"a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play
any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any
combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or
tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of
which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection
of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or
alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards,
loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." [1]
EDIT:
The Judges opinion [0] also makes it clear that he is following the precedent set in Golden
Nugget v. Gemaco, Inc. [2], where it was ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally used unshuffled decks. More specifically, without assigning fault to any party, the court argued that the game was not authorized into the Casino Control Act, thereby voiding the contract.
In this case, the judge argues that, although the specific statute of the CCA that was violated is different, the difference is not relevent to the arguement set forth in Golden Nugget, so the same result applies.
If the judge considers the cards to be marked because of manufacturing flaw that made the cards not perfectly symmetrical, then that manufacturing flaw would be present in all the casino's card games, rendering them all invalid and illegal and opening up the casino to lawsuits for return of losses from illegally operated games, which were illegal essentially because of a technicality. This would likely result in the casino going bankrupt.
If the judge considers the cards to be marked because they were rotated, then the judge has effectively outlawed a consensual agreement between the casino and the player regarding game conditions, which is neither in the spirit not the letter of the referenced law. True, the player exploited information asymmetry because he was aware of information that the casino was not, but that's a perfectly acceptable advantage which casinos exploit all the time when they don't explicitly explain to casual players how the rules of their games mathematically guarantee a house advantage over the long term.
Oh, so that's even more clear than what I thought. I didn't see that citation, my apologies. In that case, I agree even more with the judge's decision: a member of the public would not expect the meaning of the cards to be able to be "divined" by another player at the table in such a manner and the casino, had it known of the flaw, would not have used the cards, and Ivey undoubtedly used the mechanism to alter the result of the game and affect his actions based on the "random" selection.
I disagree with the people in this thread who say that the judge expects Ivey to be a patsy.
2) is about operating or exposing a game with marked cards. So it forbids the house to use those cards, I don't read it as a criminal act for the player to play against a house which uses such cards.
Also I think b. is about the house: it is about owning or using such cards. The cards where not Iphy's, the casino was the owner and the one that was using them.
But apart from that, just imagine what the implications are if this verdict is correct. Imagine that you walk into a casino and play a card game, and you see that the dealer is consequently making a mistake so that the result of the game is not random anymore. The verdict is saying that you are still allowed to play, but only if you choose a losing strategy. If you would choose to turn this knowledge of the dealer's mistake in your advantage, you would commit a crime .. ?
>The verdict is saying that you are still allowed to play, but only if you choose a losing strategy.
This is not my reading of the decision. Rather, my reading of the opinion is that, regardless of if you take advantage of it or not, the game is no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, and therefore is void.
Note, it is not clear to be that any "crime" was commited in this case. Rather, the ruling was that the game was invalid and therefore the appropriate solution was to return the parties to the state where they were in prior to playing the game. The precise wording (quoted from Golden Nugget) is:
"“Since the
rescission of a contract essentially voids the contract, it
follows that the remedy used in situations of rescission should
be used in situations of voidance. Thus, since the contracts
entered into here are void, returning the parties to their
position prior to the formation of the contracts is the
appropriate remedy.”"
Interestingly, in the Golden Nugget case, it was clearly the casino who made a mistake (failing to use a shuffled deck).
"The CCA isn't fault based, according to the judge, who explained that it's irrelevant whether the casino or the players are to blame for the mishap. It only matters whether the mini-baccarat game was authorized under the CCA, which it wasn't, the judge said." [0]
> my reading of the opinion is that, regardless of if you take advantage of it or not, the game is no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, and therefore is void.
If this is true, it means that any game ever played with those 'marked' cards is void. Since Baccarat is a winning game for the casino, it would mean that this verdict could cost the casino many times more than what it has won against Phil Ivy.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe that anyone who will now start a court case to claim his money back from a game with these cards has even the slightest chance to win. Surely the judge will find a way to interpret the law text in another way so that it again favors the casino.
The "marking" in this case is not inherent in the cards; but is rather a combination of an assymetry in the cards, and the dealer rotating a non-random subset of the cards (thereby turning the assymetry into a "marking").
Further, in order for a marking to count, it has to "tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game." If the only mistake that the dealer makes is some form of an information leak, and no one modifies their behavior based on the information being leaked, then this condition would not be met.
If, instead, the dealers mistake changed the odds of the game regardless of if the player acted on it, the this clause would be invoked. Indeed, this is likely the intended case of this clause, as the alternative is that the house can cheat.
Do you really think that a losing gambler would be able to bring a suit against a casino because a dealer placed cards in a slightly uneven way that seemed suggestive to the gambler and caused him to make sub-optimal bets? Even if it could be shown that the dealer had studied the psychology of cards for that very purpose?
The problem is that the jugde is trying to read the case two ways at the same time. Golden Nuggets argument was that a non shuffled deck removes the chance element, therefore the game wasn't governed by CCA at all. If you're pointing at a section of CCA and telling somebody they breached it, then by definition you're saying the game falls under the conditions of that act, and the remedy must therefore also be the one defined in that act (CCA 5:12-115(c) specifies for a $50,000 fine for an individual).
There was no criminal ruling in this case. The ruling is that the implicit contract of the game was voided, according to the Casino Control Act. Returning the funds is just unwinding the executed contract.
You'll note that there are not even any punitive penalties being applied. Only the money earned during the game is to be returned.
Sure. After they show that the casino knowingly used marked cards to gain advantage against them, as the casino did vs Ivey. Which I'm not even sure is possible in Baccarat, since my understanding is that it's a purely mechanical game from the house perspective, like Blackjack. As in, any choices made by the house are dependent only on information that is witnessed by all players.
In that case anyone who lost a game of baccarat (or any card game) played with those type of cards at anytime in NJ has a case against the casino and could sue to get the money back because the contract was illegal. I wonder if those are standard cards used at the casino ... they do offer them as souvenirs so it seems like they might be. If they are used by the casino or other casinos for games, that's probably thousands of games and potential court cases. Sounds like a class action lawsuit actually.
My reading of that is that at least one party has to knowingly use the marked cards. If neither party is aware that the cards are not symmetrical, there is no unfair advantage and the game is fair.
Well it's irrelevant in this instance since the exploit used by the gambler and the woman required the dealer to rotate and leak information about the cards. The cards themselves did not seem to be enough for the gambler Ivey to exploit the system, they needed to be rotated.
Now if any other player performed such a task, sure, they're probably able to make a case too. But not every baccarat player met the criteria in this case.
But seeing as the cards then are identical to other cards they're using, can they still be considered marked? That's what I mean, they're either marked or not.
Consider a deck of cards that has a triangle printed on the back. This triangle is printed exactly the same on every card, such that they are all indistinguishable from each other.
Now rotate some of the cards 180°. Those rotated cards are now distinguishable from the other cards, because the card print is not rotational-symmetric. This rotation is what caused the cards to be marked, even though the printed pattern was exactly the same.
Typically card backs are rotational-symmetric in order to avoid this. However, it seems like this particular pattern had imperfections -- within 1/32 of an inch -- which a trained eye could recognize. (The judge even admitted this as quite a feat.)
I understand technically how it worked, I'm merely arguing that their interpretation of "marked", and also their interpretation of the party doing so is quite liberal, at least for a courtroom.
The player (Ivey) did not bring, substitute, touch nor coerce the casino into doing anything with the cards. His assistant asked the dealer to flip some cards and he abided willingly, supposedly on behest of the casino to accomodate a whale. They did nothing under the table.
Like most people on here IANAL, but this ruling doesn't seem right, where "right" is the letter of the law.
I think the wording of the law is very broad, and "marked cards" is only one of the conditionals listed. Since you seem to be taking a very strict definition of "marked cards", other conditionals of the law were also met:
> Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
Specifically, it seems like the cards were "placed in a condition" and "operated in a manner" which "alter[ed] the normal chance of the game" for Ivey and Sun.
They were marked when Ivy's assistant asked to turn the 9s around 180 degrees.
The design on all the cards was identical; it's not as though face cards had a different pattern on the back. The design just happened to be very slightly asymmetric so that turning the 9 cards served to mark them.
If you were not able to turn the cards, the asymmetric back would provide no information.
If I was caught carrying marked cards nobody would believe I didn't know. The casino has an entire anti-fraud department which exists to catch this sort of thing and we're supposed to believe they didn't notice this for years...
But that's only half the post you linked to... Importantly, the precedent involving the unshuffled deck didn't involve knowledge. Despite everyone's intentions the game was not setup correctly so it didn't count.
If so, then these games (all games with these decks) were also not setup correctly. Either all games with these cards are improper or none are.
And importantly, nothing other than penalizing the casino will change anything. This ruling incentivizes them to leave marks in their cards, dice, etc, and call them out in the future to invalidate any unpleasant results.
Considering that the imperfections were on the order of 1/32 of an inch, or 0.8 millimeters... Yes, I can absolutely believe that they were missed on visual inspection.
But that segment of the law is not MEANT to be an injunction against the players, but a regulation on the casinos. On appeal, the correct decision would be for the appeal judge to not require Ivey to pay back any restitution, and instead fine the casino for playing with marked cards (whether or not they knew they were marked).
In Baccarat, the only variable is the stake - neither player nor dealer can influence the cards which are drawn, so the result is unchanged. Even if it hadn't been a private table, no other players could possibly have been impacted by Ivey's play. The result can't be determined or changed by seeing a single card, although the odds certainly were.
I've made a longer post explaining why I don't believe this judgment was correct, but suffice to say, you can't choose half a sentence of a law and decide that because that bit fits, your case is made.
The (a) part of that law is written for casinos, not players, as it refers to dealing and operating games. The requirement is that they do this knowingly. The casino didn't know.
The operation of this game did not in any way deceive the public. No player was tricked. The operation of the game also did NOT alter the result of the game. The same side (banker/player) would have one irrespective of the rotated cards, as the rotation has no affect on gameplay and the outcomes are deterministic (no choices during play like in blackjack).
All that was changed as a result of the extra knowledge was which side to bet on. The game itself was not affected in any way.
> c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.
This para seems to say that it applies to any person, including corporate persons.
I still think this was the wrong opinion. If the cards are not shuffled that is a clear violation of the rules of the game. No such violation occurred here.
There are no such rules about card orientation because usually casinos use ones with symmetrical backs.
Casinos use cards that they hope have symmetrical backs. In this case they were not symmetrical. Now who's fault is that? The player didn't bring the cards to the table, the casino did. If they want to cry foul and say those games are void so they don't have to pay out $10M, how much do they have to give back to players who used those same cards? They can't have it both ways. Were the games that were played with faulty cards valid or not? If not, time to start refunding a lot of money.
It's not that the cards were marked because they were asymmetrical, it was the combination of the asymmetry and Sun manipulating them that caused them to be marked. So other games with those cards are fine as long as none of the players were manipulating the game so that asymmetry gave them an advantage. The player didn't bring the cards, but they did purposefully manipulate them to effectively play a game with marked cards, and that's why the game wasn't legit.
"The Court found that Ivey and Sun breached their contract with Borgata to play Baccarat in compliance with the CCA by violating N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b) when they knowingly engaged in a scheme to create a set of marked cards and then used those marked cards to place bets based on the markings."
That's the finding I disagree with, and seems to be the point that the entire judgment rests on.
Section 12 of the act [1] falls under "Sanctions", which to me is the first clue that this section is intended to apply to the casino, not the customer. I do concede that the wording "any person" would also include customers.
Let's take a look at 5:12-115(a)(2) and see if we can narrow down exactly what Ivey and Sun are supposed to have done here:
"It shall be unlawful...knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."
Well they certainly didn't deal, operate or expose the cards to play - the casino did that. There is an argument that without players, the game can't exist, so let's accept that both parties are responsible for "conducting" and "carrying on" the game.
The cards were weren't tampered with - they were imperfect, but is that the same as "marked"? I don't believe so, and I think the judges assertion that they are should be challenged on this. Regardless, "Placed in a condition, or operated in a manner" does seem like a reasonable way to describe the rotation of specific cards. The CCA makes no assumption or distinction about who places or operates them, so we don't need to get into whether it was the casino or the player who did this. It happened and that's enough.
Strip out the bits that Ivey/Sun can't possibly have done and we're left with this:
"It shall be unlawful...knowingly to conduct [or] carry on any game or games played with cards, which have in any manner been marked, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game."
So, to the result. The use of the words "tends to" means that it doesn't matter that it's a private room with no public to be deceived. The question the law asks as it applies to this case is:
Given that Baccarat has a predetermined result at the time of dealing (there is no option for either player or dealer to influence the cards which will be drawn in the course of the game - the only variable is the stake), does the act of rotating a card, without changing its position in the deck:
- tend to deceive the public? I don't see how it possibly can.
- OR tend to alter the normal random selection of cards? Certainly not.
- OR tend to alter the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game? It can't alter the result. It can't determine the result - there are still three to five cards which are entirely chance. It DID alter the normal chance of the game in this case, but does it "tend to"? From the article: "Baccarat is a casino game well known for unique and superstitious rituals," Hillman noted in an October opinion. "Thus, Sun telling the dealer to turn a card in a certain way did not raise any red flags for Borgata." That suggests to me that it does not "tend to" affect the chance, which is the test required by the law.
On the argument above, I would suggest that Ivey and Sun were not in breach of 5:12-115(a)(2) at all. 5:12-115(b) simply says "It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." They didn't posess them, and I don't believe using the casino's standard cards, which meet the casino's own quality requirements, can be considered to be using "marked" cards. If they are, and the casino are still using the same cards, they're now knowingly in possession of marked cards themselves.
Then we get to 5:12-115(c):
"Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may up to $200,000."
The Golden Nugget case hinged on the point that the deck wasn't shuffled. Since the CCA requires random decks, it has no provision for games played with a non-random deck. The argument is that because the CCA made no provision for the game, it can't have been a legal game under the CCA, and therefore it should be void. This case is completely different - even if we accept that Ivey breached the CCA, the CCA already makes provision for such a breach, and specifies the appropriate remedy should it occur.
There's also the small point that the DGE has investigated the Golden Nugget case and concluded that there was no breach of the CCA [2] - while it may not be a court decision, it should have some weight.
It looks to me like the judge has this very wrong, and any lawyer worth his money should be able to deal with it on appeal.
For the most part, I agree with your reading / interpretation, but IANAL. There's a slight missing piece however. Often the regulations that cover each game in a casino state that the game is concluded at the paying of bets. In this context the "result" referred to is not the result of the cards shown or the Banker / Player result that are the two outcomes of Baccarat. It is the paying of the bets that is the result. If this interpretation is implied here, perhaps this would come up against Ivey.
Bet placement and payment are all functional parts of a casino game. You can't ignore them when reading the regulations. If Ivey placed bets differently than he otherwise would have, then the game was affected.
But the section of the CCA Ivey is accused of breaching makes no allowance for whether or not any specific game was affected. It requires that the behaviour tends to affect the game, and given that the casino was happy to accommodate all requests and didn't see card rotation as anything more than superstition, I would argue that rotating a card would not tend to affect the game.
Even if it does, there is a specific penalty defined for breaching that section of the CCA, so it's not comparable to the Golden Nugget case.
> Specifically, it seems like the cards were "placed in a condition" and "operated in a manner" which "alter[ed] the normal chance of the game" for Ivey and Sun.
The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b):
"a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." [1]
EDIT:
The Judges opinion [0] also makes it clear that he is following the precedent set in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco, Inc. [2], where it was ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally used unshuffled decks. More specifically, without assigning fault to any party, the court argued that the game was not authorized into the Casino Control Act, thereby voiding the contract.
In this case, the judge argues that, although the specific statute of the CCA that was violated is different, the difference is not relevent to the arguement set forth in Golden Nugget, so the same result applies.
[0] http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pd...
[1] http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09...
[2] http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5...