Edge sorting: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:20, 2 December 2024

Latest revision as of 23:18, 13 July 2025

(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Advantage gambling technique}}

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

[[File:TarotEdge nouveau - Grimaud - 1898 - Back sidesorting.jpg|thumb|upright|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.

Line 15:

==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 IvyIvey 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 markingan themillegal 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>