Phil Ivey counter-sues Borgata casino over edge-sorting case

Phil Ivey and his gambling accomplice, Cheng Yin Sun, have been battling against few law suits against quite a long time. It all started after Ivey took few casinos for insane amount of money using a cheating technique called "edge sorting" while playing Baccarat against casino. Ivey was sued by multiple casinos and now he is taking the action other way around: he counter sued Marina District Development Co., LLC, parent company of the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa.

In 2012 Ivey asked Borgata to give him access to a high-stakes Baccarat game, including a private gaming area, a dealer who spoke fluent Mandarin Chinese, a permission to have his friend with him (Cheng Yin Sun), an automatic card shuffler, and an eight-deck shoe of purple Gemaco playing cards as the last condition. Borgata accepted his conditions and decided he could bet maximum $50,000 per hand - Ivey happily deposited $1mln.

Ivey then proceeded to completely destroy casino, winning $2.416mln in April and another $1.597 in May. In July Borgata allowed him to double his bet, and he won extra $4.788mln. Last round in October ended with another $825,000 score.

Turns out Ivey knew that those purple Gemaco cards were often slightly miscut, making the pattern on their backs asymmetrical, which made it possible to where the key cards of the deck would hit.

Ivey and Sun were sued in April 2014 for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Fraudulent Inducement, Fraud, and more. Card manufacturer, Gemaco was also sued. Ivey filed a motion to dismiss the case, but it was rejected.

Now Ivey and Sun are counter suing the Borgata casino for “fraudulent concealment”, which would be done by intentionally destroying the cards that were used the baccarat games so that the defendants couldn't t prove that the cards were fine in terms to standards set by casino.

The most interesting new fact (in my opinion) is that Ivey actually was the one who requested the specific cards to be used.

I remember the discussion last time and most of the people said that it was casinos fault if they used marked cards. What do you guys think about this now, if Ivey made a request to use SPECIFIC decks, knowing they are marked?

I mean it's like asking the other team in baseball to allow you to play with a specific bat. Draws suspicion. If you allow it and later find out all of those bats are corked at the factory it's your own fault if you lose. Due diligence is a real thing.

I hear they're also taking back his craps winnings because he requested marked dice

who is phil iey?

On July 30 2015 23:35 thewh00sel wrote: I mean it's like asking the other team in baseball to allow you to play with a specific bat. Draws suspicion. If you allow it and later find out all of those bats are corked at the factory it's your own fault if you lose. Due diligence is a real thing.

not the same thing at all, actually that would be cheating.


In here the house has a constant edge and is tasked to self-police the game fairness, if Ivey had interfered with the fabrication and delivery of those cars then he is interfering but he just hustled the huslters

On July 31 2015 00:52 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 30 2015 23:35 thewh00sel wrote: I mean it's like asking the other team in baseball to allow you to play with a specific bat. Draws suspicion. If you allow it and later find out all of those bats are corked at the factory it's your own fault if you lose. Due diligence is a real thing. not the same thing at all, actually that would be cheating. In here the house has a constant edge and is tasked to self-police the game fairness, if Ivey had interfered with the fabrication and delivery of those cars then he is interfering but he just hustled the huslters

This. That bat analogy was pretty bad. With Baal on this.

That being said, doubt a judge anywhere would rule in Ivey's favour.

how many cards does he have to memorize to make that game beatable?
only a few i suppose?
also did he had to cheat on the fly or the same patterns can be found on multiple batch of card decks?

On July 31 2015 08:22 voodoouser wrote: how many cards does he have to memorize to make that game beatable? only a few i suppose? also did he had to cheat on the fly or the same patterns can be found on multiple batch of card decks?

I think the card edges look different between high cards (KQJT) and low cards (65432). From there you can find an optimal betting strategy based on the high/low card combinations for banker and player, in order to gain edge.

if you cant beat him, sue him

I wonder, can any of the people who lost huge sums with those cards in play sue the casino? No, I didnt think so. I dont really like Ivey and I dont think hes going to win but I wish he does.

On July 31 2015 08:22 voodoouser wrote: how many cards does he have to memorize to make that game beatable? only a few i suppose? also did he had to cheat on the fly or the same patterns can be found on multiple batch of card decks?

If it's like the other case Ivey would ask that a card be rotated because he was "superstitious", but only for distinct values of cards. So then he could get a general sense of what's coming by looking at the shoe to see whether its rotated or not (if the back is symmetrical, you can't tell that its rotated).

I'm with Ivey on this because I don't really see how you can be cheating without using a cheating device or physically manipulating the cards. If Ivey made legal requests and legal moves, I don't see where the sum of them can turn into cheating merely because it gave him an advantage. Having an advantage alone at a casino isn't cheating, which was proven in court multiple times in cases with blackjack card counters.

On July 31 2015 00:52 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 30 2015 23:35 thewh00sel wrote: I mean it's like asking the other team in baseball to allow you to play with a specific bat. Draws suspicion. If you allow it and later find out all of those bats are corked at the factory it's your own fault if you lose. Due diligence is a real thing. not the same thing at all, actually that would be cheating. In here the house has a constant edge and is tasked to self-police the game fairness, if Ivey had interfered with the fabrication and delivery of those cars then he is interfering but he just hustled the huslters

Exactly

gogo Ivey

On July 31 2015 17:12 lhr0909 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 31 2015 08:22 voodoouser wrote: how many cards does he have to memorize to make that game beatable? only a few i suppose? also did he had to cheat on the fly or the same patterns can be found on multiple batch of card decks? I think the card edges look different between high cards (KQJT) and low cards (65432). From there you can find an optimal betting strategy based on the high/low card combinations for banker and player, in order to gain edge.

One side has white diamonds half cut, other one has them in full. They asked dealer to turn the cards, so the key cards were the only one in deck with the pattern other way around.

On July 31 2015 17:43 EvilSky wrote: I wonder, can any of the people who lost huge sums with those cards in play sue the casino? No, I didnt think so. I dont really like Ivey and I dont think hes going to win but I wish he does.

Actually they can - I've read about a case few years back: there was a case in US where a guy addicted to gambling lost around $2mln. The casino knew of his gambling addiction and he was supposed to be prohibited from playing, he sued casino and won the cash back plus some extra I think.

Ivey should make a video on edge sorting.

On July 31 2015 23:08 Defrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 31 2015 17:12 lhr0909 wrote:   On July 31 2015 08:22 voodoouser wrote: how many cards does he have to memorize to make that game beatable? only a few i suppose? also did he had to cheat on the fly or the same patterns can be found on multiple batch of card decks? I think the card edges look different between high cards (KQJT) and low cards (65432). From there you can find an optimal betting strategy based on the high/low card combinations for banker and player, in order to gain edge. One side has white diamonds half cut, other one has them in full. They asked dealer to turn the cards, so the key cards were the only one in deck with the pattern other way around.

nice, now I finally get why they asked to turn them over, they dont make a card scramble

The fact the cards were destroyed is pretty interesting. Why would the casino destroy the cards if they were going to sue them?? That is suspicious to say the least. Especially since he came back 4 times. So did they use the same exact cards each time, and destroy them after this 4th visit? or destroy all 8 decks after each visit? Either way that seems odd.

They had to have thought something was wrong after the 3rd visit, maybe even the 2nd. I want to know how much they are suing Ivey for. Almost smells like entrapment. "Yea we will set up a special table for you and use your cards" "you only took 8.8 million the first 3 visits, come back for a 4th visit!"

How come the court didnt refuse the original case against Phil? Borgata casino accept rules suggested by Ivey in the first place, he didn't do anything beyond that rules, should they just pay him and shut the fuck up?
When you enter a casino hall, you either sit down to play or just ignore the tables, you cant lose 1m in roulette and then go and sue casino because "there were no info about negative EV"

judge is going to side with the taxpaying, job-creating casino, not some cheating poker player lol