The ethical line between advantage play & cheating

[Minn. Fatz]

All props due to Jeff Ma, one of the stars of the MIT blackjack teams, and maybe due to length restrictions but there are a couple inaccuracies. I'm sure he knows that edge sorting isn't "reading the manufacturer's marks" on the cards but, the way Ivey did it, knowing when a favorable card was next to come off the shoe. The single number or red/black bets in roulette are no more disadvantageous than any other bet on the layout (other than the 0-00-1-2-3 "column"); that being said you're giving the casino something like 4-5 percent whatever you do (unless -- of -- course -- you find a biased wheel). A long shot horse is only a bad bet if the chance of its winning is less than the odds offered for it to win; lots of folks make money at the track this way, and because of the parimutuel system they aren't backed off at all.

I'm no lawya, not even in the US, and I can't find the judge's decision anywhere so can't say how solid or not or whether there's grounds for appeal. It apparently hinges on Ivey "using" the dealer as "his agent" and gaining an advantage "not contemplated by the game," or at least the casino.

But I'd be more convinced if the casino had returned Ivey's stake after the first couple of shoes when he was a million or so pounds down instead of waiting to get "stitched up" to holler copper. And I can't bring myself to blame or criticize anyone for trying to turn the tables on a casino in order to leave with more money that they brought in. That's what we all do every time we sit down to play a +EV VP machine.

[Tedlark]

  Fatz you bring up a good point about the casino and the issue of returning Ivey's loses at a certain point and "zero" him out.    Could it be that Ivey lost that money on purpose so that he could get an accurate read on the edge sorting and once he had the pattern down; he then started winning?    Just a wild thought.