With all the casino cheating going on these days (see my previous two-part post), casinos have stepped up their game. Not only do they cheat you by not paying when you win, but they strengthen the move by enlisting the local district attorney to extort you. The way it works is that the casino doesn’t pay. Simultaneously, they get the DA to intimidate the players by filing charges relating to the game, or threatening to file charges. A law-abiding AP is terrified by criminal charges, so it’s a no-brainer to accept the implicit deal — virtually always available — to have the DA drop the charges, and let the casino keep the money.This scam was actually revealed in writing during my own case involving Caesars Palace. A document we obtained through discovery actually spelled out that the DA would use a card-bending prosecution as a “pretense” to “recover” the money for Caesars.
At some point, the DA or cops will write up a statement or filing with some legalese as part of their intimidation tactic. Nationwide, venues have borrowed some or all of the existing statutes from Vegas, so you’ll see certain catch-phrases popping up over and over. One of the phrases that came up against us for hole-carding was that we were cheating, because we “made a bet after the outcome of the game was known.”
Hogwash though it may be, some of this legalese will make its way into the trial arguments or filings with the court, so you and your lawyer need to be ready. The Caesars lawyers came up with this one in their attempt to throw in the kitchen sink. To recap, Mike Russo and I were playing Three Card Poker, not blackjack, in the incident of April 2000. However, since we had admitted in depositions that we had played blackjack, the lawyers tried to paint us as cheaters by pulling in some of the purported blackjack activity. So here’s their argument: In blackjack, if you know the dealer has a ten in the hole when you make your insurance bet, then you’re making a bet after the outcome of the bet is known — hence cheating by the statute.
This argument is garbage at four main levels: (1) wording, (2) context, (3) spotting, (4) counter-examples. Let’s start with the interpretation of the wording. What is the precise meaning of the word “outcome”? If you mean the value of the card, then hypothetically a spotter might know the outcome, but if by “outcome,” you mean the payoff on the bet, then the spotter doesn’t know the outcome. The spotter doesn’t know that the bet will be paid. He expects a particular outcome, but can’t know it. Perhaps that’s mincing words, but that’s what lawyers do.
“Known” is more problematic. The universe is filled with asymmetric information. One person may know something, but another person does not. In this case, the spotter is accused of knowing the card, but the rest of the people do not know the card. When interpreting the statute, what is the standard? The passive phrase “is known” is clearly ambiguous. Since a frame of reference is not explicitly specified, I would argue that the most sensible frame of reference is to say “… outcome is [publicly] known.” When the dealer flips over the hole card, then the outcome is publicly known, but until then, it is not, so there is no violation. The casino lawyers will argue that the frame of reference should be whether the outcome “is known” by the party making the bet, rather than “is publicly known,” but that approach will lead to contradictions, as we will see below.
When faced with ambiguous wording, as in this catch-phrase’s use of the words “outcome” and “known,” judges and juries do look at context. At one time, someone actually wrote the statute, and it got through the legislature. So when that happened, what were they talking about, and what scam were they trying to control? Then, once the statute was in place, how was it applied over the years? What were the other cases where the statute was called into play?
In the case of making a bet after the outcome of a bet is known, you’ll probably find that nationally, the statute is meant to prevent “bet capping” in table games, tampering with a slot machine after a jackpot hits, and “past-posting” in sports and horse racing. In fact, the phrase past-posting is now used as a synonym for bet capping or “pinching” in table games, though the phrase derives from horse racing scams, an example of which is shown in the movie The Sting.
Were the Nevada legislators imagining hole-carding when they wrote the statute? I doubt it. Nor was my lawyer aware of any public case where the catch-phrase was applied to hole-carding. And for good-reason: It’s a bogus argument, and hence destined to fail before any smart judge or jury.
Let’s look at the realistic aspects of spotting the hole card. As I wrote in Exhibit CAA, you will find that spotting mistakes can sometimes be quite unpredictable. (Otherwise, you wouldn’t make mistakes.) In fact, any card, even a picture card, can be mistaken for any other card, even a small card. Spotter signals “paint” (a picture card in the hole), and then the dealer flips over a 3! Yes, it happens a lot.
It’s so common, in fact, that we call it “Paint Syndrome.” I warn my students of this phenomenon. There comes a stretch in the session where every card looks like paint. Fatigue and lighting contribute to Paint Syndrome, as does card design. Suppose that the lighting is dim and the dealer’s angle is a bit unfavorable for the spotter, and the hole card is a 3. Without a pip pattern extending to the edges of the card, the spotter might basically see the white part of the card. The lack of a pip pattern there means that the spotter sees no contrast. While we know that in bright light that part of the card is white, the information that is actually going to the spotter’s brain is “I am seeing a space that is all one shade.” Since the casino lighting is dim, and the card is facing downward, the card is in its own shadow, and that one shade is interpreted as “dark/ink.” The brain thinks it’s a picture card because it thinks it is seeing a card that is all black, even though the card is actually all white in that region. If the spotter can pick off a pip, then the brain can normalize the exposure meter better and realize, “Aha, the pip is dark, and so the rest of the space that is lighter than the pip is white, so the card must be a small card or ace because of all that white.”
I saw the same phenomenon in a museum exhibit that showed various images of the moon and how they would look white or gray depending on how your brain normalizes things. Another exhibit shows that when presented with a green card with a hole punched in alignment with your blind spot (where the optic nerve connects to the retina), your brain will fill in the hole with green, making the card appear to be solid with no punched hole. Or vertigo, where your brain actually sees the room spinning, even though it isn’t.
The point of all this is to say that the spotter might think the card is paint, but he’s wrong. I’ve had teammates tell me, before the card was publicly revealed, “The card is X. I’m 100% sure,” or “I have no doubt.” And then it turned out they were wrong. It happens quite a lot, and it’s why many rookies lose; they are overly confident about the information, and then play their hands incorrectly as a result.
I can guarantee that every veteran spotter has bought insurance and the dealer turned out to have the ace of spades in the hole, or the 9 of spades in the hole. So I would argue that the outcome is not “known” by the spotter, even when he thinks he knows!
Finally, let’s consider a few of the cases where the casino’s silly interpretation of “outcome is known [by the party making the bet]” would criminalize many bets that are clearly legal. Suppose you hold KK in Mississippi Stud. You make a 3X bet on 3rd Street. Then a K is revealed on the board. You make a 3X bet on 4th Street. Then the case K is revealed and you make a 3X bet on 5th Street before your irrelevant kicker is revealed. At the moment you made your 5th Street bet, you held KKKKx, and you knew exactly what payoff you were going to get on your 5th Street bet. You were going to make 40:1 on a bet that was 3X your Ante. So you would win 120X your Ante on 5th Street.
How about Ultimate Texas Hold ’em? You hold the Js 2d, so you check all the way to the river, and then the board has the As Ks Qs Ts. You know you have the royal flush when you make a 1X Play bet, which will pay 1:1 regardless of the dealer’s hand or whether the dealer qualifies.
Similar examples occur in Let It Ride, variations of Three Card Poker, live poker, and video poker. In general, in any poker variation where bets are permissible after some cards are revealed as part of the game, there will be opportunities to make bets when the bettor holds the nuts — the best hand possible at that moment. In some of those cases, the payoff for that hand will be specified in advance.
There are also examples among hands known to be losers. In Let It Ride, if your first four cards are 9872, you can confidently retrieve your middle bet, knowing there is no river card that can salvage the hand. Or, if your opponent in Texas Hold’em bets on the river with AAAA2 on the board, you can confidently fold your pocket 22.
In blackjack, suppose a casino offers doubling on any number of cards. You hit T6 and pull a 5 for 21. You now have T65. What happens when you double down on the three-card, hard 21? The outcome of the bet is known. You will lose your original bet and the additional double-down bet. Insane? Yes! Illegal? No!
Great, cogent article. Thanks for the information.
Do you know of any current cases that involve hole carders being charged with cheating using this ‘known outcome’ method? I follow casinos, gambling law, etc and have not come across anyone being charged with cheating like this. I have to wonder if your career as an AP is giving you ‘paint syndrome’ when it comes to casinos ‘cheating’. I do know that some properties are ruthless and do things wrong, but I think a lot of people would be canned if what you describe was attempted at my casino, and our local DA chooses not to prosecute actual thefts and assaults because of the lack of funding, time, and available prosecutors, instead giving very lenient plea deals. I have to wonder if this is limited to a few select bad apples in the bushel?
JB, I wonder what the prosecutor was thinking in the HC case of Hollywood Joliet vs the two guys from Michigan. You might want to look into that.
And for the record, the judge threw out the case in favor of the HC’ers.
http://blogs.northjersey.com/meadowlands-matters/federal-judge-gives-split-court-opinion-on-phil-ivey-10m-baccarat-win-over-borgata-1.1681211?platform=hootsuite
That is kinda my point… I don’t think this issue is as widespread as described. I cant think of any successful cases against a HC AP using a cheating prosecution. I know that any prosecutor can charge just about anyone with just about anything, of course, the same thing happens to casinos on a daily basis. Someone stubs their own toe on their dresser and sues the hotel staff for negligence. People fall over drunk and sue the slot ambassador walking by for assault. A car arrives with a huge dent and they make a claim against valet. None of these things mean the cases will actually go anywhere, frivolous lawsuits are as numerous as chips in a poker room. While it may be a dick move for a prosecutor/casino to do something like this, I don’t think the average AP needs to worry about being prosecuted, chased, or back-roomed. These things are few and far between when compared to the number of APs currently being walked out of, or playing in, casinos.
I think the best argument is that a spotter does not know the hole card with 100% accuracy. Pros make mistakes all the time (although hopefully not too many). Although going to trial is no fun and is best avoided if possible.
Regarding the Joliet trial, the judge ruled that the prosecutor did not prove that the players signals influenced their bets. It was an illogical reason to direct a not guilty verdict.
In the Ivy case, the judge also made an illogical ruling that Ivy did not violate the rules or commit fraud but he somehow did not deserve to be paid based on violating the contract between player and casino.
Suffice it to say, this does not bode well for AP’s dealing with the courts when judges make these illogical rulings.
ivey directed the dealer to do something to change the outcome, and while I agree that it is the casino’s problem if they hire people who are so easily tricked, and I personally think ivey should have been paid in full, that doesn’t mean the law sees it the same way. Even though it shouldn’t affect the decision, the previous case that ivey had in London, where he did the same exact thing, probably swayed the judge in the borgata case… He basically set his own precedence. Again, i personally think ivey did nothing wrong and should be paid in full. of course, ivey in no way hole carded, or counted, or did any other AP where he is simply being given information and using that info… He produced his own info using methods that arent available to other people, and that is why he is having to defend it in court.
The realistic aspects of spotting the hole card in the casino is very difficult as it pertains to blackjack and other casino games the way I see it. Granted I’m not in the casino all the time but when I am and study the dealers dealing motions, they’re tough, they are not giving away any information with ease in my opinion or I haven’t found their worst dealers.
For hand shuffled poker games in the casino and if available seating permits, I’m going to start sitting next to the dealer on either flank to spy into their shuffles to see if their is any bias in their shuffles, and also note any irregularities in the muck, muck bias as it pertains to poker which could be bad for me. I’ve also thought about hands that go to a showdown, how & where the dealer places those cards in the deck for the next reshuffle, if they are placed on the bottom or top of the deck to see if I can follow a card or cards throughout their shuffle.
On a different not there is a Chinese poker dealer that I want to confront the next time I’m in venue when he deals a table that I might be on. When the cards come out of the ASM he always puts a false cut on the deck. I’ve copied his move. I guess it’s his way of being cute, or maybe he is working with someone, I don’t know. He thinks nobody notices but I’m thinking of an appropriate way to out him.
A single poker player colluding with their favorite poker dealers can also instruct the dealer in private to make their cards disappear for a 3.8% edge. Most of those Vegas dealers know how to make cards not reappear on a next deal in certain conditions I am sure of it. I can do it with. They MC for the player they could be helping, but it works in reverse.
and that would be collusion to cheat, a crime everywhere. not advantage play. this should be prosecuted, and rightfully so, what JG describes in his post is not cheating.
what ivey did was set up his advantage, with the casino agreeing to the requests. that is why i dont think it would be considered cheating, since he requested something, and the GM and CSM agreed to his terms of play. anyone else on that game would have played by the same rules, meaning everyone had the advantage available.
In the case of privately meeting with a dealer, and having him or her move cards in a shuffle, or deal seconds, from the bottom, etc. to gain an advantage, would be cheating, since you are the only person gaining the advantage.
i said in a previous response that ivey had an advantage that nobody else had, to clarify, i mean that to the court, he appeared to have an advantage that nobody else had, and that is the reason he is having to defend himself. the reality is that anyone could have sat on the game and had the same advantage, and this is why i think ivey was innocent of cheating or collusion.
The host is describing how the house cheats the players. That is their advantage play on players, hoping the players will give up in the pursuit of their own cash after players beat it out of them. He says you have to fight the system where the casino wants to squash the players and shut you down with pencil pushing attorneys who favor the industry.
There is a lot of dealer & player collusion in the casino from the articles that I have read. Or players colluding together and maybe with a dealer. I don’t have to cheat to win but I know I have encountered players working together at poker. It pisses me off to see it. I hate it when players know each other at a poker game and you know their playing soft against each other and sending HC info to each other, signaling.
Whenever a player can set up their own advantage to help them win is what is best. In the case of a dealer/player collusion team working together.. dealing seconds and off the bottom is definitely not what I was referring to, that would be archaic.
Insurance is a side bet about whether or not the dealer has a blackjack. If you are hole-carding and know that the dealer has a ten under that ace, then yes, you DO know the outcome of that bet before you make the wager. On the other hand, the hole carder does not actually know the outcome of a regular blackjack hand, but only the total of the dealer’s first two cards. That gives information to make a better decision about what to do, but it does not give you definite knowledge of the outcome of the hand. For example, if the dealer has a total of 16 he/she may bust with a card higher than a 5, or have a good total if the hit card is a 3,4, or 5.
The point made is that a hole carder may think there is a ten under the ace and buy insurance, but mistakes are made and the outcome is not actually known until the dealer flips up the card and makes the payoff or not.
Ivey knew that the cards that this casino used had a fault in the printing. The cards at first were printed on a large sheet and that sheet was cut by machine into a card size. As the cutter was not exactly 100% accurate, the pattern on the back differed from card to card but so slightly that unless you knew there was a fault you wouldn’t see it. s Ivey could have a card in his hand and note the error on the back. I bet (!) he used this in Poker too.