I have a feeling the key phrase might be this:
Because of Ivey and Sun’s misconduct, unfair play and deception, the Baccarat games at issue did not present the legally required “fair odds” or those assumed attendant circumstances dictated by New Jersey law… N.J.S.A. §5:12-100(e).
See, that’s a law that governs casinos, not players. Players are not required to offer the casino “fair odds.”
The law appears to make it illegal to own or use marked cards, and to own or use card-sorting equipment. The casino is essentially contending that it broke the law on both counts, so the gambler should give back his winnings.
That sucks…i say their error, they still pay. 
I’m reminded of the phrase “you can’t con an honest man”.
No way did that casino hear that list of absurd demands and not think something was up. I suspect they decided either what he was trying wouldn’t work, and they’d win, or they’d take him to court for more than they lost if he did win.
I suspect Ivey also researched the law thoroughly before trying this.
These ones?
Sounds like they’re not getting away with it except for the Indians. And let’s face it, we owe them.
It is hard to drum up much sympathy for the casino, who fully intended to keep all of the players money by having him play a game with odds in their favor (“fair odds”) as opposed to a game in which they didn’t realize the odds were in the player’s favor (“Totally unfair odds!!!11!!1”).
However, you can totally con an honest man. Many cons take advantage of people’s altruism. It is a mistake to think that all cons are based on a greedy victim, though, in this case it is true 
After reading the whole article i’m left unclear what the defect in the cards had to do with anything? His technique was to dupe the dealer into bending cards one direction or another… Where did the misprinting of the cards mentioned in the first segment of the article come into play on the actual con? It doesn’t mention, unless he was just combining two techniques for even better advantage? Perhaps I missed something.
Even the tone of the article sounds like a persausive essay; the author must’ve known most readers would find the casino’s claims dubius. To me, this seems like ex-post-facto casino-law… months later, they finally realize how they got hosed, then sue him to recover losses.
Cheaters should certainly be charged with a crime, but the casino slipped on this one. How was the dealer they assigned to such a high roller so obtuse that he didn’t realize the bending of the cards was a tactic? The code words were ‘good card’ and ‘bad card’… could it be more obvious?
There was no bending of the cards, as far as I can tell from this article and another print article I read. The imperfection described on the backs of the cards was related to the way the cards were printed and cut. The other article implied it was something along the lines of the card backs being printed slightly off center relative to where they were cut, so that one long edge of the card might have 2 millimeters of white border between the pattern on the back of the card and the edge of the card, and the other long edge might have 3 millimeters.
As play progressed, Ivey’s associate allegedly told the dealer to rotate certain cards – the ones numbered 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are cards more likely to form a winning hand. Rotated as such, the cards would have the opposite long edge visible in the shoe the dealer deals from. Ivey allegedly then could see (after a pass or two through the deck) whether the first card in the shoe had a 2mm white border or a 3mm white border on the leading edge. Knowing whether this first card had been rotated (to indicate a 6, 7, 8 or 9) would potentially let him know, before the hands were dealt, whether there was a better chance for player or dealer to win… enough to reverse the house advantage.
(Disclaimer: This is my understanding and may be wrong. I read the other article while at work and don’t know which paper it was published in. And the 2mm and 3mm measures I mentioned weren’t explicitly mentioned; I was just trying to illustrate what the article seemed to refer to.)
It wan’t bending the cards.
My understanding is the defect in the cards was that the pattern on the back was off center a little closer to one edge than the others. After conning the dealer into sorting the cards for them the players could see if the cards were a high card or a low card by it’s pattern’s proximity to the edge of the card.
As the cards went through an auto-shuffler they never got misoriented when they were shuffled. The deck stayed readable.
You beat me to it – I had actually just submitted my previous response, but had deleted it because I had meant to post it as a reply to galaxies’ post, and then undeleted it when it said body text of the repost was too similar to the deleted post. Your response is a bit more concise.
There is no honor among thieves.
But your retracto-explainer is much more interesting.
If the casino has a beef with anyone, it should be the card manufacturer as a defect in manufacturing, inspecting, and packaging caused the casino the losses, not the player that was involved in a game that used the cards. The actual contracts with the card manufacturer would determine the liability, and if further breach of contract liability exists.
Also, the casino still has a percentage of liability for it’s own losses because of poor training on the part of the dealer to spot the defect, the pit bosses who oversaw the dealer(s), and the floor managers who approved the special conditions requested by Ivey, including the increase of the table stakes.
I have played single deck blackjack before in Reno. I immediately thought, “I can count these cards!” Unfortunately, I was also trying to have a conversation with a friend I hadn’t seen in years, and so I wasn’t paying enough attention to actually do it.
I would like to play in a casino, but I’m extremely superstitious. I believe it’s bad luck to play without a glass table, a friend under the table, a secure-connection to said friend, a deck of my own choosing, and all of the aces in the deck kept in my pocket and total immunity from prosecution for any crimes I might commit, up to and including just murdering everybody at the table and taking their money.
Would any of them be willing to accommodate my silly superstitions?
If you’re playing in a small casino that does single or dual-deck blackjack, and you count cards, what will happen is that a pit boss will take you aside and say, “I know what you are doing. You are welcome to keep gambling here, but you are no longer allowed to change your bet in the middle of a shoe. You put down a bet at the beginning of a shoe, and you play through the whole shoe with the same bet. If that’s not okay with you, you can leave.” Source: I saw a YouTube video where a guy did this, and that’s what happened.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
