Slashdot Mirror


How A Professional Poker Player Conned a Casino Out of $9.6 Million (washingtonpost.com)

Phil Ivey is a professional poker player who's won ten World Series of Poker bracelets -- but he's also got a new game. An anonymous reader write: In 2012, Ivey requested that the Borgata casino let him play baccarat with an assistant named Cheng Yin Sun while using a specific brand of playing cards -- purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards -- and an automatic shuffler. He then proceeded to win $9.6 million over four visits. The pair would rotate certain cards 180 degrees, which allowed them to recognize those cards the next time they passed through the deck. (They were exploiting a minute lack of a symmetry in the pattern on the backs of the cards...)

But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not use cards whose values would be known to them -- and ordered them to return the $9.6 million [PDF]. "What this ruling says is a player is prohibited from combining his skill and intellect and visual acuity to beat the casino at its own game," Ivey's attorney told the AP, adding that the judge's ruling will be appealed.

The judge also ruled Ivey had to return the money he later won playing craps with his winnings from the baccarat game -- though the judge denied the casino's request for restitution over the additional $250,000 worth of goods and services they'd "comped" Ivey during his stay.

406 comments

  1. Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!

    1. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!

      That's exactly it though, the local government grants an exception to the casino allowing it to run rigged games of chance in return for a portion of the profits.

      The only winning move is not to play.

    2. Re:Remember kids! by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It depends on your definition of "winning".

      If you are entertained by playing games of chance, the small percentage the house takes is your bill for the night's entertainment. Everybody knows the deal going in.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are not rigged. It's a tax on those with poor reasoning skills. Twenty some odd years ago I worked as a dealer in a casino. One night this really drunk guy swore the big six wheel was being stopped by the carpeted box under the table. Security handed him the box and kicked him out the front door.

    4. Re:Remember kids! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!

      How exactly are the casinos cheating?

      The odds are certainly in their favor, as any reasonable person knows. They don't have to cheat to make lots of money.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Remember kids! by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Troll

      How exactly are the casinos cheating?

      They paid politicians to write the law in their favor.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The games are mathematically in the house's favor...is that what you consider rigged? The odds are known for anyone who cares to look.

      A casino wouldn't dare rig a table to make sure they win, if they got caught they would lose their gambling license. And, considering the amount of underpaid workers that roll through casinos, one of them would inevitably rat them out.

      Personally I think Ivey should keep the money here, but he was an idiot about it. Had he done it just once he would have gotten away with it, but he dug too deep like the dwarves of Moria.

    7. Re:Remember kids! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

      "They don't have to cheat to make lots of money"
      But they go to great lengths to prevent card counters from playing or where they're prevented by law from banning them, they harass or physically threaten them

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    8. Re: Remember kids! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      In bad faith? How come no one ever complains about casinos when they win?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Everybody knows the deal going in.
      Sort of. Some people think they're "lucky", or have a gambling addiction. Casinos know this and actively try to exploit this (very real) weakness in humans. The casino is using its intelligence to maximize the profits, and exploit a property it's noticed about players. They'll go as far as call up people (often problem gamblers) to encourage them to come to the casino through comps, etc. This isn't a secret, and it genuinely ruins peoples lives. Real harm is done here. What if your bartender called an alcoholic patron he hadn't seen in a while and asked them to come on down to the bar for free drinks on him?

      When a person does the same thing and exploits a weakness in its system (that was NOT ruled to be illegal) it's considered wrong? Turnabout is fair play.

    10. Re:Remember kids! by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Informative

      The house doesn't cheat. It plays by a set of rules that mathematically work out in its favor. It tells you this up front. The closest thing the house does to cheating is having a house limit.

    11. Re:Remember kids! by retchdog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "they harass or physically threaten them."

      i suspect that they first ask them to leave, and after that formally evict them, and inform them that they are trespassing. maybe they skip the asking nicely part; that's okay.

      but if the silly gits still don't leave, well, yeah, willful trespassers are often treated poorly. this is hardly unique to casinos; i've seen more than a few slashdotters commenting in gleeful terms about how they'd not hesitate to shotgun anyone trespassing on their property.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    12. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!

      How exactly are the casinos cheating?

      The odds are certainly in their favor, as any reasonable person knows. They don't have to cheat to make lots of money.

      And if a player turns those odds in their favor, it's labeled "cheating"?

      Gotta love that fucking bullshit logic.

    13. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once went to LV and came back with 10x more than I took. It was the only time I've been there and no desire to go back

    14. Re:Remember kids! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

      I once went to LV and came back with 10x more than I took. It was the only time I've been there and no desire to go back

      Same thing happened to me, Shit, I was on intravenous antibiotics for a month, my dick nearly fell off. Never going back there again.

    15. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to cheat to make lots of money.

      Unless your name is Donald J. Trump, in which case your casino loses money:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

    16. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that there are a nber of people who have no idea what gambling means.

    17. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rig

      "to fix in advance for a desired result"

      That sure sounds like a casino game. It's not rigged for an individual play, but long term each games is designed to have a particular outcome.

    18. Re:Remember kids! by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      $DEITY forbid they should have a marketing department.

      The casino doesn't know (and may in fact not be allowed to know) who has a gambling problem. All they know is that a long-time customer has stopped coming, so they fire up the marketing machine and incentivize future business. To use your analogy, the bartender might pass a known regular on the street, say "I haven't seen you in a while", and offer a drink on the house next time the customer comes in.

      Yes, some people think they're lucky. Some people are addicted. That doesn't change the legality of the casinos' operations, and doesn't make them liable.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    19. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if your bartender called an alcoholic patron he hadn't seen in a while and asked them to come on down to the bar for free drinks on him?

      They kinda do. The bar I usually go to has a rewards card where you earn points you can use towards your tab. Their system starts emailing when I haven't been there in a few weeks. "Come back by Tuesday and we'll give you 20 bonus points!" or "Show your card for $1 domestic pints on your next visit!" They don't send physical postcards like the casinos do, but that's about the only difference.

    20. Re: Remember kids! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope. It's actually rigged. Watch the slots. They'll almost always "stop" one away from a big win. They are programmed to win a certain amount of the time, but being one away from a big win counts as a 100% loss to the count, while counting as a "win" in the human brain.

      They exploit human weakness in a deliberate manner to harm those that play the games. That's "rigged" even if it doesn't explicitly change the payout numbers.

    21. Re:Remember kids! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      What law exactly?

    22. Re:Remember kids! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

      The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss. This tricks the human brain into thinking they are doing better than they are. If they literally displayed a random result, they'd be legit. But the outcome is statistically determined, and the losses are deliberately rigged to show a near-jackpot to trick people into playing more.

      If casinos weren't cheating, they'd actually display random results for every win and loss. They don't. They are cheating, and they know it. They cheat as much as allowed by law. That it's legal cheating doesn't make it non-cheating.

    23. Re: Remember kids! by valdezjuan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The casinos know who has problems, just like they know they tamper with the air to make people feel more euphoric, not to mention the carpets and the very layout is designed to confuse you and keep you in.

    24. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By denying customers any other means of winning.
      They set the games rules, and then argue when someone finds a way of winning.
      Case in point - counting cards. Counting cards is a flaw in their system, so if someone is caught doing this, they are removed and banned, instead of fixing the flaws in their system.
      I like the concept from Gambling Apocolypse Kaiji - It is the Houses obligation to ensure the gamble works correctly, and if their equipment/system allows you to take money from them, that is their fault - and they cannot just strip you of the winnings.

    25. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well that is dirty and definitely playing the psychological game and exploiting human weakness but it is NOT rigged. They are preprogrammed to pay out a specific percentage on average, slot machines are by far the worst odds in a casino but that doesn't make them rigged. Only a fool goes up to a slot machine and expects to have a chance of winning.

    26. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Caesar's Fucking Palace was built so the [sic] hoi polloi could win and retire in luxury beyond the dreams of avarice.

      But to get their winnings into an ATM machine they will have to use their PIN numbers and if they're infected with the HIV virus they had better be quick.

    27. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They law that permits them, but not other people, to offer bets to at odds fixed in their favor. And then to market the opportunity to enter into such a facially unfair contract directly to those least able to understand the situation or to afford the losses.

    28. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless your name is Donald J. Trump

      So let me get this right? Realizing the great damage gambling causes poor families, Trump, out of the kindness of his heart, took over some casinos to put them out of business for the greater public good and at considerable personal loss I might add ... And this is the thanks he gets from you libtards? I can only imagine how ungrateful you're gonna be once he makes America great again!

    29. Re: Remember kids! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Only a fool goes up to a slot machine and expects to have a chance of winning.

      Of course you have a chance of winning.

    30. Re:Remember kids! by mallyn · · Score: 1
      That makes sense if you really look closely at it. If the house does not win, it does not exist. If the games were exactly even (house wins preciesly 50 percent of the time) then the Strip cannot exist. By losing more than winning, us players are the ones that are building and rebuilding and upgrading the strip and it's ever more and more glitzy casinos.

      I went to LV once for CES (I was part of Intel's Keynote). I won by not touching any of the gambling stuff and leaving my hand out of my pocket unless I am paying for a meal.

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    31. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much like the fon t yo u a r e u s i n g.

    32. Re:Remember kids! by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Turnabout is fair play.

      Two wrongs don't make a right. Marked cards are cheating, period. He knew it was cheating and is only sorry he got caught.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    33. Re: Remember kids! by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope. It's actually rigged. Watch the slots.

      Modern slot machines don't use the mechanics of the spinning wheels to decide if you win or lose. When you pull the lever (or push the button) the computer generates a random number and decides immediately if you are going to win or lose. The spinning wheels are just a display or a user interface to indicate the result to you. Where the wheels are going to stop is decided by the computer before they even start spinning. Yes, when the computer has decided that you are going to lose, it will spin the wheels and stop them so it looks like you were going win - it's part of the psychology of the game. Is it psychologically rigged, yes. Is it mathematically rigged, no.

    34. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. It's actually rigged. Watch the slots. They'll almost always "stop" one away from a big win.

      No, that is a sign that the math is well designed. It is an intentional, but difficult, effect to achieve.

      They exploit human weakness in a deliberate manner to harm those that play the games. That's "rigged" even if it doesn't explicitly change the payout numbers.

      Not exactly, however they exploit the players sense of anticipation that the game will pay out, so that they keep playing.

    35. Re:Remember kids! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "i suspect that they first ask them to leave, and after that formally evict them, and inform them that they are trespassing. maybe they skip the asking nicely part; that's okay.

      but if the silly gits still don't leave, well, yeah, willful trespassers are often treated poorly. this is hardly unique to casinos"

      New Jersey laws prohibit casinos from harassing or barring card counters yet they do it anyway

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    36. Re: Remember kids! by keithsiilats · · Score: 1

      Law says you need to substitute and use not just use! Weird no one mentioned that. It's clear he just used but didn't substitute. Knowingly to use bogus or counterfeit chips or gaming billets, or knowingly to substitute and use in any such game cards or dice that have been marked, loaded or tampered with;

    37. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over here in Sweden, it is illegal to have discounts on alcohol (you need to make a profit on every drink you sell, overhead/spill counts towards this so you need a price higher than you purchase drinks for). And gambling advertisements are regulated as well.

    38. Re:Remember kids! by ddtmm · · Score: 0

      They were not marked cards in any way whatsoever. He's totally in his fair right. In my opinion the casino has no case at all. He won the money fair and square. It's up to the casino to man -up to the new world, like the rest of us.

    39. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a fool goes up to a slot machine and expects to have a chance of winning.

      Of course you have a chance of winning.

      In the short run, yes. In the long run, no.

    40. Re: Remember kids! by sheramil · · Score: 2

      The casinos know who has problems, just like they know they tamper with the air to make people feel more euphoric

      How do they tamper with the air? Do they increase the level of oxygen? That's insidious! It would also make cigarettes burn faster, assuming people were allowed to smoke indoors.

    41. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any law that forbids showing a near jackpot for every loss? If not, then it is allowed by law.
      "What law" is a misleading question.

    42. Re:Remember kids! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Protip: [sic] does *not* mean "I'm a thick ignorant fuck and I don't know what this word or phrase means".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that isn't what rigged means. Slot machines have defined characteristics and behave to those. You might not like the idea that the machine tempts people to bet more by what it displays when they lose, but that doesn't make it rigged any more than a gas station is rigged if they put up a sign showing the long distance to the next stop knowing that some people will buy unnecessarily to be 'on the safe side'.

    44. Re:Remember kids! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      I went there in a $20,000 dollar car. I came home on a $300,000 bus.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:Remember kids! by redog · · Score: 0

      I too might gleefully shotgun someone trespassing...I considered shooting the tch right off of your face.

    46. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long run too, it just gets smaller and smaller

    47. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am entertained by winning more money than loosing in the process.
      So if I loose more than I win, can I ask money back?

    48. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are slightly confused. Marking the cards and the casino agreeing to a deck are 2 very different beasts.

    49. Re:Remember kids! by queBurro · · Score: 1

      yup, how about a nice game of chess?

      --
      sag
    50. Re: Remember kids! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      He substituted the cards before the game started, by conning the casino in using that specific (flawed) brand of cards.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    51. Re:Remember kids! by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      it's funny to me when people accuse casinos of cheating. why in the world would you cheat, when you have people pouring in to your establishment voluntarily dumping truckloads of money into games whose very premise is that you will probably lose? the casino has every incentive to sit back and play by the rules as written, and no rational incentive to assume any of the risk involved in deceit or misconduct.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    52. Re:Remember kids! by Mendy · · Score: 2

      In the UK there was a campaign about a related issue that Fruit Machines* would offer a gambles with a pre-determined outcome.

      See http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/fairplay/fruit/fruit1.htm

      The outcome of this is that manufacturers were required to add a small sticker saying this was the case.

      *Fruit Machines are similar to Slot Machines but a difference is that they're compensated not fully random. This basically means that the more money has gone in the more likely it is to pay out and visa-versa.

    53. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cheat in so far as every large jackpot win is closely inspected and is sometimes declared a bug so the winner will receive nothing. But they never inspect each loss to see if that loss was a bug. This practice should be criminal.

    54. Re: Remember kids! by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it psychologically rigged, yes. Is it mathematically rigged, no.

      but it's amazing the number of times they cheat people out of big jackpots by declaring that the machine had malfunctioned...

      https://newsone.com/3578167/ca...

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    55. Re: Remember kids! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      Now you're being philosophical, as by that measure every choice you ever make is "rigged."

    56. Re: Remember kids! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      How come no one ever complains about casinos when they win?

      I suspect the casinos also would not have complained if Ivey had lost.

    57. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work as a software developer for one of the biggest producers of slot machines in the world. Rest assured that there is no cheating going on. Our customers set the payouts to whatever percentage they would like (or is forced through regulations) and the slots will pay that much back on the dollar. This can all be verified through internal auditing.

      But hey, speculate all you want.

      Oh and no, we can't rig the machines for you, people need to stop asking that stupid question every time they find out what I do for a living.

    58. Re:Remember kids! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      'Exactly' was meant for you to supply a link to the law in question, not simply make another assertion.

    59. Re:Remember kids! by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, physically threatening card counters is a thing of the past (except in movies). This is bad PR and it may cause casinos legal trouble.
      They do however have countermeasures. When they can't kick them out, they make it harder for the card counter by shuffling more often, limiting the bet spread, etc...
      From all the reports I've seen about card counters, they never seem to mention threats or harassment, although I suppose light harassment may happen as an attempt to break their concentration. What they do mention however is being told to leave in a friendly manner and being read the trespassing act. When, by law, the casino cannot kick them out, the most common response seem to be cutting the shoe in half which makes card counting mostly ineffective.

    60. Re: Remember kids! by asylumx · · Score: 1

      In both of those cases, it appears that what they 'won' appears to be more than the pay tables indicate it is possible to win on that machine, so honestly they are probably right about it being a malfunction.

    61. Re: Remember kids! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Is it mathematically rigged, no.

      People have created emulators that demonstrate that often it doesn't matter which buttons you press, the machine has already decided to are going to lose this one. You can snapshot the system in the emulator, press a button and see that if you had pressed a different button you would have won, so roll back and press the other button and still lose. It's not down to timing or anything like that, the results are consistent.

      Maybe the newer machines are fairer, but ones that operate that way certainly are mathematically rigged because the expectation is that the player influences the outcome.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    62. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you and the law know this means that it's not a cheat. Is it psychological marketing? Sure. No worse than any Viagra or sports car commercial. It's a form of advertising. The simple solution is that if you hate it you simply don't engage in it and hope their market dries up and blows away. Elsewise you're disingenuous and really just need to be quiet.

    63. Re:Remember kids! by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      What version of Linux were those cards running?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    64. Re: Remember kids! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > It's a tax on those with poor reasoning skills.

      That claim makes sense for state lotteries. It makes no sense whatsoever for privately owned casinos. Private companies are not supposed to be able to tax you and if, indeed, this is a tax as you claim - that alone is proof that it is evil.

      Whether it should be illegal is another question entirely. At the very least though - it ought to be well regulated. It's a known (severely) dangerous business, government *does* in fact therefore have a compelling interest in regulating it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    65. Re: Remember kids! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly if this was supposed to be games of chance it should be illegal to have programmed slot machines at all. They should be purely mechanical devices with the result determined by random (at the level of unpredictable at least) physics - more like dice or roulette.
      The odds of a jackpot happening on the first coin ever placed in it should be exactly the same as the odds the day AFTER it has earned more than the jackpot. The mere fact that only a few combos win anything and the rest is money to the house is already more than enough advantage in their favour.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    66. Re: Remember kids! by Nehmo · · Score: 0

      Options > Comment Post Mode> Code
      I'm experimenting here.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    67. Re: Remember kids! by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      <quote><p>Over here in Sweden, it is illegal to have discounts on alcohol (you need to make a profit on every drink you sell, overhead/spill counts towards this so you need a price higher than you purchase drinks for). And gambling advertisements are regulated as well.</p></quote>

      That's the solution I recommend. A casino should be able to exist, but the advertisement needs to be regulated. That's how pot is sold in the Netherlands.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    68. Re:Remember kids! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I went there in a $20,000 dollar car. I came home on a $300,000 bus.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    69. Re:Remember kids! by Luthair · · Score: 1

      They can kick you out if you're winning, that seems like cheating to me as it also changes the odds.

    70. Re: Remember kids! by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      The casinos know who has problems, just like they know they tamper with the air to make people feel more euphoric

      How do they tamper with the air? Do they increase the level of oxygen? That's insidious! It would also make cigarettes burn faster, assuming people were allowed to smoke indoors.

      Only, people are allowed to smoke indoors, as long as it is in a casino. See http://www.riverfronttimes.com... for example. (Note: not true of all locations and casinos; however, in general, casinos are able to carve out special exemptions for themselves.)

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    71. Re: Remember kids! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Only a fool goes up to a slot machine and expects to have a chance of winning.

      Of course you have a chance of winning.

      Your honour, no chance is still a chance.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    72. Re:Remember kids! by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Turnabout is fair play.

      Two wrongs don't make a right. Marked cards are cheating, period. He knew it was cheating and is only sorry he got caught.

      The cards contained a defect. The only person who should feel sorry is the person in charge of quality control for the casino that allowed defective equipment to be used in game play.

      The QC department fucked up. The casino fucked up. End of story.

    73. Re: Remember kids! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If casinos were tampering with the air, the least they could do is make it less toxic so non-smokers don't feel the need to leave quickly.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    74. Re:Remember kids! by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      But can you rig a machine for me?

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    75. Re: Remember kids! by gnick · · Score: 2

      Maybe the newer machines are fairer, but ones that operate that way certainly are mathematically rigged because the expectation is that the player influences the outcome.

      Where is it ever implied that the outcome is affected by the way the player spins? The different buttons (on the very few machines I have experience on) just tell the machine how much you want to spin on this play. When playing, I in no way inferred that there was a "winning" button vs a "losing" button. On the older machines, did people train to pull the lever "just right" for a jackpot? No - They just spun and accepted the outcome. I suggest that there is no expectation that the player influences the outcome beyond play vs no-play.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    76. Re: Remember kids! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      In the short run, yes. In the long run, no.

      Of course you have a chance. Anything that is not impossible has a chance of occurring. Unless you play a rigged machine, the odds do not change based on how long you have played or what previous outcomes were (gambler's fallacy).
      There are people who have won on slots every single day of their two week Vegas vacation. And others who have lost every single day.
      They all have a chance - the risk of losing is of course greater than the chance of winning, but there is a chance.

    77. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the result is the same - he had a way of knowing what the cards were when it was supposed to be random.

    78. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they add a little extra oxygen to reduce fatigue. Also, there's no clocks (except in the sport betting area), so you lose track of time.

    79. Re:Remember kids! by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Starbucks.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    80. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you feel knowing you contribute to human misery and are a net negative for humanity?

    81. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing number of times = 2.

    82. Re: Remember kids! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe US machines are different to the ones in the UK. In the UK you don't just press a button or pull a lever to spin, you have multiple buttons that allow you to "hold" a wheel and stuff like that.

      Say you have fruit-fruit-bar. You spin and get bar-bar-jack. You can roll the emulator back and repeat the spin, you always get bar-bar-jack because the PRNG is deterministic and not based on timing. So it looks like if you hold the original bar that you had, you should get bar-bar-bar and win. If you do hold it, the machine has already decided that you are going to lose this one so produces fruit-bar-bar or something so that you lose.

      The display is supposed to make you think that if you had just held that bar you would have won, but it's a lie. You were going to lose no matter what, it's just trying to make you think you have a chance when you don't.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    83. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hit the button in mid spin it is supposed to stop it where its at.

    84. Re:Remember kids! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Unless your name is Donald J. Trump, in which case your casino loses money:

      And there's a growing suspicion that it might be because they were little more than money laundering fronts for domestic and foreign crime cartels. Indeed his casinos have been repeatedly fined for such activities that were discovered and doubtless that's the tip of the iceberg.

    85. Re:Remember kids! by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      The casinos don;t need to cheat to come out ahead.

      Phil Ivey on the other hand....

    86. Re: Remember kids! by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Detroit casinos are exempt from MI's no smoking in business law, so they stink to high %PLANEOFHIGHEREXISTENCE ....

    87. Re: Remember kids! by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The reels don't determine if you win, the RNG does. The microsecond you pull the level/hit the spin button the RNG feeds the machine a random number, that number is compared in the CPU to the list of winning numbers, then that result is processed to show the appropriate winning/non-winning result on the reels. A losing spin that "looks so close" is the same as losing spin that looks nowhere near close. That's just a perception issue.

    88. Re: Remember kids! by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      int Spin() {
      sleep(30);
      printf("0\n");
      return(1);
      }

    89. Re:Remember kids! by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      True, but in Vegas at least they can let house players play at poker tables and win from both sides of the table.

    90. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/smells-spend-money-study-article-1.1209531

      http://www.medicaldaily.com/retail-therapy-how-smell-cinnamon-seduces-us-spending-money-feel-better-319032

    91. Re:Remember kids! by dmini · · Score: 1
    92. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not marked cards. You didn't read the article did ya, dumbass?

      The cards were made by the Casino's vendor FOR the Casino and were of a defective design out of the box that had an asymmetric pattern that could be discerned by a sharp eye at a distance. He used a rule for the card game he was playing, Baccarat, that allowed you to specify something of the direction of the cards as they were returned to the deck.

      Since it's one of the rules, the dealer had to...heh...deal.

      They're beefing about him discovering THEIR screwup and him leveraging it- and then using the Courts to enforce getting their money back when they screwed up.

      No sympathy...for them...OR you.

    93. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's not a random number.

      If you believe that it is one, you're an idiot (but hey, feel comfortable in the knowing that you're not the only one today in this discussion. Several people kept going on and on about "marked decks", never ONCE realizing that the decks weren't marked ones but the Casino's OWN made decks with defects in the back pattern that allow you to stack the deck in your favor...which if the Comission actually got called in on it (and it might be after the smoke clears...) could get the Casino in a lot more trouble than they lost to the guy... Me? I'd have walked away from the man and asked that he not come back...) and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

      The terminology is "return to player". RTP can be set at ratios from 50% all the way to 99%, where the amount is miniscule MOST of the time, but it's controlled and decidedly NOT random. Most casino one-arm-bandits (and they really are these days...) have an RTP hovering around 70% Any lower and people just won't play even if the massive jackpot comes from that. RTP's about 80-90% are usually with the penny/nickel slots.

      They have a virtual reel in many cases that is "spun" at a semi-variable rate based off of the RTP function with the random number plugged in as the seed. Yes, it's "random" but it's a very, very specific form of Psuedorandom....
      ...and it's very much in favor of the house, otherwise they'd just friggin lose money over time with it.

      Gambling is largely about strategies to even out the faintly stacked deck the House has set for the rules and edging them out occasionally. At least professional Gambling is that, that is.

    94. Re:Remember kids! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      If you are entertained by playing games of chance, the small percentage the house takes is your bill for the night's entertainment.

      Lol, "small percentage" = "all your money".

      But it's true- casinos are opulent because they win and you lose, that's how it works.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    95. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Most of the ones that pull that stunt, though, end up paying for it over time. People quit playing. You start running out of rubes to bilk money out of when you start honestly cheating the lucky or the truly skilled out of their winnings.

      I'm sorry, but I've added a casino that I'll never willingly set foot in it's confines as a result of this little game.

      You don't get to call him a "cheat" when it's abiding by the rules (Heh...there's a reason for the rule in that game...this'd be it...) when you fucked up on your card design and he figured it out and used the rules against you legitimately. The State Law was misapplied in this case. If it's all along the RULES of that game as stated by all, you shouldn't get to whine when you lose over it. It's the same as if I whined about the Horseshoe, WinStar, etc. bled me of thousands while the rules were all abided by and I just simply lost according to them on a blackjack table.

      You don't want to be calling it "marked" cards when they're a sealed Casino labeled pack FROM the Casino, folks. There's vastly uglier things that can happen to the House when they're caught out with those sorts of things. They can get shut down for cheating themselves- and they're damned lucky so far he's not pointed this out.

    96. Re: Remember kids! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      assuming people were allowed to smoke indoors.

      Have you ever been in a casino? Every single one I've ever been in allows smoking inside (and I've been in more than a few....).

      And yes, it's a poorly-kept secret that they fiddle with the air, the lighting, ambient sound, and the floor layout to keep people mesmerized and gambling.

      No clocks, no windows, nothing of the immediate outside world is allowed in so as not to distract people or make them think that maybe they should leave.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    97. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still "rigged" in the favor of the house. The odds are **ALWAYS** rigged in favor of the House.

      If you don't believe that, you're gravely mistaken. And they pick games with statistics that favor them overall. Just because you know the odds, it's illegal to "fix" a game, doesn't make them any less rigged. It's just illegal to set up a game where the odds in favor of the house approaches 50% or greater- just like it's illegal to do it for yourself...

      What we have here is a clever man (Yes...) that spotted a fuck-up in the Casino's OWN CARDS and leveraged a rule that existed...heh...mostly for this reason.

      Now...the question is...they're framing it as defective cards...you sure they are? Made by the manufacturer FOR the Casino and sealed until they got put into the boot. Hm...sounds like if they're calling it "marked cards" and the like...the CASINO was rigging games with marked cards and he caught 'em out on it.

      See how fast things turn about when you stop to think about it? They all cheat. It's just they're cautious about it in most cases such that they don't get caught out doing it.

    98. Re: Remember kids! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      He substituted the cards before the game started, by conning the casino in using that specific (flawed) brand of cards.

      How did he "con" them? He asked to use that brand and they agreed. He never touched the cards nor did he alter them in any way.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    99. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore they don't care about machines that err in favor of the house.
      I've never seen a single report of a casino deciding to reverse a loss because of a machine malfunction.

    100. Re: Remember kids! by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      They were well known, even back in the 90's, to have paid scientists to come up with perfume (or smells) that they can pump in the air which could keep people gambling more. This is not news.

    101. Re:Remember kids! by nasch · · Score: 1

      Unless there's a law that says otherwise, a private business can tell you to leave their property any time they want. So for instance there are laws that say they can't kick you out for being black, but if they want to tell you to leave because they don't like how you smell (and have you escorted out by police if you refuse) they can. And if there's no law saying otherwise they can kick you out because they don't like how much you're winning.

    102. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both slot machines in question had a maximal payout advertised in the $6,000 to $6,500 range and neither had an actual "jackpot" to win. The payout on the screen is not even close to realistic in that case. Try to find better examples.

    103. Re:Remember kids! by PixelPusher1532 · · Score: 1

      They can kick you out if you're winning, that seems like cheating to me as it also changes the odds.

      You can stop playing if you are loosing. Why should they be obligated to play with you if you are not obligated to play with them? If you stop playing does that "change the odds"?

    104. Re:Remember kids! by retchdog · · Score: 1

      i can't say i'm really surprised, but otoh i don't have all that much sympathy.

      i also wonder whether the card counters are in more danger from the casinos, or from their "investors". card-counting is financially high-risk even in the best situation, and you need a pretty deep source of funds to absorb losses before the law of averages asserts itself. needless to say, that seed money probably isn't coming from the most scrupulous people. you can always sue Bally's if they hurt you, but Vinny from the docks might just dump you in the Hudson.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    105. Re: Remember kids! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You aren't kidding. I vividly remember drink prices in Sweden. I knew they were making lots of money on every drink I bought but I had no idea that it was enforced by legislation.

      I think the most affordable beer I found was 80 krona.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    106. Re:Remember kids! by Methadras · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to see where the con occurred.

    107. Re: Remember kids! by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Maybe Ivey should make a donation?

    108. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Desert surrounded by fucked desert then boom! Billions of dollars of hotels. Causal fun doesn't pay for that. Addiction pays for hotels, when was the last time you saw an arcade with a hotel on top? Most arcades survive by selling pizza to kids

    109. Re: Remember kids! by rfunches · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to the U.S., I guess you haven't been to a casino in Maryland. I've been to the two biggest ones (Maryland Live and MGM National Harbor) and neither allows smoking indoors, even on the casino floor.

      What's funny about MGM's layout is how they keep people on the casino floor. Since state law requires you to be 21 to be on the casino floor, they put all of the "public" retail and restaurants around the outside of the casino, which means they can't be accessed from the casino floor. The only food and drink you can get inside the casino is from a bar, or from a Starbucks conveniently placed on the threshold, so the baristas (positioned in the middle) can fill orders to both the open-to-the-public side *and* the casino floor without having to run two separate Starbucks stores.

    110. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws are mutable, and laws govern "liability". Concepts of fairness change over time. Casinos certainly might be liable, just as bartenders are liable for drunk driving accidents. Marketing and advertising are recognized as exploiting flaws in our cognition, though not as much as they ought to be, which is why there is a pathetic losing attempt to (say) forbid certain advertising to children, or cigarette advertising on TV altogether.
      Our legal system is shaped by many myths and illusions - that we possess free will, that eyewitnesses are trustworthy, that our memories are accurate, that there is such a thing as "peers".
      Maybe that's as it should be, but maybe, come the singularity, or the fascist dictatorship, or the catastrophic sudden climate change, or any of a thousand eventualities, all this may change. Who knows?

    111. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck off. The OP doesn't have to provide a link to the obvious. Provide a link proving you exist. Then provide a link proving that you wanted the OP to provide a link to the fucking OBVIOUS.

    112. Re:Remember kids! by lgw · · Score: 1

      "Hoi polloi" means "the people, so "the hoi polloi" is silly. But even my treasured Oxford Style Guild says: give up on this one, it's a lost cause. Much like thankfully and hopefully, even well-edited prose has normalized the once-error.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    113. Re: Remember kids! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Out here (in WA) they have little preset paths you can use to bring kids in through the gaming areas to get to the restaurants inside.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    114. Re:Remember kids! by epine · · Score: 1

      I love the politicians who stump for "no invisible tax" and write legislation to ensure that gasoline pumps break out every tax category on the paper receipt (we still have these in Canada, I can't speak for anywhere else).

      Everybody knows the deal going in.

      I sure wish we'd apply the "no invisible tax" standard to casinos, as well. In this world, every patron is entitled to a printed receipt on the way out (just stick your card into the receipt printer near the main exit) of total $$$ in bets placed and total $ in winnings returned.

      Even better if those same receipts enumerate the proportion of your losses that wind up in the government's pocket.

      7 Facts about Gambling Winnings in the US

      Riddle me this, Batman: how does an activity with a guaranteed amortized loss end up pay tax to Uncle Sam on aggregate negative proceeds?

      John, a German national, travels to Las Vegas on holiday. He wins a single $10,000 jackpot on the slot machines while playing at Caesar's Palace, triggering the creation of form W2-G by the casino, a copy of which is given to the player. He also wins $1000 more in various slot machine wins, none of which trigger the creation of form W2-G. When John wins the $10,000 jackpot, he hands the slot attendant his German passport along with Form W8-BEN. The slot attendant processes the form and no withholding is taken from the $10,000 jackpot. At the end of the calendar year, John will need to file Form 1040NR with the IRS and report the $11,000 of gambling winnings. He will attach Form 8833, reporting his use of the treaty position to make the gambling winnings non-taxable in the US, along with a copy of the Form W2-G he received from the casino. John will only need to file Form 1040NR in the years that he has US sourced income.

      I understand taxing proceeds in a game of skill like poker, but freaking slot machines? Ludicrous. Beyond insane. Conceptually criminal.

    115. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen the house advertise this? suspect there would be no casinos if they did

    116. Re:Remember kids! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The closest thing the house does to cheating is having a house limit.

      That and beating the shit out of you if you do happen to win fairly.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    117. Re:Remember kids! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter a microiota. They agreed. They must have been fucking stupid, but they agreed.

      If I wanted to bet you a fuckzillion pounds on a coin toss (as long as we used my special coin) wouldn't you at least be a teeny bit suspicious?

      And the cards were not marked (as in, the gambler tinkered with them). They were stock products, and were faulty. If the casino has a claim, it's against the manufacturer.

      Oh, hang on. That's liability laws, which is regulation, which is communism, which is socialised healthcare death panels and compulsory homosexuality and area 21.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    118. Re:Remember kids! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The closest thing the house does to cheating is having a house limit.

      And going to court to change the results after they lose.

    119. Re: Remember kids! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those machines belong to the casino, and unless there's actual cheating on the part of the gambler (and I've read of one case of that) you'd think they should pay off and take that machine out of service. There's no recourse if the machine malfunctions and doesn't pay enough. The machines have the crap regulated out of them, so the casino's going to be caught and penalized for such a machine, but that doesn't help the gambler.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    120. Re: Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-smokers can go almost literally anywhere else and be free of smokers. Don't like imbibing in unhealthy behaviors for kicks? Don't go to dens of vice.

    121. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turnabout is fair play.

      Two wrongs don't make a right. Marked cards are cheating, period. He knew it was cheating and is only sorry he got caught.

      He didn't cheat the house agreed to his rules ... He should have won this suit.

    122. Re:Remember kids! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sort of. Some people think they're "lucky", or have a gambling addiction.

      Let them die starving in the gutter, and ensure that all their offspring die with them. Possible exception, if you're feeling really kind, of allowing the offspring to live if they themselves are sterilised without issue.

      It's called evolution. Look it up.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    123. Re: Remember kids! by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

    124. Re: Remember kids! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Exactly what's wrong with putting coins into a casino slot machine (aside from the fact that it's a losing bet)? I can't tell if the thing is defective. All I can do is feed money and press buttons (or whatever it is I do). The casino is responsible for keeping the slot machine working. In other words, I'm using the machine exactly as intended and I'm not cheating. I'm fairly sure that, if I feed money into a defective slot machine that's going to pay off less than it should, I'm not going to get a refund. However, if it's defective, the casino won't just let me keep the money and take the machine out of service.

      I fail to see where a "tails I lose, heads I don't win" policy prevents any wrongs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    125. Re: Remember kids! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It would also make cigarettes burn faster, assuming people were allowed to smoke indoors.

      It was last time I was in LV, did they change the laws in the last few years?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    126. Re:Remember kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the part where in some places they can't ban them? If you want to run a casino you need a license, if you want a license, you need to agree to follow certain rules, it is possible the rules state they can't ask customers to leave without a good reason and that the customer is counting card is not a good reason, therefore if they want to run a casino in a location with such rules the card counters can't be trespassing while the casino is open for business.

  2. Re: Fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Smart people know that the media is almost 99% fake news. Smart people know that.

  3. He cheated OTHER players by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

    Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?

    Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?

    Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
      Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?

      Yes, yes they did. Did you not read the article?

      Guess not. What a goose...

    2. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He also got a green light from the casino on all the things he requested. I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all. They should have just denied his request knowing he was asking for these things to gain an advantage. They gambled that his requests would give him no advantage and they lost, but yet cry foul after the fact. A

    3. Re:He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Money is fungible, he made those bets and won." It isn't always that simple. If he didn't have the money in advance, then he wouldn't have been able to use it to play for scraps and hence couldn't have won that money, making his winnings proceeds of crime.
      In fact, in many jurisdictions it's possible, and common, to have criminals hand over not just the direct proceeds of crime, but indirect proceeds like the returns on investment of stolen money as well. This is done precisely because if you cannot force criminals to hand that in, in many cases there's no substantial deterrent to crime.
      Many financial crimes are civil in nature and if you can hand the money back and don't need your law-abiding reputation, there's essentially no punishment. And if the money is big enough, it tends to attract more money, especially if you're not the kind of guy who abides by the rules. Return on investment can be big enough to make a ten year jail sentence seem a sweet deal if you don't have to hand that money over.
      So in order to aid crime prevention, and to prevent criminals from leaving jail / court with the financial power to be even nastier than before, and to deglamourise crime, many jurisdictions have laws on the books that allow the state confiscate any money or property even tangentially related to crime. And I think that's a good thing.

    4. Re: He cheated OTHER players by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He also got a green light from the casino on all the things he requested. I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all. They should have just denied his request knowing he was asking for these things to gain an advantage. They gambled that his requests would give him no advantage and they lost, but yet cry foul after the fact. A

      As TFA explains, some baccarat players have may superstitions. The casinos have no problem indulging such superstitions when, on their face, they don't appear to impart an advantage to the player. The fact that the casino didn't notice what these players were doing until later is irrelevant. The players cheated. The judge made the right decision in finding with the casino.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re: He cheated OTHER players by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all.

      The judge made a ruling based on the law. The law is on the side of the casinos. Yet another of many ways that the casino stacks the deck against you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, law or not, the casino signed off on it. They should just deny any requests that are outside of what's needed for the game. Otherwise the loses are their fault.

    7. Re:He cheated OTHER players by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

      From the article:

      In each of his visits to the Borgata, the casino accepted the same five requests. Ivey asked: that he play in a private area...

    8. Re:He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't play other players, he played against the house..

      Baccarat, at least in the US is played against the house, not other players. What you're talking about is a different game. From the article:

      (Baccarat received the silver screen treatment when Sean Connery debuted as James Bond in 1962’s “Dr. No;” Bond was shown playing a baccarat relative called chemin de fer, in which players bet against each other instead of the house.)

    9. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The players cheated.

      They did not mark any cards, they noticed a flaw that could be used as a mark. No rule of the casino was broken, they're nullifying it because state law says the presence of marked cards means the game is not lawfully played and thus void regardless of whose fault that is. But this means that all games played with this deck should be declared void, every win and every loss. Otherwise you're saying the casino can write the values on the back of the card, they win it was a fair game but you win and they call foul. So I'm actually with Ivey on this one, he's played with the same deck under the same rules as other players but they're cancelling just his games because he won. That's not a legally sound reasoning.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:He cheated OTHER players by gravewax · · Score: 5, Informative

      When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

      Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?

      Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?

      Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.

      incorrect, there are multiple variants of Baccarat including ones where you are playing against the house

    11. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


        The players cheated. The judge made the right decision in finding with the casino.

      Nope. If he cheated, he'd be going to jail. What he did (according to the judge) was gain an adantage that the judge ruled violated the contract. Civil law, not criminal law. You can bet your boots this will be appealed, and eventually it'll be settled out of court and he'll likely return a portion of his winnings.

    12. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The casinos have no problem indulging such superstitions when, on their face, they don't appear to impart an advantage to the player. The fact that the casino didn't notice what these players were doing until later is irrelevant. The players cheated.

      Let's say that a high-roller negotiates a byzantine set of rules that require _very_ close inspection to discover that the high roller is _guaranteed_ to come out ahead by 1%. If a casino permits that high-roller to play by those rules, and (surprise, surprise) he wins _lots_ of money, has the high-roller cheated? Should The State step in and claw back his winnings?

      If you don't consider the high-roller a cheater, and/or don't think The State should claw back his winnings, then how is what he did different from what the player in TFA did?

    13. Re:He cheated OTHER players by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

      In some form of baccarat, the players take turns being the bank (or house). In the baccarat you play at the casinos, the casino is the house. Phil Ivy and the casino's dealer were the only two people pushing money across the table.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re: He cheated OTHER players by utahjazz · · Score: 2

      The judge made 3 decisions. 2 very bad ones and 1 marginally good one.

      1) The players cheated at baccarat, those winnings are forfeit. This is a judgement call, but yeah I agree this is cheating.
      2) The players bet ill-gotten money on craps and won, those winnings are forfeit. Bullshit. Doesn't matter what they did with the winnings. Maybe they owe interest on it but not unrelated fair winnings.
      3) The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a game that they are favored in. They were cheating. The players broke their obligation.

    15. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He played with marked cards. Isn't that fraud, the implicit understanding of all players participating with goodwill being that cards are not marked?

    16. Re: He cheated OTHER players by retchdog · · Score: 1

      The condensed version of the casino's argument, afaiui, is that the state only allows non-rigged games (with some technical definition of "rigged" i can't be arsed to look up), and that since one party conspired to rig this game, the contract should be voided regardless of whether or not the casino specifically agreed to the details. It's not a totally ridiculous defense, given that the regulatory framework exists (whether anyone likes or not).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    17. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ivey et al knew about the cards. they cheated.

    18. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Just ask any cheater who lost money. The house always made sure to give them their money back when their cheating units malfunctioned. Right? Fair is fair.

    19. Re: He cheated OTHER players by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      "Hey Casino manager, I have this superstition where I think playing with the deck upside down will make me more likely to win, is it cool if we do that?"

      "Sure, sounds like a superstition to me"

      "Can I alter the position or appearance of the cards, I think it will make me win" should always be viewed with suspicion especially since inverting key cards known way of cheating at card games (at least in the TCG community, I don't know much about casinos.)

      The casino decided a cheat move was a superstition and gave an unfair advantage to one player. They failed here but I can see why the money was taken back since it was cheating even if the casino was complicit.

    20. Re:He cheated OTHER players by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 1

      When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

      Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?

      Huh? When I played baccarat in Macau, you could bet on dealer or player. If dealer won, you got 1.9x your bet. If player won, you got 2.0x your bet. You aren't playing against other customers....

    21. Re: He cheated OTHER players by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The judge made a ruling based on the law. The law is on the side of the casinos. Yet another of many ways that the casino stacks the deck against you.

      Of course casinos always win. Nobody with a casino loses money, unless they're really clueless or trying to cheat more powerful players.

      I mean, can anyone think of someone so stupid and/or crooked that they lost money owning a casino?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      3) The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a game that they are favored in. They were cheating. The players broke their obligation.

      In this instance, "comp" is short for "complimentary", not "compensation".

    23. Re:He cheated OTHER players by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      Baccarat is played against the house. Ivey won money from the casino.

      --
      -Dave
    24. Re: He cheated OTHER players by hene · · Score: 1

      Isn't it the casino's duty to choose the cards for the game? If they mess up and choose wrong, it's not the players fault. It is also the casino's job not to agree with stupid wishes. For example, players are allowed to ask to play with open cards, if they so choose. It is not against any law (that I know) to have this kind of game. It probably would be stupid, but not wrong.

    25. Re: He cheated OTHER players by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Casino played with marked cards. He just noticed and used that to his advantage. If the house marks the cards, is it illegal to read the marks?

    26. Re: He cheated OTHER players by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a game that they are favored in. They were cheating. The players broke their obligation.

      The Casino comps you to keep you playing, assuming you'll eventually lose. That their assumption was wrong doesn't change the offer of free goods. Next you'll tell me that if I take a "Free test drive" I'm obligated to buy the car, or I stole the test drive, because the dealership assumed I'd like their piece of shit. It was "comp"limentary, not "comp"ensation. https://www.merriam-webster.co...

    27. Re:He cheated OTHER players by Falos · · Score: 1

      "Justice is whatever the judge ate for lunch." goes double for causality.

      Truth is we won't hesitate to drag in the "gun manufacturer" of a scenario, if our betters feel like it.

    28. Re: He cheated OTHER players by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No rule of the casino was broken, they're nullifying it because state law says the presence of marked cards means the game is not lawfully played and thus void regardless of whose fault that is.

      Exactly. A lot of people posting here are missing the legal reasoning of the ruling, which is NOT based on the fact that these two guys acted fraudulently, but rather the fact that the game was VOID from the start because it did not conform to the rules for LEGAL gambling and gaming under state law.

      But there's something very odd about using that reasoning in this case, because the casino explicitly agreed to the terms of these guys -- including offering a specific card deck, instructing the dealer to turn cards based on player's instructions, instructing the dealer NOT to disturb card rotation prior to reshuffles, etc. That all is suspicious enough, and casinos generally do NOT allow players to dictate that many rules to avoid PRECISELY these kinds of problems. I'd imagine the only reason they allowed it in this case is because they hoped to sucker more money out of a high profile gambler. Unfortunately, their strategy of offering a MODIFIED GAME failed when it was they who were suckered out of money.

      But why does the fault then fall only on the players? From the ruling conclusion:

      As we previously found, by their own design, Ivey and Sun played games at Borgata that violated important provisions of the CCA and thereby breached their agreement with the casino. They must disgorge the benefit they received as a direct result of the breached contract

      Yes, "Ivey and Sun played games" but the casino offered the marked deck and agreed to numerous manipulations that ultimately modified the odds. If this was indeed an "illegal game" under state law, why is the casino not culpable, at least for negligence for failing to adhere to reasonable gaming standards and thereby offering illegal gaming? If a private person ran a flawed game like this, they'd likely end up fined or even in prison. And likely any money transferred during illegal gaming would be confiscated.

      I'm fine if the casino wants to argue that it engaged in offering an illegal game, but by doing so, they should submit to being punished according to provisions for offering illegal gaming in their state (including government confiscation of winnings). But if they don't want to argue they were engaging in illegal gaming by THEMSELVES offering marked cards, etc., then they'll likely just have to admit they were fools and just live with banning these people from their casino in the future, rather than recovering money. Or, they could actually prove the defendants committed FRAUD in some way to void the contract. (And maybe there is enough evidence to support that; I don't know. But it's not the legal reasoning used here.) The way the case was decided is not very consistent legally.

    29. Re: He cheated OTHER players by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      The casino assumed the cards that were given to them were symmetrical because they ALMOST were. The player knew they were not and used that to his advantage. Flipping cards that are symmetrical does not help, so the casino did not have a way of knowing they were being cheated unless they discovered the asymmetricality of the cards.

    30. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #2) If I 'borrow' $1,000,000 from someone, invest it in a get quick scheme and get $100,000 from that and then am forced by legal judgement to return the original $1m, the gained $100k is also forfeit, unless I can prove that I had $1m of my own which could have been used for the investment.

    31. Re: He cheated OTHER players by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The players chose a special education deck of cards that wasn't perfectly symmetrical on purpose.

      The players then purposely rotated certian cards to make them stand out.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    32. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No rule of the casino was broken, they're nullifying it because state law says the presence of marked cards means the game is not lawfully played and thus void regardless of whose fault that is.

      Exactly. A lot of people posting here are missing the legal reasoning of the ruling, which is NOT based on the fact that these two guys acted fraudulently, but rather the fact that the game was VOID from the start because it did not conform to the rules for LEGAL gambling and gaming under state law.

      But there's something very odd about using that reasoning in this case, because the casino explicitly agreed to the terms of these guys -- including offering a specific card deck, instructing the dealer to turn cards based on player's instructions, instructing the dealer NOT to disturb card rotation prior to reshuffles, etc. That all is suspicious enough, and casinos generally do NOT allow players to dictate that many rules to avoid PRECISELY these kinds of problems. I'd imagine the only reason they allowed it in this case is because they hoped to sucker more money out of a high profile gambler. Unfortunately, their strategy of offering a MODIFIED GAME failed when it was they who were suckered out of money.

      But why does the fault then fall only on the players? From the ruling conclusion:

      As we previously found, by their own design,
      Ivey and Sun played games at Borgata that violated important
      provisions of the CCA
      and thereby breached their agreement with
      the casino. They must disgorge the benefit they received as a
      direct result of the breached contract

      Yes, "Ivey and Sun played games" but the casino offered the marked deck and agreed to numerous manipulations that ultimately modified the odds. If this was indeed an "illegal game" under state law, why is the casino not culpable, at least for negligence for failing to adhere to reasonable gaming standards and thereby offering illegal gaming? If a private person ran a flawed game like this, they'd likely end up fined or even in prison. And likely any money transferred during illegal gaming would be confiscated.

      I'm fine if the casino wants to argue that it engaged in offering an illegal game, but by doing so, they should submit to being punished according to provisions for offering illegal gaming in their state (including government confiscation of winnings). But if they don't want to argue they were engaging in illegal gaming by THEMSELVES offering marked cards, etc., then they'll likely just have to admit they were fools and just live with banning these people from their casino in the future, rather than recovering money. Or, they could actually prove the defendants committed FRAUD in some way to void the contract. (And maybe there is enough evidence to support that; I don't know. But it's not the legal reasoning used here.) The way the case was decided is not very consistent legally.

      It's consistent with the local judge knowing how much money those casinos bring into his district, and that them being conned is bad for business, therefore bad for the local tax base. Judges don't decide strictly based on the law, they usually are in favor of some way to keep things the way they are.

    33. Re: He cheated OTHER players by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The judgement was based on the concept of restorative justice. It sought to put the casino back in the position it would have been if it had not been cheated, hence all moneis won as a result of the cheating had to be returned. The reason the comp stuff wasn't covered is probably because they do it for losers as well.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If I understand what I have read correctly, Ivey and Sun were not punished for what they did. They were merely required to return the money, which went back to the players they won it from. So, there is no reason for the casino to be punished either. However, what I do not know is if the casino returned THEIR cut from the games in question.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    35. Re: He cheated OTHER players by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      well, in this particular case, what is different is that there is a state law against playing with decks like the one used by the player in the article.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    36. Re: He cheated OTHER players by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I mean, can anyone think of someone so stupid and/or crooked that they lost money owning a casino?

      Donald Trump *cough*

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    37. Re: He cheated OTHER players by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump *cough*

      Far be it from me to make this political, but yeah.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:He cheated OTHER players by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

      Not according to TFA, stating that "Bond was shown playing a baccarat relative called chemin de fer, in which players bet against each other instead of the house.) " suggesting that the baccarat described here does not involve betting against other players.

    39. Re: He cheated OTHER players by jacks0n · · Score: 1

      If Phil Ivey is requesting something, it's different from a rando requesting something.
      51% of the time if Phil Ivey requests something crazy it's cause he thinks he has an edge.
      If casinos or other players don't know that or proceed anyway, they are suckers and genuinely deserve to lose.

    40. Re: He cheated OTHER players by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The Casino played with marked cards. He just noticed and used that to his advantage. If the house marks the cards, is it illegal to read the marks?

      I think it's that gaming regulations do not allow games with marked cards to be played, regardless of who marks and who reads. So once it was determined the cards were "marked," the games themselves were void.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    41. Re: He cheated OTHER players by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So if a player marks cards, it's a crime, and if the casino does it, it's an invalid game. The house always wins.

    42. Re: He cheated OTHER players by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      If the house were doing it knowingly and willingly to cheat the player they would lose their gambling license and be subject to all kinds of criminal laws and civil lawsuits. Any casino doing that would be mind-numblingly stupid because they don't need to cheat...the games are already in their favor so they'll win in the long run and over a large customer base. Cheating an individual player would be stupid, because one of those minimum wage casino employees would rat them out and there goes the gravy train.

      The difference here is intent. The house didn't intentionally choose marked cards and use them to cheat the players. They didn't know the cards had an asymmetric pattern and didn't use that fact to cheat.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    43. Re: He cheated OTHER players by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You are arguing that if all the money won by cheating had been lost by further gambling, the casino would not have sued for recovery of the money that the gambler won by cheating. I doubt it.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. I get this... by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, I get this particular instance, it is sort of "cheating", but I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino. Yes, I know it is not illegal to count cards (I mean how would someone go around proving it beyond reasonable doubt), but casinos (except in NJ) are allowed to ban players who can win, which is mostly the same thing.
    Anyway, I try not to think about it too much (to avoid having my brain explode), and I just enjoy going to Las Vegas, with the inexpensive luxurious hotels, nice buffets, shows etc and before I leave I try to do my part sustaining the system by dropping a quarter in a slot machine ;)

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:I get this... by buss_error · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't know why you say you enjoy Las Vegas. The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap. The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.I did not find the shows enjoyable, and as a former wagering services IT guy, I don't waste money on wagering. I know the odds. Sometimes I was programming them.

      As for the person doing the wagering - yeah, security folks have a saying - "JDLR" - just doesn't look right. Alarm bells should have been sounding at the oddly specific requests made, and gently refused.

      I won't defend their business model because I agree with you, the game is rigged against you. If you can win, and you won't break even, why play?

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    2. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Went to Vegas on holiday once (in high summer so it was dirt cheap).

      Got $10 of tokens (gratuity I think), put in machine. Won $10 quite early. Put it all back in machine until I'd lost it, which of course did not take long. Walked away. I think that's the only time I've gambled, except maybe a lottery ticket (in the UK) once.

      I have poor willpower, but a grasp of reality.

      If I'd been lucky enough play once and win a lot of money, I'd have kept it and stopped. But a small amount of money? That's where it's dangerous. Never let the small amount of money be enough to get you to play again.

      On the other hand, I came home from that holiday about 3/4 of a stone heavier and I've never lost _that_. It's true about the food (though it was possible to eat healthier in a Vegas buffet than essentially anywhere else, including LA).

    3. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Penn & Teller show was pretty enjoyable imho, and the circ de soleil (or whatever the fuck) wasn't bad.
      Other than that I agree. Don't know why the fuck people want to go there and waste money. I'd much rather go to Arizona and see their rocks and cacti.

    4. Re:I get this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I don't know why you say you enjoy Las Vegas. The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap.

      The best hotel rooms are not on the strip, or they cost a thousand dollars per night and up. The best place to stay inexpensively is a business hotel. They have lots of them, for obvious reasons. I liked Doubletree while I was there, it didn't smell bad and they had nice beds.

      The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.

      I haven't been in some time, but the buffet at the Rio was pretty good IMO.

      If you can win, and you won't break even, why play?

      To me the reasons to go to LV are drinking and fucking. But I quit smoking tobacco, so now it's pretty fucking gross.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it didn't smell bad and they had nice beds.

      that's not really a good endorsement. I'll pass.

    6. Re:I get this... by Ecuador · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's been 5-6 years, since I am currently in Europe, but last time it was $90/night to get a pyramid suite with jacuzzi at the Luxor. Turn off the lights, and relax in your jacuzzi under the starry sky - since, you know, you're in a huge glass pyramid (the largest one intended for the living) and so the glass "wall" in your jacuzzi room is also the ceiling... A year later I paid 500 euro/night in Rome for a seemingly well-rated hotel with jacuzzi suites (yes, I like my jacuzzis), and it was mediocre compared to the Luxor room.
      For the buffets you have to find the good ones ;) In general, casinos make a most of their money from gamblers, so the rest of the folks can find some great deals.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    7. Re: I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The casino will look for someone who makes bets that are sliding up and down in a regular fashion. Or look for someone with a twitchy leg or arm. So.e contraptions were used to manually keep a count of how to bet. Push down toes for a low card, push down heel for a high card. Then it would provide some feedback on how to raise or lower the bet.

    8. Re:I get this... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1, Informative

      The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.

      That's funny... that's exactly what they do.

      I saw a segment on some TV show a few years ago that featured a guy who collects the abundant leftover buffet food from Las Vegas hotels, mixes it all together, and then delivers it to hog farms. The animals did seem to be enjoying it quite a bit.

    9. Re:I get this... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      I saw a segment on some TV show a few years ago

      It was on Mike Rowes' Dirty Jobs show and the episode was called Casino Food Recycler.

      However, that farmer is now moving out of Las Vegas.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:I get this... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino. Yes, I know it is not illegal to count cards (I mean how would someone go around proving it beyond reasonable doubt), but casinos (except in NJ) are allowed to ban players who can win, which is mostly the same thing.

      It's the same in Las Vegas (in fact, all of Nevada.) Counting cards is not illegal, but casinos have the right to expel you and blacklist you if they suspect you're doing it. And they'll rat you out to other casinos, so you can't just go to a different one.

      Generally, casinos are good at spotting cheaters, because their business model depends on it. In the case of counting cards, they start to get suspicious when your luck is significantly out of line with the laws of probability.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    11. Re:I get this... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.

      That's funny... that's exactly what they do.

      Never mind where the leftovers go, that's an apt description of the guests at most casinos, especially those willing to scarf at a buffet.

    12. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been 5-6 years, since I am currently in Europe, but last time it was $90/night to get a pyramid suite with jacuzzi at the Luxor. Turn off the lights, and relax in your jacuzzi under the starry sky - since, you know, you're in a huge glass pyramid (the largest one intended for the living) and so the glass "wall" in your jacuzzi room is also the ceiling... A year later I paid 500 euro/night in Rome for a seemingly well-rated hotel with jacuzzi suites (yes, I like my jacuzzis), and it was mediocre compared to the Luxor room.
      For the buffets you have to find the good ones ;) In general, casinos make a most of their money from gamblers, so the rest of the folks can find some great deals.

      It does rather astound me how expensive hotels can be all over the place yet be not as nice as many of the Strip hotels, I guess it's a case of supply and demand. Same thing with rental cars there, the airport has a dozen agencies competing in one building so rentals are significantly cheaper there than in most other cities I've been to.

      As for buffets there I've only eaten the ones at Paris and Bellagio, Paris was rather good but the Bellagio was excellent and surprisingly one of the cheaper ones for lunch time.

      Also Vegas these days makes most of it's money from the shows, I think gambling now makes about a third of the total revenue at most. That (and not being in New Jersey) is one of the main reasons they're still thriving while Atlantic City is bankrupt.

    13. Re:I get this... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Borgota is in NJ.

    14. Re:I get this... by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      "You can't give away a used mattress, buy most people will pay 100$ a night to rent one."

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    15. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because like it or not casinos are businesses that are there to make money even if it is a pretty sleezy business. If card counting was permitted they would all go out of business as teams of people would start taking the casinos for everything they have as card counting can change the odds just enough to put the odds in your favour. Hence even where it isn't illegal a casino will ask you to leave and not return if they believe you are card counting, your business has no negative value to them so why would they want you on their premises?

    16. Re:I get this... by buss_error · · Score: 1

      I haven't been in some time, but the buffet at the Rio was pretty good IMO.

      I ate there in Sept. 2005. I did not find it very good. The Bordelaise on my steak tasted more like brown gravy from a dry mix. I cook, and while people don't pay me millions, I have a full table when I have a dinner party. And a lot of questions as to when the next one is.

      I know every place can have a bad night. But a place like Las Vegas, one night is all you have to make an impression. They made one.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    17. Re:I get this... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      the simply telltale for card counting is the changing betting patterns as the shoe progresses, there really isn't a good way to hide that beyond constantly moving tables/casinos to try and avoid suspicion

    18. Re:I get this... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino

      Sadly the rule "only the house is allowed to get ahead because they pay shitloads in taxes and you rubes don't" is enforced by the governments that get money this way. Breaking that rule by using your brain to take advantage of an edge case violates that rule.
      Unfair, but deep down did you every really think it was supposed to be fair?

    19. Re:I get this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I paid (well, my company) $250 a night for a shithole in Excalibur next door to the Luxor. The conference was in the Excalibur, so we had to stay there, the conference room is free if enough saps stay in the full-rate lowest-quality rooms. Or something like that. For tomorrow night, the best price I could find for a Luxor suite was $443, marked down from $633. Booking site doesn't let me link the price I'm seeing. I'm not sure how you paid $90 in Luxor and 500 in Rome. I paid much less than that in Rome for a nice place. Looking now, the prices are reversed.

    20. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Vegas, but as an apologist, Vegas has about 20 Michelin Starred restaurants, and a good number more of very good restaurants right on the strip.

      The buffets are for old people and midwestern tourists; nobody who talks about "good food in Vegas" is referring to the buffets. It's like saying you don't care for the food in Vegas because the bun on your Whopper was a bit stale.

    21. Re:I get this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Atlantic City was supposed to have the NYC billionaires fly down in their private aircraft for a weekend of losing millions. The problem was that AC never drew the crowds. And the working class loves blowing all their money in Vegas. Losing money in AC, and you are just another loser in NJ.

      Without the middle class, the place never took off. And the billionaires didn't gamble in AC. If you gotta get on a plane, 20 minutes to AC or 4 hours to Vegas, what would you choose?

      The people that invested in AC were simply idiot failures. Coney Island 2. Sounds like fun, but loses money (hoping New Yorkers will come out to play with them).

    22. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Las Vegas buffet that I thought was best was at the Silverton Casino. It was also a lot less crowded than the Rio. However, it's way out at the edge of town pretty far from the Strip. I gather it mostly caters to locals due to the location. In my opinion, their buffet was better than any of the ones on or near the Strip. That was also the last casino I saw which still had some of the old mechanical slot machines in operation, but they've probably gotten rid of them by now.

      I haven't been there recently, but the buffet there is likely still high quality. They don't have the advantage of big name recognition.

    23. Re:I get this... by Troed · · Score: 1

      Hotel room at The Mirage just last week: $79 (yes, nice rooms. If you want to go all out on a suite I recommend the Hard Rock Towers)
      Absolutely awesome ~$70 steaks: The Homestead at Caesar's Palace
      Really good breakfast buffet: The Wynn (~$25 or so I think, was a few years ago I stayed there) ... also, I enjoyed the Blue Man Group in 2008. YMMV.

    24. Re:I get this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      that's not really a good endorsement. I'll pass.

      I don't know how many hotels you've stayed in, but even supposedly nice ones often get these things wrong, and they are the most important things (after not having bedbugs) for a hotel to get right. Notably, the hotels on the strip often get these things wrong.

      Another problem you won't have in a business hotel off the strip that you will have in a hotel on the strip is garbage infrastructure. A lot of the big hotels have very poor water systems, for example. Getting a consistent hot shower is a problem in some of them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:I get this... by swb · · Score: 1

      I've only been to Vegas 4 times. The first time was the Bellagio after it was built, and I thought our room was quite nice. I don't know what "luxurious" means to everybody else, but in terms of size, materials and decorative finish it was much nicer than a random hotel oriented towards business travel. The Venetian was about the same, even though we had a room with a dull interior courtyard view. When we stayed at the Hilton, we got a recently remodeled room which was smaller but equivalent in finish. Caesar's was good sized but the room was about 75% through its useful life and felt like it was starting to wear a bit and appear somewhat dated. Nice view though.

      My trips spanned about 10 years and my sense was that gaming was losing ground. Still a lot of it, but over the course of my visits I noticed that prices for things unrelated to gaming had gotten a lot more expensive. I think Vegas has stopped being about gambling and "cheap stuff" to attract gambling and had shifted their revenue generation to charging high prices for non-gaming related things like drinks and meals.

      I liked Vegas the first few times -- we ate at some fabulous restaurants, the people watching at the pool was fun and even the casino gaming was kind of a novelty (for the $100 I was willing to spend), and the whole thing was such a spectacle it was fun to see. But on my last visit I felt like it was getting really expensive for the experience it delivered and I'd be better off in Miami.

    26. Re:I get this... by sjbe · · Score: 1

      The best hotel rooms are not on the strip

      Best by what measure? I've stayed at the MGM Grand in a very nice room for around $100/night. Certainly as nice or nicer than any business hotel and comparably priced.

      The best place to stay inexpensively is a business hotel.

      That depends on when you go, what you intend to do, and how much time you wish to spend in transit.

      I haven't been in some time, but the buffet at the Rio was pretty good IMO.

      Why anyone would bother to eat at a buffet in Vegas eludes me. They have some of the best restaurants in the world there. If you can't afford to frequent some of them then maybe a trip to Vegas isn't a good choice for you.

      To me the reasons to go to LV are drinking and fucking. But I quit smoking tobacco, so now it's pretty fucking gross.

      Las Vegas has always been gross and probably always will be. That's kind of it's thing.

    27. Re:I get this... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      $90/night doesn't sound like enough to cover the level of deep cleaning I would require from a Vegas hotel jacuzzi before I got in it. We may be dealing with befoulment on a molecular level.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luxor rooms' standard rate starts from just $35/night currently if you book at least a week early - you can check on their website. If you don't plan a head, or if you want to go during a conference, when companies pay whatever they are asked, you are SOL. So you get stuck with Excalibur for crazy amounts. My company was more late than that booking rooms one time and I ended up in the even worse Circus Circus (everything else fully booked), again at a rather "generous" cost...
      But when I arrange a trip to Vegas, I make sure there's no conference in town and everything is cheap. Especially if you know a few tricks (e.g. the $20 trick works well in Vegas).

    29. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not many things will survive $0.02 of chlorine...

    30. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wouldn't feed it to hogs"

      Fun fact, they do (or at least did). There was a "Dirty Jobs" episode I believe about how an area hog farmer collected a significant amount of leftovers from the Casinos/Hotels and used it as pig feed.

    31. Re:I get this... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap.

      The five star hotel I stayed in would maybe only be a 4 star elsewhere, but the $30/night I paid is definitely cheap for that quality.

      The food in the buffet is inedible

      Fortunately there are plenty of other options available, including a bloody excellent steak house I found.

      I did not find the shows enjoyable

      Ah, ok. I can't help you there. As with one of the other replies, I did find Penn & Teller every bit as entertaining as I'd hoped, and I also enjoyed the weird watery alternative to Cirque du Soleil that I went to. But that's all very subjective and I hope the shows weren't too costly for you.

      Las Vegas is horribly fake and quite awful in many ways, but the hotels, the food and the shows are not things I'd criticise.

    32. Re:I get this... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hence having an accomplice that arrives at the table, places some heavy bets then leaves. Meanwhile you keep playing the same $4 bet every hand.

    33. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Single card counters are easy to spot based on the betting patterns. Card counting teams are much harder to spot and the laws of probability don't help as the big betters generally only play a few hands.

    34. Re:I get this... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you say you enjoy Las Vegas. The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap. The food in the buffet is inedible - I wouldn't feed it to hogs.I did not find the shows enjoyable

      All in all, I agree. Las Vegas is hot, dusty, crowded, and ridiculously expensive.

      It's filled with drunken bros screaming at the top of their lungs at drunken bimbos wearing way too much make-up. Ewwwwww.

      The food used to be awesome (and affordable), now it's shit. Bland, expensive shit. I used to pay $5 to $10 for a kick-ass steak dinner in Vegas, now the crappy buffet is $35 and it's dreadful.

      Drinks are waaaay too expensive- $15 to $20 for a fucking G&T or a daiquiri? $9 for a beer? Used to be you could drink all night for $30, less if you were playing. Not anymore.

      The shows are usually "meh", and often just yawn-worthy. Crowded venues with poor acoustics and boring performances.

      The hotels are generally nice, although for what you pay they should be nice. But who the fuck goes to Vegas for the hotels? No one, that's who.

      Vegas used to be cool, now it just sucks.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    35. Re:I get this... by Improv · · Score: 1

      Being allowed to ban players who can win is very different from it being illegal.

      If one of the weirdos who plays chess in public spaces for money spots a grandmaster coming about, or even just loses to someone better than they are, they shouldn't feel obliged to keep playing more games; they can tell anyone they like to fuck off so they can focus on people they can make money from.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    36. Re:I get this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ate at a buffet when I went there, for breakfast. It was fantastic. It was in one of the larger casinos on the strip and it wasn't at all inexpensive, so perhaps that needs to be taken into account.

  5. Did you play in Europe? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Did you play baccarat in Europe. There are three major varieties of baccarat. In North American casinos, Punto Banco is common. I understand in Punto Banco all players are playing against the house, similar to blackjack.

  6. Fake news != Flawed news by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late.

    Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.

    It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.

    And BTW, it doesn't matter that it was the dealer who was rotating the cards, not the players. The players tricked the dealer into rotating them so as to change the odds of the game. You can't do that.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by thewolfkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late.

      Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.

      It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.

      And BTW, it doesn't matter that it was the dealer who was rotating the cards, not the players. The players tricked the dealer into rotating them so as to change the odds of the game. You can't do that.

      Actually you can it's quite common in the game for players to have superstitions like this. Rotating certain cards for some mystical/superstitious benefit. The players asked the Casino if they could use this special brand of cards and the Casino agreed. The players asked the Casino if they could rotate the cards and they agreed. The casino got played. They didn't trick anyone, the casino shouldn't have agreed to that brand of cards being used without verifying that they were symmetrical.

      They assumed no one could tell the cards apart and that's on them.

      --
      Just another second banana
    2. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my take on this.

      I think generally we can say that they cheated. But they asked the casino to do specific things, which the casino agreed to. It's their fault for agreeing.

    3. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Yes, the stuff about superstitions is all in TFA. That was the premise the players used to justify their requests.

      But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.

      Why not? The casino agreed to do it.

    5. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.

      Why not? The casino agreed to do it.

      It's not allowed because it's illegal.

      It doesn't matter if the casino or the law don't realize what they did until later.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      Because the casinos wrote the law. That's basically why. Is it fair? No.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I guess a lawyer could make a decent case out of it. Technically the casino altered "the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria" for the game, not the players.

    8. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Very obviously you can do that. Well, maybe you cannot, but those two could.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The casino should be charged, they did the cheating.

    10. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by dfenstrate · · Score: 0

      >

      It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.

      Is it still in 'good faith' when you make absolutely zero effort to validate a 'story' because it fits your prejudices or serves your political interests?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    11. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      The law says that a player cheats when they "alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:

      (a) The result of a game;
      (b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
      (c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
      (d) The value of a wagering credit."

      My point is, they did not. They did not surreptitiously switched the shuffler nor the deck of cards; they openly asked about it and the casino agreed to the terms.

    12. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Sartr · · Score: 1

      That's the dumbest thing I've read today. Thanks.

    13. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by flipping certain cards in the deck, that they provided, they most certainly did use a mechanical device or means to alter the odds. Which the laws, implied consent going into the casino, etc are pretty clear about. No different than getting casino to use dice you provide that pass the casino's checks for loaded dice but you otherwise know something special about that increase your odds playing craps.

    14. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm kind of interested how a person could alter the value of a wagering instrument. Paint their tokens or something?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by germansausage · · Score: 1

      It's not something you would get away with at any Vegas Casino, but a known cheat is to simply increase your bet (slide another chip on the pile) when you have a winning hand.

    16. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are close, forging a token, or using a fake coin in a slot would meet that definition. Though, increasing (or decreasing) a bet after "no more bets" has been called may also qualify.

    17. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No. The odds never changed. The knowledge of the outcome of the hand changed. When the dealer plays by the standard blackjack rules, if all cards were dealt face-up, the odds don't change, but the knowledge of the cards does.

      No different than getting casino to use dice you provide that pass the casino's checks for loaded dice but you otherwise know something special about that increase your odds playing craps.

      If one learns that blowing on the dice for luck changes the outcome (say the breath causes that side of the die to be stickier), then the player, without touching the dice asks the dealer to let someone, anyone, blow on them, and you note the side that's blown on, and change your bet accordingly, you've not changed the long-term odds of the game, but have increased your knowledge of the next outcome of the roll.

      The problem with these laws is that they confuse the short-term odds, the long-term odds, the odds of winning, and the odds of pulling a random card. Card counting is explicitly legal. Using skill to "change the odds" is explicitly legal. These people used a skill to change the odds. They didn't didn't change any element of chance. They didn't stack the deck. They just used x-ray vision to look at the cards, when the house still thought them unknown. The house played the wrong odds with them, but they did nothing that altered the fundamental element of chance. They could have lost money with this trick. Each hand was random. The house had just mis-calculated the odds with these skilled players. That doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like using skill to gain an advantage in a game of chance, much like counting cards in blackjack.

    18. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      The players made those requests with the specific intent of improving their odds unfairly. In Contract Law (which is what applies when 2 parties make an agreement, in this case the rules to be used for a specific game) this is called acting in bad faith 1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others.

    19. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that a Nevada law means anything in a casino in New Jersey?

    20. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is quite arguable that they most definitely did alter the elements of chance and as a result both a) and b) could be argued here as they increased payout odds by increasing/decreasing bets on known cards. The law is actually rather vague in its wording.

    21. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by gravewax · · Score: 1

      the odds of winning did change as odds are calculated over the course of the shoe not an individual hand, by knowing when the odds were in their favour for an individual hand and increasing bets they have altered the outcome of the game.

    22. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Capsaicin · · Score: 0

      The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late. Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive. It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.

      Indeed! What's more this misuse of the term "fake news" to apply to errors of reporting, is itself a cynical ploy aimed at legitimating outright fiction and bad-faith spin. Thank you for calling this shit out.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    23. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is, you are applying NV state law to NJ casinos. Do you know how laws and states work?

      I'm betting not.

    24. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      By your logic, counting cards is illegal cheating. It isn't. Thus your logic must be wrong.

    25. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      One should also carefully look at the meaning of 'they' -- if it means the player, while it was the casino (dealer) that rotated the cards, the player didn't DO anything.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    26. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. The point of the superstitious rituals is to improve your odds. The casino can sue if it works...? Or only if you understand it?

      "Congratulations on winning the jackpot! Unfortunately, you asked Jesus for help, and outside assistance is strictly forbidden."

    27. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The judge did not find in favor of the casino because they tricked the casino. The judge found in favor of the casino because NJ state law states that any game played with marked cards is null and void AND that these cards met the legal definition of marked cards.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    28. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      If one learns that blowing on the dice for luck changes the outcome (say the breath causes that side of the die to be stickier), then the player, without touching the dice asks the dealer to let someone, anyone, blow on them, and you note the side that's blown on, and change your bet accordingly, you've not changed the long-term odds of the game, but have increased your knowledge of the next outcome of the roll.

      Uh, you're changing the "long-term odds" if you're playing the game long term. The idea is you bet more when the odds for the next roll are in your favor (however slight), and if you formalize this into a system of rules it's easy to see how the long term payout could swing from negative to positive even if the edge were a slight one.

      To construct a betting system with maximize payout, one obviously wouldn't bet at all when the odds for the next hand were unfavorable, but (depending on the game) this often isn't done in order to conceal the existence of that extra edge.

    29. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps I should have said, you're changing the expected value, which is what counts (not the raw odds.)

    30. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They specifically asked for a Chinese dealer so that his accomplice could trick the dealer into making additional favors.

    31. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Changing the EV isn't illegal. Counting cards has shown us that "recognizing" the odds of a win to beat random chance is legal. So I don't see how this was an illegal act. If anything, the casino using marked cards should be the only ones prosecuted. And the players can't be punished for the casino using marked cards.

    32. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was illegal. I would go so far to say they certainly deserve to keep their winnings if they were merely exploiting the casinos existing practices, i.e. if they hadn't specifically requested the deck of cards be used in addition to the other changes. As it stands, it's a bit murky.

    33. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      What's more this misuse of the term "fake news" to apply to errors of reporting, is itself a cynical ploy aimed at legitimating outright fiction and bad-faith spin

      And Fake Troll Mods do nothing by drive the point home. :p

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    34. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no card counting is using knowledge of the game and information available to everyone within the rules of the game (though also will get you booted out of a casino), marked cards is gaining access to information in the game that neither the casino nor the player should have.

    35. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Every other player at the table, including the casino, had the same information. Like card counting, they made better use of it than anyone else. That is all.

    36. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win.

      Don't all gamblers with superstitious beliefs "know" it will help them win? So you think they should be punished because their superstitious belief was actually correct?

    37. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is my testimony on how i won $420.9 Million Powerball Jackpot lottery. I want to use this opportunity to thank Great Priest Egwonga for casting winning spell for me to win the lottery of $420.9 million lottery ticket. I have been playing lotteries for the past many years now and i have never won any. Ever since then i have not been able to win any lotto and i was so upset and i needed help to win this mega million lottery. so i decided to go online and search for help, there i saw so many good testimony about this man called Great Priest Egwonga of how he has cast lucky spell lotto for people to win the lottery. I contacted him also and tell him i want to win the powerball lottery, he cast a spell for me which i use to play and won $420.9 million dollars in powerball lottery. I am so grateful to this man, just in-case you also need him to help you win, you can contact him through his email: greatpriestegwongatemple@gmail.com and he will surely help you just the way he has helped me. i will forever be grateful to him and always testify the good work of him to the hole world. contact him via email: greatpriestegwongatemple@gmail.com and he will surely help you to win any kind of lottery AND for urgent response call his personal number OR whatsapp him on+2347037477662

    38. Re:Fake news != Flawed news by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      The judge did not find in favor of the casino because they tricked the casino. The judge found in favor of the casino because NJ state law states that any game played with marked cards is null and void AND that these cards met the legal definition of marked cards.

      That's a better argument. I still think it shouldn't be that way but that makes more sense than suggesting that they cheated because the Casino accepted their request.

      --
      Just another second banana
    39. Re: Fake news != Flawed news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So then they are changing the odds, but not in a way that adjusts the "elements of chance". They don't control the odds of the next card pull, and have no knowledge of the odds of that event. They alter their chance of winning, but don't adjust the "game" (as in order or number of cards) at all. Just like card counters, who are 100% legal.

  7. Con? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    Con:
    Persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them.
    A confidence trick ... is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust.

    I don't see where he lied, so I think the word is misapplied. The second definition comes a little bit closer, but casinos are very much aware that gamblers are adversaries, not allies.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Con? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Con is the wrong word.

      These players did not "con" the casino. They cheated.

      It was clever, it was under the radar of the casino, and it was seemingly benign. That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Con? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only half the people will agree with you, casinos are a shady business to begin with. What I don't understand is the other players, I would never agree to play with someone who wanted to alter things.

    3. Re:Con? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, they used the Casinos confidence for granting superstitious gamblers requests to trick them into gaining an upper hand.

    4. Re:Con? by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 1

      It was not cheating. They never touched the cards and they didn't collude with the dealer. The casino management was dumb enough to agree to their requests because Ivy cultivated an image of a sharp poker player but a degenerate gambler in other areas.
      It's the casino's job to protect the game, not the player's.
      Every pit boss involved in allowing this play should be fired.

      There is a legal definition for cheating in each jurisdiction that allows gambling, and Ivy's actions didn't come close to meeting the legal definition of cheating.

      I don't know Ivy personally, but I have won hundreds of thousands of dollars from casinos over the years using legal means. These plays and this case have been known to and discussed within the advantage play community over the past year. No one who understands exactly what went on thinks that it was cheating.

      --


      Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    5. Re:Con? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

      They cheated if they broke the rules. Without knowing in details what the rules were, we can't say whether they cheated.

      However we do know that a judge who knew in detail what the rules were required them to return the money. This being a civil case, we don't know if what they did was criminally illegal.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    6. Re:Con? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they did not cheat. Everything was done per casino standards, using approved cards, which is why they were not cut off and ejected immediately. They exploited a flaw in the cards that was not mitigated by the approved shuffling system in use, but they did not create any advantage. I'm not a gambler, but I find it to be outrageous that simply beating the house at its own game, using rules approved by the state gaming commission, has officially been banned by a court.

    7. Re:Con? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Only half the people will agree with you, casinos are a shady business to begin with. What I don't understand is the other players, I would never agree to play with someone who wanted to alter things.

      You haven't played much poker then. Players often make quirky requests that don't run afoul of any rules, whether out of superstition, to create side bets, or just to give other players something extra to think about. A buddy of mine played a cash game with noted player Phil Hellmuth once, and Hellmuth never stopped talking or suggesting all sorts of things, for hours. This is more common when playing with acquaintances but not unheard of at random cash games, while tournaments allow fewer shenanigans.

      And I suppose you don't spend much time in a Vegas poker room if you aren't already into shady business.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    8. Re:Con? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Ivey was able to study the reverse side of cards in order to learn what was on the other side. It's similar to the referees handing Tom Brady's center lineman a wrongly inflated football.

    9. Re:Con? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my understanding of "deflategate" is correct (not a sports fan) your example is missing one massive aspect. Brady (in a hypothetical scenario) knowing which ball was incorrectly inflated and specifically asking the referee for it. Duping the mark into helping the con-artist doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. One of the central aspects of pretty much any card game is that the cards are sufficiently randomized and that players can't tell what cards the other players have. Their actions were specifically intended to defeat these two basic rules of the game.

  8. Opening Arguments made a podcast about this case by dargndorp · · Score: 2

    Opening Arguments made a podcast about this case, give it a listen if you want to have the case entertainingly explained from a legal point of view: http://openargs.com/oa32-phil-...

  9. A "mutual obligation" ? by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

    But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not...

    I wonder if this judge also believes that casinos have a "mutual obligation" to problem gamblers to make sure that they're not gambling money intended for other purposes? Because the way I always notice the headlines, it's usually "Man embezzles funds, gambles it all away at the casino." No one ever seems to ask the casino for that money back.

    This is just another way of the innate bias in the legal system - where corporations, no matter how sleazy their business practices, get different rules.

    1. Re:A "mutual obligation" ? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this judge also believes that casinos have a "mutual obligation" to problem gamblers to make sure that they're not gambling money intended for other purposes?

      To some degree they do - they have a blacklist you can add yourself to, and then they are not allowed to let you gamble.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:A "mutual obligation" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But last month a U.S. district judge ruled that Ivey and his partner had a "mutual obligation" to the casino, in which their "primary obligation" was to not...

      I wonder if this judge also believes that casinos have a "mutual obligation" to problem gamblers to make sure that they're not gambling money intended for other purposes?

      The IRS does. And the Casinos won't take food stamps or government credit cards either.

      The Gaming Commission will also take a dim eye if they find a rigged game. So I suspect would anybody else, including a lot of the blowhards here who say "but the casino agreed to it" now.

      Because the way I always notice the headlines, it's usually "Man embezzles funds, gambles it all away at the casino." No one ever seems to ask the casino for that money back.

      Here's one.

      Casinos, naturally keep that quiet.

    3. Re:A "mutual obligation" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are they supposed to do that? People embezzling funds usually are at least smart enough to cover up that fact from the people they're actually stealing from (at least for a while) let alone some random third party. At most you might be able to ensure "gamer responsibility" but only if you had a massive framework in place, tracking mortgage payments, income, debts, disposable income, etc of each individual gamer. And that assumes that you got the ID of each individual who entered the building (most just check to see if you're a legal age) and forced everyone to use one of those gambling cards. That sounds about as practical as stopping home fires by outlawing cooking, lit xmas trees, candles, etc.

  10. Its not cheating by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember kids! Only the casinos are allowed to cheat you out of your money!

    Its not cheating you out of anything when you ignore the fact that the statistical probabilities are against you. As my statistics 101 professor explained (literally, he used casino games examples all the time) you are either:

    (1) Paying the "I didn't pay attention in math class" tax.
    or
    (2) Paying someone else to play cards with you.

    1. Re:Its not cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet apparently it is cheating if the casino agrees to a set of rules and procedures and you then win $9.6 million from them.

    2. Re:Its not cheating by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law. Any contract you may sign is void when the deal is illegal under current law. If the casino wasn't told upfront the cards were marked, it would also void the contract even if the law didn't make it illegal to use marked cards in the first place, because the casino would never have gone through with it if they had known upfront.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    3. Re:Its not cheating by sustik · · Score: 2

      I got your point. However, please not that (state sponsored) lottery, scratch-offs etc. have waaaay worse payout than blackjack or roulette.

      If you go to a casino, you go in order to be entertained (yes, partly pay someone to play cards with you, but also): watching dressed up people lose and win money and observe how they react to it and experience the thrill of occasionally winning yourself. Now, if you go with the intention to make a fortune, you will be most likely utterly disappointed.

      When I am in Vegas, my method is to put $200 in my right pocket and play with the money from that pocket. All winnings go straight from the table to the left pocket. When I am out of money from the right pocket, I leave. I count how much is in the left pocket and being a mathematician muse about the probabilities. I have a good time either way! (I primarily go to see shows though.)

    4. Re:Its not cheating by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      My dad does that with blackjack, he usually comes out slightly ahead, sometimes he comes out far behind. He only went there for conventions though so it wasn't a problem.

    5. Re:Its not cheating by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law

      So why isn't the casino getting reamed? They're the ones who supplied the marked cards. Presumably, they're using them in other cases as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Its not cheating by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Why the hell did they allow him to select the cards to use anyway? Doesn't that seem like a really obvious scam, with no other reasonable purpose other than rigging the game?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Its not cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Rotating cards to identify them from the back is a form of marking - hence cheating. I have to wonder why the casino was so stupid that it took four times for them to catch on (assuming it was they who finally caught on to the trick). However, "he was stupid" is never a justification for illegal cheating, although it's a common correlation.

    8. Re:Its not cheating by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law. Any contract you may sign is void when the deal is illegal under current law. If the casino wasn't told upfront the cards were marked, it would also void the contract even if the law didn't make it illegal to use marked cards in the first place, because the casino would never have gone through with it if they had known upfront.

      To be fair, his insisting on using a specific set of cards should have rang alarm bells, at least to have them inspected by someone from the casino, if they miss whatever and let it play that's on their head.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:Its not cheating by Diddlbiker · · Score: 1

      It probably happens all the time, people having a "lucky" set of cards, bringing talismans, having "lucky rituals," and so on. The casino will be more than happy to comply as it just increases their profits.

      In this case they probably brought in a fresh pack of cards, perhaps even bought from the Casino store with the stickers on them and still in the cellophane wrapper. Even on close inspection no tampering would be revealed because there was no tampering.

      Yes, the cards were marked, but by design, not by something the dealer would have been looking for. It's a bit of a grey area, and everyone loves to see the Casino get reamed. If it weren't a casino but the local church trying to earn a buck for charity, public opinion would not be on the player's side. But it is a casino, a money greedy institution that will do everything to get your money into their pocket, so there we are.

      One wonders to what extend they'll go out of their way to reimburse players who were a victim (by losing money to cheating players) of such "faulty material."

    10. Re:Its not cheating by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Phil Ivey is a "big name" in poker, they didn't expect him to sulley his rep and get himself branded as a cheater by using marked cards...and they were cards produced for use in a casino...

    11. Re:Its not cheating by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      To be fair, his insisting on using a specific set of cards should have rang alarm bells, at least to have them inspected by someone from the casino, if they miss whatever and let it play that's on their head.

      That's the thing that made me wonder what they were thinking...if he asks to use a specific set of cards, that should make your spidey-sense tingle all the way to your gonads.

      What reason would you have to ask for a specific set of cards other than being able to use them to your advantage?

      And yeah, if the casino agreed to use them and missed the potential for him to use them to his advantage, too bad for them.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:Its not cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen this described in another article. A lot of Chinese play the game, and superstition is common. If you're a high enough roller, the casino will accommodate these "lucky" requests, as long as they don't affect the game, or shouldn't, in this case.

    13. Re: Its not cheating by easyTree · · Score: 1

      No, they expected him to bend over like everyone else and 'retain his good name.'

    14. Re:Its not cheating by drnb · · Score: 1

      Using marked cards is cheating, but it's also against the law.

      The cards as supplied by the casino are not marked. Every card has the same appearance until rotated. Such rotations are not part of the casino's standard practices. The rotation was a player request and the "marking" by the casino an unintentional (from casino's perspective) result of fulfilling that request. Note that you use the word "using" in your description of the law, who was using this "marking" to their advantage? It was the player not the casino.

    15. Re:Its not cheating by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Gamblers are often superstitious. If everyone in a casino calculated the expected value of their bets rationally, the casinos would get a lot less business. It's worth it for the casinos to indulge such superstitions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Its not cheating by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      It's worth it for the casinos to indulge such superstitions.

      Not this time it wasn't.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  11. Fake news does not require "deliberate fiction" by drnb · · Score: 0

    Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive. It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.

    Fake news does not require "deliberate fiction". You are closer to the truth with respect to "good faith". A better definition of fake news would be news where there was a lack of good faith in reporting. Your first definition excludes reported "news" that was blindly accepted because it matches the predisposition of the news staff, a staff that conducted no due diligence to confirm the story. I.e. journalistic negligence. That counts too as fake news.

  12. agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Casino agreed to the terms and now they get their money back? They probably asked the judge not to award the $250k restitution so it wouldn't be painfully obvious that they had paid him off.

  13. From the Story by crackspackle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I'd like to know is how did his partner get sent to jail for an MGM gambling debt? Anyone know? While looking for the answer, I did come across this interesting article about advantage players, that there are many, that the casinos know of them and don't call them cheaters because what they are doing is legal.

    1. Re:From the Story by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to know is how did his partner get sent to jail for an MGM gambling debt? Anyone know? While looking for the answer, I did come across this interesting article about advantage players, that there are many, that the casinos know of them and don't call them cheaters because what they are doing is legal.

      I'm not sure exactly what Cheung Yin Sun did to get locked up, but you could go to jail in relation to a gambling debt if you intentionally misstated something to secure credit, if it can be demonstrated that you never intended to repay the debt when you incurred it, or if you committed wire fraud.

      Anyway, casinos will have you arrested if you are cheating, and will definitely still 86 you if they think you are using any sort of legal "system" to take their money. It seem silly that they can ban legal players, as if the law is on their side as well as the odds, but that's what pros have to deal with - you beat them until they get sick of losing and take their ball and go home. That makes it difficult to be a pro gambler unless you limit yourself to poker and beating other gamblers.

      Great link by the way, I hadn't seen that particular article - very good read.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  14. Playing with marked cards by jhecht · · Score: 3, Informative

    Essentially they were playing with marked cards, because Sun had memorized subtle flaws on the back of the cards. That's generally regarded as cheating in any card game.

    1. Re:Playing with marked cards by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and back in the mob days they bated you up or killed you for doing stuff like that.

    2. Re:Playing with marked cards by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Only if Ivey marked the cards, which he didn't. This is little different than an opposing poker player having a a tell and you exploiting it.

    3. Re:Playing with marked cards by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Only if Ivey marked the cards, which he didn't. This is little different than an opposing poker player having a a tell and you exploiting it.

      Advantage plays like edge sorting (what they did), card counting, exploiting a weak dealer's screw-ups, etc. are not illegal. They'll get you tossed once the house catches on, but I don't see how Ivey should be subject to any civil penalty here. His lawyer is right. that utilizing your own visual acuity in combination with your knowledge of the game shouldn't expose you to civil or criminal liability, even if it pisses off the casinos. If they don't like it they should fix their games, or cut you off.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:Playing with marked cards by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The law is there to protect the profits of the political donor. This act endangered those profits so is seen as a crime.

    5. Re:Playing with marked cards by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Essentially they were playing with marked cards, because Sun had memorized subtle flaws on the back of the cards. That's generally regarded as cheating in any card game.

      Not quite. The manufacturer did not advertise or intend to create "marked" cards, so therefore this is not a "marked" deck, and it's not the players fault for the manufacturing flaw. It's the casino's fault for not executing a quality control check properly. This is a QC issue.

      Want another example? A casino hands a player loaded dice who then starts one hell of a winning streak. The casino swaps out the dice. Turns out the entire batch of dice were flawed, and the player keeps winning. Proper QC would have discovered the faulty hardware before it even hit the casino floor.

      In the same way, a component provided by the house contained a flaw, and players used that to their advantage. Don't like it? Fire your QC manager. And a judge not acknowledging this is wrong.

      And of course, this entire argument is insulated in the irony that casinos are allowed by law to capitalize on addiction and rig games to their advantage. They're just pissed because someone else happened to be better at it for a millisecond's worth of their annual revenue.

    6. Re:Playing with marked cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that if someone else marks the cards then it's not cheating? That seems like an awfully big loophole...

    7. Re:Playing with marked cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they weren't. They were playing with cards known to have variable patterns on the back, as they came out of the factory. No player marking needed.

    8. Re:Playing with marked cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: The Casino marked the cards in their making and provided them.

      Mull over that hint for a bit... The only avenue they had was to shut down the game and ask him to leave or play something else other than that particular game.

    9. Re:Playing with marked cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. But the odds were that they'd just "politely" ask you to leave. One of the things here that IDIOTS (yes, and you're one of them...) keep missing in this conversation is that the Casino provided the cards in question - they're calling them "defective" to cover their damn asses. Those were probably a control measure for spoiling a high-roller's lucky streak, etc.- they were **MANUFACTURED** that way. I'm quite surprised by the Casino even going there. Reason being is that a clever lawyer and defendant(s) in a case like this could HIGHLIGHT the fact that they're ALL made that way. It's a damn marked deck, yes, but the CASINO did it. Bye-bye Casino and jail time for the people that ordered the cards, and the people above 'em.

  15. should be overturned by luther349 · · Score: 0

    its setting a president using skills like card counting to win games is illagle when its a skill not a cheat. the trick he used could easily be fixed by using cards with no patterns on the back or making sure there all dealt with the same rotation.

    1. Re:should be overturned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he knowingly used marked cards and it could be assumed that he knew the other players were unaware of this. He could not possibly believe that the other players knowingly consented to playing against him with cards that only he knew were marked. The implicit understanding in the game is that the cards are not marked. Isn't that some form of fraud?

    2. Re:should be overturned by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      But he knowingly used marked cards and it could be assumed that he knew the other players were unaware of this. He could not possibly believe that the other players knowingly consented to playing against him with cards that only he knew were marked. The implicit understanding in the game is that the cards are not marked. Isn't that some form of fraud?

      Not exactly. Those cards do not meet the definition of "marked" cards because they had not been altered in any way and in fact met the casino's specifications even after being used. Ivey did not mark them, nor did anyone else, neither a player nor a conspiring dealer. Wasn't this mini-baccarat, where players never touch the cards? This was simply "advantage" play, which is not illegal. Exploiting a flaw in the game is not illegal, though of course the house can give you the boot for any reason, if they so desire. The shocking part is that a court would side with the casino despite them knowingly allowing a flaw into play and allowing players to rack up substantial winnings without cutting them off.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    3. Re:should be overturned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solid cards with no patterns would be even easier to identify. With a solid card any little mark would be more visible, scratches from the shoe, oil from fingers, etc. The patterns mask imperfections.

    4. Re:should be overturned by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Except that the judge ruled that they DID meet the legal definition of marked cards.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  16. Obviously up to something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that the guy specifically asked for a certain dealer is a gigantic red flag. It should have been obvious to the casino that they were up to something.

  17. Land of the "Free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fault was undoubtedly on the casino.

    Here is Aus, if a store mistakenly marks something at certain price, and it was wrong, they still have to sell it to you for that price.

    Make a mistake, pay for it.

    1. Re:Land of the "Free" by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Forced error... they shouldn't have let Ivey select a deck that gave him the down cards' identity.

    2. Re: Land of the "Free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's simply not true. Australian law states that they can refuse to sell it to you for the incorrect price if you have not yet paid for it.

      What they can't do is sell it to you at the lower price and then demand more money if they later realise the error.

  18. Rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rule 1: The reward is always much less than the risk of losing demands. This also applies to prize-money pool type games such as lotteries because their overheads are very high.

    Rule 2: The rules are designed to make you lose. This applies best to casino type games, which don't involve tickets or minimum prize-money pools.

    Rule 3: Many games reward losing. The game doesn't proclaim "you lost 30% of your bet", it proclaims "you won 70%" of the money you already had before gambling.

    Gambling exists because A) desperate people assume they will always win; B) people ignore the high risk required to win a few million dollars. With lotteries, someone has to win the prize, which further encourages people to accept the high risk of losing.

    1. Re:Rules by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Nice anti-gambling speech, but this is about baccarat where if you bet on "House" you have an advantage. This is why this game is only offered to potential new investors and not the general public.

  19. Beating who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a "mutual obligation" to the casino ...

    I thought baccarat was like poker, where one bet against the other players, not the casino. In that case, the other players should be getting that money, not the casino.

    1. Re:Beating who by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      No, Baccarat is a game where the player selects to bet on "Player" or "House" where "House" has a slight advantage... a player who bets on "House" too often is likely to be given an offer to invest in the casino.

      It's a money-losing party for the casino, but a chance to meet people associated with a potential investor. Ivey cheated with his selection of the cards, giving him more of a win ratio than the house would have paid in a fair game.

  20. Completely wrong!!! by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 2

    When you play Baccarat in AC or in Europe, you play against the casino. Other players only bank games in places like non-Indian casinos in California.
    Also, he did not cheat.
    The casino has a duty to protect the game. They agreed to all his requests. This is the equivalent of the dealer accidentally flipping over the hole card at Blackjack and you taking advantage of it. The judge made a very boneheaded ruling and I hope that Ive appeals.

    --


    Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    1. Re:Completely wrong!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the facts get in the way of the OPs opinion!

    2. Re:Completely wrong!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad part is the OP got marked up as insightful even though he is completely wrong on all points. Baccarat can be played against the casino and frequently is and also when you are deemed to have misappropriated something you are not allowed to keep anything you gain from having those misappropriated goods (in this case the winnings from the craps).

    3. Re:Completely wrong!!! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      For all practical purposes, he used marked cards. If that isn't cheating, nothing is.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  21. Re: Fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Smart people know that Faux News is almost 99% fake news. Smart people know that.

    FTFY

  22. Swindling a casino. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gives a rats ass? Computers were not used. Geeks could care less. Off topic. -1

    1. Re:Swindling a casino. by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Electronic shufflers are USB devices connected the the casino's backroom servers. The hack here was that the cards were marked by uneven backside designs, so the random result was revealed too early to the player.

  23. Re:news for nerds stuff that matters by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has had gambling stories (especially around people trying to beat the casino through math) at least since the book Bringing Down the House was published.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  24. Re:news for nerds stuff that matters by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Everything at a casino is now RFID/Camera/Magnetic tracked... there's computers recording video of your every move. This is a case of a hack to defeat the casino's randomness.

  25. Mutual Obligation by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand exactly how they violated any 'mutual obligation'. Ivey and Cheng made certain requests of the casino about how they would like to play. The casino agreed to their terms. Granted, Ivey and Cheng had some knowledge that the casino was not privy to, specifically the asymmetrical pattern on the cards. But this was something that the casino should have known (casinos provide the cards). Ivey and Cheng made no attempt to conceal anything from the casino.

    If I engaged in some game with an opponent and I had a better understanding of the mechanics and probabilities than they did, would I be cheating? Would I be under some obligation to explain a playing or betting system that I had developed to my competition?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Mutual Obligation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very, very bizarre the casino would've allowed this. It wasn't even requesting "some other deck" or "some other shuffler" - it was a specific set ?

      They go through so many stock card decks to get rid of this risk it's insane they would make an exception here.

    2. Re:Mutual Obligation by PPH · · Score: 1

      it was a specific set ?

      A specific brand. I believe TFA said that they (Ivey and Cheng) had identified an asymmetry in the pattern on the back side. So by rotating certain cards (actually asking the dealer to do so), they could identify them when they were dealt again.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Mutual Obligation by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Granted, Ivey and Cheng had some knowledge that the casino was not privy to, specifically the asymmetrical pattern on the cards.

      I find it dubious to assume that the house didn't know about the flaw in the cards. This is the type of flaw that they are filtering against when they receive a shipment of cards. Everything gets inspected. A mistake was made that led to the cards being allowed out on the floor, and that happened well before Ivy requested a particular color deck setup. Normally the color of the setups in a casino are on a daily rotation and they have spare colors if a setup has to be pulled. My guess is the casino knew that there was a problem with that set of setups leaving them out of daily rotation, but still kept them there as a spare set of colors, which Ivy had the make a special request for.

      Probably an internal 'norm' of secrecy led to this. It was noticed at some point by someone in the table games department, but there are only a small handful of people in gaming that are going to ever learn of it. Table games pulled them out of rotation on purpose, but didnt do the right thing, leading to an accommodating pitboss who wasnt privy to the secretive reason why those colors werent in daily rotation.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Mutual Obligation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This issue is kind of like a litmus test for whether or not people have the ability to think objectively.

      Convincing a party to play poker with you using a marked deck of cards that they didn't know was marked has been known as cheating in poker since poker was a thing. The fact that the manufacturer marked the cards accidentally, or that one party is a casino is all irrelevant. Marked cards, one sucker, and one cheat, it's the oldest story in gambling. Period.

    5. Re:Mutual Obligation by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      I don't understand exactly how they violated any 'mutual obligation'. Ivey and Cheng made certain requests of the casino about how they would like to play.

      It was their obligation to lose. And they didn't, goddamit!

  26. Player can play as "House" in baccarat by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    You're missing something here blackjack commenters. Baccarat's decision is to bet on "Player" or "House" to win the hand... so you can steal the house's advantage and turn this into a player advantage game. Play as "House" too much and you're offered an investment into the casino and the game is over. This is really a reason to invite a rich guy into the office space and take his money as either a loser or an investor.

    Other player advantage games such as "Beat the Deck" are played to reward people who have done something to make the casino better. This one is limited by the amount in the dealer's tray, and designed to create large (five-figure and taxable) rewards that are uneven based on luck. It's a way of making friends uneven.

  27. In summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In summary, idiots at casino are duped into letting swindlers cheat, judge orders winnings returned but no reimbursement for comps.

    This is a very uninteresting story. The interesting part is watching the mental gymnastics Slashshit neckbeards will do to deny what these slimeballs did was cheating. If casinos only ever broke the legs of people like this, I'd say they're doing the world a favor.

  28. Highfive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good Job,
    Mr. Ivey

  29. FFS, I know exactly what was done... by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I get how edge sorting (the name of the technique used) works. It's been a known advantage play move for decades and explanation of this exploit has been in print both in advantage play (Abram's casino tactics book) and casino game protection literature(Steve Forte's book). Shame on paid casino managers/executives for not being aware of it.

    It's not illegal to use marked cards if neither you nor a compatriot marked the cards. Look up the case law if you don't believe me. If someone accidentally bends a corner of a card, you don't have to pretend not to notice; you can legally use that info as long as you didn't do it yourself and the guy didn't do it for your benefit.

    I've made the point in other posts, but it's the casino's responsibility to protect their games. The casino provided the cards, the casino trained dealer rotated the cards thus allowing edge sorting to be used, the pit personnel and surveillance observed this, and had no problems with it. Ivy and his partner never touched the cards and didn't alter the cards in any way. This was a social engineering attack on a casino's greed and incompetence, but it was not cheating.

    This was a horrible decision by the judge.

     

    --


    Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    1. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually using marked cards IS illegal in New Jersey and as soon as it was decided in court that this counted as marked cards then there really was no other rulling the judge could have made.

    2. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      5:12-114, it most DEFINITELY is illegal to use marked cards.

    3. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      So since using marked cards is illegal and it seems many believe these cards count as being marked AND the cards were provided by the casino then shouldn't the casino be liable for using the cards? After all they provided the cards and likely used them in many (all?) of their games.

    4. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 1

      Interesting. That's definitely not the case in Nevada and most gaming jurisdictions in the US adopted/copied Nevada's laws.

      A broad reading of this rule can mean that anytime a dealer accidentally bends a card, all the cards in a shoe need to be replaced (the bent card is now marked; replacing just the one card is not enough because the replaced card would be less worn out than the other cards in the shoe and thus can still be distinguished by a sharp eyed player.) That's crazy.

      --


      Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    5. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the CASINO cheated, and the players noticed.

      It's not the players that provided the marked cards. The cards were provided by the casino. If you accept that these cards were marked, then the entire accusation is "He wasn't allowed to notice what we've done".

    6. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire premise is that as the cards were marked any games conducted with those cards are null and void, if the casino had won he would have also been entitled to his money back.

    7. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not quite, they were not standard cards for the casino. Casino's cater to just about any request for a high roller, these were a special request by Ivey. The casino was an unwitting victim and once they discovered it they considered the games void.

    8. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could easily argue that rotating certain cards was actually marking them. Not sure how you can argue it wasn't in fact.

    9. Re:FFS, I know exactly what was done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they never touched the cards... the dealer was the only person the handle the cards.

  30. They agreed to the cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Casino agreed to the cards, so this forms part of the rules. This agreement was also up front, a choice both sides were free to agree or not and the Casino agreed it.

    Reversing this decision is cheating for the Casino.

    1. Re:They agreed to the cards by gravewax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually no because there is an overarching agreement that both parties are bound too which cannot be changed through agreements between the players and casino and those are the gaming regulations (Casino Control Act) which explicitly forbid the use of marked cards which Ivey has tricked the Casino into using and hence by doing so made the game invalid/illegal. Love to see Casino's get screwed but seems reversing it is the right decision as Ivey broke the gaming regulations by cheating.

    2. Re:They agreed to the cards by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Which TFS conveniently ignored, in favor of their lawyer's appeal to emotion.

    3. Re:They agreed to the cards by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 0

      How were the cards "marked?" Marked cards are cards that have been tampered with, not ones that were designed or printed improperly.

    4. Re:They agreed to the cards by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Marked cards are cards that allow you to distinguish different cards (or here: different card orientations) without seeing their front side. It is of no importance if these marks where printed in the factory or added manually to an originally unmarked set.

      You can buy marked cards in any magicians store that are specifically designed to be marked and are in no way tampered with.

      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re:They agreed to the cards by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Sure, I can buy marked cards in a magic shop. But when the casino provides the cards, they can hardly be construed as my problem.

    6. Re:They agreed to the cards by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      This same trick works with the common "bicycle" brand cards most home players use. Look at the wheel in the center of the back pattern. There are three wings attached- and two are on the same side - so if you take a deck with all cards sorted same-way up, and flip one over, you can tell it apart later.

      We used to do a simple "is this your card" trick in school using exactly that approach, sort the cards upfront so all the wheels are two-wings-up, let the person draw a card, then ask them to put it back - look which way up it is, and ensure you hold the deck out the other way up.

      Then just sort through until you find the card with one-wing-up.

      I admit it never occurred to me to try this at a casino though...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:They agreed to the cards by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Not if you trick the casino into using or accepting marked cards without their knowledge.

      Part of the magic tricks with marked cards is to convince the victim that they aren't marked.

      If a casino would use marked cards to fleece the gamblers, would you say it's their fault for accepting the suggested cards?

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:They agreed to the cards by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      These look pretty symmetrical to me?

      http://playingcards.wikidot.co...

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:They agreed to the cards by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Those aren't the same backs I know. Guess they had a redesign since the days I was doing this trick. I kind of lost interest in card games after high school.

      A google image search shows that the back design have changed several times over the years. I was talking about this one:

      http://www.jimknapp.com/Cards/...

      Look at the wings on the central wheel. Notably the wing on the left which points at one of the edges.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:They agreed to the cards by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      But I would have expected that today no one would make such mistakes in designing a card back.

      --
      bickerdyke
    11. Re: They agreed to the cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The casino didn't provide the cards - the player did and talked there casino into letting them play with them.

      A very poor idea, as there's is never a good reason reason to let somebody bring their own cards.

    12. Re:They agreed to the cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that they were made by the manufacturer FOR the Casino...if they were actually marked cards, the Casino could get into a lot of trouble.

      But...like other fucksticks in the discussion, you actually either didn't read the article...or lack the reading comprehension of a rock.

      But then, this is /.

    13. Re:They agreed to the cards by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The casino didn't provide the cards, he provided the cards and his assistant marked them as they were playing.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    14. Re: They agreed to the cards by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the casino, in the interests of fairness will refund all losses by customers where these cards were involved lest it appear that the casino staff knowingly used the lack of symmetry to their advantage.

    15. Re:They agreed to the cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably because in the olden days they would drag you out in the back and break your fingers, one at the time. Then beat you some more after that, and that's for first offense. Multiple offenders taken out for a ride into the desert and generally don't return with ... Casino "employees."

    16. Re:They agreed to the cards by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The casino didn't provide the cards, he provided the cards and his assistant marked them as they were playing.

      RTFA. The casino provided the cards. He requested they use eight decks of purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards shuffled together. They happened to have a defect that they exploited. They also exploited how superstitious baccarat players are. Apparently the casino didn't think it was odd to ask the dealer to rotate all of the 6 through 9 cards 180 degrees in the decks before putting them in an auto-shuffler.

    17. Re: They agreed to the cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the gaming regulations (Casino Control Act) which explicitly forbid the use of marked cards which Ivey has tricked the Casino into using

      Wrong. The cards were Borgata cards, which as designed had a non-symmetrical pattern on the back. The issue was getting certain cards, once played, to be returned to the shoe upside down (rotated 180 degrees).

      The player did not mark the cards.

      The cards were supplied by the casino.

      Getting certain cards rotated is where the offense lies, not in the deck of cards themselves.

    18. Re:They agreed to the cards by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      I expect the casino to be a little more savvy than the average rube.

      If I walk into a baccarat room and complain that they aren't using my favorite Frobozz Magic Playing Cards with an official Frobozz Magic Card Shuffler and dealing them from a certified Frobozz Magic Baccarat Shoe, I expect to be unceremoniously thrown out.

      But I guess I'm naive when it comes to the world of high-stakes gambling, huh.

    19. Re:They agreed to the cards by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I expect the casino to be a little more savvy than the average rube.

      You would think so, but then again "I though anyone could see that" is each con mans usual defense.

      If I walk into a baccarat room and complain that they aren't using my favorite Frobozz Magic Playing Cards with an official Frobozz Magic Card Shuffler and dealing them from a certified Frobozz Magic Baccarat Shoe, I expect to be unceremoniously thrown out.

      But I guess I'm naive when it comes to the world of high-stakes gambling, huh.

      Yes. Greed and being afraid to lose that high-stakes gambler. And again, as in every fraud, they work best when the victim himself thinks he is conning the actual fraudster.

      I noticed that according to the summary, he had to pay back his "win", but no charges for fraud were even mentioned. I think the judge couldn't put his opinion on casino ethics more clearly...

      --
      bickerdyke
    20. Re:They agreed to the cards by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do you have an example of this?

      https://goo.gl/images/WNuMz4

      I don't see any kind of orientation mark as you describe. Is this something they got rid of?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    21. Re:They agreed to the cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the agreement is violated by using those cards, then the Casino should also be required to return any winnings accrued while other gamblers were using purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards. The Casino won that money using marked cards and therefore was in violation of the Casino Control Act.

    22. Re:They agreed to the cards by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I showed an example in another reply to this same thread, but yes, they appear to have gotten rid of it since.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:They agreed to the cards by atticus9 · · Score: 1

      If the definition of "marked cards" is any deck that has any sort of asymmetry in the design to tell which way the card is oriented. Virtually every casino in Atlantic City is playing with marked cards, and is therefore in violation of the CCA, the games are "illegal" and all customers are entitled to "status quo ante" to get their money back. Class action lawsuit?

  31. Trump still #1 at casino losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only guy who could lose so much as the house.
    Bankruptcy after bankruptcy. So sad.

  32. Marginally on topic. by Oligonicella · · Score: 0

    When I was young and visiting a friend whose father made his living gambling with cards, four of his friends showed up and they set up a table to play. I asked if I could join. They said yes.

    We sat at the table and two of the men pulled out revolvers and laid them on the table.

    A bit frightening to my younger self but that was the most civil and honest goddamn card game I have ever been in in my life.

  33. Andy Garcia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Borgata brass should've been suspicious when Andy Garcia let them know that he was personally supervising the gaming floor.

  34. The classic blunder... by GeorgieBoy · · Score: 1

    If Ivey and his associate hadn't won SO MUCH in such a short time, and instead had a strategy of losing back some of the winnings (or not using their tactic to win quite as much), they might have actually gotten away with this. It's always suspicious when someone goes on a hot run, especially when it is over multiple visits. I've met Ivey (from my poker days), he's clearly a really talented guy - but he's also a degenerate gambler, and his greed did him in.

    1. Re:The classic blunder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? It depends on a private room, a special deck, and Mandarin language to operate. The casino wouldn't go through these crazy conditions for a little bit here and there.

  35. Cheating on Casinbos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply unlimited greed undid this guy. Got 2 mil, get out. Staying to test your luck is against any statistical principle. 50% to loose, he lost.

  36. Re: Remember kids by dbIII · · Score: 1, Funny

    Makes sense.
    Typo - change that sig - it should read "you were molested as a foal" :)
    Poor Trigger, he ended up being Rogered on TV for years.

  37. If I misread a card .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... do I get my money back? They read the card-backs better than the Casino and have to give the money back. So if I misread the cards due to poor vision then I should get my money back from the Casino? Another what's good for the goose gets the gander cooked! Casino's are legalized ripoff houses cheating people from their money as long as the government conspires to get their cut.

  38. Remember kids: Only Losers Quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss.

    They are at least quasi-random, they are not programmed to give specified outcomes (you can look up how they work).

    It is the game design (i.e. the inherent probabilities) which make it appear as if there are near-jackpots so often. The situation is comparable to the error people make when they think that 5 heads in a row is less likely than H-H-T-H-T. That is it is humans ascribing meaning to equally probable random outcomes (from the PoV of probability, HHHHH is no more significant than HHTHT). The idea of a "near-jackpot" is a matter interpretation, what players are witnessing as a "near" is a kind of probabilistic pareidolia.

    That is not to say the machines are not carefully designed to hook people and compromise their rational free will, they clearly are! The lights, colors the general fit are arranged to induce a trance-like state. BUT the probability of hitting some "near win" combination is already so very high it's simply not necessary to program in certain combinations. (The same applies to bad beats in Poker btw). Showing the random outcomes tricks people with great efficacy. Ditto for payout ratios, which is why the idea of the well-played machine, "I've been playing this one so long it has to pay out eventually" is just another form of gambler's fallacy.

    It's rigged with maths as effectively as if it were rigged to show certain combinations at certain times. Yet the marketing seems to suggest that gamblers have a real chance of striking it rich: Never have I seen marketing highlighting the fact that "each coin you put in the machine cements your losses" or "the longer you play the greater the certainty of your losing" That's not that too distant from fraud.

    Only losers quit ... but, of course, "gamble responsibly!"

    1. Re:Remember kids: Only Losers Quit by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      uhm, yes, they are programmed to give specific outcomes. maybe you should look up how they work. the operator selects a payout percentage, and the machine then doles out wins at a rate that maintains that percentage. the computer in the slot machine determines whether you win or lose long before before the wheels stop turning.

      and yes, it does intentionally stop them on a disproportionate number of "near miss" jackpots.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
  39. Re: Remember kids by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Typo - change that sig - it should read "you were molested as a foal" :)
    Poor Trigger, he ended up being Rogered on TV for years.

    Well played, LOL :-D

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  40. Lost Money Owning a Casino by dcollins · · Score: 1

    "Nevada casinos post fifth straight fiscal year net loss" -- http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/nevada-casinos-post-fifth-straight-fiscal-year-net-loss

    "Las Vegas casinos are losing big in China" -- http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/investing/las-vegas-casinos-struggle-in-macau/index.html

    "Pay No Attention to Money-Losing Casinos. Let’s Build More Casinos" -- http://business.time.com/2014/01/31/pay-no-attention-to-money-losing-casinos-lets-build-more-casinos/

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:Lost Money Owning a Casino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, creative accounting to evade taxes.

    2. Re:Lost Money Owning a Casino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a limited pool of "Gamblers", As the number of casinos grow in Arizona and California, New mexico ect. people can get their fix much closer to home. There is a casino right outside of Phoenix. Just to prove a point look at how the influx of money has killed off some of the small tribes that received this windfall. "About 70 percent of people who suddenly receive a windfall of cash will lose it within a few years, according to the National Endowment for Financial Education."

  41. How do you read their motives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.

    You say that as if we can all know or agree on someone's motives.

    I mean, CNN had a licensed attorney (Cuomo) tell us wrongly that it was illegal to read Wikileaks. Wikileaks has DKIM validated emails that show how CNN & Donna Brazille leaked the questions for the debates, which most people agree is unfair. She also went on TV and hinted that the emails were somehow modified, never mind the DKIM validation. That's about as clear of a motive as we can get.

    So, by your own definition, CNN is fake news, right?

  42. Brilliant by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    "'What this ruling says is a player is prohibited from combining his skill and intellect and visual acuity to beat the casino at its own game,' Ivey's attorney told the AP, adding that the judge's ruling will be appealed."

    In other words, this lawyer is blatantly fleecing is client by pressing a case he knows to be unwinnable. Precisely this statement is a long established legal standard regarding casino gambling. What this guy did would actually be considered cheating (or bad enough manners to justify banning from a tournament at the very least, meaning his WSOP wins are now in question) in any normal game of cards, but card counting is very much not. Despite this, the latter has always been completely disallowed in blackjack, with this restriction being given the force of law several times in areas where gambling is a significant source of tax revenue. This is precisely the reason that professional poker players play poker; you play solely against other players rather than the house, so the house has little or no interest in corrupting the fairness of the game. As a professional gambler, he would definitely be aware of this, so even attempting to get away with it, regardless of whether his actions were ethically defensible, is profoundly stupid.

    1. Re:Brilliant by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Card counting isn't illegal anywhere is it? Nevada, it's explicitly legal (courts have rules so), Atlantic City doesn't even allow casinos to bar you for counting cards. Not sure what the rule is in Monte Carlo or other popular gambling resorts. Usually casinos simply deal with this by shuffling more often.

  43. Year of the Chicks by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Any casino that agrees to use someone else's cards has accepted the dare and does not deserve to chicken out.

    But this is the year of the chicken.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re: Year of the Chicks by pruss · · Score: 1

      He wanted to use "Gemaco Borgata" cards at the Borgata Casino. That sounds like a line of cards the casino itself must have ordered. Wikipedia says that the casino is suing Gemaco for the cards being defective.
      It does, however, sound to me like it's cheating for a player to deliberately choose such defective cards.

  44. I hope he kept the interest made on the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope he kept the interest made on the money

  45. Why do nerds care? Why does this matter? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I'm kind of having a hard time seeing how this story is either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters". Sure some nerds like to gamble and might even be interested in the story but there is nothing particularly nerdy about this from what I can see. And it certainly isn't something that matters.

  46. Lazy news = fake news by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive. It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.

    If the publisher or journalist do not demand adequate fact checking and confirmation then it is a distinction without a difference. If a news organization publishes some "fact" they come across without bothering to confirm its veracity properly then they are not reporting in good faith. They are simply chasing advertising dollars. Now ever quality journalists can be fooled from time to time but there is WAY too much in the way of "news" that is just a reposting of something from Twitter or Facebook that lazy journalists couldn't be bothered to do the hard work to confirm.

  47. How about arrest the piece of shit? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    ntr

  48. Is edge sorting legitimate? Yes. by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    I side with the players, Ivey and Sun, not the casino.
    The issue is whether edge sorting is a legitimate technique or is it cheating.
    The rules are established before the game is played. If a player uses his skills, vision or intellect, after that point, it is legitimate. When the casino bet that its cards were impervious to edge sorting (a known technique), the casino lost. It lost because it was arrogant in believing in its own design.
    Besides, Sun making the request to rotate the sixes through nines should have been enough to clue-in the casino. But it agreed to the request.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  49. I have many questions by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    There's definitely more to this story than the main article talks about. I have some questions I'd love to know the answers to.

    1) Why did they ask for a judge to rule rather than a jury? That may have been a tactical error on the part of Ivey's legal team.
    2) Is Cheng Yin Sun a US citizen? If not, why was she still allowed in the USA after going to jail? Is this more favoritism to the rich? Typically you're deported from the US if you're not a citizen and you do something that gets you thrown in jail.
    3) Why did it apparently take years for the casino to figure out what happened? And how did they find out? Did someone connected to Ivey rat them out? Was that person or those people paid for finking on him?

    1. Re:I have many questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is Google? Jesus your questions either don't make sense (why didn't this immigrant get kicked out of the country, even though of course this was a lawsuit and not a criminal case) or are easily answered just by reading the article.

      So why ask questions, when if you actually cared you could figure it out yourself? Do you just like inserting random questions? Please stop posting on Slashdot.

  50. Re:news for nerds stuff that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And 90% of the gambling comments are garbage, which leads me to wonder how informed the discussion is on other topics on this site.

  51. Rationalization by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It depends on your definition of "winning".

    The only definition of winning that matters is leaving with more money than you brought to the table. Any other definition is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize losing.

  52. Ivey did not cheat by ventsyv · · Score: 1

    60 minutes did a story on this. Ivey did not cheat. He didn't mark the cards and he didn't manipulate his bet after it was made. He did request specific type of cards that he had trained himself to recognize by spotting inconsistencies in the card markings. The casino agreed and provided the cards. The cards were not manipulated in any way by Ivey.

  53. Ex Casino Employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work at a Casino as a Slot Machine Repairman. This included cleaning and fixing auto-shufflers. There were a variety of them, but all were standalone devices -- if they had networking capability, we didn't use it. We also used Gemaco cards.

    The fact that Gemaco let out a set with backings that were "markable" by simply rotating the cards 180 degrees is very odd. Our red and blue cards would not have been susceptible to that trick. However, I do not believe there would have been any other checks and balances about this. The card shufflers do not rotate the cards entering them, and unless the dealer is manually rotating them (cutting the deck, spinning half 180, then folding each into the other and putting that primed deck into the shuffler) that would likely be a valid trick.

    Having said that, I have no doubt every casino in the world has updated their dealer procedures in response to this. I also find it suspect that the dealer wouldn't notice anything odd.

    As for them being ordered to give the money back... that's a tough one. But lets flip it around. If the casino had been found to have dealers that could read the cards, there would be an upset, yes? Then the only fair thing is to be upset when the professional player does it, too.

  54. A fool and his integers are soon parted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gambling is the opium of the asses.

  55. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moment they requested to use a certain type of card, the casino should have known the fix was in.

  56. State lottery far worse than casinos by drnb · · Score: 1

    I get the entertainment aspect. I personally follow a similar behavior.

    Regarding the state lotteries. They are far worse than any casino. A greater con, but its the government so they get be more "evil" than even casinos. In my state a portion of the lottery is marketed as going to the "schools". What the government did was reduce the educational budget proportionally to the revenue generated by the lottery.

    1. Re:State lottery far worse than casinos by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the state lotteries roll over enough prize money so that the expected value of the bet turns positive.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. Why do dumb Americans.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do dumb Americans think their law applies to all other countries?

  58. This *is* news for nerds by colinwb · · Score: 1

    As I post there are 373 comments, so I apologise if I missed anyone else pointing out the remarkably impressive feat of Ivey's "assistant" Cheng Yin Sun spending hundreds of (possibly up to a thousand) hours training herself over four years to recognise minute variations on the backs of cards which she could detect when the cards were rotated.

    If that isn't news for nerds, I don't know what would qualify!

    It also means that while she's nowhere near as famous as Ivey, in this enterprise she wasn't a mere "assistant", much more something like an equal partner: despite at least one comment above referring to Ivey having trained himself to recognize by spotting inconsistencies in the card markings, on the facts as reported (I read both the Washington Post article and the judgment linked to in the summary (fwiw I entirely agree with the judge and his reasons for making the judgment he did), *and* I read a New York Times magazine article linked to by the Washington Post article), the only person who could recognise the differences when cards had been rotated was Cheng Yin Sun.

    In fact, if the New York Times magazine article is accurate, Sun (the NYT article calls her Cheung Yin Sun, but Cheng Yin Sun as in the judgment seems more likely to be correct) first did this with other people at several casinos, and then *she* recruited Phil Ivey:
    "Over the coming week, Sun and her highly organized group used the same strategy to beat more Las Vegas casinos, including Treasure Island and Caesars Palace. They made a trip to Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Conn. Eventually Sun recruited the celebrity poker pro Phil Ivey, who is also known as a high-stakes gambler at craps and baccarat."

    Washington Post ... Sun had spent, according to the New York Times magazine, hundreds of hours memorizing tiny flaws in purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards. ... She purchased souvenir playing cards from the Borgata, identical to the ones used on the casino floor save for holes punched in the center. She discovered that patterns on card backs, designed to be symmetrical, were not perfectly so. Sun trained herself to identify aberrations along the left or right margins of the card backs, no wider than 1/32 of an inch, the Times reported. ("Sun's mental acumen in distinguishing the minute differences in the patterns on the back of the playing cards is remarkable," Hillman noted.) So prepared, she helped Ivey on his way to millions.

    The technique Ivey and Sun used was called edge-sorting. Sun was allowed to peek at the card before the dealer flipped it over. In Mandarin, she would ask the dealer to rotate the most valuable cards in the baccarat deck -- the sixes through nines -- 180 degrees as they were flipped. The automatic shuffler could randomize the cards, but would not alter their rotation. "Baccarat is a casino game well known for unique and superstitious rituals," Hillman noted in an October opinion. "Thus, Sun telling the dealer to turn a card in a certain way did not raise any red flags for Borgata." With the deck sorted, it was possible for Sun to identify which cards had been rotated. The pair therefore knew the values of the cards while they were being dealt, before completing bets. Ivey adjusted his bets, and once the pair edge-sorted the entire deck, he increased his bids to the maximum allowed. ...

    New York Times magazine ... Sun visited several Las Vegas casino gift shops and bough

  59. Testimony on how i won $420.9 Million Powerball Ja by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is my testimony on how i won $420.9 Million Powerball Jackpot lottery. I want to use this opportunity to thank Great Priest Egwonga for casting winning spell for me to win the lottery of $420.9 million lottery ticket. I have been playing lotteries for the past many years now and i have never won any. Ever since then i have not been able to win any lotto and i was so upset and i needed help to win this mega million lottery. so i decided to go online and search for help, there i saw so many good testimony about this man called Great Priest Egwonga of how he has cast lucky spell lotto for people to win the lottery. I contacted him also and tell him i want to win the powerball lottery, he cast a spell for me which i use to play and won $420.9 million dollars in powerball lottery. I am so grateful to this man, just in-case you also need him to help you win, you can contact him through his email: greatpriestegwongatemple@gmail.com and he will surely help you just the way he has helped me. i will forever be grateful to him and always testify the good work of him to the hole world. contact him via email: greatpriestegwongatemple@gmail.com and he will surely help you to win any kind of lottery AND for urgent response call his personal number OR whatsapp him on+2347037477662...