Http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/179......n-casino

Wow!! I really disagree with this decision.

He basically used a marked deck, doesn't matter that he didn't personally mark it or provide it himself. I know the casino was dumb enough to agree, but it's still cheating.

I’m interested in peoples take on this. Here’s another case with a lot of similarities that went the other way.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

It is CHEATING. Period! Let me say it again, it's C-H-E-A-T-I-N-G!

Yes, it was clever, yes, he might win the case (and I really hope he will) because, after all, the casino employee accepted his request, etc. We could debate many different aspects of this case for hours, but from an ethical standpoint, morally, it's cheating!

He asked for having some cards manipulated. Whether he did the manipulation himself or not has no importance. No, the information wasn't freely available to everyone else, as many defenders say. The information was "available" once he asked to have the cards turned and not before. It has nothing to do with clever play, like card counting. Here he got an advantage after manipulating the deck. In short, he got the deck marked, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF CHEATING! Besides, when you come to a place with some expert on edge reading...

What is still a matter of debate is the case itself. The casino personnel agreed to do what he asked to. So, if you openly ask "someone" to get an advantage and if that "someone" provides it, legally, is it cheating? When everyone agrees, is it still unfair? Only specialists about laws and courts can answer that. Not sure the answer is that easy, though.

In my humble opinion, he deserves the money. There's more, I would even impose a fine to the casino for giving their employees such a poor quality training!

Had PI used some defaults on the back of the cards for his advantage, it would not have been cheating -- call it clever play. But when you ask to get the cards in such a way that you can recognize them, you ask for a marking system, it is cheating!

And that's my considered opinion .

They were lucky to get off on legal technicalities, due to tech laws being a few steps behind technology. But make no mistake, they were cheating. I would assume that those casinos could win civil suits against them if they pursued it.

Actually, it makes a huge difference that he didn't personally mark it or provide it himself. In fact, it's what makes the technique legal. Not cheating at all.

Jason

Phil ivey and john kane both played within the framework that was put upon them by the respective casinos they were playing in. any player on earth could have discovered and exploited printing flaws as ivey did, or code flaws as kane did.
neither player brought any external device into play while on the casinos property, or in any way mechanically or otherwise modified any piece of gambling equipment owned by the casino and used in their game of choice.
in both cases, the only fault to be had was that of the casinos for their tragically inept oversight of their staff, table games, and video terminals.

neither kane or ivey was cheating.

both players were simply exploiting inherent weaknesses within each game played in each of the casinos they were playing in. if the casino changes a games procedures, as they did in ivey's case, then those procedures shall still be presumed to be as issued by the casino.
in kanes case, the correct verdict was rendered, kane simply sat at a terminal with 10 oversized buttons on it, and he began pushing the buttons the casino specifically directed and intended that he push. no rule implied or written demanded explicitly or implicitly that he push those 10 oversized buttons in any given order. he was free to push them in any order he wanted to push them in.
neither player marked, altered, or abused the gambling tools put in front of them. in ivey's case the dealer handled the cards as proscribed by the casino, turning them or not changing decks as per the rules and procedures established at the time by the casino itself, the casino being the only entity with the authority and power to change established gambling procedures inside their own properties.

all kane and ivey are guilty of is the intentional exploitation of inherent weaknesses in a casinos procedures and practices.
it's obviously a massive exploitation in both cases, but it's a legitimate exploitation that's not associated with cheating in any way, or by any definition.

finding, and then exploiting a weakness in ones opponent is the very definition of gambling for money, and is practiced by casinos and players alike in every casino on earth.

How can learned people like you not call that cheating! I understand he's the friend of some of you here but personal friendship should not be taken into account here, IMHO. If my sister or my best friend kill someone, technically, they would be killers, period.

Not calling that cheating is just ridiculous.

So! Next time your wife is a bit drunk at a party and agrees to sleep with another guy, it's not cheating right? The guy is just exploiting a flaw, and take advantage of a weak person... who agreed.

Or maybe you mean that if, at a table, a player I don't know kills anyone who dares to raise me and everyone agree with that, all is correct?

Sorry for the rude pictures, but it's the first time of my life I read such a display of hypocrisy. PI was not cheating... yeah, sure.

Asking the dealer to mark the deck is not cheating? Geez! Would you be so kind to explain to me what is CHEATING for you then?

"finding, and then exploiting a weakness in ones opponent is the very definition of gambling for money". No! He CREATED an unfair advantage for him. Nothing to do with exploiting a weakness. Can't you see the difference?

Arnold,

Although laws vary from locale to locale, it's fairly well-established that the casino industry is in the business of competitive, if not adversarial relationships. That means that within certain parameters, it's perfectly legal to do certain things that will tilt the odds in your favor (and subsequently against the house).

Card counting is a perfect example. Without counting cards, many 21 games have a healthy house edge of 1 or 2%. But if you're counting, then you can tilt those odds in your favor. Playing a perfect strategy against a video poker machine that pays back over 100% for perfect play is another example. The suckers may lose at that same game, but you aren't breaking the law if you play perfectly and win money in the long run. Playing against a biased roulette wheel falls ingot he same category. The suckers lose even against the biased wheel (because they aren't paying attention), but you are so you bet accordingly and win money. So, merely tilting the odds in your favor isn't enough to make something illegal.

Nor is it illegal to request that the casinos make accommodations for high-rollers. Many players, but especially high-level baccarat players are routinely asking for all manner of goofy (from a mathematical point of view) things. They ask for nothing but female dealers. They ask for nothing but female dealers that have dealt to them in the past. They ask for nothing but green cards (they won with those last time). They ask for a table by themselves. They ask to have specific music played for them. They ask for unlucky cards to be replaced. They ask for "lucky" cards to be kept and reused. And yes, they ask for "unlucky" cards to be spun around and turned over all sorts of crazy ways. I could go on and on with dozens of examples. The point is, the casinos encourage this sort of behavior and acquiesce to it to win the business of these high-level players. So...asking for certain parameters isn't illegal. It happens all the time and the industry encourages it.

So what you basically have is a case where a complete square gambler can walk into a casino and ask for specific cards (with poorly cut edges), a specific turning process, a specific table, dealer and shuffling format and as long as he has no rational, math-based reason for doing all of that you would say he's not cheating.

But if Phil Ivey asks for the exact same things, but with an intelligent, pre-planned and mathematically sound strategy behind his requests he's suddenly a felon? That's not how the law works in most jurisdictions. The casinos are trying to have Phil Ivey's intentions (which are to make money) declared illegal while still being able to allow the exact same goofy requests to be made for the complete suckers who want to come in and blow a few hundred thousand.

You can't criminalize intentions - only actions. If it's illegal to request that cards be turned, so be it. Arrest the next square John that walks in the door and asks for that. If it's illegal to request a specific deck of cards, so be it. Let's review the old footage and track down the last 500 Asian gamblers that requested their lucky color in the past few years. If it's illegal to make requests that give the player an advantage over the house, then lets arrest the next blackjack counter that asks for the dealer to deal "one more round" after the cut card has been reached because he's sitting at a +18 in his head. Or the next guy that asks the pit boss to cut off a few more cards with the cut card in the first place.

In fact, let's go arrest Don Johnson for feloniously negotiating a wonderful "cash back" deal for himself while playing in AC a few years back. The nerve of that guy asking for things that would give him a massive edge!

What it boils down to is that Phil Ivey asked for a perfect storm of things that are all perfectly legal in isolation. And you can't add up a bunch of perfectly legal requests and somehow arrive at an illegal outcome, any more than you can add up a series of negative expectation bets at roulette and suddenly arrive at a positive expectation.

Imagine if Phil had asked for all of the things we know he asked for: specific cards (Gemaco), cards to be discarded when he didn't like them or kept when he did like them, a specific turning sequence, and a shuffling machine. Now imagine there was no exploitable edge on the cards and he was just gambling. Fine, right? No crime here.

So how was it suddenly a crime to do all of these things when the casinos themselves provided the exploitable decks? Would it be a crime if I asked you to open up the dead roulette game that I knew contained the biased wheel and then proceeded to beat you out of a ton of money? Is it a crime if I ask you to slow the rotor down because I'm having trouble seeing the ball? Is it a crime if I ask you to use the bigger ball instead of the smaller ball because it's "luckier?" No. It isn't a crime to ask you to use exploitable equipment. The courts have found time and time again that it's the industry's job to make sure their equipment is in "proper" working order. If they fail to do so, I am legally allowed to take advantage of their oversight.

All of these things get asked by suckers every day in casinos around the world. And the casinos are more than willing to comply for high-rollers. Why should it suddenly be a crime just because I've actually got a mathematically sound method behind my madness but the exact same actions taken by losers are perfectly legal?

Phil Ivey made a series of legal (in isolation and in combination) requests that the casino could have turned down at any point. They could've even accommodated them and added a protective measure (like a sliding door shoe) that would have prevented PI from using this strategy in the first place. But they didn't. They acquiesced at every turn because they thought the world's biggest gambler had decided to blow a little money at a pure gambling game that no one can beat. They were wrong. Baccarat isn't a pure gambling game. It, like just about every other game in the casinos, is a game of skill under the proper circumstances. Phil found and/or requested those circumstances.

To borrow a phrase, "Pay that man his money."

Jason

PS: In the interest of full disclosure - last year while several people on this board were initially commenting on the (at that time) breaking news regarding this story, I met with Phil and his private attorney Jeff Fried here in Las Vegas. Later I met with Jeff and "Kelly" (the Anglicized name that Cheng Yin Sun, Phil's playing partner goes by) also here in Las Vegas. Finally, I met with one of Phil's U.K. barristers at the Palms to discuss the case on two separate occasions. Although I wasn't hired as a one of their expert witnesses (they only had 2), I was following this case a lot longer and a lot closer than anyone else on this board, regardless of what super-secret "inside information" Cagliostro alluded to in some of his cryptic posts. I told Jeff and Matt (the barrister) that if Phil had reached over and smeared daub on the cards or turned them around himself when no one was looking (as if every eye in surveillance wasn't on the guy betting 50k a hand), then not only would he be cheating, but that there would be no way to argue otherwise. But that isn't what happened. He requested certain parameters with a strategic goal in mind. He got them. End of story.

Posted: Oct 10, 2014 05:04 am A quick note of clarification.

In the above response, I mentioned Gemaco cards. Those were in use in another baccarat play. The cards used for the Crockford's play were Angel cards from Japan.

Jason

I think that one side here is arguing that it is MORALLY considered cheating, while the other side is arguing that it is not LEGALLY considered cheating (or at least SHOULDN'T be considered cheating, legally). So both sides can be correct IMO.

Jason,

First of all, allow me to say that I have nothing against PI. I've watched countless hours of Poker shows just because he was playing around the table. His skills are unbelievable, his Stud play is fantastic and I have a huge respect for him (as the great card player he is). Keep in mind I'm merely analyzing a fact here, nothing personal. At all. I already said that I considered what he did quite astute and that he deserved, in my opinion, to win the case because the casino showed too many security breaches.

I'd like to thank you for your detailed comment as well.

But I'm afraid it's gonna be impossible for us to agree.

As Elwood P. Dowd has correctly deduced, I'm talking from a MORALITY side, where you analyze the facts truth a LEGALLY perspective.

Here's the definition of Cheating in Oxford's dictionary: "Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". A second form being "Gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods;".

Is what PI did unfair? In my opinion, yes. Some say the information (poorly cut edges) is available to everyone playing the same table. But nothing can be more far from the truth! First, he asked to have specific decks. Why? Because their defaults on the back. The flaw wasn't there before he asked to introduce it at the table! He created, he brought an advantage (which was not existing) at the table.

That information is not available to other players if they are not aware it exist! If you join the table after a few rounds, you may not be aware PI asked for a "special" set of deck.It's unfair to other players. You mention card counting, but it has nothing to do with our case. Values of cards are in plain sight, anyone can learn to add up +1/0/-1 values. All decks have the same printed information, you don't need a specific deck. When you count cards, you use the information which is always available at any table, you don't create it (as PI does when he wants a specific deck). Card counting can't be cheating, you don't get an extra-advantage against the casino, you're simply diminishing their OWN advantage. But the house is still ahead.

Asking for a female dealer for bringing luck can't be cheating (no pun intended here...). A deck of a different color? As long as it doesn't introduce an advantage unknown to others players, why would it be considered as cheating? What PI does, technically, is called marking cards, and for his own convenience only. Which is unfair. What I like however, is how clever the ploy is, because he doesn't do it himself. But PI purpose is to get an advantage.

Let me sum up simply.

Case #1: PI notices a flaw in the back design, he simply uses it. It's not cheating. He uses the decks already in play, he asks for nothing "extra", he does manipulate nothing. All cards have tiny flaws, if he is clever enough (well, has a good view mainly...) for exploiting that, bless him.

Case #2: PI asks for a deck which has flaws. He knows it, that's why he wants that brand. He is introducing an unfair advantage, maybe known to him (and his partner) only. He asks to turn the cards to facilitate their read, here he's simply marking the cards, which, as far as I know is forbidden. He manipulates the odds "“changed the overall odds of the game from an approximate 1.06 percent house advantage to an approximately 6.765 percent advantage for Ivey". He wants dealers speaking Mandarin (you speak Mandarin Jason? is it fair for other players?), and if my memory is good, his partner was already involved in such "things", therefore he knew perfectly that's it's considered illegal! Foxwood, Borgata, Crockford..., one time, okay, three times .

There is no difference for you between case #1 and case #2?

From a LEGALLY point of view, it's completely different, I would agree.

Imagine a guy behind Phil Ivey just watching the game. The guy do not know Phil, he has nothing to do with him, he is just watching the game.

Then, Phil start to ask for his numerous request (sorting cards)

The guy understand what is happening (edge sorting) and decide to sit at the table and exploit the informations for himself.

Is he a cheater? (morally and legally)


Jackouille

Of course he would be a cheat. Technically is even would be an accomplice.

Arnold,

The "morality" of this case doesn't interest me. What interests me is the legality. Jerry Andrus would have said that as soon as you noticed a flaw in the back design (regardless of who put it there) you were morally obligated as an honest person to bring it to the casinos attention. I can't argue with that stance, as it's a very personal opinion stance. But I could easily argue that the law didn't require you to bring it to the casino's attention.

Jason

Ivey wasn't arrested, he was denied his winnings. this could imply that even the casino didn't think he was cheating, but rather he had gained an unapproved player advantage during his punto blanco sessions.

if the casino had truly thought ivey was cheating, they would have pursued having him arrested, and would have quickly laid charges again him. instead, ivey was simply shown the door and flew home without his winnings.

the above scenario strongly implies that even the casino did not consider ivey's actions to be cheating, only that they were deliberate actions that should result in ivey's payout not being honored by the casino.

all the facts taken into account, and the responses of law enforcement and the casino themselves result in a simply factual statement along the lines of - "phil ivey was indeed not cheating, and crockfords simply denied his payout. A denial that was subsequently upheld in a court of law".

Okay, but that's only what I was talking about though.

The other aspect, Legal/Not Legal, I can't have an opinion of value as I'm not a lawyer. Besides, laws and their interpretations vary from one country to another, sometimes even with variants in the same country! On my side I'm not interested that much about Legality. Equity and justice are just incompatible and I'm under the impression that justice in that century is mainly a matter of money (or who you are) for the majority of countries. People are killed every day, wars are initiated every week for the sake of "Right" or "Legality".

To me, what PI used is an astute ploy, an the casinos just showed a long chain of breaches. In short they more or less deserved what happened to them. But it's cheating .

I'd like to thank you for keeping the debate polite an focused, here or on Facebook. That's kind of new in that place. As we said many times before, we can't agree on everything (mainly when you have details I don't have ) but it sure is rewarding to talk with you.

Cheers.

As I said, the guy do not know Phil, so he is not an accomplice, but from an external point of view, I agree he would probably seen as an accomplice.




Here Arnold I do not understand your thinking. The guy ask nothing, request nothing, he is just watching and decide to play when he realize what happening.



Why, in my scenario, the guy is cheating?

@jackouille

He would be a cheat because the cards were not "marked" before someone does it and he would start playing only once he notices the artifice PI is using. Once PI accomplice would have asked to turn the cards in such a way that you can read them, the deck is marked, and it's cheating! If the guy is part of the scam, he is an accomplice.

To take a more visual example, if, while walking down a street, you see a gang looting a bank and grab a few bills because the opportunity suddenly strikes you, you would be an accomplice and a robber at the same time. Yet, you would have asked nothing, would have initiated nothing, you would just take a few bank notes which, suddenly are available. But it would be robbery though.

Definition of "accomplice": a person who helps another commit a crime. You don't have to know someone or to have initiated a crime to be accomplice. You just need to commit it.

Marking cards is illegal in all jurisdictions and is cheating, edge reading cards directly from the factory is advantage play, and has nothing to do with cheating.
edge reading and marking cards are essentially unrelated to each other.

marking cards has a specific definition in conversations like this, and factory fresh cards from a sealed box that are untouched by ink, daub, dust, etc don't fit the definition.

In my vocabulary, edge reading is reading a mark on the edge of the card (for instance because you left a tiny mark with your nail). Here it's reading discrepancies on the back of the card because they've been poorly cut (you can find asymmetries). The back, not the edge. Because they asked for having some cards turned (in order to recognize those cards because those asymmetries!), we call that edge sorting (even if a different word would be preferable). Note that the discrepancy is not necessarily on the border of the card, corners are premium choice as well.

Technically speaking, if you can recognize a card while seeing his back only, the deck is marked!

Using a discrepancy of a card without arranging or sorting the deck, I agree it can be called clever or advantage play. Asking for sorting the deck according those discrepancies is completely different and it's cheating. If you use the cards the way they are, it's random, it's not cheating. If you manipulate the deck, if you sort it, it's cheating. IMHO. You are free to think differently.

Again, surely a matter of ethics and semantics. For some, anything can be done, and whatever the tools used or the morality, what matters is the money. Personally, when I cheated, I faced the facts, I was a cheat. I don't need sophism or fallacious convolutions to conceal the fact that I was a ###. Whether it's cleverly done or not. Whatever the amount of money on the table. It makes not difference to me.

But, I'd agree, we have the "legality" side to take into consideration, which is completely different. I think Jason made good points about it a few posts above.