In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Yes. Would definately check if somebody said 'lets use this certain deck' like Ivey did. Ivey knows the cards, but he does not know the outcome. Back to poker for you, I;ve got Aces, i know you have Ace king (due to markings). We go all-in. Yes i have an edge, but i do not know for sure the outcome. Posted by 1267
I might not be certain to lose any particular hand but I would be pretty certain to lose in the long run which is how all odds-based gambling works... and you would still have been cheating me by knowing my hand.
Whether the casino should have allowed Ivey to request a particular deck wouldn't alter the fact that they believed the game to be playing out within the standard rules. If Ivey had said "I want to use this particular deck because I can identify each card from the back. Is that okay with you?" and the casino had agreed, then that would have been a fair game - All sides would know the whole story before the game started. Obviously Ivey was not so forthcoming when making his request.
I would assume that casinos tend to pander to the odd superstitions of people willing to gamble for millions of pounds. I'd imagine that's what they thought they were doing here.
The fact is Ivey did not cheat, he used his intelligence and outsmarted the casino. It seems that it's ok for casinos to give high rollers free drinks and stuff to encourage them to stay and spend (lose) more money but not for them to use their brain and win. A casino claiming the moral high ground, well i'll be damned. It will be interesting to see how the US courts will deal with Ivey's other case. Posted by MilitantG
The fact is that Ivey won by means outside of the rules of the game. He gained an advantage from knowing something that the rules of the game say he shouldn't know and which he didn't disclose to his opponent (the casino). That sounds a lot like cheating to me.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I might not be certain to lose any particular hand but I would be pretty certain to lose in the long run which is how all odds-based gambling works... and you would still have been cheating me by knowing my hand. Whether the casino should have allowed Ivey to request a particular deck wouldn't alter the fact that they believed the game to be playing out within the standard rules. If Ivey had said "I want to use this particular deck because I can identify each card from the back. Is that okay with you?" and the casino had agreed, then that would have been a fair game - All sides would know the whole story before the game started. Obviously Ivey was not so forthcoming when making his request. I would assume that casinos tend to pander to the odd superstitions of people willing to gamble for millions of pounds. I'd imagine that's what they thought they were doing here. Posted by BorinLoner
I wouldn't be cheating you though, the information is there for both of us to see.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : The fact is that Ivey won by means outside of the rules of the game. He gained an advantage from knowing something that the rules of the game say he shouldn't know and which he didn't disclose to his opponent (the casino). That sounds a lot like cheating to me. Posted by BorinLoner
If the Casino was facilitating the game correctly. He would not be able to know something that he shouldn't be able to. He's just exploited the casino's failures to take proper security measures.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I wouldn't be cheating you though, the information is there for both of us to see . Posted by 1267
The data is there for everyone who's looking for it but only you know a) that it's present and b) what it means.
When a poker player marks the cards at the table, he doesn't share that with the rest of the players and he doesn't tell them what each marking means. He's doing it to gain an unfair advantage. If he did tell everyone it would be fair and would alter the game dramatically but, as he doesn't, he's cheating them.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : If the Casino was facilitating the game correctly. He would not be able to know something that he shouldn't be able to. He's just exploited the casino's failures to take proper security measures. Posted by 1267
You're back to "it's alright to cheat if the other guy doesn't catch you."
So the Casino is allowed to get you wasted to gain an unfair advantage as long as you the opponent willingly accept free drinks. Which imo sounds like the same as what Ivey did when he requested a specific deck, which they willingly provided.
But it's ok if the Casino try to gain an advantage.
Tbh my opinion won't change as I doubt yours will, so gg.
P.S. It would be interesting to see a poll on this.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : The data is there for everyone who's looking for it but only you know a) that it's present and b) what it means. When a poker player marks the cards at the table, he doesn't share that with the rest of the players and he doesn't tell them what each marking means. He's doing it to gain an unfair advantage. If he did tell everyone it would be fair and would alter the game dramatically but, as he doesn't, he's cheating them. Posted by BorinLoner
nobody marked any cards. Everybody had the same info literally right infront of them. Define cheating ? To me cheating is breaking the rules, i don't see how he broke any. He just exploited stupid casino staff.
Funny that the Casino probably thought 'haha we'll let this stupid idiot use that deck, he probably thinks they bring him luck' and we'll exploit him for all his money with our small edge. When infact the opposite happened.
So the Casino is allowed to get you wasted to gain an unfair advantage as long as you the opponent willingly accept free drinks. Which imo sounds like the same as what Ivey did when he requested a specific deck, which they willingly provided. But it's ok if the Casino try to gain an advantage. Tbh my opinion won't change as I doubt yours will, so gg. P.S. It would be interesting to see a poll on this. Posted by MilitantG
If you let yourself get drunk, you're giving an advantage to your opponent. If they don't force the drinks on you they're not doing anything unfair; you're undermining your own chances. You know the consequences of getting yourself drunk and nobody is hiding those consequences from you. A better example than providing free drinks to players would be the casino surreptitiously spiking players drinks.
The casino was not aware of the consequences of using this particular deck and Ivey did not share that information with them. The casino wasn't making an informed decision.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : If you let yourself get drunk, you're giving an advantage to your opponent. If they don't force the drinks on you they're not doing anything unfair; you're undermining your own chances. You know the consequences of getting yourself drunk and nobody is hiding those consequences from you. A better example than providing free drinks to players would be the casino surreptitiously spiking players drinks. The casino was not aware of the consequences of using this particular deck and Ivey did not share that information with them. The casino wasn't making an informed decision. Posted by BorinLoner
As an 18 year old, entering a Casino. I knew nothing about gambling. Did the casino tell me that the roulette wheel gave them an edge? Did they f***k. So why must Ivey share his information ?
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : nobody marked any cards. Everybody had the same info literally right infront of them. Define cheating ? To me cheating is breaking the rules, i don't see how he broke any. He just exploited stupid casino staff. Funny that the Casino probably thought 'haha we'll let this stupid idiot use that deck, he probably thinks they bring him luck' and we'll exploit him for all his money with our small edge. When infact the opposite happened. Posted by 1267
I'll point out again that not everybody had the same information right in front of them because the casino did not know to look for it and would not have been able to interpret it. It's the difference between data and information. I could post something on this forum containing a code to deliver a secret message. The data would be in plain sight but only someone with the appropriate cipher would have access to the information.
One of the rules of the game is that the players (both the casino and its customers) are not able to identify the cards when they're face down. Clearly that was not the case here and Ivey was able to identify the cards. That's outside the rules of the game.
The bolded part seems to be the crux of your argument - Stupid people can be tricked more easily, therefore it's alright to do so. As it happens I don't agree that the casino staff were stupid. Not only would it be reasonable for them to assume that the deck was properly made and wasn't flawed, they were also aware that pay-outs could be withheld if suspicions arose. Which is what happened here.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : As an 18 year old, entering a Casino. I knew nothing about gambling. Did the casino tell me that the roulette wheel gave them an edge? Did they f***k. So why must Ivey share his information ? Posted by 1267
The rules of roulette are widely available and, if you ask what the payouts are, you can see for yourself that the odds are not in your favour.
As I said much earlier, Ivey entered into an agreement with the casino to play Punto Banco. The rules of the game include the requirement that neither side can identify the face down cards. Ivey being able to do so meant he was acting outside the rules of the game and therefore outside of his agreement with the casino.
It's not a question of whether Ivey should have shared his information with the casino because of course they would have refused to use the particular deck if he had. It's a question of whether Ivey won the money within the parameters of the game and within the parameters of the agreement he made with the casino - The gaming contract. It's clear that he did not win within those parameters, reneging on his side of the agreement. As a result, the casino is under no obligation to honour it's side of the agreement.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I'll point out again that not everybody had the same information right in front of them because the casino did not know to look for it and would not have been able to interpret it. It's the difference between data and information. I could post something on this forum containing a code to deliver a secret message. The data would be in plain sight but only someone with the appropriate cipher would have access to the information. One of the rules of the game is that the players (both the casino and its customers) are not able to identify the cards when they're face down. Clearly that was not the case here and Ivey was able to identify the cards. That's outside the rules of the game. The bolded part seems to be the crux of your argument - Stupid people can be tricked more easily, therefore it's alright to do so. As it happens I don't agree that the casino staff were stupid. Not only would it be reasonable for them to assume that the deck was properly made and wasn't flawed, they were also aware that pay-outs could be withheld if suspicions arose. Which is what happened here. Posted by BorinLoner
The data/information was literally their to be seen by anybody with eyes. Like i said in my post above. As an 18 year old, the casino do not tell me they have an edge. I use my own brain/eyes to find this information out. As for the casino staff being idiots, it seems alot of them were. If you read up on it, they were picking up the top card and turning it 180 degress for Ivey and placing it right in front of him (thinking it was superstition). Only took them 12 mill to catch on.
As for the cards, he was not able to identifty the card when face down. He was just pretty sure that a specific pattern of cards were 7s 8s or 9s.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : The rules of roulette are widely available and, if you ask what the payouts are, you can see for yourself that the odds are not in your favour. As I said much earlier, Ivey entered into an agreement with the casino to play Punto Banco. The rules of the game include the requirement that neither side can identify the face down cards. Ivey being able to do so meant he was acting outside the rules of the game and therefore outside of his agreement with the casino. It's not a question of whether Ivey should have shared his information with the casino because of course they would have refused to use the particular deck if he had. It's a question of whether Ivey won the money within the parameters of the game and within the parameters of the agreement he made with the casino - The gaming contract. It's clear that he did not win within those parameters, reneging on his side of the agreement. As a result, the casino is under no obligation to honour it's side of the agreement. Posted by BorinLoner
Only when you know where to look, much like the patterning of the cards.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Only when you know where to look, much like the patterning of the cards. Posted by 1267
You can ask somebody at the wheel. Nobody is hiding that information from you. In Ivey's case, he knew the rules he was agreeing to play by and knew a way to get around them. In doing so, he broke the rules. He possessed information he wasn't entitled to possess.
I won't keep going over the same ground again and again.
In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : You can ask somebody at the wheel. Nobody is hiding that information from you. In Ivey's case, he knew the rules he was agreeing to play by and knew a way to get around them. In doing so, he broke the rules. He possessed information he wasn't entitled to possess. I won't keep going over the same ground again and again. Posted by BorinLoner
They could have asked Ivey, much like they did . in court, and he admitted it. The information WAS there, right infront of them. Like i said, if he wasn't entitled to possess that information, the casino should have stopped him from possessing it. Off to watch England anyway. Hopefully they don't exploit San Marino's lack of failure to take proper security measures in defence , coz that would be cheating.
In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating.
Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not (Asymmetric - definition, not identical on both sides of a central line)
For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........
Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)
After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique.
This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table.
This is my take on it......... In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating. Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not ( Asymmetric - definition, not identical on both sides of a central line) For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........ Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table) After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique. This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table. Posted by POKERTREV
Comments
Which imo sounds like the same as what Ivey did when he requested a specific deck, which they willingly provided.
But it's ok if the Casino try to gain an advantage.
Tbh my opinion won't change as I doubt yours will, so gg.
P.S. It would be interesting to see a poll on this.
To me cheating is breaking the rules, i don't see how he broke any. He just exploited stupid casino staff.
Funny that the Casino probably thought 'haha we'll let this stupid idiot use that deck, he probably thinks they bring him luck' and we'll exploit him for all his money with our small edge. When infact the opposite happened.
I'll point out again that not everybody had the same information right in front of them because the casino did not know to look for it and would not have been able to interpret it. It's the difference between data and information. I could post something on this forum containing a code to deliver a secret message. The data would be in plain sight but only someone with the appropriate cipher would have access to the information.
Like i said in my post above. As an 18 year old, the casino do not tell me they have an edge. I use my own brain/eyes to find this information out.
As for the casino staff being idiots, it seems alot of them were. If you read up on it, they were picking up the top card and turning it 180 degress for Ivey and placing it right in front of him (thinking it was superstition). Only took them 12 mill to catch on.
As for the cards, he was not able to identifty the card when face down. He was just pretty sure that a specific pattern of cards were 7s 8s or 9s.
Like i said, if he wasn't entitled to possess that information, the casino should have stopped him from possessing it.
Off to watch England anyway. Hopefully they don't exploit San Marino's lack of failure to take proper security measures in defence , coz that would be cheating.
In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating.
Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not (Asymmetric - definition, not identical on both sides of a central line)
For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........
Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)
After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique.
This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table.