The Borgata lawsuit alleges that Ivey exploited manufacturing flaws in playing cards during four sessions of Baccarat at the casino in 2012. Borgata claims that Ivey was able to spot tiny variations in the pattern printed on the backs of the cards in a method called "edge sorting."
seems to be commonplace. There's even a name for using the 'defect' ... 'edge sorting'. Ivey went to England and eventually got 'his' deck. He went to New Jersey, requested and received the decks where he was confident he would find 'his' deck. In both instances the dealers were requested to turn the cards. And they did, resulting in a player being able, to a degree, 'read' the cards.
The closest I've come to playing Baccarat was watching a James Bond movie, but it seems to me the folks who run the casinos involved have to be the dumbest rich folks around. The scenarios, as I understand them, almost looks like the casinos WANTED someone, Ivey in this instance, to play them so they could prove a point. They certainly did prove a point to me.
...but what Ivey did was cheating. It would be one thing if he stumbled upon a table where the dealer was turning all the eights and nines opposite the other cards in an asymmetrical deck; but Ivey requested it--not for reasons of superstition--but for dishonest purposes. In my book, that's not exploiting a flaw, it's cheating.
There was one time when my brother was playing blackjack and he was situated at the table in a way that he could see the dealer's hole card every time the dealer checked for blackjack (which the dealer is required to do when he deals himself an ace, ten, or face card). This gave my brother a significant advantage and he stayed in that seat for as long as that dealer's shift lasted. That's exploiting the casino's incompetence and isn't cheating. On the other hand, had my brother asked the dealer to check his hole card in a specific way which would reveal the card (and pretended it was for reasons of superstition), that would've been cheating.
...but what Ivey did was cheating. It would be one thing if he stumbled upon a table where the dealer was turning all the eights and nines opposite the other cards in an asymmetrical deck; but Ivey requested it--not for reasons of superstition--but for dishonest purposes. In my book, that's not exploiting a flaw, it's cheating.
Ivey didn't request the cards be turned. Someone else did, in Chinese it seems. Ivey actually 'told' them someone would be speaking to the dealer in Chinese. They had no problem with that. The dealer was allowed to comply with the 'turning' request even though the casino was aware of 'defective' decks. Decks they supplied. And Ivey cheated?
Ivey didn't request the cards be turned. Someone else did, in Chinese it seems. Ivey actually 'told' them someone would be speaking to the dealer in Chinese. They had no problem with that. The dealer was allowed to comply with the 'turning' request even though the casino was aware of 'defective' decks. Decks they supplied. And Ivey cheated?
The guy requesting the cards be turned in Chinese was Ivey's companion and was doing so at Ivey's behest. Saying Ivey has no liability in the actions is like saying a Godfather has no liability to the crimes of his underlings.
And the casino was not aware of the problem with the cards. They are also suing the card company, which was required to provide cards with symmetrical backs.
is to get some % of fault on the manufacturer and get them to throw some money on the table & settle. I don't know what NJ's comparative fault statutes require but the fact the defect existed and was known by Ivey for so long puts negligence on Gemeco. The problem for the casino is that it's negligence is clear as well.
But I agree with those who say this might keep high rollers away.
What is Edge Sorting?
Posted on June 28, 2012 | 7 Comments
[Note added 04.11.14]
Greetings to those of you who are landing here after following up on news of Phil Ivey’s edge-sorting lawsuit brought by Borgata. I just read about it today in this article at nj.com. You’ve come to the right place!
If you want a thorough introduction to edge-sorting, covering baccarat and other games, I highly recommend this article: Edge Sorting, 101 . Here is a complete list of edge sorting articles in this blog:
Edge Sorting, 101
Edge Sorting Caribbean Stud
Edge Sorting Harrah’s Cards
Edge Sorting in Baccarat
Edge Sorting Let it Ride
Edge Sorting Mississippi Stud
Edge Sorting Mississippi Stud, Update #1
Edge Sorting: The Most Dangerous Card
Edge Sorting: The Safest Card
Edge Sorting Three Card Poker
Survey of Sortable Cards
VIDEO: An Introduction to Edge Sorting
What is Edge Sorting?
Otherwise, please enjoy the reading the following article …
About three years ago I was playing double-deck blackjack at a large off-strip casino in Las Vegas. OK, I admit, I was counting cards. But, honestly, I was just passing time waiting for someone I was going to meet for dinner. And besides, it’s hard not to count when I play. With a minimum bet of $5 and a maximum bet of $40, I was not a threatening presence. My hourly wage from this activity was about $8 – $10 on a good day. But at this point in my career, it was no surprise, indeed it was embarrassing, when I quickly got a tap on the shoulder.
I turned around and a well dressed man introduced himself as the table games shift manager. He said “Dr. Jacobson, we know who you are. What are you doing?” It was an awkward question and he was clearly uncomfortable asking it. And I was embarrassed as well. As I got up from the table, we engaged in some casual conversation that blew off some steam for both of us. Talking about security matters in a general way, we gradually became focused on bigger problems. I asked: “If there’s anything at all going on here that you want me to look at, any issue of security you can’t figure out, let me know and I’ll give you my opinion.”
What happened next was even more surprising. The shift manager explained that for the previous several months the casino had been hit hard by a card marking team. He said, “They seem to know what the cards are when they play.” But as he explained, the casino had carefully examined the decks again and again and could find no indication of the marks the team was leaving. He was sure they were marking, but there were no marks. How could that be?
I asked him to show me a deck of cards. He motioned to me to accompany him to a table in a closed pit and pulled out a fresh deck. The card pictured below is the card used by another Las Vegas casino, but it is similar to the one I saw. The striking feature of this card is that it is asymmetric. Two adjacent edges of the cards clearly have a blue half-diamond shape, while the other two edges clearly have a blue full-diamond shape. And every card in every deck had this feature.
The fact that the design is asymmetric allows the cards to be rotated by an edge-sorting team. The way this works is that a table is occupied by players who work together to rotate the cards to help read their values before they’re dealt. Certain key cards are rotated to have the full diamonds across the top and right edges, while other cards are rotated to have the full diamonds on the bottom and left edges. For example, in blackjack, Aces and Faces may be rotated one way, while all other cards are rotated the other way, allowing the players the ability to read the dealer’s next card. Of course, the cards will get mixed up, but the team continues to sort them every hand, and after a few shuffles, most of the cards will be sorted. The fact that the casino deals, collects and shuffles the cards according to strict procedures is the Achilles heel.
I told the shift manager, “An easy fix for this is to have a turn in your shuffle. You do have a turn, don’t you?” His face showed a shade of white that would make Mary’s little lamb jealous and confessed that their shuffled did not include a turn. They had spent months investigating the way the team was marking their cards, while all along the cards that were being used were pre-marked. The team was using this casino’s own procedures and equipment against them. After a few minutes of taking it all in, my new best friend told me that he would be in touch and gave me his card. Needless to say, I never heard from him again.
I am not saying that casinos that use this type of playing card are making any type of mistake in their choice of product. Cards that can be edge-sorted are in wide use. Surveying my own collection of about 50 decks from various casinos, over two-thirds of them can be edge-sorted. The solution is to understand the particular security weakness of this type of equipment and to put in a trivial procedural fix. Every shuffle, whether it’s from a single deck, double deck, or shoe, should include a turn. Likewise, any game that uses an automatic shuffler should include a manual turn between rounds. The equipment being used wasn’t the problem – it was the procedure for using the equipment that was flawed.
I was recently visiting a casino that used a card that had the edge sorting problem. I observed their blackjack shuffle, and sure enough, it had a turn. I then asked a pit supervisor why the shuffle had the turn. The answer was dead on: “so the cards can’t be identified by some pattern on their backs.” I then went to the novelty game pit, where automatic shufflers were being used, and observed that no turns were in place. Clearly someone in management understood the need for a turn and that message was transmitted into the policies and procedures in the main pit. But, like may casinos, they didn’t take the protection of their novelty games seriously. Bad idea.
The lesson here is that nothing can be taken for granted in protecting games. Often the problems are little and can be quickly fixed. But unless you know the problem and know the fix, you may spend months wondering what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. Persistence is not always the answer to solving a problem.
is that the flaw in game is one that is apparent. It's simply noticing a feature of the cards. That's not illegal. If a player makes a request and the casino honors it, for any reason, that's on the casino. He did nothing but play the cards. If the casino is going to use cards that can be exploited, or fail to protect themselves by not honoring requests that manipulate the deck or using techniques such as a turn, that is the casino's fault. It's not cheating to exploit the game.
by setting the rules of the game in a way that stacks the odds in the house's edge? This is no different. Ivey was playing the game as it was presented to him.
If it was cheating, he'd be facing criminal charges. He tipped the game to his favor, but he did it by exploiting the cards as they were in play. The casino made the concession, it's there responsibility.
The casino isn't dishonest about the rules of the game. The players know the rules and they know the odds (if they don't know the odds, they are freely available over the internet).
insteard of a printed design, wouldn't that solve the problem for the casinos? Not that I'm worried about them.
And as for whether this is cheating or not, every request that was made could have been denied. But since they didn't, to me, it's on the casino.
Solid colored backed cards are an easy target for card markers. Subtle smudges and scratches are easy for the marker to detect on a solid color. Such marks will also occur innocently during play, so a casino would have to destroy a deck after every shuffle to avoid being victimized by markers.
Patterned cards require much more overt marks, which the casino would quickly notice as out of the ordinary and they woukd have the deck replaced.
I would consider what he did to be pretty shady. He clearly went there with the plan in mind. He was there to get over. But, shady or not, it doesn't rise to the level of "cheating". Exploiting, yes, cheating, no.
Hell, ask for all the cards to be played face up if you want. If the Casino comply's then its on the casino, not the player. All they had to do was say no.
people always think it is ok to rip them off. this is fraud, plain and simple. I got into this debate the last time this came up in London. Ivy is not using his mind to defeat the game, the lady, his accomplice is making fraudulent representations to the dealers/pit bosses to have them change their rules. under any definition of fraud, that is it. if he could make out the card without her interfering, and he had nothing to do with the pattern design (which I don't think he does), than he would have an argument. that is not the case here, though.
because you are not deceiving them. a casino is obviously free to make any decision that it wants, but when somebody makes a representation that turns out to be false to get somebody to do something that they would otherwise not do, that is fraud--irrespective of whether they should be more careful. the onus is not on the casino to prevent fraud, the onus is on Ivy not to commit fraud. if you leave your car door open, I still cannot jump in and take it.
I would say this is a too bad, so sad for the casino, and it's not fraud. It's using the environment provided by the casino against them. As someone above said, using a tell isn't fraud. Taking advantage of asymmetric cards provided by the casino isn't fraud.
However, using a second person to work in collusion pushes it into the 'maybe this is cheating' category.
I totally agree, as I said before, if Ivy just was able to see the cards from where they are normally dealt, than he is not doing a thing wrong, maybe unethical, but it is not cheating or fraud. it is the collusion and the deceitful statements to the casino the transform it into fraud.
made by Ivey or his companion? Requests aren't representations. That they liked certain "good" cards more than "bad" ones? That is actually true - just not for the reason the casino may have assumed.
I'm not sure what they did or represented that would meet the definition of fraud.
who is working with a comp science major on creating an app for your cell phone. Basically it takes pics of your screen as you play penny slots and tries to develop an algorithm for predicting what will come up next. He claims it has worked for them but on only on a retired machine they have available to them to practice for free on, and you have to sit and play a minimum of 200 pulls before it can get close to reliable. As soon as you get up and walk away it has to be reset. They are working on incorporating a machine identifier that will allow you to "mark" the machine on your phone, allowing you to leave and return to that same machine and have it continue learning.
The idea is that eventually you wear your cell phone around your neck camera out, and set it to give you a vibrate when it predicts a winning pull so you can change your bet.
Is this cheating? Curious since this seems to be a good ethics discussion going on here. Beyond that, what would the legal repercussions be if you were caught using such an app?
IS THIS LEGAL? part of Borgata’s claim that it is not:
“On each of the dates in question, as a condition of their wagering, Ivey and Sun explicitly agreed to abide and be bound by the rules set forth by New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement (“DGE”) pursuant to the authority granted to it by the New Jersey legislature.
Borgata, by virtue of New Jersey law, expected that by meticulously following the rules and regulations controlling the conduct of its Baccarat games as intensively prescribed by the Act and DGE rules and regulations, that its game was fair under controlling law that mandates “fair odds” to patrons.
Because of Ivey and Sun’s misconduct, unfair play and the use of their influence as “high rollers” to deceive Borgata, Ivey and Sun succeeded in manipulating the Baccarat game to deprive the game of its essential element of chance.
Because of Ivey and Sun’s misconduct, unfair play and deception, the Baccarat games at issue did not present the legally required “fair odds” or those assumed attendant circumstances dictated by New Jersey law and regulations that would assure the fairness, integrity and vitality of the casino operation in process pursuant to N.J.S.A. §5:12-100(e).
The Act further provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards. The Act further provides that to “carry on” with or “expose for play” cards that are marked “in any manner” is expressly prohibited. N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115(a)(2).
On each date in question, Ivey and Sun played Baccarat with cards that had been manipulated and “marked” so that their value was identifiable to Ivey and Sun before bets had to be placed and before the cards were dealt, in violation of N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115. In surreptitiously manipulating the edges of the playing cards, Ivey and Sun used the automatic card shuffler as a “cheating device” to ensure that the edges of the cards would remain facing the same direction after they were shuffled. Although the automatic card shuffler is not originally designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage (it is intended to ensure the randomness of the shuffle), Ivey and Sun used the automatic card shuffler as an integral part of their “edge sorting” scheme, thus converting its use to that of a cheating device.
The use of the automatic card shuffler as a cheating device is a violation of N.J.S.A. § 5:12-113.1, which makes it a crime to “use or assist another in the use of, a computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device which is designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility.”
Ivey also used Sun, whose ability to manipulate the orientation of the cards and then quickly and accurately identify their values later by reading the edges was integral to the fraudulent and dishonest scheme, as a cheating device in violation of N.J.S.A. § 5:12-114, which makes it a crime “[k]nowingly to use or possess any cheating device with intent to cheat or defraud.” Id.
Each of Ivey and Sun’s actions constitutes “swindling and cheating” under N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115(a), which provides that “a person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick… or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme…wins or attempts to win money or property…in connection to casino gambling.”
Borgata fully performed all covenants, conditions, and obligations required to be performed by reason of the contract, except to the extent waived, excused or made impossible by Ivey and Sun’s breach of the contract. As a direct and proximate result of Ivey and Sun’s breaches, Borgata was injured.” Link - ( New Window )
casinos should instruct their dealers to refuse to turn cards. Ivey was clearly cheating, he exposed a flaw, and exploited it. However, the casino was equally to blame, and they should lose.
The Act further provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards. The Act further provides that to “carry on” with or “expose for play” cards that are marked “in any manner” is expressly prohibited. N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115(a)(2).
It seems to me that Borgata broke that rule, not Ivey. THEY exposed for play cards that were marked "in any manner". It were THEIR decks that were marked. Ivey didn't mark them. Decks with these type of edges have been known to exist and the casino did nothing to prevent their introduction into the games.
that it was actually the casino that made the changes to the game, to honor the request of the player. They had complete control over the situation. Ivey didn't introduce a new element to the game.
In surreptitiously manipulating the edges of the playing cards, Ivey and Sun used the automatic card shuffler as a “cheating device”
Ivey didn't manipulate anything. The dealer/pit boss had a choice. To turn or not to turn. THEY, the casino, chose to turn in spite of the widespread knowledge that these types of decks were, seemingly, commonplace.
when Casino's who exploit others for profit get upset that they were exploited. Good for Phil, I hope he wins and gets to keep every cent. I have no sympathy for Casino's ever.
Because of Ivey and Sun’s misconduct, unfair play and the use of their influence as “high rollers” to deceive Borgata, Ivey and Sun succeeded in manipulating the Baccarat game to deprive the game of its essential element of chance.
I only wish that money didn't buy influence and that it was illegal. The game wasn't deprived of the element of chance. It was still there ... only the odds shifted a bit.
exploit may be too harsh of a word and i have little sympathy for people who gamble away savings etc. as well. Take advantage of may have been a better way to describe it.
When was the last time a casino went broke due gambling losses? Â
I get that they are unsympathetic, but it is hard to muster sympathy for individuals that gamble and lose as well.
I don't know if exploit is the right word, but they certainly do things to change the rules slightly to further increase their edge.
For example, the Luxor (like many other casinos) has a "Party Pit" for blackjack with dancers for entertainment. This area also usually features their lower limit tables (ie $5/$10 tables that you can't find elsewhere in the casino). What could be bad about scantilly clad hot chicks gyrating while you play cheap blackjack?
Well, the blackjack rules are different for these tables. There is no surrender, blackjack only pays 6 to 5 (instead of 3 to 2), and they all have the constant shufflers. Each of these changes to the rules adds to the built in house edge.
I get that they are unsympathetic, but it is hard to muster sympathy for individuals that gamble and lose as well.
I don't know if exploit is the right word, but they certainly do things to change the rules slightly to further increase their edge.
For example, the Luxor (like many other casinos) has a "Party Pit" for blackjack with dancers for entertainment. This area also usually features their lower limit tables (ie $5/$10 tables that you can't find elsewhere in the casino). What could be bad about scantilly clad hot chicks gyrating while you play cheap blackjack?
Well, the blackjack rules are different for these tables. There is no surrender, blackjack only pays 6 to 5 (instead of 3 to 2), and they all have the constant shufflers. Each of these changes to the rules adds to the built in house edge.
I went to AC back in 95. I usually go to Reno/Vegas and could not believe how quickly AC wants your money. In Vegas/ Reno at the time you could find 5 dollar tables. In AC the lowest was 10 dollars and they only had a couple of those.It was crazy to see 2-3 people deep waiting for a spot at the tables.
I get that they are unsympathetic, but it is hard to muster sympathy for individuals that gamble and lose as well.
I don't know if exploit is the right word, but they certainly do things to change the rules slightly to further increase their edge.
For example, the Luxor (like many other casinos) has a "Party Pit" for blackjack with dancers for entertainment. This area also usually features their lower limit tables (ie $5/$10 tables that you can't find elsewhere in the casino). What could be bad about scantilly clad hot chicks gyrating while you play cheap blackjack?
Well, the blackjack rules are different for these tables. There is no surrender, blackjack only pays 6 to 5 (instead of 3 to 2), and they all have the constant shufflers. Each of these changes to the rules adds to the built in house edge.
Well, arguing from a purely economic standpoint, there is some positive value associated with hot chicks that (for some? many?) offsets the incremental house advantage.
My point was not that there is a house advantage, its that it is somehow hidden to the point where anyone enters a casino with the (reasonable) expectation of making money.
The simple fact of the matter is
Sneakers O'toole : 11:44 am : link : reply
that it was actually the casino that made the changes to the game, to honor the request of the player. They had complete control over the situation. Ivey didn't introduce a new element to the game.
The closest I've come to playing Baccarat was watching a James Bond movie, but it seems to me the folks who run the casinos involved have to be the dumbest rich folks around. The scenarios, as I understand them, almost looks like the casinos WANTED someone, Ivey in this instance, to play them so they could prove a point. They certainly did prove a point to me.
There was one time when my brother was playing blackjack and he was situated at the table in a way that he could see the dealer's hole card every time the dealer checked for blackjack (which the dealer is required to do when he deals himself an ace, ten, or face card). This gave my brother a significant advantage and he stayed in that seat for as long as that dealer's shift lasted. That's exploiting the casino's incompetence and isn't cheating. On the other hand, had my brother asked the dealer to check his hole card in a specific way which would reveal the card (and pretended it was for reasons of superstition), that would've been cheating.
It's mostly their own fault for the cards and the dealer.
Ivey didn't request the cards be turned. Someone else did, in Chinese it seems. Ivey actually 'told' them someone would be speaking to the dealer in Chinese. They had no problem with that. The dealer was allowed to comply with the 'turning' request even though the casino was aware of 'defective' decks. Decks they supplied. And Ivey cheated?
It's mostly their own fault for the cards and the dealer.
Can you explain why you think it's cheating?
The guy requesting the cards be turned in Chinese was Ivey's companion and was doing so at Ivey's behest. Saying Ivey has no liability in the actions is like saying a Godfather has no liability to the crimes of his underlings.
And the casino was not aware of the problem with the cards. They are also suing the card company, which was required to provide cards with symmetrical backs.
It's mostly their own fault for the cards and the dealer.
I don't believe they can ban him. It's illegal for N.J. Casinos to ban players unless they've committed a crime there.
But I agree with those who say this might keep high rollers away.
Posted on June 28, 2012 | 7 Comments
[Note added 04.11.14]
Greetings to those of you who are landing here after following up on news of Phil Ivey’s edge-sorting lawsuit brought by Borgata. I just read about it today in this article at nj.com. You’ve come to the right place!
If you want a thorough introduction to edge-sorting, covering baccarat and other games, I highly recommend this article: Edge Sorting, 101 . Here is a complete list of edge sorting articles in this blog:
Edge Sorting, 101
Edge Sorting Caribbean Stud
Edge Sorting Harrah’s Cards
Edge Sorting in Baccarat
Edge Sorting Let it Ride
Edge Sorting Mississippi Stud
Edge Sorting Mississippi Stud, Update #1
Edge Sorting: The Most Dangerous Card
Edge Sorting: The Safest Card
Edge Sorting Three Card Poker
Survey of Sortable Cards
VIDEO: An Introduction to Edge Sorting
What is Edge Sorting?
Otherwise, please enjoy the reading the following article …
About three years ago I was playing double-deck blackjack at a large off-strip casino in Las Vegas. OK, I admit, I was counting cards. But, honestly, I was just passing time waiting for someone I was going to meet for dinner. And besides, it’s hard not to count when I play. With a minimum bet of $5 and a maximum bet of $40, I was not a threatening presence. My hourly wage from this activity was about $8 – $10 on a good day. But at this point in my career, it was no surprise, indeed it was embarrassing, when I quickly got a tap on the shoulder.
I turned around and a well dressed man introduced himself as the table games shift manager. He said “Dr. Jacobson, we know who you are. What are you doing?” It was an awkward question and he was clearly uncomfortable asking it. And I was embarrassed as well. As I got up from the table, we engaged in some casual conversation that blew off some steam for both of us. Talking about security matters in a general way, we gradually became focused on bigger problems. I asked: “If there’s anything at all going on here that you want me to look at, any issue of security you can’t figure out, let me know and I’ll give you my opinion.”
What happened next was even more surprising. The shift manager explained that for the previous several months the casino had been hit hard by a card marking team. He said, “They seem to know what the cards are when they play.” But as he explained, the casino had carefully examined the decks again and again and could find no indication of the marks the team was leaving. He was sure they were marking, but there were no marks. How could that be?
I asked him to show me a deck of cards. He motioned to me to accompany him to a table in a closed pit and pulled out a fresh deck. The card pictured below is the card used by another Las Vegas casino, but it is similar to the one I saw. The striking feature of this card is that it is asymmetric. Two adjacent edges of the cards clearly have a blue half-diamond shape, while the other two edges clearly have a blue full-diamond shape. And every card in every deck had this feature.
The fact that the design is asymmetric allows the cards to be rotated by an edge-sorting team. The way this works is that a table is occupied by players who work together to rotate the cards to help read their values before they’re dealt. Certain key cards are rotated to have the full diamonds across the top and right edges, while other cards are rotated to have the full diamonds on the bottom and left edges. For example, in blackjack, Aces and Faces may be rotated one way, while all other cards are rotated the other way, allowing the players the ability to read the dealer’s next card. Of course, the cards will get mixed up, but the team continues to sort them every hand, and after a few shuffles, most of the cards will be sorted. The fact that the casino deals, collects and shuffles the cards according to strict procedures is the Achilles heel.
I told the shift manager, “An easy fix for this is to have a turn in your shuffle. You do have a turn, don’t you?” His face showed a shade of white that would make Mary’s little lamb jealous and confessed that their shuffled did not include a turn. They had spent months investigating the way the team was marking their cards, while all along the cards that were being used were pre-marked. The team was using this casino’s own procedures and equipment against them. After a few minutes of taking it all in, my new best friend told me that he would be in touch and gave me his card. Needless to say, I never heard from him again.
I am not saying that casinos that use this type of playing card are making any type of mistake in their choice of product. Cards that can be edge-sorted are in wide use. Surveying my own collection of about 50 decks from various casinos, over two-thirds of them can be edge-sorted. The solution is to understand the particular security weakness of this type of equipment and to put in a trivial procedural fix. Every shuffle, whether it’s from a single deck, double deck, or shoe, should include a turn. Likewise, any game that uses an automatic shuffler should include a manual turn between rounds. The equipment being used wasn’t the problem – it was the procedure for using the equipment that was flawed.
I was recently visiting a casino that used a card that had the edge sorting problem. I observed their blackjack shuffle, and sure enough, it had a turn. I then asked a pit supervisor why the shuffle had the turn. The answer was dead on: “so the cards can’t be identified by some pattern on their backs.” I then went to the novelty game pit, where automatic shufflers were being used, and observed that no turns were in place. Clearly someone in management understood the need for a turn and that message was transmitted into the policies and procedures in the main pit. But, like may casinos, they didn’t take the protection of their novelty games seriously. Bad idea.
The lesson here is that nothing can be taken for granted in protecting games. Often the problems are little and can be quickly fixed. But unless you know the problem and know the fix, you may spend months wondering what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. Persistence is not always the answer to solving a problem.
Link - ( New Window )
And as for whether this is cheating or not, every request that was made could have been denied. But since they didn't, to me, it's on the casino.
And as for whether this is cheating or not, every request that was made could have been denied. But since they didn't, to me, it's on the casino.
Solid colored backed cards are an easy target for card markers. Subtle smudges and scratches are easy for the marker to detect on a solid color. Such marks will also occur innocently during play, so a casino would have to destroy a deck after every shuffle to avoid being victimized by markers.
Patterned cards require much more overt marks, which the casino would quickly notice as out of the ordinary and they woukd have the deck replaced.
Let's say I ask a casino to pay me every hand I play of blackjack whether I win or lose.
I do this until I have a million dollars and then cash out.
They can't then say I don't deserve the money - they agreed to the terms.
This is the same thing.
Let's say I ask a casino to pay me every hand I play of blackjack whether I win or lose.
I do this until I have a million dollars and then cash out.
They can't then say I don't deserve the money - they agreed to the terms.
This is the same thing.
Wow - talk about a straw man argument.
However, using a second person to work in collusion pushes it into the 'maybe this is cheating' category.
I'm not sure what they did or represented that would meet the definition of fraud.
The idea is that eventually you wear your cell phone around your neck camera out, and set it to give you a vibrate when it predicts a winning pull so you can change your bet.
Is this cheating? Curious since this seems to be a good ethics discussion going on here. Beyond that, what would the legal repercussions be if you were caught using such an app?
IS THIS LEGAL? part of Borgata’s claim that it is not:
“On each of the dates in question, as a condition of their wagering, Ivey and Sun explicitly agreed to abide and be bound by the rules set forth by New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement (“DGE”) pursuant to the authority granted to it by the New Jersey legislature.
Borgata, by virtue of New Jersey law, expected that by meticulously following the rules and regulations controlling the conduct of its Baccarat games as intensively prescribed by the Act and DGE rules and regulations, that its game was fair under controlling law that mandates “fair odds” to patrons.
Because of Ivey and Sun’s misconduct, unfair play and the use of their influence as “high rollers” to deceive Borgata, Ivey and Sun succeeded in manipulating the Baccarat game to deprive the game of its essential element of chance.
Because of Ivey and Sun’s misconduct, unfair play and deception, the Baccarat games at issue did not present the legally required “fair odds” or those assumed attendant circumstances dictated by New Jersey law and regulations that would assure the fairness, integrity and vitality of the casino operation in process pursuant to N.J.S.A. §5:12-100(e).
The Act further provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards. The Act further provides that to “carry on” with or “expose for play” cards that are marked “in any manner” is expressly prohibited. N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115(a)(2).
On each date in question, Ivey and Sun played Baccarat with cards that had been manipulated and “marked” so that their value was identifiable to Ivey and Sun before bets had to be placed and before the cards were dealt, in violation of N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115. In surreptitiously manipulating the edges of the playing cards, Ivey and Sun used the automatic card shuffler as a “cheating device” to ensure that the edges of the cards would remain facing the same direction after they were shuffled. Although the automatic card shuffler is not originally designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage (it is intended to ensure the randomness of the shuffle), Ivey and Sun used the automatic card shuffler as an integral part of their “edge sorting” scheme, thus converting its use to that of a cheating device.
The use of the automatic card shuffler as a cheating device is a violation of N.J.S.A. § 5:12-113.1, which makes it a crime to “use or assist another in the use of, a computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device which is designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility.”
Ivey also used Sun, whose ability to manipulate the orientation of the cards and then quickly and accurately identify their values later by reading the edges was integral to the fraudulent and dishonest scheme, as a cheating device in violation of N.J.S.A. § 5:12-114, which makes it a crime “[k]nowingly to use or possess any cheating device with intent to cheat or defraud.” Id.
Each of Ivey and Sun’s actions constitutes “swindling and cheating” under N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115(a), which provides that “a person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick… or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme…wins or attempts to win money or property…in connection to casino gambling.”
Borgata fully performed all covenants, conditions, and obligations required to be performed by reason of the contract, except to the extent waived, excused or made impossible by Ivey and Sun’s breach of the contract. As a direct and proximate result of Ivey and Sun’s breaches, Borgata was injured.”
Link - ( New Window )
It seems to me that Borgata broke that rule, not Ivey. THEY exposed for play cards that were marked "in any manner". It were THEIR decks that were marked. Ivey didn't mark them. Decks with these type of edges have been known to exist and the casino did nothing to prevent their introduction into the games.
Ivey didn't manipulate anything. The dealer/pit boss had a choice. To turn or not to turn. THEY, the casino, chose to turn in spite of the widespread knowledge that these types of decks were, seemingly, commonplace.
I only wish that money didn't buy influence and that it was illegal. The game wasn't deprived of the element of chance. It was still there ... only the odds shifted a bit.
I don't know if exploit is the right word, but they certainly do things to change the rules slightly to further increase their edge.
For example, the Luxor (like many other casinos) has a "Party Pit" for blackjack with dancers for entertainment. This area also usually features their lower limit tables (ie $5/$10 tables that you can't find elsewhere in the casino). What could be bad about scantilly clad hot chicks gyrating while you play cheap blackjack?
Well, the blackjack rules are different for these tables. There is no surrender, blackjack only pays 6 to 5 (instead of 3 to 2), and they all have the constant shufflers. Each of these changes to the rules adds to the built in house edge.
Quote:
I get that they are unsympathetic, but it is hard to muster sympathy for individuals that gamble and lose as well.
I don't know if exploit is the right word, but they certainly do things to change the rules slightly to further increase their edge.
For example, the Luxor (like many other casinos) has a "Party Pit" for blackjack with dancers for entertainment. This area also usually features their lower limit tables (ie $5/$10 tables that you can't find elsewhere in the casino). What could be bad about scantilly clad hot chicks gyrating while you play cheap blackjack?
Well, the blackjack rules are different for these tables. There is no surrender, blackjack only pays 6 to 5 (instead of 3 to 2), and they all have the constant shufflers. Each of these changes to the rules adds to the built in house edge.
I went to AC back in 95. I usually go to Reno/Vegas and could not believe how quickly AC wants your money. In Vegas/ Reno at the time you could find 5 dollar tables. In AC the lowest was 10 dollars and they only had a couple of those.It was crazy to see 2-3 people deep waiting for a spot at the tables.
Quote:
I get that they are unsympathetic, but it is hard to muster sympathy for individuals that gamble and lose as well.
I don't know if exploit is the right word, but they certainly do things to change the rules slightly to further increase their edge.
For example, the Luxor (like many other casinos) has a "Party Pit" for blackjack with dancers for entertainment. This area also usually features their lower limit tables (ie $5/$10 tables that you can't find elsewhere in the casino). What could be bad about scantilly clad hot chicks gyrating while you play cheap blackjack?
Well, the blackjack rules are different for these tables. There is no surrender, blackjack only pays 6 to 5 (instead of 3 to 2), and they all have the constant shufflers. Each of these changes to the rules adds to the built in house edge.
Well, arguing from a purely economic standpoint, there is some positive value associated with hot chicks that (for some? many?) offsets the incremental house advantage.
My point was not that there is a house advantage, its that it is somehow hidden to the point where anyone enters a casino with the (reasonable) expectation of making money.
Sneakers O'toole : 11:44 am : link : reply
that it was actually the casino that made the changes to the game, to honor the request of the player. They had complete control over the situation. Ivey didn't introduce a new element to the game.
The casino agreed to changes.
This should eliminate the aspect of fraud.