http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/phil-ivey-denies-cheating-casinos-out-of-more-than-20m/
What the heck is edge sorting?
What the heck is edge sorting?
Its kinda detailed and will take too long to write up. Involves some engineering of the casino staff.
There are some detailed discussion in this thread
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/phil-ivey-getting-sued-borgata-1433932/
More info about the 7.3m GPB he wasnt paid on same hustle by another casino
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...sino-refuses-pay-ivey-sues-cliffs-op-1254448/
There are some detailed discussion in this thread
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/phil-ivey-getting-sued-borgata-1433932/
More info about the 7.3m GPB he wasnt paid on same hustle by another casino
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...sino-refuses-pay-ivey-sues-cliffs-op-1254448/
Here is one guys summary of what happened
Okay, I'll take a stab at explaining. First, the cards were not "marked" in any way that made them distinguishable from one another during normal play and use. Only when Ivey and his cohort had them "placed in a condition" other than the normal random position they should be in could the differences in the cards be discerned. In order to keep the cards in this position Ivey insisted on using an automatic shuffler, because hand shuffling the cards usually involves a "scramble" and or turns of the deck during the shuffle, which would put the cards back into random order, which is the entire purpose for shuffling the cards. Also, Ivey insisted on a very specific deck of cards, make and color, because he he knew the differences in the cards could be exploited by his scheme. Ivey insisted the same 8 decks of cards be used over and over and not be replaced during his session.
Ivey asked for all of these things explaining that they were merely "superstitions". However, Ivey and his partner knew that was a lie, which makes it a fraudulent representation. They knew this "scheme" would "tend to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."
In furtherance of this scheme Ivey bet the minimum during the "staging process" of his scheme, which was rotating all of the cards into a position where he could exploit the "un-random" position of the cards, whereupon he proceeded to bet the maximum on every hand thereafter. He did this because he was able to determine the relative value of the first card off the deck for each hand. This knowledge, obtained only by his lies to the casino about his "superstitions", his knowledge of a "defect" in a certain brand and color of playing cards and the use of an automatic shuffler shifted the odds of the game into his favor, which is illegal under the controlling law.
I continue to struggle with the rational that this conduct is "okay". Would it be okay if it was the casino exploited some inside knowledge, of any kind, they might have in order to manipulate any game to change the games normal odds to odds that made them even bigger favorites?
Okay, I'll take a stab at explaining. First, the cards were not "marked" in any way that made them distinguishable from one another during normal play and use. Only when Ivey and his cohort had them "placed in a condition" other than the normal random position they should be in could the differences in the cards be discerned. In order to keep the cards in this position Ivey insisted on using an automatic shuffler, because hand shuffling the cards usually involves a "scramble" and or turns of the deck during the shuffle, which would put the cards back into random order, which is the entire purpose for shuffling the cards. Also, Ivey insisted on a very specific deck of cards, make and color, because he he knew the differences in the cards could be exploited by his scheme. Ivey insisted the same 8 decks of cards be used over and over and not be replaced during his session.
Ivey asked for all of these things explaining that they were merely "superstitions". However, Ivey and his partner knew that was a lie, which makes it a fraudulent representation. They knew this "scheme" would "tend to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."
In furtherance of this scheme Ivey bet the minimum during the "staging process" of his scheme, which was rotating all of the cards into a position where he could exploit the "un-random" position of the cards, whereupon he proceeded to bet the maximum on every hand thereafter. He did this because he was able to determine the relative value of the first card off the deck for each hand. This knowledge, obtained only by his lies to the casino about his "superstitions", his knowledge of a "defect" in a certain brand and color of playing cards and the use of an automatic shuffler shifted the odds of the game into his favor, which is illegal under the controlling law.
I continue to struggle with the rational that this conduct is "okay". Would it be okay if it was the casino exploited some inside knowledge, of any kind, they might have in order to manipulate any game to change the games normal odds to odds that made them even bigger favorites?
"Ivey asked for all of these things explaining that they were merely "superstitions". However, Ivey and his partner knew that was a lie, which makes it a fraudulent representation. They knew this "scheme" would "tend to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."
I don't have any problem with what Ivey did, I certainly don't think it's "illegal" as you say.
"Would it be okay if it was the casino exploited some inside knowledge, of any kind, they might have in order to manipulate any game to change the games normal odds to odds that made them even bigger favorites?"
They don't seem to have any problem taking people's money when their skill and judgement are impaired by all the free alcohol the casinos pump into them. The casinos are designed to exploit every psychological edge they can to get people to dump as much money they can. If they're going to offer a game to customers, it's their job to make sure they understand the consequences of saying "yes" to things like an automatic shuffler, and a specific deck of cards.
If someone notices that there are an extra couple aces in a deck playing blackjack, is it cheating if they just sit there quietly and keep playing? Hell no. It's the casinos responsibility to train their dealers to spot things like that, and if they don't, well too bad. Is it cheating if you get overpaid on a hand in blackjack, and you don't say anything? Hell no.
