«

»

Apr 15 2014

Casino Lawsuit Against Phil Ivey Reveals World of High-Stakes Gambling

Phil Ivey calls himself the Michael Jordan of Poker and is a well-known and much-admired high stakes poker player. But now two lawsuits he is involved in may hurt his reputation and may cause him to be banned from some casinos. Last week, the Borgata Casino Hotel, Atlantic City New Jersey’s most popular and successful betting palace, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to recoup approximately $9.6 Million Ivey won while playing Baccarat during four trips to the Borgata in 2012.

The lawsuit claims that Ivey took advantage of a manufacturing error in sets of cards made by card-maker Gemaco (also named in the suit). It seems the purple version of the Gemaco cards featured a slightly wider left-hand edge than right hand edge; in its contract with the Borgata Gemaco promises that all cards will be perfectly symmetrical. Somehow Ivey picked up on this defect and then used his leverage as a high-stakes player to manipulate the game of Baccarat.

baccaratBaccarat is game preferred by high rollers and casino regulars. It is also highly popular among Asian players and it is not unusual for players to have particular “superstitions” about how the cards are handled and dealt. In certain Asian casinos,for example players are allowed to hold and even tear the cards for good luck since a new deck is used every hand. The game is played with two hands of two cards being dealt: one is called the “banker’s hand” and the other is called the “player’s hand.” Ace through nine are worth their face value (Ace being one) and 10, Jack , Queen and King are all worth zero. The goal is to get as close to 9 as possible. Going over does not “bust” you. Table players bet on whether the banker or player hand will be better; you can also bet that they will tie, though that is the riskiest bet with also the greatest reward. The player hand is dealt first so if you could know the value of the first player card you will have a tremendous advantage. If the player hand is dealt a 7,8 or 9, it is much more likely this hand will have be closer to 9 than the banker hand.

To set up this advantage Ivey sent a set of strict instructions to the Borgata in beginning in the summer of 2012: The cards used had to be purple Gemacos; an automatic dealing machine (called a “shoe”) had to be employed instead of the traditional hand-dealer employed at high-end Baccarat tables; he wanted a private secluded playing pit; since he was to be accompanied by his friend Cheng Sun (also sued) the dealer had to speak fluent Mandarin; he wanted to play $25,00 per hand as a maximum bet; and he wanted to risk up to $1 million. The casino said they would be glad to comply and Ivey wired his $1 Million stake to the casino. Once there, Mr. Sun began to tell the dealer (in Mandarin) that he was superstitious and wanted him to invert the “good cards” (7,8,9) once they were shown. That meant the fat edge wold be on the right in good cards and the skinny edge on the right for all other cards. While this manipulation was going on , Ivey placed minimum bets. Once all the decks in play had been set up per Mr. Sun’s instructions, the lawsuit alleges, Ivey began playing maximum bets. The use of the shoe guaranteed that the orientation of the cards remained the same.

Using this system, according to the casino, Ivey increased his likelihood of winning by about 600%; he would bet on “player” when that hand got a “good” card and on “banker” when it did not. This little bit of extra knowledge allowed him to win $2.4 million in April; $1.6 million in May; $4.8 million in July and $825,000 in October of 2012. In July, he increased the max bet to $50,000 and his stake to $3 Million. Why the relatively low win in October? Beause in that month, he sued Crockford’s Casino in London for allegedly withholding 7.8 Million Pounds Ivey won playing Baccarat until they discovered how he had gamed the casino. Crockford’s sent out a bulletin to all casinos about the lawsuit in which IVEY detailed exactly how he did it; he argued he merely used an error to his advantage and that is not “Cheating” or “Marking the cards.” When the Borgata received the Crockford’s memo, its Executive Vice President walked down to the private Baccarat pit and confronted Ivey. Ivey said that Crockford’s had no right to withhold the money and that the allegations he was cheating were baseless. The casino let him play on -presumably due to his celebrity status. The Borgata alleges that at that point Ivey was up over $3 Million but then suddenly after being confronted he began to lose precipitously – the casino alleges he was losing intentionally.

After examining the videotapes and talking to the dealers involved and after reviewing in detail the Crockford’s lawsuit, the Borgata sued to get its $9.6 million back. But is it cheating? The court will have to determine how it defines tha tterm and how it defines “marking cards.” I say “Yes, it is cheating.” Had Ivey just caught an error and taken advantage of it at the table would be one thing, but to send a specific set of instructions to the casino in order to rig the game in your favor is cheating – and specifically orienting the cards to allow them to be identified is the very definition of “marking.” While it is true that the casino has the tremendous advantage in most cases, by not paying out what the true odds of a winning hand call for, when you sit at the table you agree to those terms. Knowledge of all the rules, odds and game idiosyncrasies is part of the contract between you and the casino.

So I think Mr. Ivey will lose his lawsuit here in the States. Whether these allegations will hurt or enhance his standing in the gambling community remains to be seen.

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Stinger

    I don’t get it. If ” when you sit at the table you agree to those terms. ” why could it not be said that when the casino deals the cards, they are agreeing with Ivey’s terms?

    Casinos consider card counting cheating. How can it be? Are their terms that only dumb people should be allowed to play blackjack? Is that not a form of discrimination?

  2. Oscar Michelen

    Its not discrimination as you have no Constitutional right to play in a casino and as long as they are not excluding for a Constitutionally-protected reason ( race, gender, religions, etc) they can exclude you. The agreement between you and the casino includes an agreement that you will not employ any system to cheat, mark the cards or manipulate the game. Card counting is not cheating per se, but casinos are free to exclude folks who can count cards. They don’t take away your winnings when they catch you counting cards, they just tell you not come back. That’s not discrimination

  3. Carlos Danger

    Carlos also came across this case a few days ago because he likes to play at “Atlantic City New Jersey’s most popular and successful betting palace.”

    Do you find the circumstances surrounding this case as strange as I do. There are a number of things that are, frankly, shocking about this case and Borgota comes off as not the sharpest or else we aren’t hearing the entire story yet.

    First, edge sorting is not exactly a state secret. If you google you find several nice videos demonstrating exactly how to edge sort. How could a casino which is in the business of detecting cheats not be aware of the possibility ?

    How can a casino ever let a deck s.t. to edge sorting into circulation. It’s like letting bad dice in. There must be a procedure to check every deck. Especially at this type of set up a high stakes game.

    How is it that casinos don’t immediately share any danger of cheating? They seem to share everything else about their customers but not a possible cheat. London Casino waits until there is a lawsuit before sounding an alarm ? (I presume there is no anti-trust reason not to share knowledge of card cheat methods or current threats ?) How could the Borgota not think something was up after reading the long, detailed list of Ivey instructions. Ivey is a world class poker player. Superstitious my butt. This guy knows probabilities or he would not have lasted in Poker.

    It gets odder. Borgota becomes aware of the possibility of edge sorting from the London casino and then not only can’t pick it up conclusively from Ivey’s directions (and results !) but let’s him continue to play ?

    Did you see the movie Casino ? Where DeNiro tells the local dumbass that DeNiro was forced to hire and who he had watching the slots when someone hit a big jackpot 3x in short order that dumbass is fired because either (1) he’s too dumb to work there or (2) he was in on the cheating. The dumbass said “I didn’t see them cheat, How do you know that he cheated. DeNiro says “because they hit the jackpot 3x.”

    Similarly, Ivey is consistently killing the game and they aren’t clued in to at least check the cards and after the tip off from London ?

    Something is missing here. I want to know why they let him keep playing after being warned by London.

    Anyway, I read the complaint and I agree with you if the facts alleged are accurate I think he was cheating too. This isn’t like sitting at a BJ table and “hole carding” which I think a Vegas court of all places said was legal and, in any case, is passive. Ivey actively duped the Casino into setting up the edge sort for him.

    DeNiro would have taken Ivey to the backroom and given him the choice: you can have the chips and the hammer or you can leave. And tell your friends we don’t F around at the Tangiers !

  4. Carlos Danger

    “when the casino deals the cards, they are agreeing with Ivey’s terms?”

    A Casino is never going to agree to let you cheat even if you are smart enough to evade detection for a while. That makes no sense.

  5. Oscar Michelen

    I agree – some heads are going to roll here. As far as allowing him to play on despite big winnings and a memo highlighting the cheating, I chalk it up to his celebrity status. Just having Phil Ivey in the house raises people’s vibe about the casino. A regular Joe pulling this off would have been stopped much earlier. It’s also possible that the execs at the Borgata weren’t 100% sure how to handle it at the time and just played it safe by letting him play on. Either way, the pit boss, dealer and eyes in the sky should have caught on to what he was doing much earlier on. Whether they were in on it remains to be seen, but they should be gone from their jobs. What intrigued me is that Ivey’s lawyers in London were so sure that it was not cheating that they completely described the scam in their answer.

  6. Stand by Phil Ivey

    Saying that someone is a cheater is pretty strong language to levy against someone who is ultimately only guilty of looking at the cards that the house dealt.

  7. C Danger

    ” ultimately only guilty of looking at the cards that the house dealt.”

    Cut the crap. He either duped them into an edge sort or they were aware of it and had their own reasons for allowing it. As in heads we win, tails you lose. If I were Ivey I would not only not deny it (ala London) I would argue that they had to be aware of it and, therefore, implicitly agreed to it and are only objecting now that they lost.

    Because if the case is they didn’t know so too bad, that’s a loser for me if I’m on the Jury. That’s just an (otherwise) successful fraud.

Leave a Reply