I’ve been following this case with some interest. It’s pretty interesting from a gamblers perspective.

The judge made his ruling and it’s pretty interesting.

From the article –

You must be a registered user with confirmed email address to view this content.
Register or Login

Now a refresher on the details that readers familiar with the case can skip:
“In April 2012, Ivey contacted Borgata to arrange a visit to play high-stakes Baccarat. Ivey made five requests: (1) a private area or “pit” in which to play; (2) a casino dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese; (3) a guest (defendant Sun) to sit with him at the table while he played; (4) one 8-deck shoe of purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards to be used for the entirety of each session of play; and (5) an automatic card shuffling device to be used to shuffle the cards after each shoe was dealt. Borgata agreed to Ivey’s requests. In return, Ivey agreed to wire a “front money” deposit of $1 million to Borgata, and that the maximum bet would be $50,000 per hand.”

how Ivey did in each visit:
- April 2012: $2.4M in winnings over 16 hours, average bet of $25,000 a hand
- May 2012: $1.6M in winnings over 56 hours, average bet of $36,000 a hand
- July 2012: $4.8M in winnings over 17 hours, average bet of $89,000 a hand (Borgata had agreed to double the max bet to $100,000)
- Oct. 2012: $0.8M in winnings over 18 hours, average bet of $93,800 (had been up $3.4M in these sessions; Borgata says he tanked late in the game

-----------

Summary of the ruling so far – Basically the judge says Ivey did not commit fraud (cheating) in his playing. However, he did break implied contract agreement with the casino.

To put this in my words… you enter agreement to play by their rules and aside from lady luck visiting you, you’re not allowed to win by using an edge against a casino there by breaking the original agreement to play a –ev game.

 

Of course, having been granted summary judgment on its cross-motion, Borgata will claim that they are entitled to recoup in damages the $6.6M in winnings (plus interest), to the extent that Ivey had been able to walk out the door with those winnings. The opinion is unclear if that was the case or whether the Borgata had withheld paying Ivey, as was the case in London.

My personal opinion (worth less than $.02) is that Ivey did not breach any contract, but then again, what do I know ...

The case is definitely going to get appealed up to the Third Circuit, Court of Appeals. Boy, would I love to argue and write that brief ...

 

For those interested, here's a pdf of the district court judge's opinion.

 

I agree with you and I think all gamblers would agree as well. He didn't physically do anything and they agreed to his requests. Aren't they essentially pleading ignorance and saying Ivey fooled them and therefore, they get a void in their losses vs Ivey?

If Ivey had lost (which was a possibility), even if after they heard about the case in London, Borgata wouldn't have cared. They care because they lost so in a sense, they're trying to freeroll the situation?

As far as I know, Borgata paid out already and want Ivey to give back winnings. The case in London, the casino withheld his winnings.