Phil Ivey ordered to repay $9.6M in Bacarrat winnings

[Tonitrus]

I guess the conclusion was that the judge is in the same social circles with casino owners, not professional gamblers.

I imagine the casino owners also likely to have more/better contacts with those who could "pressure" say, a judge.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is a federal district judge and a former federal prosecutor.  Very unlikely he is in the bag for the casinos.

[grumbler]

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.

Lots of good points here, and you have convinced me that the implicit contract under which the casino and Ivey played included all of the stipulations that he asked for, so his reading of the cards would have been part of that contract (though the casino didn't recognize WHY it was part of the contract).  So, you have changed my mind; I now think Ivey was still acting within the implicit contract.

[Berkut]

This is a federal district judge and a former federal prosecutor.  Very unlikely he is in the bag for the casinos.

Yeah, I don't think he is in the bag for the casinos, but I have zero doubt that the lawmakers who wrote the laws are rather firmly wallowing around happily in that bag.


Speaking of gambling and casinos - a rather large casino is going to be opening about 30 minutes from my house. I like blackjack, and I've always thought being a blackjack dealer would be kind of fun. I've been considering seeing if I can get a part time gig there, maybe 1 night a week or two, dealing blackjack.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is a federal district judge and a former federal prosecutor.  Very unlikely he is in the bag for the casinos.

Yeah, I don't think he is in the bag for the casinos, but I have zero doubt that the lawmakers who wrote the laws are rather firmly wallowing around happily in that bag.

Oh yeah no doubt on that, one reason I voted no on the NJ casino expansion referendum.

[CountDeMoney]

Speaking of gambling and casinos - a rather large casino is going to be opening about 30 minutes from my house. I like blackjack, and I've always thought being a blackjack dealer would be kind of fun. I've been considering seeing if I can get a part time gig there, maybe 1 night a week or two, dealing blackjack.

I'm sure it is, but make sure your credit is in good order.  Getting a job in a casino is as tough as getting a job at a bank or an armored car company.

[DGuller]

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.

Ivey does not have a reputation as "one of the most skilled professional gamblers in the world".  He has a reputation as one of the most skilled poker players in the world, with a big gambling problem.  Maybe that reputation is carefully crafted by Ivey just for this kind of purpose, but it's not at all unreasonable for Borgata to assume that he was a whale when it came to baccarat.  In fact, he wasn't the brains behind that scheme, his companion was.  Ivey was just used as a front man.

[CountDeMoney]

one of the most skilled poker players in the world, with a big gambling problem.

[Admiral Yi]

I question the concept of "expert gambler" when it comes to casino games.  There are dumbass gamblers and non-dumbass gamblers.

[DGuller]

I question the concept of "expert gambler" when it comes to casino games.  There are dumbass gamblers and non-dumbass gamblers.

There are some.  Very, very few.  Obviously they ply their trade by finding or making the casino games with unintentionally advantageous odds.  Phil Ivey, at least by his reputation, is definitely not one of those (though of course every expert gambler will try very hard to have just such reputation).

[CountDeMoney]

Would've given anything to see Doyle Brunson get up and punch Phil Hellmuth square in the face.  What an asshole.

Phil Ivey was at least pleasant.

[Admiral Yi]

Obviously they ply their trade by finding or making the casino games with unintentionally advantageous odds.

What are you talking about?  How does one make a casino game?

[DGuller]

Obviously they ply their trade by finding or making the casino games with unintentionally advantageous odds.

What are you talking about?  How does one make a casino game?

Get the casino to adjust the rules for you.  If you're a high enough roller, they will consider it.

[CountDeMoney]

Get the casino to adjust the rules for you.  If you're a high enough roller, they will consider it.

That is what happened here.  So it served the casino right.  Ivey should be allowed to keep his money.

[Razgovory]

As a former Atlantic city casino owner, this may explain Trump's animosity toward blacks and Chinese.