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