Phil Ivey ordered to repay $9.6M in Bacarrat winnings

[The Brain]

A defective design on the back of the cards does not fit the normal definition of a marked card.  If those were "marked cards" then all cards are.

I think what everyone is missing here is that the cards were always defective, but not always marked.  They became marked only when they were rotated (because the defectiveness part was the assymetry on the back).  How were cards rotated?  Selectively, by player's trickery.

Trickery? An explicitly stated request that the casino could have declined at any point.

[The Brain]

The casino and the player(s) had access to the exact same information about the cards. The casino didn't process that information as thoroughly as the player(s) did. Tough.

Note: I would be surprised if the judge isn't right from a legal POV, if I were a gambling state I would certainly have "thou shalt not be naughty" legislation in place to protect the casinos. Nor do I think this is in any way wrong from a moral POV (whatever that is). I just find it a bit amusing that the casino bent over backwards to facilitate warning flag behavior and then runs crying to the teacher when they get beat fair and square (from a game rules POV).

[DGuller]

A defective design on the back of the cards does not fit the normal definition of a marked card.  If those were "marked cards" then all cards are.

I think what everyone is missing here is that the cards were always defective, but not always marked.  They became marked only when they were rotated (because the defectiveness part was the assymetry on the back).  How were cards rotated?  Selectively, by player's trickery.

Trickery? An explicitly stated request that the casino could have declined at any point.

And would've declined, had they known the real reason for requests.  If I ask you to do something, and you do it because you have no idea it is harmful to you and I do know it, it's called trickery (and probably other things too).

[The Brain]

A defective design on the back of the cards does not fit the normal definition of a marked card.  If those were "marked cards" then all cards are.

I think what everyone is missing here is that the cards were always defective, but not always marked.  They became marked only when they were rotated (because the defectiveness part was the assymetry on the back).  How were cards rotated?  Selectively, by player's trickery.

Trickery? An explicitly stated request that the casino could have declined at any point.

And would've declined, had they known the real reason for requests.  If I ask you to do something, and you do it because you have no idea it is harmful to you and I do know it, it's called trickery (and probably other things too).

Remind me never to bring you along to a business negotiation.

[DGuller]

The casino and the player(s) had access to the exact same information about the cards. The casino didn't process that information as thoroughly as the player(s) did. Tough.

Again, the very key point here is that the players did not come upon a game that was already compromised.  Even with the cards the way they were, the game still had the same odds, regardless of either party's knowledge.  The game was more vulnerable than usual to manipulation due to the defective cards, but the players still had to come up with a rather sophisticated ruse and execute on it to actually break the game in their favor.

They may not have physically touched the cards to make their value known just from looking at the card backs, but for all intents and purposes what they did is tantamount to that.

[grumbler]

The casino and the player(s) had access to the exact same information about the cards. The casino didn't process that information as thoroughly as the player(s) did. Tough.

Note: I would be surprised if the judge isn't right from a legal POV, if I were a gambling state I would certainly have "thou shalt not be naughty" legislation in place to protect the casinos. Nor do I think this is in any way wrong from a moral POV (whatever that is). I just find it a bit amusing that the casino bent over backwards to facilitate warning flag behavior and then runs crying to the teacher when they get beat fair and square (from a game rules POV).

That's one interpretation, and one I agree with mostly, but, if you put the shoe on the other foot, and the casino was betting based on information about the upcoming cards that the players did not have (i.e. if the casino had recognized the flaw and flipped the cards for its own benefit, rather than having a player do that), it would clearly have constituted a violation of the implicit gambling contract, even if it hadn't been cheating by the rules.

[CountDeMoney]

Remind me never to bring you along to a business negotiation.

"They have provided a small list of very specific requests. I don't know what they mean or why, though, so it should be OK.  They'd tell us if they weren't. "

[The Brain]

The casino and the player(s) had access to the exact same information about the cards. The casino didn't process that information as thoroughly as the player(s) did. Tough.

Note: I would be surprised if the judge isn't right from a legal POV, if I were a gambling state I would certainly have "thou shalt not be naughty" legislation in place to protect the casinos. Nor do I think this is in any way wrong from a moral POV (whatever that is). I just find it a bit amusing that the casino bent over backwards to facilitate warning flag behavior and then runs crying to the teacher when they get beat fair and square (from a game rules POV).

That's one interpretation, and one I agree with mostly, but, if you put the shoe on the other foot, and the casino was betting based on information about the upcoming cards that the players did not have (i.e. if the casino had recognized the flaw and flipped the cards for its own benefit, rather than having a player do that), it would clearly have constituted a violation of the implicit gambling contract, even if it hadn't been cheating by the rules.

I'm not sure I follow. As I said I'm fine with legislation that lets people in this situation get their money back. Of course it's less amusing when the little guy runs crying to the teacher than when the big guy does it (more dog bites man).

[DGuller]

Remind me never to bring you along to a business negotiation.

The Brain:  "I'll give you a carrot if you come to the barn with me.  "
Counterparty:  "Baaaa!"

[The Brain]

Remind me never to bring you along to a business negotiation.

The Brain:  "I'll give you a carrot if you come to the barn with me.  "
Counterparty:  "Baaaa!"

Let's continue this through PM.

[DGuller]

 

[Berkut]

The casino and the player(s) had access to the exact same information about the cards. The casino didn't process that information as thoroughly as the player(s) did. Tough.

Note: I would be surprised if the judge isn't right from a legal POV, if I were a gambling state I would certainly have "thou shalt not be naughty" legislation in place to protect the casinos. Nor do I think this is in any way wrong from a moral POV (whatever that is). I just find it a bit amusing that the casino bent over backwards to facilitate warning flag behavior and then runs crying to the teacher when they get beat fair and square (from a game rules POV).

That's one interpretation, and one I agree with mostly, but, if you put the shoe on the other foot, and the casino was betting based on information about the upcoming cards that the players did not have (i.e. if the casino had recognized the flaw and flipped the cards for its own benefit, rather than having a player do that), it would clearly have constituted a violation of the implicit gambling contract, even if it hadn't been cheating by the rules.

This is a good point - certainly if the casino had recognized this same flaw, and used it to bilk the players, I would not be nearly so ok with it.

But there is a difference there - the casino traditionally has all the control. They define the rules, we use their cards, their dealers, their laws written largely for their benefit, all to play a game we know is rigged in their favor because they rig it so it is in their favor.

So I don't see both sides have equal moral obligation to play on the up and up. Maybe that is not really "fair" on my part. I feel the same way about a player counting cards in blackjack, for example. I would NOT be ok with the casino coming up with some system where they could evaluate the odds based on card counts and limit maximum and minimum bets accordingly.

The two parties, IMO, are not at all in an equal position. The casino gets to define the game and how it will be played such that it is structurally in their favor.

I would have a very different personal opinion about someone who did this in a card game between two equivalent players, for example. That would be a douchebag move.

[Berkut]

There is also an element of little guy versus big guy here, to be sure.

I have zero doubt that the laws are setup to favor those in New Jersey who fund the politicians. And I have this weird suspicion that that is not casino gamblers.

[The Minsky Moment]

The more interesting legal point IMO was the court's finding that there was an implied agreement that both sides would abide be the NJ casino regs.  That seems common sense except for the fact that the regs are supposed to be exclusively enforced by the state - they don't create a private right to sue.  The court sidestepped that problem by holding that the Borgata wasn't suing Ivey under the NJ regs, but for his implied contractual promise to abide by the regs.  But that is dangerously close to being a distinction without a meaningful difference.

The Court also gave a very broad interpretation of the words "use" and "marked" as already discussed in the thread.  In essence the Borgata argued, and the Court accepted, that when someone plays Baccarat in NJ, there is an implied agreement that they are playing a game of chance where the odds favor the house, and thus using knowledge or skill to tilt the odds back amounts to breaking that agreement.

The problem I have with that holding is kind of the opposite of Berkut's problem.  I.e. this is NOT a David v. Goliath situation.  This is a situation involving two very sophisticated parties - a casino with all the resources it has vs. one the most skilled professional gamblers in the world.  If Joe Blow just shows up at the baccarat table, it's reasonable for the casino to assume that nothing unusual is going on.  But when Phil Ivey gives a list of very specific and idiosyncratic requirements, it is blindingly obvious that he has something  (or thinks he has something) up his sleeve, and has no intention of playing with the odds stacked against him.  There is no way a rational casino owner could think otherwise.  Which means, as a matter of contract doctrine - there is no "meeting of the minds" on a contract term of strictly abiding by the regs (as interpreted by the Court).

What happened here is that the Borgata knew very well that Ivey was up to something, but made the decision to play anyways, because they thought they could defeat whatever trick he was using.  They gambled on being more clever than Ivey and they lost.  And having lost that bet, they sought to get it back through the courts.  Now maybe Ivey did break the regs, and if so, he might have some explaining to do to the NJ gaming commission.  But it's not clear why contract law should be deployed to rescue the Borgata from the consequences of its bad decision.

[Syt]

I see everyone is ignoring the important question of whether Phil Ivey can boogie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSQjx79dR8s