team and hire ones who know what they're doing.
Seriously, this is a pretty easy advantage for the casino to negate: all they have to do is include a turn in their shuffle procedure. Turn half the cards around when you're shuffling, and then the edge sorter can't reliably tell which cards are good and which aren't. The system only works if the casino keeps the cards oriented the exact same way at all times - which is why Ivey was specific about using a shuffling machine etc.
As to why he played baccarat instead of blackjack, who knows. It might be that they only had the flawed cards on the baccarat tables, not the blackjack ones. It might be that blackjack had a shuffle routine that negated the edge sorting. It might be that security is better at picking up advantage play / cheating on blackjack.
I suspect it's probably just easier to apply the advantage on baccarat though. Edge sorting, at best, only lets you get a read on the first card in the shoe. You either like the first card or you don't, and adjust your bet accordingly. Then the hand plays itself and you're onto the next one very quickly, no messing about with decisions about hitting/splitting/doubling or having to count cards or anything.
I
IvanShovski
Visionary
Silver Level
The following article examines the Civil Complaint filed by Borgata with the U.S. District Court in New Jersey and sheds some more light on what is supposed to have happened:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/...borgata-s-lawsuit-against-phil-ivey-18040.htm
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/...borgata-s-lawsuit-against-phil-ivey-18040.htm
NCDaddy
Visionary
Silver Level
I suppose we could go round and round about this. And, I see both sides of this argument here. I think I'm completely with Oz here. The casino had opportunities to negate any advantage Phil had and they chose not to address them. Or, their security is so lax that they didn't pick up on it. Either way........
From reading more and learning more, the evidence surely suggests Phil's intent was there. If that can be proved, then the statute OZ posted earlier was surely violated by Phil.
That being said - that shouldn't absolve the casino of it's own responsibility of protecting itself.
From reading more and learning more, the evidence surely suggests Phil's intent was there. If that can be proved, then the statute OZ posted earlier was surely violated by Phil.
That being said - that shouldn't absolve the casino of it's own responsibility of protecting itself.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
This is the bit that staggers me:
"At all relevant times, Borgata was not aware of the defect in the playing cards or Ivey’s true motive for negotiating special arrangements."
It wasn't even a one-weekend hit and run - it was across multiple sessions, in four different months!
I find it really hard to believe that they weren't aware of either the defect or what Ivey was doing... but at the same time, I find it really hard to believe that they'd let him come back again and again (and even raise the maximum to $100K on later visits) if they did have that knowledge.
Ivey may or may not win the case, but someone at Borgata definitely ought to get their arse kicked for letting this happen in the first place.
L
LeinadW
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Phil Ivey needed the dealers help for his scam to work. The dealer turned around 128 cards for Phil Ivey. This is collusion. The question is was the dealer tricked into helping Ivey. Or was the dealer in on the collusion from the beginning.I find it really hard to believe the dealer did not know what Phil Ivey was doing. Could the dealer really be that stupid.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
I don't think too much blame can be placed on the dealer - after all, they're the bottom of the food chain. They'd also be used to granting all sorts of requests to whales on the grounds of "superstition", something which casinos generally embrace to win their business. And if the dealer doesn't know there's a printing defect on the backs of the cards, then they can't know that there's any harm in them turning the cards.
Blame for this on the casino's end has to go to their supervisors and the game security team IMO. They're the ones who should be inspecting the cards and overseeing the game.
why would he admit to seeing the defect?! He might be able to win though because of the casinos negligence of the cards though
That's a question for the lawyers, but I suspect he admits it because it's a pretty trivial matter to prove that's what he was doing. He requested the specific cards that were used, requested specific concessions from the casino, brought someone with him to the game who (I assume) is an expert in this particular advantage play... denying that he was edge sorting was never going to win him the case IMO.
Probably better to argue that yes, he did edge sort and no, he doesn't think it was illegal.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Erm... Borgata already paid him. That's why they're suing, to try to get their money back.
babydrago9
Rock Star
Silver Level
That link you showed doesn't tell the full story. I watch Jason Somerville's 'Run it up' episodes/streams and he said that whenever Ivey goes to a casino he takes advantage of his name, trying to be funny requesting whatever he wants. An example used was if a waiter comes to his VIP room who wasn't 'black', he'd complain loudly but in a sarcastic manner but the dealer would still be changed.
At the Borgata incident, apparently he ensured these certain cards were used as he liked the look of them and told the dealer to deal a certain way, and because of his name, they did it.
At the Borgata incident, apparently he ensured these certain cards were used as he liked the look of them and told the dealer to deal a certain way, and because of his name, they did it.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
FYP - casinos don't care about your name per se, they just care that you have lots of money that you're willing to risk on the tables. If you do, they'll make you all kinds of concessions to get your business. Ivey knows this as well as anyone.