In small part, I agree that there was an active role of the players in making sure the "marked" cards were easily identifiable, and that they were in use a second day.
I do believe that if a player notices a "marked" card, there is an ethical, but not a legal responsibility to point it out to the casino. Players do this frequently in live poker games, where it would be quite easy to try to take advantage of such an observation, and I'm sure some do not speak up, but many do.
But I also believe that the casino has an even greater responsibility to monitor whether there are or are not marked cards. I don't know about the game Ivey was playing, but when I've played baccarat (loooong ago!!) there were a host of casino staff in the room, and if some of them didn't have a responsibility to watch what was going on and assure the integrity of the game, then the casino was wasting personnel. You can be quite sure that the casino took seriously the high-stakes bets such as those that were being made. I am quite certain that casinos are (or should be) on constant alert for problems with their games that take away the casino edge by which they make their profits.
However, there are certainly other factors here as well.
First of all, it is entirely possible that the markings could be inconsistent / variable and thus be mis-read and the player would get "bad" information from his/her attempted readings of the markings - and perhaps lose as a result of this attempt. Admittedly, the house edge in most baccarat games is about 0.5%, not that much, so that a small change in the edge can turn to the players' advantage -- but that's true in other "close" games as well, such as craps and blackjack (oh yeah, and video poker).
Secondly, in live poker at least, when a new deck is introduced into the game, the dealer spreads the cards out and assures they are all there, and then spreads them again face down to see if there are any markings. I seem to recall a similar procedure when introducing new cards into a blackjack game. It seems to me that the casino has a responsibility to assure that its decks are not defective before introducing them into the game -- manufacturing defects can and do occur even with careful quality control efforts, and the casino is the last agent with a chance to avoid defective cards, and should exercise reasonable caution to do so.
Third, the casino did not adhere to its own procedures when it allowed used cards to undergo a second day without replacement, and for all I know, they also may have deviated from standard procedure when the dealer turned cards at the players' request -- perhaps to satisfy the requests of high-stakes players that it wanted to remain happy and keep playing, as the casino expects to win money from them in the long run -- but does not the casino bear still more responsibility when it deviates from its own precautions, precautions put in place to assure the integrity of the game and to protect the casino?
Finally, they issued Ivey a receipt for his win. They did not dispute it at the time, as I believe they should have. Once they issue the receipt, they are, in my mind, saying "you won and we will pay you". They've given him chips for his winning hands, and are giving him a receipt that says he turned those chips in with an expectation of cashing them.
If they thought the win was not proper, they should have stopped the game at the point they considered that there might be a problem, and never continued it, and they should neither have paid the bets off, nor issued a receipt for a win.
It's another case of leaving the keys in the car with the car running, and hoping no one drives off with it. Taking the car is illegal, but use common sense and common precautions (in the case of a car, turn it off, remove the keys and lock the car) to prevent theft. The casino should adhere to its own procedures to assure that these things don't happen, and is guilty of contributory negligence if they do not do so.
When I won my first royal at video poker, the staff said they had to have the technician check the machine before they paid me (I was scared to death I wouldn't be paid, because I was using a strategy card and had just recently been barred - by the same casino - from playing blackjack due to card counting, so my frame of mind was "they're out to get me"). They did not deviate from their normal procedure of checking the machine (and they did pay me, of course). If there was something wrong (there was not), they were using proper precautions to identify it before they paid me. Once they agree that I won, they should pay me -- and once the casino gives Ivey chips for his winning bets and then issues Ivey a receipt for those chips, they should pay him too.
When I played blackjack and counted cards, I often made up reasons for betting more or less, often using superstitious reasons, rather than be honest and say "I'm betting this amount because I'm counting cards and know when I have the advantage and when I don't".
I felt that small deception was quite acceptable, and would gladly have avoided it if the casino had been honest on their end and said "we have a game that really good players can beat, and even if they play well, we'll let them try to win". But instead their attitude was "even if you play by the rules, we reserve the right to identify you as a skilled player and not allow you to play a game that we gladly offer to all the less skilled players" - so I felt like I needed to disguise that skill in any reasonable way -- and what I said to them while playing did not in any way change the rules of the game.
Admittedly, it also did not change my chance of winning, only my chance of being identified as a skilled player, so it's a little different than the Ivey case -- but it's also a reminder that the casino doesn't always offer a level playing field itself, and perhaps that makes me less sympathetic when someone finds the casino operating its business poorly and takes advantage of it. Certainly in other businesses, the competitor who doesn't exercise all precautions is open to being taken advantage of, is considered stupid or gullible if they allow that lapse of precaution to cost them money -- and they get little sympathy for their failed diligence.
--BG
===================
> 8a. Fw: [vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and
> cheating--#2
> > Here's another one up for debate--
> > is what he did illegal, immoral and/or cheating??
> >
> > http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/phil-ivey-british-casino-embroiled-dispute-over-payment-032520482.html
> >
>
> Interesting article. I'm not entirely sure yet whether
> I find it illegal, unethical, and/or cheating, but I
> intuitively think that how I feel about it would have to
> factor in that Ivey and his companion had to take an active
> role in making this possible. Namely, they had to
> request that the 8s and 9s be turned 180 degrees as well as
> request that the casino re-use the cards that would have
> normally been trashed. Also, since they had to assume
> the casino would not honor their requests if they told the
> casino why they wanted the cards turned and the cards
> brought back into play, they misrepresented themselves by
> saying it was because of superstition. I feel this
> does make it a different case than when players just
> happened to notice that the decks were not pre-shuffled
> correctly in AC.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
