Speaking as a professional gambler who’s followed this case…
-
It is not inherently suspicious for Ivey to be playing baccarat. Many winning poker players are compulsive gamblers, and Ivey is one of the more notorious examples. He’s lost millions playing craps. If I (lost my soul and) ran a casino, I’d deal to him. He is a profitable customer to have, and his presence is also good for publicity. It sounds like Sun was the brains of this particular operation, and she enlisted Ivey because they’d be more likely to agree to his requests.
-
It is hard to overstate just how incompetent the Borgata was here. Edge sorting has been a known advantage play technique for decades. Even if you don’t have a brand of cards that’s routinely asymmetric, imperfections are always possible. Casinos include a half-turn in the shuffle process, or before putting cards into the automatic shuffle, for exactly this reason. Agreeing to rotate cards for the player, and never shuffling properly, is… insane.
-
This is not the only recent example of Borgata being dumb and then trying to cheat their way out of trouble. Several years ago they offered a 100% loss rebate promotion. Any losses on slots during the promotional period, up to $100k, would be refunded in the form of free slot play over the next 20 weeks. Naturally, a lot of people showed up for a $100k freeroll, either win big or get your money back. (I was almost one of them, but I decided to hold off a few days, which saved me.) A lot of them were deemed undesirables “exploiting” the promotion rather than profitable players, and were banned from returning. Can’t get your money back if they’ll have you arrested for trespassing if you show up! There were lawsuits, naturally, but I don’t know what happened with them.
-
The judge’s opinion is based on the idea that the cards weren’t marked originally, but by asking that they be rotated in a particular way, Ivey and Sun were marking them. This is a major stretch. (You do not mark cards by making a polite request. Marked cards don’t become unmarked if you shuffle them properly.)
-
The judge’s backup argument is that any player shifting the odds in their favor is violating the “fundamental purpose” of the Casino Control Act, because the purpose of the CCA is to create tax revenue, and hence is breaching contract. This is utterly ridiculous, and also flies in the face of previous rulings, in New Jersey and elsewhere, that advantage play techniques such as card counting are legal. (Many casinos knowingly offer games at which a few skilled players can play with the odds in their favor, and they’re still generating plenty of tax revenue.)
-
It is well established that “hole carding” - seeing the face of a card which is intended to be concealed, and using that information to your advantage - is legal. Given that, the idea that making correct decisions based on the back of a card is inherently wrong is perverse.
-
Someone suggested, sarcastically, that Nevada courts would be friendlier to the gambler. Actually, yes, I expect they would. You can find a few outrageous counterexamples, as with any justice system, but for the most part Nevada does an exemplary job of preventing casino conduct which diminishes “public confidence and trust” in Nevada gambling. I’ve contacted Nevada Gaming Control Board twice, for behavior less outrageous than this, and they’ve ruled in my favor both times. In one case they summoned the casino manager out of his bed at home, after midnight, to come to the casino for a chewing out.
-
New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission used to be notoriously strict. I’ve heard (but don’t have details or confirmation) that a few years ago their funding was gutted, and since then they’ve been lapdogs for the casinos. In this case, they have expressed no opinion as to the propriety of Ivey and Sun’s actions. That’s unconscionable. In this case, and several others recently, they’ve done an excellent job of diminishing “public confidence and trust” in New Jersey gambling.
