Content deleted Content added
→Is edge sorting cheating?: rearranged |
→Legality: Linking unfamiliar term "croupier" |
||
| (100 intermediate revisions by 60 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.]]
'''Edge sorting''' 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.
==Technique==
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.
Later in 2012 he was reported to have won £7.7 million (approx. $11 million) playing [[Baccarat (card game)#Punto banco|punto banco]], a version of baccarat, at [[Crockford's]] casino in London. Crockford's refunded his £1 million stake, but refused payment of his £7.7m winnings.<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=2012-10-09|author=Ron Dicker|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]}}</ref> Ivey sued them for payment, but lost in the UK [[High Court of Justice|High Court]]; it was judged that the edge counting was "cheating for the purpose of civil law".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29543448|title=Top poker player Phil Ivey loses £7.7m court battle|date=2014-10-08|publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/08/top-poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings Guardian newspaper:Top poker player Phil Ivey loses court battle over £7.7m winnings, 8 October 2014]</ref> It was accepted that Mr Ivey and others genuinely considered that edge sorting was not cheating, and deemed immaterial that the casino could easily have protected itself. Critically, the judgement pointed out 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.▼
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 magazine|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 $10 Million Using Edge Sorting |magazine=[[Philadelphia (magazine)|Philadelphia]] |first=Victor |last=Fiorillo |date=14 April 2014 |accessdate=19 April 2014}}</ref><ref name="BaccaratProTips 2023-06-05">{{cite web |url=https://baccaratprotips.com/baccarat-edge-sorting/ |title=Baccarat Edge Sorting |last=Wilson |first=Greg |date=2023-07-05 |accessdate=2023-07-01 }}</ref>
==Legality==
In 2012, poker player [[Phil Ivey]] and partner Cheung Yin Sun won [[US$]]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 were required to repay US$10 million to the Borgata. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman ruled that while Ivey and Sun did not commit fraud, they did breach their contract with the casino by not abiding by a New Jersey Casino Controls Act provision that prohibited marking cards. Although they did not mark the cards, using the 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,
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>
==See also==
* [[Card counting]]
* [[One-way deck]]
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{blackjack}}
[[Category:Gambling terminology]]
[[Category:
| |||