So if I understand this correctly, the casino alleges:
1. The casino was using cards which, when viewed edge-on, were not rotationally symmetrical. (A separate complaint against the card supplier.)
2. Over multiple rounds of play, as players handled the cards, they rotated them to encode a high/low value before returning them to the dealer.
3. The players requested an automatic shuffler so that the cards rotations were not randomized by the shuffling process.
4. Players observed the edges of the "shuffled" card stack to determine whether incoming cards were high/low, using this information to improve their odds.
Players were not allowed to handle the cards. In this case, they were playing mini-Baccarat. In traditional Baccarat, players are allowed to touch the cards and even bend and turn them all they want, but all 8 decks are thrown out after every shoe (i.e. touched cards are never played again). In mini-Baccarat, players do not touch the cards, and the cards are reshuffled instead of thrown away. This type of scheme only works in mini-Baccarat (and Punto Banco - a mini-Baccarat variation), and the casino would only comply with the unusual requests that made this scheme possible for very big players. Casinos are very tolerant of high rollers - Caesars Palace was fined $250,000 a few years ago for allowing a man to jump up on a Baccarat table and dance before placing his bets.
In this case, Ivey had an Asian woman with him, and she told the dealer that she was superstitious and asked that the dealer turn cards of certain values a different direction. That she was Asian was important because the casinos are claiming that Ivey requested that his dealers speak Mandarin Chinese, and that the instructions to turn the cards were given by the woman in Mandarin so that supervisors wouldn't hear and immediately object to the request. In any event, the dealers complied. This incredibly simple strategy apparently worked at Borgata and Crockfords in London, to the tune of over $20 million in combined winnings. Because the casino could have simply said "no," I find it extremely unlikely that the Borgata will prevail here.
This was much more of a social engineering hack than anything else. Interestingly, because of this issue, casinos (at least in Las Vegas) have purchased cards with a new type of background that looks like pixelated noise - much harder to do this with.
> A complaint filed by the board against Caesars Palace says a customer was
> playing baccarat in the high-limit baccarat room on Oct. 10, 2009. On three
> separate occasions, the man climbed onto the baccarat table from his chair,
> walked on the table and made a bet before returning to stand on his chair,
> eventually sitting down, according to the complaint.
>
> On the second occasion, the player performed a dance on the table before
> returning to his chair, the control board said. The three incidents took
> place over a 45-minute period, according to the complaint.
(I think this is what you are referring to. But it is from 4 years ago.)
Yes, that is the incident I was referring to...I guess I just read about it last year. Here is the new card back: http://prntscr.com/3cjo5v (here's a closeup: http://prntscr.com/3cjlqk). This is much different than the diamond design they used until recently that enabled this scheme - http://prntscr.com/3cjnne
They do not punch a hole/heart out of the middle of these decks anymore? When I was younger my grandfather would always bring me decks of cards and they all had holes punched out of the middle.
No, these days on the cards they sell in the gift shops they shave 2 of the edges off. They still stick out if put in with other, non-shaved cards in live play at the tables, but are more useful than cards with holes in them :).
What a ridiculous lawsuit. It's barely removed from a bank suing a customer because the customer walked in and said, "Can I have a million dollars?" and the bank gave them a million dollars.
Players are not typically allowed to handle the cards in punto banco, so would have needed the dealer to turn the cards for them.
This, I understand, is one reason they preferred a Mandarin-speaking dealer.
Sometimes you're given the option to deal out the cards yourself, but this would be more likely to break Ivey's careful edge sorting. If it was offered, I would strongly tend towards declining it.
Other thoughts:
Traditional card counting might still have been useful, assuming only the top card would be readable.
Finally, this is only what Ivey has admitted to. I politely suggest that there are other ways of getting an advantage.
I don't think any dealer or casino would agree to a total re-orientation before the first shuffle/game.
My impression from prior coverage was that the rotation occurred as the cards were revealed during play, so that on each next shoe, more and more (potentially all ) of the intended cards were reversed.
The way dlss suggests is the safest and most sensible way.
Usually you'll start play by breaking the seal on new decks which will be fanned out to check them: it's effective and efficient to get the dealer to turn a few sequences of cards here while they're still in the right order.
Otherwise, you have a lot more work to convince the dealer to rotate the cards one-by-one: "rotate that 9 of clubs, not the other 9 of clubs" is way more suspicious.
Having said that, it is a bit surprising that "dealer collusion" spidey-senses were not tingling. This is the first thing that casinos should watch out for. Maybe they realised something was going on but couldn't figure out what, or how it would be effective, in time.
Sure, if the dealer/pit agrees, that'd be the best way... it just seems even more blatant, and the idea the casino would comply even more outlandish.
Whereas, making requests during the game, that seem a bit erratic (or triggered by in-round results, like "let's flip that one so it doesn't burn me again!"), seem like they might escape scrutiny longer.
Can you link me a source to that article? Phil Ivey is perhaps the greatest living card player in the world. Do not underestimate the near autistic savant level of perception and mental capacity that he and other genius card players have. I can imagine Ivey still being able to gain an exploitable edge merely by simply recognizing the direction in which specific cards are returned into the deck.
"The lawsuit claims that Ivey and his companion instructed a dealer to flip cards in particular ways, depending on whether it was a desirable card in baccarat. The numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 are considered good cards" from the article linked by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7580399
FWIW I think almost anyone could gain an exploitable edge by recognizing the direction in which specific cards are returned into the deck if they took it seriously and practiced... it just sounds like a lot of work, and a way smaller edge. I personally think it's more impressive that he socially engineered the dealer.
It's kind of like "good artists copy, great artists steal" only for statistical edges. maybe "good gamblers work hard for an edge, great gamblers have an edge before they sit down"
Yeah, this is extremely interesting to me either way. By knowing which way only one card is facing, you still tilt the deck in your favor ever so slightly. After using the same deck over multiple rounds, I assume you tilt the edge in your favor significantly without even having to give directions on specific cards. It would add to the casino's case for them to argue that he manipulated the dealer to make it seem more akin to an inside job, but I can see how Ivey could gain a significant advantage without even needing any "social engineering."
"it just sounds like a lot of work, and a way smaller edge."
If you read Ben Meizrich's Bringing Down the House, you wouldn't believe the degree to which these guys work to get an advantage over the house. There's a part in the book where he talks about how members of the MIT Black Jack Team so thoroughly practiced cutting a deck that they were able to cut stack of decks exactly 52 cards from the bottom. A seemingly improbable feat to do regularly but one that they perfected to the point that it became an integral part of their strategy.
I completely agree the details are interesting -- there are very few things that focus my attention as completely as statistical decision theories.
If you haven't read Ed Thorpe's The Mathematics of Gambling I think you'd love it. It's about finding these edges regardless of the game. Thorpe is fascinating too -- he invented one of the early blackjack counting systems, and figured out how to beat the game of roulette (as crazy as that sounds). He was also one of the first stat arb guys, figuring out how to price warrants and making a killing for the UC Irvine retirement fund.
Also, if you haven't heard of the Kelly criterion, I think it'll basically blow your mind. I think it's the least appreciated house edge there is, and a very cool piece of math.
Thorp is pretty interesting. With Claude Shannon he invented the first wearable computer:
"It's with Shannon that Thorp would revisit a question he had considered years earlier: whether he could apply mathematics to beat the game of roulette as he had done with blackjack. Thorp and Shannon would develop a friendship and, in the process of answering that question, build what is widely regarded to be the first wearable computer."
Naturally, they are returned in a uniform manner. To get any rotation (for edge differentiation) would require the ability to handle the cards (which he did not have) or the ability to convince someone to rotate cards (which is what it is alleged they did).
Additionally, Phil Ivey is an astonishingly good poker player (20M+ club, 8 braclets), but is known more as a degen on other games.
1. The casino was using cards which, when viewed edge-on, were not rotationally symmetrical. (A separate complaint against the card supplier.)
2. Over multiple rounds of play, as players handled the cards, they rotated them to encode a high/low value before returning them to the dealer.
3. The players requested an automatic shuffler so that the cards rotations were not randomized by the shuffling process.
4. Players observed the edges of the "shuffled" card stack to determine whether incoming cards were high/low, using this information to improve their odds.