|
As far as I know, Ivey has lost all of his court cases so far, having done this at multiple casinos.
Which isn't surprising. A lot of people who aren't lawyers assume that cases are won by lawyers coming up with amazingly creative, strained arguments based on technicalities. In fact, they tend to be won the party who is seen as more sympathetic on the facts of the case. Sometimes, the "bad" party will win, but it's because they so clearly have the law on their side that the judge or jury feels it has no choice but to find for that party.
Ivey's argument is basically "yes, I came up with a scheme to achieve the same result as marking the cards of a casino game and used that scheme to turn the odds in my favor, but they never said I wasn't allowed to do it (because they wanted my business) and I didn't physically mark the cards".
Whereas the casino's argument is "baccarat is a house-banked game with a house advantage, everyone knows you can't mark the cards to gain an advantage over the casino, and while Ivey didn't actually mark the cards himself, he came up with a scheme that had the exact same effect".
And the background of this is that gambling contracts (at least legal ones) carry the same implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as any other contract. You aren't allowed to take actions that, while not spelled out in the contract, have the effect of depriving the other side of the benefit of its bargain. That's black letter contract law both here and in the UK.
I think going in Ivey had less than a 10 percent chance of getting his money.
|
