Should Borgata fail the baptism by fire for suing Phil Ivey?

[WolframBeta]

Recently there were disturbing news regarding a casino that is on our baptism by fire, aka pending accredited list. I think their behavior is quite rogue, go take a look for yourself.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Should borgata fail the baptism by fire for suing phil ivey? Not owning up to your own mistakes is not something accredited casinos do. Let alone, refusing to pay, and even suing a patron who did nothing illegal (Phil ivey made sure it was not illegal).

Sounds like they will be the rouge type that invoke the FU clause (You're a bonus abuser therefore a cheater and we will confiscate your money) on anyone who cashes out with more than what they deposited.

 

[nisosbar]

I'm not following your logic here.

The Borgata, like any commercial enterprise, will reserve any and all legal rights they have to sue in court if they feel they have been wronged.

Are you suggesting they should have gotten CM's approval prior to suing Phil Ivey? Or that part of the casino accreditation standard here should be that accredited casinos must get CM's approval in advance? Do you see how crazy that sounds? Why would any well-run business do that?

Being accredited here is valuable, but not to that extent. I doubt even CM himself would suggest that.

 

[WolframBeta]

I'm not following your logic here.

The Borgata, like any commercial enterprise, will reserve any and all legal rights they have to sue in court if they feel they have been wronged.

Are you suggesting they should have gotten CM's approval prior to suing Phil Ivey? Or that part of the casino accreditation standard here should be that accredited casinos must get CM's approval in advance? Do you see how crazy that sounds? Why would any well-run business do that?

Being accredited here is valuable, but not to that extent. I doubt even CM himself would suggest that.

They have not been legally wronged.

Unless the player is fraudulent, which ivey was not, Refusal to pay (in this case suing to get the money back) is a rogue action.

 

[jetset]

The Borgata issue has echoes of the Crawfords case involving Ivey in the UK, but it's still too early to reach a conclusion imo.

Both have involved litigation, and if it gets to the court stage the evidence of wrongdoing will have to be detailed, presented and compelling.

 

[paul@bgo]

Kinda silly of them to pay without doing their checks before hand if you ask me. Once it's paid, how can you then turn around and say 'oh no, actually, we want that money back because we think you cheated.'

Huge mistakes on behalf of the Casinos. For $9million they should have been much more thorough!

 

[dunover]

I suppose it's the big 'name' that was automatically trusted in this case. They wouldn't sue without good reason, though as Paul says the massive amount should have been thoroughly audited beforehand.

 

[nisosbar]

They have not been legally wronged.

Yes, they have been legally wronged, they claim.

Unless the player is fraudulent, which ivey was not,

They claim he was.

Refusal to pay (in this case suing to get the money back) is a rogue action.

Not if they have been legally wronged.

And for someone with 20 posts and a member of two months, you sure seem to know a lot about accreditation, and how CM's standards need to be tweaked.

 

[Slotster!]

I'm always a bit torn on these.

I guess he had an unfair advantage, but then again - so did everyone else... Unless I'm reading this wrong (good chance), he just spotted something that was already there - it would be a whole different problem if he'd fraudulently manufactured the cards and then profited from them. He noticed something everyone else was entitled to notice as well, soooooo...

Make sure you buy proper cards in future Borgata and you won't get done over.

Mind you, it kind of is cheating as well. So he's not playing fair.

But then it takes a decent amount of commitment and co-ordination. And balls.

Helpful, decisive post as ever Slotster! Well done.

 

[me_and_ed]

Counting cards by the numbers or design is not illegal, its frowned upon, Crockfords owes the money and Borgata shouldn't have a leg to stand on plain and simple.

 

[nisosbar]

Counting cards by the numbers or design is not illegal, its frowned upon, Crockfords owes the money and Borgata shouldn't have a leg to stand on plain and simple.

I agree. But that doesn't answer the provocative question posed in the OP.

Should pursuing your legal rights/remedies in court automatically prevent a casino from being accredited here?

 

[WolframBeta]

I agree. But that doesn't answer the provocative question posed in the OP.

Should pursuing your legal rights/remedies in court automatically prevent a casino from being accredited here?

By your logic, should bogata fail in their lawsuit then it's ok to rogue them.

But I get a feeling should they fail you'll just find another reason not to rogue them.



Ivey should PAB bogata so CM becomes aware of this

 

[WolframBeta]

Yes, they have been legally wronged, they claim.



They claim he was.



Not if they have been legally wronged.

And for someone with 20 posts and a member of two months, you sure seem to know a lot about accreditation, and how CM's standards need to be tweaked.

Where are you getting "his actions are illegal" from. Show me the law.

I'm sure if CM saw the case he'd instantly say yeah, player innocent.

 

[Simmo!]

Accreditation is intended to be a guide for players and to show them that an online casino is considered by CM a legitimate, safe place to play. A place that offers fair games and will pay out when you win.

I can't see how this in any way alters that stance. Borgata's online casino offers established certified games from reputable online casino game providers and afaik, will pay out fine to players who win.

 

[Googobucs]

By your logic, should bogata fail in their lawsuit then it's ok to rogue them.

But I get a feeling should they fail you'll just find another reason not to rogue them.



Ivey should PAB bogata so CM becomes aware of this

Just because a casino does not become accredited does not mean they are automatically rogued.
I do think the case bears watching during the BBF process. This forum certainly does not tolerate players smearing the good name of a casino, so I assume they don't allow a casino to smear the good name of a player.
We don't know all the facts of this case, and should not rush to judgement on either side.

 

[miso]

Where are you getting "his actions are illegal" from. Show me the law.

I'm sure if CM saw the case he'd instantly say yeah, player innocent.

According to the NJLawReview.com article, Ivey used the pretext of being superstitious in order to hide what his “true motive, intention and purpose in negotiating these playing arrangements was to create a situation in which he could surreptitiously manipulate what he knew to be a defect in the playing cards in order to gain an unfair advantage.”

The Borgata is also taking the line that edge sorting is no different than marking cards. Under New Jersey law:

“Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.”

Additionally, by insisting on the use of a card shuffler Ivey may have violated a New Jersey statute “making it a crime to use any cheating device in a casino.” Under New Jersey law:

“use or assist another in the use of, a computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device which is designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility.”

Ivey’s and Sung’s actions could also be construed as swindling or cheating based on New Jersey law:

“A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.“

 

[tryme]

Where are you getting "his actions are illegal" from. Show me the law.

I'm sure if CM saw the case he'd instantly say yeah, player innocent.

The fact that Borgata have brought a lawsuit suggests they believe that Ivey has broken a law. Whether they are right or wrong is the job of the law itself to decide and certainly not something to speculate on here. There are some fairly strict rules on this forum about legal talk, so that's all I've got to add.

 

[cpdnd31]

As A former casino supervisor here is my opinion of this story.

Now Ivy asked for special instructions: THEY allowed it. It should fall back on the casino and the supervisor who should have stopped the game if they felt something was up.

Can it be construed as cheating because he asked for specific dealer and or instructions on card placements--- NO they allowed it - once it is approved if casino does not stop the game if they didn't oh well get better eye in the sky and pit bosses.

Also from article they read that a casino in Europe first stated he was doing this and that's how they became aware of it. Too bad once again THEY ALLOWED it. So after the fact to prove he did it is gonna be hard. Yes I am sure there is video on this game however they allowed the special instructions.

So if I was Phil Ivy I would counter sue for tarnishing my good name.

The most the casinos can do at this point is to BAN him from playing there again and put him in notification book as possible cheater so other casinos ban him as well.

If I was in that VIP room and thought for one minute that something was wrong I would have called to see about pulling dealer and card placement. It's common sense. high rollers ask for many weird things but when someone is winning that much it tells you something is up. They should have done something at that moment not waited till after the fact.

It's like BJ advantage players is it illegal NO however it is at our discretion to ask the player to leave. We need no reason, all we have to say is game is closed and have security escort them out. But we better be dam sure before we do it. bad publicity for a casino when we do.

Also what basis are they using for this : Did he change his bet sizes? If so then it is back on the pit who did not stop the game for irregular betting patterns. They had the opportunity to stop this game they let it happen oh well. I say they need to retrain their crew.

This bothers me in so many ways: I was one of about 6 people back in the day that was licensed to train and teach Bacc to casinos. When this Asian game came to the USA Midwest casinos - casinos could not keep up with the demand for Big Bacc and Mini Bacc. The money we made nightly on this game had casinos opening separate Bacc rooms and VIP rooms. I think there was some major bad decision making on the casinos part and they are looking for someone to blame. The blame should be on them.

My bigger question would be if he is able to spot differences on card edges then did he use this in his poker game? Even if he was able to read one card it would give him a major advantage.

 

[WolframBeta]

Thanks for the nice answer up there.

I was just about to note how card counting is legal even though casinos call it "cheating", when I realized this is New Jersey we're talking about. The only state in the entire world that doesn't even allow casinos to ban card counters.

Bogata has no chance in this lawsuit

 

[WolframBeta]

Additionally, by insisting on the use of a card shuffler Ivey may have violated a New Jersey statute “making it a crime to use any cheating device in a casino.” Under New Jersey law:“

Oh man, I laughed so hard at that. Can't believe you seriously said that.

 

[me_and_ed]

According to the NJLawReview.com article, Ivey used the pretext of being superstitious in order to hide what his “true motive, intention and purpose in negotiating these playing arrangements was to create a situation in which he could surreptitiously manipulate what he knew to be a defect in the playing cards in order to gain an unfair advantage.”

The Borgata is also taking the line that edge sorting is no different than marking cards. Under New Jersey law:

“Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.”

Additionally, by insisting on the use of a card shuffler Ivey may have violated a New Jersey statute “making it a crime to use any cheating device in a casino.” Under New Jersey law:

“use or assist another in the use of, a computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device which is designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility.”

Ivey’s and Sung’s actions could also be construed as swindling or cheating based on New Jersey law:

“A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.“

Purely conjecture and speculation, only Phil Ivey knows what his intentions are and were. As stated before, the greed of the casino is what allowed the fateful decisions to be made, did players sue the casino's for putting Shufflemasters in, it could be construed that they are shuffling an unfair deck due to shuffle manipulation........conjecture and speculation, its the US, may the best legal team win.

 

[Casinomeister]

They have not been legally wronged...

Unless you are afflicted with clairvoyance, let the courts decide that.

...Should pursuing your legal rights/remedies in court automatically prevent a casino from being accredited here?

No. As Simmo indicates, Accreditation is given to casinos that pass the litmus test that ensures everyone that players will be treated fairly. I am making an assumption that the ongoing litigation will be a fair process, so no need for Phil Ivy to PAB since lawyers are already involved with this.