Phil Ivey loses case

Discussion in 'Other Casino Games' started by TDVegas, Oct 25, 2017.

  1. random_roller, Oct 27, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,612
    Likes Received:
    4,394
    Below is the October 21, 2016 opinion from the United States District Court. Consider this one the initial ruling on various claims & counterclaims by the respective parties. The December 15, 2016 opinion (previously linked) concerns damages.

    The opinion below includes more detailed information on the edge sorting scheme allegedly used by Ivey, Jr. and and Sun while playing high stakes baccarat at Borgata.

    MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC v. IVEY et al, No. 1:2014cv02283 - Document 107 (D.N.J. 2016)
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2014cv02283/302463/107/
     
    #41
    yacraps likes this.
  2. von duck, Oct 28, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Gender:
    Male
    After reading several pages of RR's link, it is pretty easy for me to determine that Phil is going to lose this case, if it is decided in the courts. That being said, let's all resolve to help the Borgata, settle this case out of court, and do the right thing. Phil beat them fair and square. It was not Phil, that scamed the casino, but the casino that scamed itself. The one, and only reason, this thing worked, was because the Borgata, agreed to the terms, requested. They knew they were up against a world class poker player, and were foolish enough to play him, on his own terms. They were victims of their own greed, that is what blinded them to an obvious set up. If they WELSH this bet, I believe that all gamblers should do their part, to see that his "joint" is next one to be boarded up, in A.C. Live by the sword, die by the sword, you made a bet, you lost it, tough shit. Drop the law suit, reimburse Phil for all incurred expenses, then pay him a small fee, for teaching you a lesson. This is the RIGHT thing to do. Has anybody come across the means by which the first casino, learned of the edge sorting? Who spilled the beans. You don't reckon that baccarat binge in Macao, might be related, do you? :cool: :) Cha-Ching
     
    #42
    James Hall likes this.
  3. von duck, Oct 29, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it only right, that Phil give the guys at Borgata a fair chance to get their money back, and as usual, I have the perfect plan, and I believe it to be totally "FAIR", but you guys be the judge. OK, here's what I propose. Phil will deal, and book, a baccarat game to the casino guys, with the table max being whatever the highest normal table at the Borgata is. The other rules will be standard baccarat rules at Borgata. The casino guys may request any rule changes they want, with Phil having the right to accept, or deny any or all of them, just like the casino can. All bets will be CASH, as some casino guys have proven, they can't be trusted, to pay up. Phil will have the right to 86, any or all of the casino guys, any time he wants, for any reason he sees fit, just like the casino can. I think it would be very "sporting" of Phil to make this offer to the casino, and they would "likely" except the offer, as it is exactly the offer, that they make to their "cherished" patrons. What do ya say Phil, give the boys a fair chance to get their money back. What do you say about this offer posters, fair is fair right? :) :cool:.Newsflash, Phil Ivey, doubles up on Borgata Guys, in marathon baccarat, match.
     
    #43
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
    James Hall likes this.
  4. random_roller, Oct 31, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,612
    Likes Received:
    4,394
    Ivey, Jr.'s special requests and the casino's subsequent accommodation is what led to the ongoing (and resolved) litigation in the US & UK. So your proposal could be problematic from the onset.

    I propose Thunderdome ("2 men enter, 1 man leaves") or Celebrity Deathmatch.
     
    #44
  5. The Midnight Skulker, Oct 31, 2017

    The Midnight Skulker

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,324
    Likes Received:
    2,552
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Idaho, USA
    I would like to hear the British Supreme Court explain the difference between the Ivey case and the London Ritz Carlton roulette caper in which three players used laser technology to predict where the ball would land. IIRC the court ruled that the players had not physically altered the game equipment and therefore had not cheated. To no one's surprise I believe it was shortly thereafter this decision that casinos world wide banned the use of electronic devices at the game table.

    Here in the U.S., and in a case more similar to the Ivey one, Don Johnson negotiated a loss rebate deal with three Atlantic City casinos that allowed him to play with an advantage, and he took them to the cleaners. I could not find any reference to any litigation the casinos initiated, but again, the industry took a closer look at their loss rebate offers to whales. Johnson also admitted to dealer-distracting shenanigans at the table designed to induce errors in his favor. I would like to hear how getting the casino to give away their advantage prior to playing, and creating havoc during play, differs from what Phil Ivey did.
     
    #45
    yacraps likes this.
  6. random_roller, Oct 31, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,612
    Likes Received:
    4,394
    Distracting a casino dealer from properly doing his/her job probably isn't actionable. Note that I didn't say preventing someone from doing their job, which could be grounds for a lawsuit BTW, nothing I read in the article you linked indicated the individual did anything that changed the probabilities of outcomes. He just got a much better deal via the "guaranteed" cash rebate and appearance fee compared with the average player. If we were able to negotiate no vig on the Buy 4/10, 3x on both the Field 2 & 12, and a $10K appearance fee...with no minimum play required, we'd probably be APs, too.

    In contrast, Ivey, Jr. apparently took affirmative steps to "mark" the cards. Yes, he didn't physically touch the cards, but the sorting and rotation was undertaken by the dealer in accordance with Ivey, Jr.'s (or his partner's) specific instructions, per the court documents. I play quite a bit of baccarat (way more than craps). If I knew the 8 or 9 was the next card to be dealt, I would own an island. And a baseball team. Oh, and a bunch of Legos, enough to build a 14' craps table.
     
    #46
    yacraps and Onautopilot like this.
  7. The Midnight Skulker, Oct 31, 2017

    The Midnight Skulker

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,324
    Likes Received:
    2,552
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Idaho, USA
    The Ritz Carlton roulette players took affirmative steps to gain an advantage without physically touching anything. Would they have been cheating if they had asked the croupier to spin the wheel a little slower and been accommodated? It is this inconsistency I find troubling.
     
    #47
    yacraps likes this.
  8. von duck, Oct 31, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Gender:
    Male
    What Phil did was take advantage of a degenerate casino, just as many casinos take advantage of degenerate gamblers. The player has NO obligation to ignore information, just because it puts the casino at a disadvantage. It is a cruel world, tough shit Borgata. I do not believe that that court will do justice in the case, but we the players can make sure that the casino does not get away with it. If you read the court opinions, posted by RR, it's almost like they are saying, that the player has a legal obligation to make sure that the casino wins at least the amount that the HA would dictate, and do it as quickly as possible, so as to make room for the next player. The language is so blatantly biased, in the casinos favor, I thought at first I was reading the casinos lawyers statement. Phil has no chance at all in the NJ courts, I mean zero. It's almost like the court is saying that the casino is so entitled to their share, that it would be OK for them to cheat you, as long as it was just for the proper amount. I say, BOYCOTT BOGATA, until Phil is vindicated, and reimbursed for all related expenses. If the Jersey courts make him repay the money, then BOYCOTT JERSEY, you won't be missing much. :cool:. Does anyone have that number, the one for problem gamblers? I think we should give it to the Borgata's management, don't you?:D. Don't they know "when to say when"? If they would have gambled for "fun" they would have already won. :oops:
     
    #48
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  9. random_roller, Oct 31, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,612
    Likes Received:
    4,394
    Inconsistencies in the law (and/or how it is interpreted) happen quite often. One of the best ways for a case to get to the Supreme Court of the United States is when various US Circuit Courts of Appeal have rulings that differ from/conflict with each other. Sometimes, it takes a while for the "appropriate case" to reach SCOTUS for resolution and when that happens. While waiting for SCOTUS review -- which might never happen -- if you're in the wrong Circuit and have a (currently) unfavorable interpretation of the law, you're SOL.

    BTW, I didn't read the roulette case you had linked, so I'll reserve comment on that one for a later time.
     
    #49
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017