
Famed poker pro with ‘remarkable’ $9.6M scheme has to pay it back - nradov
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/20/famed-poker-pro-with-remarkable-9-6-million-scheme-has-to-pay-it-back-judge-rules/
======
asher_
This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is
akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term
advantage.

I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that
some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker
player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are
outside of his character. The specificity of the conditions he asked for
should have tipped his hand earlier than they did, but the casinos probably
treated him like any other baccarat whale.

Hopefully this decision is reversed. I don't know what part of the law it
supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the
casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker.

~~~
techsupporter
> I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the
> judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a
> sucker.

I went and had a go at the New Jersey Casino Control Act and I believe that
the judge is saying that Ivey violated 5:12-114(2), which states: "It shall be
unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game knowingly to use
bogus or counterfeit chips or gaming billets, or knowingly to substitute and
use in any such game cards or dice that have been marked, loaded or tampered
with." (Internal punctuation omitted.)

He's not saying that Ivey had to just blithely take whatever happened;
instead, I think the judge is making the argument that Ivey "rigged" the cards
to function just like marked cards so they should be treated as such. He's not
saying that Ivey committed a _crime_ , just that the game was unlawful under
the NJ CCA because the NJ CCA prohibits the use, by either party, of cards
that seem to be marked. The law doesn't make a distinction as to who is using
the cards or who did the marking, even if the marking is done by the
manufacturer.

Link to law (it's a long one but I do not like link shorteners):
[http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=5...](http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=520850958&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={34B6}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42)

~~~
gizmo686
The article links to the Judge's opinion [0].

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...](http://courthousenews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pdf)

[1] [http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-
article09...](http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-
article09.pdf)

[2] [http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-
owe-1-5...](http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5m-in-
winnings-from-unshuffled-cards)

~~~
techsupporter
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.

~~~
misja111
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 .. ?

~~~
jdmichal
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.

~~~
qyv
Does that also mean that _lost_ money would need to be returned? Would the
casino be obligated to notify past players of this and return their losses?

~~~
jdmichal
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.

------
failrate
As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating, because they are
designed to not only mitigate skill, but also luck, in favor of the house. The
fact that the casinos have roped in John Law to steal back their winnings
after they were taken fair and square is especially galling. If they were
grown-ups, they would take their beating, ban Ivey and Sun for life, and
change their processes to avoid being beaten again in the same way.

~~~
KVFinn
>As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating

It's funny -- I'm as vulnerable as anyone else to a million addictive game
mechanics that build on the same impulses that make gambling addictive. But
actual real-life casino slot machines just don't work. I need to be like,
evaluating the loot drop's fire resistance on a new helmet or whatever for it
to be addictive. When you just push a button over and over again with no
actual input it's just too obvious you are doing nothing.

~~~
milesvp
I'd _bet_ you're under 35 ;)

I've heard several reports that casinos can't get millenials to play slots,
and I suspect it's because they're very unsophisticated compared to even the
most basic video game.

~~~
AlexDanger
That's interesting, do you work in the industry?

Things have come full circle - slot machines paved the way for gamification
techniques and IAP. Flashing lights, the sounds, the 'I almost won' near-
misses from the big jackpot...all finely tuned to get that dopamine squirting
and keep you on the machine. Very Pavlovian.

Video games (IAP in particular) are just rehashing the psychological tricks
that slot machines have used for decades. Its just the games are newer and
offer a bit more depth.

I'm sure in good time we'll see more advanced slot machines to entice the
smartphone generation.

~~~
dagw
_I 'm sure in good time we'll see more advanced slot machines to entice the
smartphone generation._

Certainly here in Sweden they've short-circuited that entire process by making
the slot machines into smartphone apps so that you can play whenever you want
without even having to leave the comfort of your own home

------
alasdair_
"Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in
complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling"

Note that, according to the judge, the "fundamental purpose of legalized
gambling" is for the house to always win.

~~~
6nf
> the "fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" is for the house to always
> win.

Is this controversial? I assumed everyone knew that the casinos have an edge
on every game they spread?

~~~
baddox
It can't be controversial for anyone who is even barely informed. I mean, how
do they afford to build the fancy casinos, pay the employees, etc.? There's no
way it's a loss leader for the hotels or restaurants.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
The purpose of every business is to make money. That doesn't mean that I am
prohibited from making deals with them where they lose money. They have to
look out for their own interests; they don't get to roll back deals when they
accidentally make a disadvantageous deal.

------
brownbat
All those preconditions reminded me that,

"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new
deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to
offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-
new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this
bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear
full of cider."

It also reminded me of Don Johnson, who saw casinos desperate for high rollers
and set up a few conditions on a private Blackjack game that actually shifted
the odds ever so slightly. Won $15 Million from Atlantic City's desperation or
stupidity, then got to keep the money.[0]

If Ivey had chosen a game with just a little skill, he might have been able to
cool the mark with some cover story about a new statistical technique and get
away with it.

[0]
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PVyNBmJ...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PVyNBmJBTTQJ:www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-
man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
jmkni
It seems that Phil Ivey and Don Johnson are friends

Relevant comment from up the thread -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13227643](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13227643)

------
arctangent
Ivey recently lost an almost identical case here in the UK:

[https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-
player-l...](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-player-loses-
appeal-against-london-casino-over-77m-edge-sorting-win)

[http://www.flushdraw.net/news/eight-surprising-details-
phil-...](http://www.flushdraw.net/news/eight-surprising-details-phil-ivey-
crockfords-ruling/)

The full legal judgment is available here, and may provide insight into why
this activity was also ruled illegal in the USA:

[https://www.888casino.com/blog/sites/default/files/ivey_croc...](https://www.888casino.com/blog/sites/default/files/ivey_crockfords_final_judgment1.pdf)

~~~
emodendroket
That's mentioned in the article as what tipped the casino off.

------
iopq
> reflecting the baccarat cash as well as $500,000 won using some of the
> winnings at craps

This is the real wtf. Ivey could have easily used his own money to play craps,
what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

~~~
shawabawa3
I guess the logic is that if he lost $500k they wouldn't have asked for that
back

~~~
iopq
You should only keep track of the baccarat winnings/losses. If he won $9.6M in
baccarat and lost $500k in craps, they should still ask for $9.6M, not $9.1M.

That said, they agreed to the rules, they should eat the loss anyway. The
government has no role in protecting businesses from their own stupidity.

~~~
pc86
The argument (which I don't agree with, but which has some merit) is that he
and his accomplice used knowledge available only to them which constituted a
fraud against the casino.

The reason I don't agree with it is that the fact that the cards were printed
in a manner which made it possible to do this does not mean they defrauded the
casino, it means the casino shouldn't have agreed to use those cards because
their security folks should have known about this issue.

~~~
nommm-nommm
No, the arguments is not that is it fraud, that's addressed in the article,
"Ivey _did not commit fraud_ , Judge Noel Hillman for the U.S. District of New
Jersey wrote in an opinion on Monday." The argument is it the game wasn't
legal under New Jersey law as one party knowingly used marked cards. The judge
believes that the fact that they didn't mark the cards themselves isn't
important.

------
josho
Casinos where the rules ensure you loose even when you devise a method of
skill and intellect to win, you still loose. Isn't that the very definition of
a rigged game?

~~~
zodiac
hmm, I've never heard that definition of a rigged game - do you have a source?

(Eg Webster defines rigging as, to manipulate or control usually by deceptive
or dishonest means)

------
dm3730
The judge had a very odd interpretation of the contract and "maneuvered", it
appears one sided to me.

" “By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their
value only to them,” the judge wrote, “Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of
Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental
purpose of legalized gambling as set forth by [New Jersey’s Casino Control
Commission.] Ivey and Sun’s violation . . . constitutes a breach of their
mutual obligation with Borgata to play by the rules” of the state’s law. "

That interpretation is equivalent to saying you can't do anything that
improves the odds in your favor in any game. By this judge's reckoning, you
have to just be a robot that sits passively and accepts all the hand exactly
as dealt and not use any strategy to play the game to your advantage. That's
fundamentally un-American if you ask me.

~~~
nstart
> By this judge's reckoning, you have to just be a robot that sits passively
> and accepts all the hand exactly as dealt and not use any strategy to play
> the game to your advantage.

That's basically gambling. Which is exactly what the game they were playing
was supposed to be. Pure chance. In fact gambling can be distilled down to
that. Passively accepting your hand in the game and hoping for the best. That
doesn't sound very appealing, but throw in human nature and biases and you get
something quite addictive out of what is essentially a lopsided passive
engagement.

~~~
Dylan16807
You know you're talking about a poker player, right? That's not pure chance at
all.

------
lanius
"Sun trained herself to identify aberrations along the left or right margins
of the card backs, no wider than 1/32 of an inch"

That is insanely impressive. Anyone have an example of what these look like?

~~~
probably_wrong
Unfortunately I couldn't find those specific cards, but there's an example
here [1] explaining how the system works.

[1] [https://www.888casino.com/blog/baccarat-tips/edge-sorting-
in...](https://www.888casino.com/blog/baccarat-tips/edge-sorting-in-baccarat/)

~~~
joshka
[http://www.casinotop10.net/edge-sorting](http://www.casinotop10.net/edge-
sorting) has a pictures of the Borgata / Gemaco cards.

------
revicon
TLDR; "...Sun had spent, hundreds of hours memorizing tiny flaws in purple
Gemaco Borgata playing cards..."

------
IshKebab
This is a classic magic trick as old as this hills isn't it? You sort a deck
of cards so that the backs are all oriented one way (the pattern on the back
is usually not exactly in the centre), and then you rotate the chosen card 180
degrees so you can relocate it even after shuffling.

I don't know the name of the trick but I learnt it as a child.

~~~
jordonias
edge sorting

------
nathanvanfleet
So essentially one of them cracked and admitted it? Or they bragged to
someone? I can't understand how they would have otherwise found out about the
scheme. It seems as if they just kept tight lipped about it, stuck to their
requests being a superstition, they would be fine.

~~~
iaw
The most likely scenario is that at the second casino one of the managers saw
the strange winnings, rewound the tapes, and deduced what they were doing with
the rotations.

Once that's done, Ms. Sun's criminal record would be easy to track down.
Inquiry to figure out what she had in her cell with her.

Then it's a matter of asking them, under oath, to confirm these conclusions.
They either have to plead the 5th (which I don't think one can in England) or
acknowledge what they did.

A good casino lawyer and investigator could get 90% of this.

------
ceejay
It's beyond belief that people spend money to gamble at casinos. It's one
thing to know with 100% certainty that the house has the odds in their favor.
But an entirely different beast to know that AND know that if you do find ways
to win the casinos will still do everything in their power to prevent you from
taking home the winnings.

~~~
zild3d
> It's beyond belief that people spend money to gamble at casinos.

You're looking at it wrong then. 1) Going to the casino isn't looked at as a
profitable job, it's entertainment. You can pay to see a concert, go to a bar,
or in this case (maybe) pay to have some excitement 2) Free rooms are very
common 3) Free drinks are standard

Instead of going to a bar and paying $8/drink, the drinks are free while you
are gambling. That alone makes it "beyond belief" that anyone would go to a
bar no?

~~~
wmeredith
> Instead of going to a bar and paying $8/drink, the drinks are free while you
> are gambling.

This. I'd much rather sit at a cheapo blackjack table and chat with my friends
for a couple hours than go scream at each other in a bar or dance club.

------
blhack
While I initially thought that he and Sun should be able to keep their money
(I assume she was paid handsomely for this?), after thinking about it more, I
realize how livid I would be to find out that the casino had done this to
better their own odds.

I think that the situation is maybe slightly more complicated than it seems at
first glance.

To those who didn't read the article: the backs of the cards were not
perfectly symmetrical, so by asking the dealer to rotate the cards so that
some were oriented one way, and some were oriented the other, eventually they
were able to get themselves an advantage by knowing some data about the value
of those cards before they were flipped.

Although I guess if _everyone_ knew about this asymmetry (both casino and
player), then perhaps observing it would just become a part of the skill
aspect of the game?

Really interesting!

~~~
harryh
There are no decisions the casino makes in the game of baccarat where they
could gain an advantage by knowing what the face down cards are. So there is
no situation in which you could be "livid" as you describe.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain that this is true for every casino
card game. As the casino is handling the cards the games are designed such
that the card handlers can gain no edge by surreptitious looking at the value
of face down cards.

~~~
blhack
Ah, I am not a gambler, so I'll definitely admit some ignorance on this.

------
ht85
The tone of most of the comments is very surprising to me. Many seem to argue
that the ruling is wrong or too harsh, which I don't really see the basis of.
I personally think that unskilled gambling should not be a thing, but in the
current state of things I don't see how Ivey and his friend aren't committing
a blatant fraud.

A lot of people seem angry that the odds are always in favor of the casino,
and comment in a way that implies that if you gamble with odds against you,
you are definitely going to lose money. This is not the case at all, and
typical casino odds mean that in a single event, your chance of a net win is
close to your chance of a loss.

I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how
else would that work for the gambling industry?

As for their card trick, they both knew very well what they were doing, that
is was at best immoral if not illegal. What if it had been a scheme to defraud
a tech company? Using a weakness in the system to extract millions? Would we
read "too bad, they should eat that loss and take it as an opportunity to
improve their process"?

~~~
chmod775
> I keep reading here that there is no shame in business making money, so how
> else would that work for the gambling industry?

> As for their card trick, they both knew very well what they were doing, that
> is was at best immoral if not illegal.

There is no shame in doing anything within your abilities and the law to take
money away from a business either.

As for their card trick, the casino agreed to all their demands and took the
risk that something was going on they did not understand, with the expectation
to take money from individuals in a way (gambling) that is at best immoral.

You may see what I did there.

For me it works both ways. Neither side can claim the moral high ground in
this game they both agreed to enter - the only thing that stands out to me is
that the side that isn't used to losing, lost.

------
ChuckMcM
Having seen a number of cases like this in Vegas growing up I doubt the judge
will be overturned on appeal. Just like they would fine the casino if the
casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and the
casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often. Changing
the odds on either side of the equation is frowned upon by the judiciary.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>if the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation and
the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often //

Like, for example, making alcohol available?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I wish I could write this in a more pithy way, but I feel like it's one of
those jokes I have to explain, mostly for my own benefit, and thereby ruin it,
but get a jolly good laugh out of it in the process.

So anyway, here it is:

 _If the casino noticed the player tended to lose more given some situation
and the casino created a circumstance for that situation to occur more often._

And that's the _punchline_. Right? It's like some kind of self-referential /
tautological definition _of a casino_.

To belabour the point: We noticed people tend to lose more money if we build
casinos.

My work here is done.

------
kosei
This reminds me of the ESPN article in 2012:

"SEPT. 10, 12:30 P.M., CASINO DE MONTREAL "Hi, this is Phil Ivey," he says
into his phone, from the back of a limo sent by Casino de Montreal. "I need
you to transfer $1 million from my account, please."

There is no self-consciousness, no hint of understanding that the rest of the
world doesn't make requests like this. "I know it's a lot of money, but I like
to gamble," Ivey says. "It's just in me. I try to manage what I do playing
craps or blackjack. At the end of the year, I don't want the amount I gamble
there to be bigger than what I win playing poker.""

[http://www.espn.com/espn/magazine/archives/news/story?page=m...](http://www.espn.com/espn/magazine/archives/news/story?page=magazine-20091102-article21)

------
at-fates-hands
Two things.

One - Ivy got greedy. Had it make it _appear_ as though he was losing some of
the games, he probably would've gotten away with it. If you lose, then win,
then lose and are up at the end of the night, it's more plausible you weren't
cheating. The way all of the articles I've read about it, he basically ran the
table for several hours and then left.

Two - you go into any casino and use card counting techniques (like the ones
the MIT team used) and within ten minutes, the pit boss will cut you off
because its obvious what you're doing. This is the very same technique Ivy was
using. Lowering his bets when the cards were low, then increasing his bets
when the cards were favorable. I'm actually pretty shocked the casino let him
play for so long when it was so obvious what was happening.

~~~
Steeeve
> Two - you go into any casino and use card counting techniques (like the ones
> the MIT team used) and within ten minutes, the pit boss will cut you off
> because its obvious what you're doing.

When I was a blackjack dealer we had people counting cards all the time. Most
were very easy to spot and were touristing. They never got harassed, but when
you got one you would usually chase him away because for some reason they were
really bad tippers. (chase them away by making them uncomfortable, not by
asking them to leave)

Occasionally you'd get a grinder - guys that do it for a living and rotate
between casinos before they wear out their welcome. They were fine too in
small doses. The ones I recognized were sociable and had a system for tipping
just like they had for everything else.

Guys like Ivy/Johnson... never ran into one. If this had happened in my day, a
trip to the desert would have been an option.

~~~
nommm-nommm
This is interesting, what are some examples of things you'd do to make them
uncomfortable?

~~~
Steeeve
It really depends on the situation and the person. You could call them out on
what they are doing. Burn extra cards or change up your shuffle. Slow down or
speed up the game. Have a quiet conversation with the pit boss. Ask for new
cards. Steer conversation in a particular direction. Flirt. Make mistakes. The
list goes on.

When you play cards 5 hours a day with 2 1/2 hours of breaks there is a lot of
opportunity to think about how to maximize your tips.

------
0xCMP
It's a very interesting game. I read once in "How I lost a million dollars",
but never checked for myself, that publicly traded casinos list Baccarat on
their SEC fillings as a possible way their earnings can be affected (both
positively and negatively). In the book the author was with a wealthy client
who gave him and his friend $10k to play with. They each won something like
$8k each and proceeded to enjoy Las Vegas with it. (Numbers are fuzzy.
Corrections are welcome.)

------
golemotron
He lost the meta-bet, which was that he could win big and win in court. Unless
he was just doing it for publicity, he could have used his scheme to take
small winnings for years.

------
segmondy
Hopefully he has his assets protected and can file for bankruptcy. Worse than
having to pay back his winning, which he probably has paid some taxes on and
spent some. He's probably ruined and most places will not allow him to play at
their tables. How he is ever going to make back the money to play?

~~~
nommm-nommm
Taxes are irrelevant, You file a form 1040X to adjust your taxable income and
get that money back from the IRS. He probably never even saw that money
anyways because likely the casino withheld taxes (I assume that's what they
do, I don't gamble) As far as spending, I thought the same thing until I read
the article, he's already a multimillionaire, "A gambler by profession, Ivey
billed himself as the “Tiger Woods” of poker; he had won more than $6 million
from several tours on the World Series of Poker and another $19 million
through years of online poker."

------
gtlondon
Interesting case.

The real question for me is: Why does a Casino use card patterns that are not
symmetrical?

Considering how much resource is invested to make sure everything else is as
precise as possible, this seems suspicious / unusual.

~~~
sleepychu
They're supposed to be symmetrical, but I guess some part of the printing
process/card design/some odd combination of the two made them almost
imperceptibly asymmetric.

------
qaq
Even if they return the money they have a perfect potential book and movie
script on their hands that will make them at least as much.

------
venomsnake
___As The Washington Post reported in 2014, Ivey and Sun relied on the same
method in a London casino. The casino refused to pay the pair, and a British
judge declared that edge-sorting was cheating. (It was the London casino’s
decision to withhold Ivey’s winnings that tipped off Borgata in October
2o12.)_ __

If you are going to not cheat like those guys - quit while you are ahead.

------
jlebrech
you could exploit max bet if they allowed it. you start at $1 and if you lose
you double your bet, and when you win you reset your bet back to $1.

~~~
sleepychu
This works but you don't need to lose all that many hands in a row before your
stake is huge compared to what you stand to recover. By the 20th hand you're
over $1M for the single bet and you've invested ~$500K to get this far, all to
eventually win $1 per hand if you have the bank to cover it.

~~~
jlebrech
yep, that's a downside.

~~~
pc86
Yes, betting a million dollars to win $1 is what most people would call "a
downside."

------
benmmurphy
Were these cards used to run other games in the casino? Is the casino now
going to take steps to refund all the players that partook in games with these
marked cards?

~~~
harryh
Given that these cards could only give the player an advantage and never the
house your proposal doesn't make any sense.

~~~
recursive
The rule is about using marked cards, not granting an advantage.

------
lordnacho
The casino operators need to think about the law of large numbers.

If you have an edge, what you want is for a bunch of little guys to bet
against you. Your certainty of winning against a million little bets is
enormous, if you have an edge. And you do, because those games are made that
way.

What you don't want to do is bet a few big bets. You might be smarter than me
at guessing the outcome of an election, or a coin toss, or any other event,
but if there's only one, you may very well still lose.

If you have a few huge fish, there's almost no point in having the little
ones. Your outcome depends on the huge bets.

It's not just casinos who don't know this. I had a friend at a hedge fund
complaining to me that he was allowed to risk ~1MM USD/bp on interest rates,
but he sat next to a guy who was allowed ~50MM USD/bp. So everyone's bonus
depended on the big guy, and everyone else might as well just not be there.

It's possible the casino simply considers the gambler's risk-of-ruin stop to
be sufficiently close that they'll mostly hit that stop.

~~~
harryh
You significantly underestimate the sophistication of the casino operators.
Those few huge fish aren't each making a single bet. They're making many many
bets. Enough that the house edge is extremely likely to manifest itself except
in cases like this one where the house edge had been manipulated.

~~~
mattmaroon
And they aren't that few. I've stayed in the rooms they comp to whales. There
are a lot of them and they're all full all the time.

They're a low percentage, but those casinos have thousands of rooms so if even
5% of people are whales it's a sizable number.

~~~
harryh
Ya, that too.

