Is this real ? GEMCO ordered to pay in Borgata-Phil Ivey case

Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
127
Likes
73
Location
Ottawa Canada
#3
In my mind, the card manufacturer is more at fault than Phil Ivey. Borgata owes Ivey... then Borgata is free to sue Gemaco.
Right? Like I get it, he and from what I understand the dealer knew about the card defect and exploited it. So ya they are cheats. But if GEMCO is responsible for failure of products 27$ is a joke
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
1,864
Likes
1,569
Location
Aurora CO
#4
Right? Like I get it, he and from what I understand the dealer knew about the card defect and exploited it. So ya they are cheats. But if GEMCO is responsible for failure of products 27$ is a joke
Yeah, the dealer and the floor, and the pencil and certainly a lot more than that.
How many people are in on it when a player asks if its OK to cheat, and the casino agrees?
Borgata is 100% responsible. Mostly for being 100% stupid
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,340
Likes
3,043
Location
Iowa
#5
Although I can't find it now, I recall reading that the sales contract specified that Gemaco's liability in the case of defective products is to replace or refund those items.

Greed and stupidity: a dangerous combination.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
286
Likes
218
Location
Salt Lake City, Ut
#6
Although I can't find it now, I recall reading that the sales contract specified that Gemaco's liability in the case of defective products is to replace or refund those items.

Greed and stupidity: a dangerous combination.
Humm, a card company having to replace decks that are defective in a way that could enable and encourage cheating?

@Modiano, you getting this?
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
127
Likes
73
Location
Ottawa Canada
#7
Humm, a card company having to replace decks that are defective in a way that could enable and encourage cheating?

@Modiano, you getting this?
That's a point I think of as well. Also over the whole fiasco surely GEMCO provided more than just 27$ worth of cards. It's nice that they are ordered to pay a sum I agree. I feel these card giants just get away with their mistakes with a slap on the wrists.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,340
Likes
3,043
Location
Iowa
#8
I stopped buying cards with a full bleed back at least ten years ago. I wonder what cards Borgata is using now.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
1,686
Likes
1,437
Location
Riverside, CA, USA
#9
Sadface that everyone seems to feel that Phil cheated. He exploited a flaw in a game as provided by the casino. The dealer was not in on it. He requested that these specific cards would be used and requested that the dealer discard a certain way. The house should protect their game better. The casino could say “no.” They are happy to take millions from patrons when they have the edge, but when they give the edge to a player, they cry foul and want their money back... Eff that.

We are not talking poker here... where all players at the table are customers with the expectation of a fair game. It’s a pit game with an inherent house edge... they cater to whales and their superstitions... this time THEIR greed bit them in the ass.
 

upNdown

4 of a Kind
Tourney Director
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
6,341
Likes
5,494
Location
boston
#10
I’m with you 100% @Shaggy - it seems quite the bullshit that the casino is allowed to agree to Phil’s terms, and then plea switcheroo when they lose. But from a legal perspective, I think the ruling was sound. Based on existing laws, as I understand it, the casino isn’t allowed to agree to let Phil cheat. So, as applied, the law is dumb.
The laws are dumb - shocker.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
15,712
Likes
16,515
Location
Atlanta
#11
The real question is this: would the casino have returned Phil's money had he lost, using those same 'bogus' cards and dealer procedures?

I doubt it, and doubt that Phil could have sucessfully sued to get it back, either. If the game was actually invalid, then any results should be nullified regardless of who wins..... but we all know that wouldn't be the case irl.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
3,694
Likes
2,185
Location
NJ - NY/NJ metro area
#15
But if GEMCO is responsible for failure of products 27$ is a joke
First thing the dealer does when setting up the table is inspect the cards. So the house inspects the cards, and if the house approves them for play, they get used. If the house inspects the cards and they are defective, they return them and use other cards.

So, here, we've established that the cards were imperfect. Gemaco owes them for the bad cards. But that's where it ends, because it was the house that approved them for play.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
274
Likes
306
Location
Frisco, TX
#16
All cards are technically imperfect, right? An extreme example: if one had a microscope they could probably notice some inconsistencies between individual cards of any deck.

The fact that Iveys strategy required a dealer to manipulate the cards in an unusual way, so that he can examine them, makes me think Gemaco isn’t too much at fault. It implies that the cards were good enough to be used in standard play
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
135
Likes
97
Location
Atlanta
#19
I look at this as being similar to poker rules that don't allow freerolls. If a dealer forgets to burn a card before the flop and you notice, you have to say something immediately. You can't wait for the river to see how you do and then, when it looks bleak, say the dealer forgot to burn a card and we have to go back to the flop. Too late, the action stands.

Similarly, the casino agreed to the terms. They could have stopped play at any time, but didn't. They either didn't know what they agreed to do or they did figure it out at one point and decided to play it like a freeroll, knowing they wouldn't pay out.

Let me pose this...Let's say I propose a bet to somebody, let's call him Borgy. I propose that we will flip a coin 100 times for $1,000 per flip. Every time it lands on heads, I win. Every time it lands on tails, Borgy wins. We have to use a coin of my choosing, but Borgy can inspect the coin before we flip it (and I even let him go to the store and buy it - I just specify which coin). Borgy can elect to stop our coin flipping session at any time, but I agree to not call it quits until after 100 flips at the earliest. Is it my fault that I choose a two-headed coin, Borgy doesn't look at it before we start flipping, and doesn't call off the session even though it seems to be going particularly well for me? If not, why is it Phil Ivey's fault that the Borgata didn't inspect the cards before dealing or at least at some point during play when it seemed to be going well for him? The only difference is, Phil Ivey was still taking a risk since he could still lose. I had no way of losing the coin flips.
 

Chipleader

Sitting Out
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
27
Likes
7
Location
Cave Creek, AZ
#20
It’s 100% on Borgata. They accepted those decks from Gemco, and I assume they inspected them and put them into play. They modified their usual practices to appease a big whale in Ivey. It’s all on them.
 
Top Bottom