• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Is this real ? GEMCO ordered to pay in Borgata-Phil Ivey case (1 Viewer)

Shaggy said:
In my mind, the card manufacturer is more at fault than Phil Ivey. Borgata owes Ivey... then Borgata is free to sue Gemaco.
Click to expand...

Right? Like I get it, he and from what I understand the dealer knew about the card defect and exploited it. So ya they are cheats. But if GEMCO is responsible for failure of products 27$ is a joke
 
Squibyboom said:
Right? Like I get it, he and from what I understand the dealer knew about the card defect and exploited it. So ya they are cheats. But if GEMCO is responsible for failure of products 27$ is a joke
Click to expand...
Yeah, the dealer and the floor, and the pencil and certainly a lot more than that.
How many people are in on it when a player asks if its OK to cheat, and the casino agrees?
Borgata is 100% responsible. Mostly for being 100% stupid
 
Although I can't find it now, I recall reading that the sales contract specified that Gemaco's liability in the case of defective products is to replace or refund those items.

Greed and stupidity: a dangerous combination.
 
abby99 said:
Although I can't find it now, I recall reading that the sales contract specified that Gemaco's liability in the case of defective products is to replace or refund those items.

Greed and stupidity: a dangerous combination.
Click to expand...
Humm, a card company having to replace decks that are defective in a way that could enable and encourage cheating?

@Modiano, you getting this?
 
Gameface said:
Humm, a card company having to replace decks that are defective in a way that could enable and encourage cheating?

@Modiano, you getting this?
Click to expand...

That's a point I think of as well. Also over the whole fiasco surely GEMCO provided more than just 27$ worth of cards. It's nice that they are ordered to pay a sum I agree. I feel these card giants just get away with their mistakes with a slap on the wrists.
 
Sadface that everyone seems to feel that Phil cheated. He exploited a flaw in a game as provided by the casino. The dealer was not in on it. He requested that these specific cards would be used and requested that the dealer discard a certain way. The house should protect their game better. The casino could say “no.” They are happy to take millions from patrons when they have the edge, but when they give the edge to a player, they cry foul and want their money back... Eff that.

We are not talking poker here... where all players at the table are customers with the expectation of a fair game. It’s a pit game with an inherent house edge... they cater to whales and their superstitions... this time THEIR greed bit them in the ass.
 
I’m with you 100% @Shaggy - it seems quite the bullshit that the casino is allowed to agree to Phil’s terms, and then plea switcheroo when they lose. But from a legal perspective, I think the ruling was sound. Based on existing laws, as I understand it, the casino isn’t allowed to agree to let Phil cheat. So, as applied, the law is dumb.
The laws are dumb - shocker.
 
The real question is this: would the casino have returned Phil's money had he lost, using those same 'bogus' cards and dealer procedures?

I doubt it, and doubt that Phil could have sucessfully sued to get it back, either. If the game was actually invalid, then any results should be nullified regardless of who wins..... but we all know that wouldn't be the case irl.
 
Squibyboom said:
But if GEMCO is responsible for failure of products 27$ is a joke
Click to expand...

First thing the dealer does when setting up the table is inspect the cards. So the house inspects the cards, and if the house approves them for play, they get used. If the house inspects the cards and they are defective, they return them and use other cards.

So, here, we've established that the cards were imperfect. Gemaco owes them for the bad cards. But that's where it ends, because it was the house that approved them for play.
 
Last edited:
All cards are technically imperfect, right? An extreme example: if one had a microscope they could probably notice some inconsistencies between individual cards of any deck.

The fact that Iveys strategy required a dealer to manipulate the cards in an unusual way, so that he can examine them, makes me think Gemaco isn’t too much at fault. It implies that the cards were good enough to be used in standard play
 
I look at this as being similar to poker rules that don't allow freerolls. If a dealer forgets to burn a card before the flop and you notice, you have to say something immediately. You can't wait for the river to see how you do and then, when it looks bleak, say the dealer forgot to burn a card and we have to go back to the flop. Too late, the action stands.

Similarly, the casino agreed to the terms. They could have stopped play at any time, but didn't. They either didn't know what they agreed to do or they did figure it out at one point and decided to play it like a freeroll, knowing they wouldn't pay out.

Let me pose this...Let's say I propose a bet to somebody, let's call him Borgy. I propose that we will flip a coin 100 times for $1,000 per flip. Every time it lands on heads, I win. Every time it lands on tails, Borgy wins. We have to use a coin of my choosing, but Borgy can inspect the coin before we flip it (and I even let him go to the store and buy it - I just specify which coin). Borgy can elect to stop our coin flipping session at any time, but I agree to not call it quits until after 100 flips at the earliest. Is it my fault that I choose a two-headed coin, Borgy doesn't look at it before we start flipping, and doesn't call off the session even though it seems to be going particularly well for me? If not, why is it Phil Ivey's fault that the Borgata didn't inspect the cards before dealing or at least at some point during play when it seemed to be going well for him? The only difference is, Phil Ivey was still taking a risk since he could still lose. I had no way of losing the coin flips.
 
It’s 100% on Borgata. They accepted those decks from Gemco, and I assume they inspected them and put them into play. They modified their usual practices to appease a big whale in Ivey. It’s all on them.
 
Gobbs said:
Is it my fault that I choose a two-headed coin, Borgy doesn't look at it before we start flipping, and doesn't call off the session even though it seems to be going particularly well for me?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's not a crime. But it is still cheating.
 
Pgheddie said:
Yes. It's not a crime. But it is still cheating.
Click to expand...
previous reply deleted...

I believe you are stating that introducing a two headed coin into a flipping contest is cheating. Are you insinuating that Ivey's exploits were also cheating?

In this case, the "whale" player made requests of the casino. The casino obliged... as they tend to do for high rolling players. Ivey then played the game as agreed upon by both parties. He had a greater awareness than a typical player... using no outside tools or computational devices.
 
Last edited:
Shaggy said:
previous reply deleted...

I believe you are stating that introducing a two headed coin into a flipping contest is cheating. Are you insinuating that Ivey's exploits were also cheating?

In this case, the "whale" player made requests of the casino. The casino obliged... as they tend to do for high rolling players. Ivey then played the game as agreed upon by both parties. He had a greater awareness than a typical player... using no outside tools or computational devices.
Click to expand...
He didn't introduce a two headed coin. He requested the casino use a two headed coin and they agreed. Thats my kinda casino!
 
The link in the OP is broken now.

I'm guessing there must have been a signed agreement between the casino and manufacturer about liability for defects/marks on cards supplied by the manufacturer. Some kind of clause stipulating losses incurred due to manufacturing errors/negligence is the responsibility of the card maker.
 
TheDuke said:
The link in the OP is broken now.

I'm guessing there must have been a signed agreement between the casino and manufacturer about liability for defects/marks on cards supplied by the manufacturer. Some kind of clause stipulating losses incurred due to manufacturing errors/negligence is the responsibility of the card maker.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the article in this link... but my guess is the gist is there:
https://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/03/gemaco-playing-cards-borgata-ivey-edge-sorting-30350.htm

Now I have read it... yep, the content is there.
 
Shaggy said:
Are you insinuating that Ivey's exploits were also cheating?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not insinuating anything. I flat out said it.


Shaggy said:
He had a greater awareness than a typical player... using no outside tools or computational devices.
Click to expand...

If he did, it would have been a crime.

Edge sorting is not much different than marking the deck, it's just the markings are already on the deck. It essentially is having certain cards rotated in a manner to be able to know their values before they’re dealt.

If you use your fame to put a marked deck on the table, and then ensure that cards are rotated so that you know their values before they are dealt, that is cheating. The fact that the casino wasn't smart enough to stop him doesn't change that fact.
 
@Pgheddie, what is your opinion of a person “card counting” in a blackjack game?

Are you familiar with the term “holecarding” in blackjack? Holecarding is a scenario where an astute player identifies a weak blackjack dealer that will sometimes expose their down card. Just an extremely quick flash. This player will identify the best seat for viewing... perhaps slouch to ensure a line of sight. This player will become well aware of the shifts this dealer has. This player will log a lot of hours with that dealer and has a tremendous edge. Do you think in the scenario that I’ve presented... that the player is cheating?
 
Shaggy said:
@Pgheddie, what is your opinion of a person “card counting” in a blackjack game?

Are you familiar with the term “holecarding” in blackjack? Holecarding is a scenario where an astute player identifies a weak blackjack dealer that will sometimes expose their down card. Just an extremely quick flash. This player will identify the best seat for viewing... perhaps slouch to ensure a line of sight. This player will become well aware of the shifts this dealer has. This player will log a lot of hours with that dealer and has a tremendous edge. Do you think in the scenario that I’ve presented... that the player is cheating?
Click to expand...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

minedelta
Deckmate 1 Guide
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
7K
RocAFella1
RocAFella1
Dix
The Redneck Poker Card Database
14 15 16
Replies
455
Views
51K
maxim_666666
maxim_666666
Poker News
Phil Ivey's Alleged Accomplice In Borgata 'Cheating' Case Also 'Edge-Sorted' At Foxwo
Replies
0
Views
553
Poker News
Poker News
Back
Top Bottom