Phil Ivey wins $12M; Casino claims cheating/exploiting, won't (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

What I don't get is why Phil isn't under glass for every fixed odds game in every casino in the world. I sure as hell wouldn't let him play if I were the house.

Because his swings are huge.

He wins and losses big. They just hope he losses.

Variance is a terrible argument. Variance is what the typical gambler hopes for to come out with a profit and what the casino counts on for a profit. Your suggestion turns the casino into the gambler, the exact opposite of what they are structured around. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Run It Up]

If casinos were worried about variance at ANY level they wouldn't exist period. The higher the stakes, the better for casinos.

 

[Sand]

If casinos were worried about variance at ANY level they wouldn't exist period. The higher the stakes, the better for casinos.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a casino operates. Of course they worry about variance. They worry about everything that affects profitability. This is why they love slots - the long run there is pretty quick with all the masses playing and they can count on that 3% (or whatever it is) rolling in.

They worry a lot about high stakes - thus betting limits. By limiting the stakes they try to get to the long run as quickly as possible. They have to balance that against customer wishes and competition, but in general they want as many discrete bets hitting the tables as possible. Well, as long as they still have their fixed edge (which Ivey destroyed, of course), that is.

 

[Psychopav]

Ivey probably brings in a gambling celebrity factor that draws more patrons.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If the house is going comply with requests like this, they deserve to lose every penny to Ivey.

Outlining how the pair managed to ‘edge sort’ the deck, the claim says: ‘Kelly would ask the dealer to reveal each card in turn by lifting the edge furthest from the dealer so that Kelly could identify whether the card was a seven, eight, or nine – the key cards in punto banco.

The first time that Kelly identified a key card, she told the dealer that it was a 'good' card which she wanted the dealer to rotate in the opposite direction to all the other cards and the dealer complied with the request.

What kind of casino allows dealers to help out players like this? This has to have been seen as an odd request.

 

[bostonfred]

So everything he did was out in the open, they would have taken his money if he lost, but won't pay him if he won, and they didn't divulge this to him up front? The casino's going to have to show a pretty good argument to win this case.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

What I don't get is why Phil isn't under glass for every fixed odds game in every casino in the world. I sure as hell wouldn't let him play if I were the house.

You would't play him in Craps? Child, please.

He evidently only plays games in which he thinks that he has an edge. And, since this is Ivey we're talking about, he's almost certainly correct. Why take the chance?

It's pretty well-documented that Ivey does indeed play craps.

If he's figured out some way to game craps, that I don't know.

 

[Short Corner]

What I don't get is why Phil isn't under glass for every fixed odds game in every casino in the world. I sure as hell wouldn't let him play if I were the house.

You would't play him in Craps? Child, please.

He evidently only plays games in which he thinks that he has an edge. And, since this is Ivey we're talking about, he's almost certainly correct. Why take the chance?

He is actually pretty notorious for being a craps degen.

 

[Short Corner]

So everything he did was out in the open, they would have taken his money if he lost, but won't pay him if he won, and they didn't divulge this to him up front? The casino's going to have to show a pretty good argument to win this case.

If his partner was previously banned it will be all they need.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

If the house is going comply with requests like this, they deserve to lose every penny to Ivey.

Outlining how the pair managed to ‘edge sort’ the deck, the claim says: ‘Kelly would ask the dealer to reveal each card in turn by lifting the edge furthest from the dealer so that Kelly could identify whether the card was a seven, eight, or nine – the key cards in punto banco.

The first time that Kelly identified a key card, she told the dealer that it was a 'good' card which she wanted the dealer to rotate in the opposite direction to all the other cards and the dealer complied with the request.

What kind of casino allows dealers to help out players like this? This has to have been seen as an odd request.

It seems like the casino was thinking, "We've already decided that we're not going to pay him. We'll just concede to all of his requests to encourage him to continue playing."

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I think the casino is up to something.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Ivey accused of cheating again:

http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202650810175/Borgata%20Sues%20Baccarat%20High%20Roller%20%20For%2096M%20Won%20Gaming%20the%20Deck?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=0&slreturn=20140311173655

 

[flapgreen]

Greedy

 

[Limp Ditka]

Get better cards.

 

[bryhamm]

Meh. Seems like the casinos fault.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Ivey accused of cheating again:

http://www.njlawjournal.com/hom

e/id=1202650810175/Borgata%20Sues%20Baccarat%20High%20Roller%20%20For%2096M%20Won%20Gaming%20the%20Deck?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=0&slreturn=20

140311173655

He really is the Tiger Woods of golf

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't really know British law. I think that if the facts in NJ were the same as in London (i.e., Phil "won" but the casino refused to give him his winnings), then I think the Borgata would be in good shape. Phil would probably be barred from collecting by the doctrines of unclean hands and/or illegality.

But the Borgata is seeking the money back. And I'm not sure I see their case. If its fraud, what misrepresentation did he make? They seem to be relying on a bunch of statutes that don't appear to have a private right of action.

 

[T Bell]

Ivey accused of cheating again:

http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202650810175/Borgata%20Sues%20Baccarat%20High%20Roller%20%20For%2096M%20Won%20Gaming%20the%20Deck?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=0&slreturn=20140311173655

At his request, Borgata provided a private “pit” in which to play and a casino dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese. Ivey was allowed to have Sun at the table while he played and to have an automatic card shuffling device used.It is the automatic card shuffler that makes edge sorting possible, because it keeps all cards facing in the same direction. A dealer shuffling the cards by hand would turn part of the deck.

During a 16-hour session at the table on April 11, 2012, Ivey won $2.4 million. Sun sat with him and she gave instructions to the dealer in Mandarin on how to lay down and flip over the cards.

Can someone explain to me why the casino would agree to the part's I've bolded?

 

[Sarnoff]

Ivey accused of cheating again:

http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202650810175/Borgata%20Sues%20Baccarat%20High%20Roller%20%20For%2096M%20Won%20Gaming%20the%20Deck?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=0&slreturn=20140311173655

At his request, Borgata provided a private “pit” in which to play and a casino dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese. Ivey was allowed to have Sun at the table while he played and to have an automatic card shuffling device used.It is the automatic card shuffler that makes edge sorting possible, because it keeps all cards facing in the same direction. A dealer shuffling the cards by hand would turn part of the deck.

During a 16-hour session at the table on April 11, 2012, Ivey won $2.4 million. Sun sat with him and she gave instructions to the dealer in Mandarin on how to lay down and flip over the cards.

Can someone explain to me why the casino would agree to the part's I've bolded?

Because if he loses money, they can keep it. If he wins money, they can sue for it back. Win/win.

 

[Sand]

So he's being accused of cheating using marks left by a casino provided machine, with casino provided cards, and dealt by a duly designated dealer provided by the casino?

If I was on this jury the deliberations would last about 5 minutes.

 

[Sarnoff]

In Baccarat, aren't you allowed to mark up the cards and rip them if you want?

 

[eoMMan]

This is stupid. I'm all for Ivey here (based on what is public about the story).

 

[AAABatteries]

Ivey lost his suit in Britain's High Court

http://espn.go.com/espn/chalk/story/_/id/11665414/phil-ivey-loses-124m-battle-court-being-accused-improperly-withholding-winnings

 

[Run It Up]

So he's being accused of cheating using marks left by a casino provided machine, with casino provided cards, and dealt by a duly designated dealer provided by the casino?

If I was on this jury the deliberations would last about 5 minutes.

I'm seriously asking myself here, if the Casino was complicit in the cheating and had won money - if Ivey had sued would he have been awarded his losses?

 

[Sand]

Ivey lost his suit in Britain's High Court

http://espn.go.com/espn/chalk/story/_/id/11665414/phil-ivey-loses-124m-battle-court-being-accused-improperly-withholding-winnings

Bull#### ruling.

 

[FlapJacks]

Ivey accused of cheating again:

http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202650810175/Borgata%20Sues%20Baccarat%20High%20Roller%20%20For%2096M%20Won%20Gaming%20the%20Deck?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=0&slreturn=20140311173655

At his request, Borgata provided a private “pit” in which to play and a casino dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese. Ivey was allowed to have Sun at the table while he played and to have an automatic card shuffling device used.It is the automatic card shuffler that makes edge sorting possible, because it keeps all cards facing in the same direction. A dealer shuffling the cards by hand would turn part of the deck.

During a 16-hour session at the table on April 11, 2012, Ivey won $2.4 million. Sun sat with him and she gave instructions to the dealer in Mandarin on how to lay down and flip over the cards.

Can someone explain to me why the casino would agree to the part's I've bolded?

Because if he loses money, they can keep it. If he wins money, they can sue for it back. Win/win.

But, that seems like evidence that the casino was aware that he was edge counting. If they were aware and they still took his bet, I'd have to rule against them.

 

[tonydead]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this? Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know about?

 

[Limp Ditka]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this? Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know about?

 

[guru_007]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this? Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know about?

Not sure why you imply financial trouble, but why wouldn't he play an advantage like this to it's fullest?

Nothing about what he did was illegal. He specified the type of cards he wanted, and how he wanted them dealt. If anything, it was the casino's fault for obliging and not properly researching any possible defects. It's not as if he brought in his own deck of pre-marked cards and demanded they played with those.

He shot an angle, and obviously the courts did not agree. It's not as if he lost anything.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Ivey accused of cheating again:

http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202650810175/Borgata%20Sues%20Baccarat%20High%20Roller%20%20For%2096M%20Won%20Gaming%20the%20Deck?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=0&slreturn=20140311173655

At his request, Borgata provided a private “pit” in which to play and a casino dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese. Ivey was allowed to have Sun at the table while he played and to have an automatic card shuffling device used.It is the automatic card shuffler that makes edge sorting possible, because it keeps all cards facing in the same direction. A dealer shuffling the cards by hand would turn part of the deck.

During a 16-hour session at the table on April 11, 2012, Ivey won $2.4 million. Sun sat with him and she gave instructions to the dealer in Mandarin on how to lay down and flip over the cards.

Can someone explain to me why the casino would agree to the part's I've bolded?

Because if he loses money, they can keep it. If he wins money, they can sue for it back. Win/win.

But, that seems like evidence that the casino was aware that he was edge counting. If they were aware and they still took his bet, I'd have to rule against them.

I don't think the ruling has been released yet, but based on what I've seen, it appears the Court's decision was based largely on this distinction - that Ivey knew what he was doing, that what he did was "cheating" (violating the inherent contract between gambler and casino) and that the casino (and its dealer/croupier) were not aware of what he was doing. Seems very odd based on what we've seen reported, but we've no idea what evidence was actually presented to the court until its published.

 

[tonydead]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this? Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know about?

Not sure why you imply financial trouble, but why wouldn't he play an advantage like this to it's fullest?

Nothing about what he did was illegal. He specified the type of cards he wanted, and how he wanted them dealt. If anything, it was the casino's fault for obliging and not properly researching any possible defects. It's not as if he brought in his own deck of pre-marked cards and demanded they played with those.

He shot an angle, and obviously the courts did not agree. It's not as if he lost anything.

I get the angle stuff, and legal or not, everyone know's anything done to get an advantage isn't allowed by casinos on casino chance games.

I guess what he's lost is a bunch of wasted time, court costs and to fans like me he looks like a hustler rather than a gambling icon. You'd think someone with his celeb status would want to be in bed with the casinos not trying to rip them off.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this? Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know about?

Not sure why you imply financial trouble, but why wouldn't he play an advantage like this to it's fullest?

Nothing about what he did was illegal. He specified the type of cards he wanted, and how he wanted them dealt. If anything, it was the casino's fault for obliging and not properly researching any possible defects. It's not as if he brought in his own deck of pre-marked cards and demanded they played with those.

He shot an angle, and obviously the courts did not agree. It's not as if he lost anything.

I get the angle stuff, and legal or not, everyone know's anything done to get an advantage isn't allowed by casinos on casino chance games.

I guess what he's lost is a bunch of wasted time, court costs and to fans like me he looks like a hustler rather than a gambling icon. You'd think someone with his celeb status would want to be in bed with the casinos not trying to rip them off.

"Court costs" in UK legal proceedings can be significant in a "loser pays" system (unlike the US, where each side is in most cases responsible for its own atty's fees, regardless of the outcome.) He's most likely on the hook for the casino's lawyer's fees. Also, I'd think a ruling like this might potentially affect some of his sponsorship income. He's an adjudicated cheater at this point, which would likely put off some gaming industry sponsors.

 

[tonydead]

That's what I'm thinking, they guy's rich and famous. He's smart enough to know this would be a likely outcome. So why?

 

[Zow]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this?

Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know

about?

Shirley, you can't be serious.

 

[tonydead]

Just catching up here, but, why would someone who's smart enough to win millions legitimately and has millions already try something like this?

Is Ivey in some financial trouble we don't know

about?

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Serious about questioning why he would do this? Yes. Serious about hypothesizing that he has financial troubles? Just a wild guess.

 

[tonydead]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's what I'm thinking, they guy's rich and famous. He's smart enough to know this would be a likely outcome. So why?

He won over $12 million.

Even if there was only a 20% chance that he'd keep it, that seems worthwhile. (And while I don't know anything about British law on this subject, it seems that he should have had a greater than 50% chance of keeping it. He was basically doing the equivalent of card-counting or shuffle-tracking, IMO. The penalty for those things, at least in the U.S., is being barred from further play; it's not being refused your winnings.)

 

[Limp Ditka]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

Yes and of course not.

 

[tonydead]

That's what I'm thinking, they guy's rich and famous. He's smart enough to know this would be a likely outcome. So why?

He won over $12 million.

Even if there was only a 20% chance that he'd keep it, that seems worthwhile. (And while I don't know anything about British law on this subject, it seems that he should have had a greater than 50% chance of keeping it. He was basically doing the equivalent of card-counting or shuffle-tracking, IMO. The penalty for those things, at least in the U.S., is being barred from further play; it's not being refused your winnings.)

And sometimes threat to life and limb.

I get why the MIT guys did it. I get why normal Joes try. It just seems like an already famous and rich guy, a guy made famous by the same industry, would stand more to loose than gain IMO.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

In poker, when you're playing against other individual players, there are certain things that are considered bad form even if they're not against the rules. Surreptitiously looking at another player's hole cards would be an example.

But in blackjack or other games where you're playing against the house, I think anything within the rules is fair game. The house makes the rules, after all; and it generally makes them specifically to gain an advantage over the players, which isn't very sportsmanlike [/Fezzini]. If the players can figure out a way to gain an edge without breaking the rules, I say more power to 'em. The house can change the rules in that case -- as they did in blackjack when the first card-counters prompted the introduction of multi-deck shoes. Or the house can simply refuse to continue taking a player's action. But I don't think card-counting or shuffle-tracking or edge-sorting -- all of them ostensibly within the rules -- are cheating, or even bad form, when playing against the house. The British court evidently disagrees with me, but the British are technically foreigners, so what did we expect?

 

[tonydead]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

In poker, when you're playing against other individual players, there are certain things that are considered bad form even if they're not against the rules. Surreptitiously looking at another player's hole cards would be an example.

But in blackjack or other games where you're playing against the house, I think anything within the rules is fair game. The house makes the rules, after all; and it generally makes them specifically to gain an advantage over the players, which isn't very sportsmanlike [/Fezzini]. If the players can figure out a way to gain an edge without breaking the rules, I say more power to 'em. The house can change the rules in that case -- as they did in blackjack when the first card-counters prompted the introduction of multi-deck shoes. Or the house can simply refuse to continue taking a player's action. But I don't think card-counting or shuffle-tracking or edge-sorting -- all of them ostensibly within the rules -- are cheating, or even bad form, when playing against the house. The British court evidently disagrees with me, but the British are technically foreigners, so what did we expect?

I agree 100%. And I've been kicked out of my fair share of casinos. But, I'm small stakes and I'm a nobody. I just don't see myself trying what he did if I am in his shoes. I would think he's better off in bed with the casinos instead of pissing them off, but, maybe I just don't understand where guys like him are at.

 

[tonydead]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

Yes and of course not.

Can you unpack that for me? I don't understand how you would say yes to one of those questions and no to the other.

 

[IC FBGCav]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

In poker, when you're playing against other individual players, there are certain things that are considered bad form even if they're not against the rules. Surreptitiously looking at another player's hole cards would be an example.

But in blackjack or other games where you're playing against the house, I think anything within the rules is fair game. The house makes the rules, after all; and it generally makes them specifically to gain an advantage over the players, which isn't very sportsmanlike [/Fezzini]. If the players can figure out a way to gain an edge without breaking the rules, I say more power to 'em. The house can change the rules in that case -- as they did in blackjack when the first card-counters prompted the introduction of multi-deck shoes. Or the house can simply refuse to continue taking a player's action. But I don't think card-counting or shuffle-tracking or edge-sorting -- all of them ostensibly within the rules -- are cheating, or even bad form, when playing against the house. The British court evidently disagrees with me, but the British are technically foreigners, so what did we expect?

I hear what you are saying but I disagree. Let me say I am not the moral authority on anything. But I have given back the house wrong payouts and corrected wrong decisions on when they counted wrong when it only had to do with ME. Now in poker, first night at home game, I was sitting next to the dealer. I had AA was to act before him. Action was to he right, he didn't protect his cards and I saw the Q10 diamonds in his hand. I told the table I saw his cards and mucked my hand. There is no line there for me, even with the evil giant at the other end. I know who the evil giant is going in.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Okay almost lost my point, if Ivey was so good and profitable at poker he would not be involved in these kinds of things.

 

[The Big Guy]

Does Ivey have any potential Full Tilt blowback from the past drama or is that all over?

 

[Fennis]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

In poker, when you're playing against other individual players, there are certain things that are considered bad form even if they're not against the rules. Surreptitiously looking at another player's hole cards would be an example.

But in blackjack or other games where you're playing against the house, I think anything within the rules is fair game. The house makes the rules, after all; and it generally makes them specifically to gain an advantage over the players, which isn't very sportsmanlike [/Fezzini]. If the players can figure out a way to gain an edge without breaking the rules, I say more power to 'em. The house can change the rules in that case -- as they did in blackjack when the first card-counters prompted the introduction of multi-deck shoes. Or the house can simply refuse to continue taking a player's action. But I don't think card-counting or shuffle-tracking or edge-sorting -- all of them ostensibly within the rules -- are cheating, or even bad form, when playing against the house. The British court evidently disagrees with me, but the British are technically foreigners, so what did we expect?

I hear what you are saying but I disagree. Let me say I am not the moral authority on anything. But I have given back the house wrong payouts and corrected wrong decisions on when they counted wrong when it only had to do with ME. Now in poker, first night at home game, I was sitting next to the dealer. I had AA was to act before him. Action was to he right, he didn't protect his cards and I saw the Q10 diamonds in his hand. I told the table I saw his cards and mucked my hand. There is no line there for me, even with the evil giant at the other end. I know who the evil giant is going in.

if you are playing BJ at a casino and you saw the dealers hole card you would tell the dealer?

 

[Freelove]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

Yes and of course not.

Can you unpack that for me? I don't understand how you would say yes to one of those questions and no to the other.

I think he's saying that, yes, he'd be okay -- philosophically speaking -- with someone trying that. It's gambling, and if you're not trying to get an edge, you're not trying. But if he knew it was going on, he'd be a sucker to keep playing.

Of course, Ivey would have a monumental edge over me in any card game where we sat down together. And I like to think I'd be smart enough not to stick around at my poker game if the likes of Ivey started sidling up next to me.

 

[IC FBGCav]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

In poker, when you're playing against other individual players, there are certain things that are considered bad form even if they're not against the rules. Surreptitiously looking at another player's hole cards would be an example.

But in blackjack or other games where you're playing against the house, I think anything within the rules is fair game. The house makes the rules, after all; and it generally makes them specifically to gain an advantage over the players, which isn't very sportsmanlike [/Fezzini]. If the players can figure out a way to gain an edge without breaking the rules, I say more power to 'em. The house can change the rules in that case -- as they did in blackjack when the first card-counters prompted the introduction of multi-deck shoes. Or the house can simply refuse to continue taking a player's action. But I don't think card-counting or shuffle-tracking or edge-sorting -- all of them ostensibly within the rules -- are cheating, or even bad form, when playing against the house. The British court evidently disagrees with me, but the British are technically foreigners, so what did we expect?

I hear what you are saying but I disagree. Let me say I am not the moral authority on anything. But I have given back the house wrong payouts and corrected wrong decisions on when they counted wrong when it only had to do with ME. Now in poker, first night at home game, I was sitting next to the dealer. I had AA was to act before him. Action was to he right, he didn't protect his cards and I saw the Q10 diamonds in his hand. I told the table I saw his cards and mucked my hand. There is no line there for me, even with the evil giant at the other end. I know who the evil giant is going in.

if you are playing BJ at a casino and you saw the dealers hole card you would tell the dealer?

Yes........

To add: that is just me, it is simply not who I am not to say something. Would I think about not telling? Of course, but if you wouldn't I get that too,

 

[IC FBGCav]

For those of you that don't think it's crazy that he would try something like this: Would you be ok with him doing something similar in a game of hold'em you were playing in? If you knew he was doing it would you keep playing?

Yes and of course not.

Can you unpack that for me? I don't understand how you would say yes to one of those questions and no to the other.

I think he's saying that, yes, he'd be okay -- philosophically speaking -- with someone trying that. It's gambling, and if you're not trying to get an edge, you're not trying. But if he knew it was going on, he'd be a sucker to keep playing.

Of course, Ivey would have a monumental edge over me in any card game where we sat down together. And I like to think I'd be smart enough not to stick around at my poker game if the likes of Ivey started sidling up next to me.

People over value the worth of poker players. Most profitable players are people you never heard of.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I have given back the house wrong payouts and corrected wrong decisions on when they counted wrong when it only had to do with ME.

Yes, incorrect payouts and miscounting are against the rules; that kind of stuff should be corrected. But that's different, IMO, from stuff that's not against the rules, like card-counting or edge-sorting or the like. (I mean, edge-sorting should be against the casino's rules. But it wasn't Ivey who was doing it; it was the dealer. And the dealer was not a confederate.)