Phil Ivey Borgata update

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. Encouraging alcohol is not honorable.

2. I disagree.

Let's say I'm playing poker with some of the boys and one of the guys has a tendency to not cover his hole cards well. I didn't encourage it. I didn't use mirrors. I didn't touch the cards etc.. It's his fault. It's not mine.

The "honorable" thing to do would be to tell him.

Not analogous, imo. This was a professionally managed casino, not "one of the boys" who you have an ethical obligation to inform.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. Encouraging alcohol is not honorable.

2. I disagree.

Let's say I'm playing poker with some of the boys and one of the guys has a tendency to not cover his hole cards well. I didn't encourage it. I didn't use mirrors. I didn't touch the cards etc.. It's his fault. It's not mine.

The "honorable" thing to do would be to tell him.

I could also do nothing and catch a peak and advantage once in awhile. That's not so honorable. I'd called it passive cheating, but cheating nonetheless.

But I'd be a scumbag if I purposely tried to get him to shift his seat slightly so I could see them more often. That's basically what Ivey did. He actively tried to get the house to give him an advantage that is not part of the intent of the game. And if someone did that in my poker game, they'd be banned permanently. In some games, they'd be lucky to get out alive.

Ivey is not exactly unknown in the gambling circles...and the casino should have suspected something when he requested the unusual dealing arrangement. But the casino probably underestimated the edge that Ivey and his teammate held over the game...and they granted his unusual request. Ivey is known to blow millions of dollars in the pits...and the Borgata management was salivating over his million$+ buyin. Either that, or they had him in a classic no-win situation...where they knew that he was "cheating" in the game and they would have pocketed his money if he lost...or sued him in court if he won.

There is nothing illegal about "trying to get the house to give an advantage" to the player...if the player asks for this "advantage" ahead of time. Remember...the casino can always REFUSE the player's request.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ivey is not exactly unknown in the gambling circles...and the casino should have suspected something when he requested the unusual dealing arrangement. But the casino probably underestimated the edge that Ivey and his teammate held over the game...and they granted his unusual request. Ivey is known to blow millions of dollars in the pits...and the Borgata management was salivating over his million$+ buyin. Either that, or they had him in a classic no-win situation...where they knew that he was "cheating" in the game and they would have pocketed his money if he lost...or sued him in court if he won.

There is nothing illegal about "trying to get the house to give an advantage" to the player...if the player asks for this "advantage" ahead of time. Remember...the casino can always REFUSE the player's request.

It's questionable whether the dealer and/or casino knew that the request to rearrange cards was made in an attempt to cheat the house.

Personally, I find that almost laughable.

There are surely people in Vegas that would have known or suspected a rat after he started piling up winnings, but he did this in multiple places and one even initially agreed to pay him until they figured out he cheated them.

He's a smart guy. He and/or his partner scouted for situations where they thought they could pull it off.

I have no sympathy for casinos, but Ivey actively tried to cheat. He did not just passively take advantage of incompetence. That subtle difference explains the ruling and I agree with it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Not analogous, imo. This was a professionally managed casino, not "one of the boys" who you have an ethical obligation to inform.

It doesn't have to be "one of the boys". That would make it even worse.

The underlying intent of every card game is that no one knows what the face down cards are. Anything that allows you to know what those cards are is breaking that underlying intent. If they were simply using a bad deck and he was sharp enough to read the cards, so be it. It's unethical but grey. If you are actively trying to get them to switch the cards so you can know what they are you are actively attempting to change the game without their knowledge. That they were dumb enough to fall for it does not change the fact that you cheated them.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It doesn't have to be "one of the boys". That would make it even worse.

The underlying intent of every card game is that no one knows what the face down cards are. Anything that allows you to know what those cards are is breaking that underlying intent. If they were simply using a bad deck and he was sharp enough to read the cards, so be it. It's unethical but grey. If you are actively trying to get them to switch the cards so you can know what they are you are actively attempting to change the game without their knowledge. That they were dumb enough to fall for it does not change the fact that you cheated them.

If Ivey indeed cheated them...then, why didn't they arrest him? Don't cheaters get arrested in the casinos? And...don't tell me that he "cheated" in the same way the card-counters "cheat"...because the card counters get to KEEP their winnings. If he cheated clearly, as you say...then he should have gotten ARRESTED.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ivey is a "completely unsympathetic figure"...and the Borgata is NOT? There is no way I would ever side with a casino in a case such as this. IMO...the casino should have suspected something the second they heard Ivey's suspicious-sounding dealing demands. The saying "a fool and his money are soon parted" works BOTH ways...as far as I am concerned.

Here's the thing, though. Casinos are unsympathetic because they are big businesses who make gobs of money. But Ivey is unsympathetic because he cheated in a card game, refused to give the money back, filed losing court cases, and is now dodging legitimate attempts to collect on the judgment.

In other words, one actor his unsympathetic because of what they are. The other is unsympathetic because of what he did. That's somewhat asymmetrical.

Put another way, a lot of people don't like lawyers as a profession, but that doesn't mean you believe that if a client legitimately skipped out on a fee she owed, that the lawyer shouldn't be able to pursue her and collect.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When the casino keeps serving alcohol to clearly inebriated gamblers in the hope that they'll be even more reckless with their money than they'd otherwise be...is that an "honorable" practice? Does the casino care about the player's finances in those cases? Why does the house get away with unscrupulous behavior...when the player can't?

The truth is that Ivey asked for permission ahead of time, and he never touched the cards...nor did he conspire with a casino employee -- or the card manufacturer -- to defraud the casino. If the casino game is exploitable under such circumstances...then that's the HOUSE'S fault. The casinos like to say that they are the "butchers"...and their customers are the "lambs". And now we are supposed to feel sorry for the BUTCHERS?

1. Casinos do many, many bad things. I don't see how that means they should have to pay off cheaters.

2. The house gets away with unscrupulous behavior because the public demands a place that engages in unscrupulous behavior! What do I mean by this? Simple. We could pass a law that prohibited casinos from serving alcohol and prohibited casinos from allowing anyone visibly drunk to gamble. You know why we don't have that law? Hint: it's not the casinos. It's the players! They want to be able to gamble drunk.

The entire reason we have an industry of house banked games that players can never ever beat in the long term is because the public demands it. This is like legalizing prostitution and then accusing brothel owners of behaving unscrupulously by offering sex for sale!

3. Who gives a CRAP if Ivey touched the cards? That's an excuse, not an argument. It's a meaningless technicality. The fact of the matter is you aren't allowed to cause the cards to be manipulated to gain an advantage. The courts ruled this. Ivey lost his argument that he had the right to cheat.

Many, many things are caused by someone's negligence but still wrong. The classic example is leaving your back door open or your keys in the car is not consent to thieves to enter and steal.

4. It's not about feeling sorry for casinos. It's about not feeling at all sorry for Ivey for having cheated. That's it. He cheated, he lost. Casinos are still big, ethically questionable businesses, but they are entitled to recover money from cheaters nonetheless.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i went into the brand new Encore Hotel in Boston 2 weeks ago. the blackjack tables paid 6/5 on 21 and the dealer hit on soft 17. then the table limit was minimum bet $50, maximum bet $1000.

the ATM machine charged $6.95 to get $500 out of it. if you wanted $1000 they treated it as a cash advance from your debit card and charged you $22.50.

i sat down at the $20-$40 game, when a half hour was up they were looking for $10 to pay for time. i got up after my $300 loss and went home, maybe i will return next century.

$10 per half hour in the Borg 20/40 is an absolute bargain if you know how to play limit poker. That game is beatable for at least $30 an hour.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ivey is not exactly unknown in the gambling circles...and the casino should have suspected something when he requested the unusual dealing arrangement. But the casino probably underestimated the edge that Ivey and his teammate held over the game...and they granted his unusual request. Ivey is known to blow millions of dollars in the pits...and the Borgata management was salivating over his million$+ buyin. Either that, or they had him in a classic no-win situation...where they knew that he was "cheating" in the game and they would have pocketed his money if he lost...or sued him in court if he won.

There is nothing illegal about "trying to get the house to give an advantage" to the player...if the player asks for this "advantage" ahead of time. Remember...the casino can always REFUSE the player's request.

You shouldn't be speaking of what is "legal" and "illegal". Ivey made all these arguments to two courts in two different jurisdictions and lost twice.

I think your problem is you are viewing advantage play in house-banked games like baccarat as equivalent to advantage play in peer-to-peer games like poker and horse racing. But legally, they are completely different. Unless the casino wants you to have an advantage and deliberately structures the game so you can get it, courts are going to rule your advantage play to be cheating and allow the casino whatever remedies are available in that situation. This isn't new and Ivey wasn't the first clever player to learn this.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If Ivey indeed cheated them...then, why didn't they arrest him? Don't cheaters get arrested in the casinos? And...don't tell me that he "cheated" in the same way the card-counters "cheat"...because the card counters get to KEEP their winnings. If he cheated clearly, as you say...then he should have gotten ARRESTED.

That's a rather misleading argument. Card counters sometimes get to keep their winnings (though the Hard Rock and Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas have recently taken to handcuffing and confiscating chips from identified card counters). But they also get backed off or barred from casinos. In other words, card counting certainly is treated as a form of cheating.

At any rate, casinos' treatment of card counters who win $3,000 in a session of blackjack does not set a precedent that requires they pay the winnings of someone who wins $9 million manipulating baccarat. The more you try to take the casino for, the better your legal arguments had better be.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If Ivey indeed cheated them...then, why didn't they arrest him? Don't cheaters get arrested in the casinos? And...don't tell me that he "cheated" in the same way the card-counters "cheat"...because the card counters get to KEEP their winnings. If he cheated clearly, as you say...then he should have gotten ARRESTED.

Personally, I do not think card counters cheat. They play by the rules and only use superior insights and skill to win. IMO card counters should never have been barred. What should have happened was that the casinos should have allowed them to play but changed the rules to take away their advantage (which to a large extent is what they eventually did to most anyway).

Decades ago I had a friend from MIT that was a card counter. He was top 4 in his class at MIT and probably the smartest person I ever became good friends with. He was brilliant, but humble. He used to tell me the funniest stories about how he would go to Atlantic City by bus and then fly home by helicopter with all his winnings.

I had basic strategy memorized and could do a simple +1 and -1 count, but I hadn't gotten to the point where I could adjust my play to the count or do more sophisticated counts like him. I operated more intuitively when the count got extreme.

I probably was at a small disadvantage against the house, but it was close.

I went to AC with him one time.

We agreed to play on the same table where he would do the counting and I would adjust my bet size in a similar pattern to him. If I was making too many playing errors when the count got extreme, he would let me know so I would stop playing. We both did very well and had no issues with the casino.

We eventually started playing horses and going to the track together. Let's just say he was a better blackjack player than horseplayer.

Unfortunately, at the peak of our friendship he was hit by a drunk driver and killed. It was one of the saddest days of my life.

[Secondbest]

Doesn't look like Ivey will play tournaments in the U.S any time soon.

https://www.highstakesdb.com/9835-ph...al-battle.aspx

[horses4courses]

The Ivey case against casinos is definitely not clear cut.

Yes, Ivey took advantage of inside knowledge on a playing card defect.
Yes, casinos were greedy in attempting to take him on at the tables.
Yes, casinos should have taken greater care to ensure fair play.
In other words, they were not protecting their assets well enough.
Was Ivey cheating them? Maybe, maybe not.

In my opinion, though, there is one overriding factor at work here.
That factor was Phil Ivey's intent before he ever set foot in these casinos.
This, I believe, is why the courts have ruled against him.
I'm sure, at this point, he wishes he never did.

[Frost king]

You get the feeling that he is running because he doesn’t have the cash to satisfy the judgement. He will end up living outside the US for the rest of his life. The Borgatta will eventually track down whatever assets he has in the US and get judgements against them. It will take time, but they will get whatever they can from him.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Frost king

You get the feeling that he is running because he doesn’t have the cash to satisfy the judgement. He will end up living outside the US for the rest of his life. The Borgatta will eventually track down whatever assets he has in the US and get judgements against them. It will take time, but they will get whatever they can from him.

Ivey is very smart.
He should know when to cut a deal.
His earnings potential is still huge for years to come.