Edge sorting: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:22, 30 April 2024

Latest revision as of 23:18, 13 July 2025

(12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Advantage gambling technique}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2018}}

[[File:Edge sorting.jpg|thumb|A deck of cards with an asymmetrical back pattern may be susceptible to edge sorting, if the pattern is the same on every card. A card which has been rotated 180 degrees (here, the third card from the left) will become visibly distinct from one which has not.]]

[[File:Playing_cards_modified.jpg|thumb|A deck of face-down playing cards]]

'''Edge sorting,''' also known as ''''edging'''<nowiki/>' is a technique used in [[advantage gambling]] where a player determines whether a face-down [[playing card]] is likely to be low or high at [[Casino game#Table games|casino table games]] by observing, learning, and exploiting subtle unintentional differences on the backs of the cards being dealt.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/what-edge-sorting-phil-ivey-sued-borgata-casino-allegedly-cheated-win-96-million-baccarat-1571442 |title=What Is Edge Sorting? Phil Ivey Sued By Borgata Casino, Allegedly Cheated To Win $9.6 Million In Baccarat |work=[[International Business Times]] |author=Thomas Barrabi |date=14 April 2014 |accessdate=19 April 2014}}</ref> The technique requires the player to trick the dealer into rotating specific, high-value cards so that they are distinguishable from lower-value ones after shuffling.

Applied by poker player [[Phil Ivey]] and subsequently challenged in court by the casino in which he did so, the England and Wales [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] and Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court ruled that the technique, which requires the player to trick the dealer into rotating specific, high-value cards, isbe cheating in civil law, and that a casino was justified in refusing payment of winnings. This ruling would not be applicable if the player simply took advantage of an observed error or anomaly in the deck for which he was not responsible.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/26/what-is-edge-sorting-and-why-did-it-cost-a-poker-star-10-million-in-winnings/?noredirect=on |title=What is 'edge-sorting' and why did it cost a poker star $10 million in winnings? |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |author=Derek Hawkins |date=26 October 2017 |accessdate=25 July 2018}}</ref>

==Technique==

Line 10:

Many packs of cards produced by manufacturers have unintentional, almost indistinguishable edge irregularities. Typically the backs of every card in such a pack are identical, but the two long edges of each card are distinguishable from one another: the back pattern of one card is not symmetrical to another that has been rotated 180° (half a full turn).

During the course of a game, the player asks the dealer to rotate high-value face-up cards, saying for example that they feel it will bring them luck. The dealer, indulging superstition, does not realize he or she is unwittingly orienting the cards such that valuable high cards are oriented one way in the deck and low cards the other way round. The unintentional card edge irregularity thus makes the high or low value of face-down cards apparent to an observer aware of how the dealer has been tricked into orienting them. This orientation will remain so long as the cards are not "washed,", shuffled in a way that rotates them. Thus, the player must also request that the dealer shuffle the cards with an [[Shuffling machine|automatic shuffler]], which does not change the orientation as a manual shuffle might. The dealer is not obliged to comply with any of these requests, but will usually do so if thought to be the result of gambler superstition or mistrust.

Over the course of a game being played this way, low cards will tend to be oriented one way, high cards the other. Once a significant proportion of cards have been rotated, any player who knows this can gain a statistical edge more than outweighing [[house edge]] by using the knowledge whether the card to be turned is likely to be low or high.<ref name=PAMAG>{{cite webmagazine|url=http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/04/14/borgata-poker-star-phil-ivey-cheated-edge-sorting/ |title=Borgata: Poker Star Phil Ivey Cheated Us Out of $10 Million Using Edge Sorting |publishermagazine=Philly[[Philadelphia Mag(magazine)|Philadelphia]] |authorfirst=Victor |last=Fiorillo |date=14 April 2014 |accessdate=19 April 2014}}</ref><ref name="BaccaratProTips 2023-06-05">{{cite web |url=https://baccaratprotips.com/baccarat-edge-sorting/ |title=Baccarat Edge Sorting |last=Wilson |first=Greg |date=2023-07-05 |accessdate=2023-07-01 }}</ref>

==Legality==

In 2012, poker player [[Phil Ivey]] and partner Cheung Yin Sun won [[US$]]9.6 million playing [[Baccarat (card game)|baccarat]] at the [[Borgata]] casino in [[Atlantic City, New Jersey]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/how-advantage-players-game-the-casinos.html|title=How 'Advantage Players' Game the Casinos|newspaper=The New York Times|first=Michael|last=Kaplan|date=29 June 2016|accessdate=29 August 2018}}</ref><ref name=CNN>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/casino-sues-poker-champ-phillip-ivey/ |title=Atlantic City casino claims poker champ Phillip Ivey cheated to win $9.6 million |publisher=[[CNN]] |author=Haley Draznin and Sho Wills |date=13 April 2014 |accessdate=19 April 2014}}</ref> In April 2014, the Borgata filed a lawsuit against Ivey and Cheung for their winnings.<ref name=CNN/> In 2016, a Federal Judge ruled that Ivey and Cheung Yin Sun mustwere required to repay US$10 million to the Borgata. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman ruled that theywhile Ivey and Sun did not commit fraud, butthey did breach their contract with the casino. He found that they didby not abideabiding by a New Jersey Casino Controls Act provision that prohibited marking cards. Although they did not mark the cards, theyusing usedthe tiny imperfections in the cards to gain an advantage qualified as an illegal advantage.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2016/12/poker_pro_phil_ivey_ordered_to_repay_10m_to_atlantic_city_casino.html|title=Poker pro Phil Ivey ordered to repay $10M to Atlantic City casino|newspaper=NJ.com|access-date=20 December 2016}}</ref>

Later in 2012, Iveythe was[[Huffington Post]] reported{{by whom?|date=Octoberthat 2021}}Ivey to havehad won £7.7 million (approx. $11 million) playing [[Baccarat (card game)#Punto banco|punto banco]], a version of baccarat, at [[Crockfords (casino)|Crockfords casino]] in London. Crockfords refunded his £1 million stake and agreed to send him his winnings but ultimately refused payment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/phil-ivey-poker-champion-_n_1951012.html|title=Phil Ivey, Poker Champion, Denied $11.7 Million Payout From Punto Banco Card Game|date=9 October 2012|author=Ron Dicker|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]}}</ref> Ivey sued them for payment but lost in the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] of [[England and Wales]]; it was judged that the edge sorting was "cheating for the purpose of civil law".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29543448|title=Top poker player Phil Ivey loses £7.7m court battle|date=8 October 2014|publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref name=Guardian/> It was accepted that Ivey and others genuinely considered that edge sorting was not cheating, and deemed immaterial that the casino could easily have protected itself. The judgment observed that Ivey had gained an advantage by actively using a [[croupier]] as his innocent agent rather than taking advantage of an error or anomaly on the casino's part. Ivey appealed against the judgment but was unsuccessful.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-player-loses-appeal-against-london-casino-over-77m-edge-sorting-win|title=Poker player loses appeal against London casino over £7.7m winnings|first=Nadia|last=Khomami|date=3 November 2016|accessdate=29 August 2018}}</ref>

He further appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|UK Supreme Court]] (see ''[[Ivey v Genting Casinos]]'')<ref>{{cite web|title=Poker Pro Ivey Goes All In at U.K.'s Top Court Cheating Case|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-13/poker-pro-ivey-goes-all-in-at-supreme-court-over-cheating-case|publisher=Bloomberg|accessdate=25 September 2017}}</ref> which also decided in favour of the casino. All five justices upheld the decision of the court of appeal, "which dismissed his case on the basis that dishonesty was not a necessary element of 'cheating'."<ref name=Guardian>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/25/poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-over-77m-winnings-from-london-casino|title=Poker player loses court battle over £7.7m winnings from London casino|last=Grierson|first=Jamie|date=25 October 2017|work=The Guardian|access-date=25 October 2017|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>