Court Case Between Borgata and Phil Ivey Continues To Stretch Out

Published on October 21st, 2016 9:11 pm EST

Phil Ivey - 2016 shot - headphones, gray shirt, open neckThere is one clear winner in the ongoing battle between the Borgata and Phil Ivey, and that is the lawyers for both sides.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman issued a 30-page decision pertaining to the battle between the Borgata and Phil Ivey. The ruling, which was a complicated one, left both sides with a win and both sides with a loss.

Let's refresh you on this case - more than four years ago, Ivey and an associate walked into the Borgata to play high stakes Baccarat. In return for agreeing to wire a substantial amount of money to the casino, the Borgata agreed to five terms, including the use of a shoe of purple Gemaco playing cards and the use of a dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese.

Over a multi-month period, Ivey and his associate won over $10 million from the Borgata. Around this time, Borgata learned that Crockfords, a casino in the United Kingdom, was withholding roughly $10 million from Ivey due to allegations of "edge sorting". The Borgata believed that Ivey had perpetrated a similar scheme against them and sued for their money back.

With "edge sorting", a player takes advantage of an improperly cut deck of cards in order to gain an advantage on the casino. Thanks to a deck of cards being improperly cut, the design on the back becomes asymmetrical. Ivey and his associate asked for certain cards to be turned around, which allowed them to know if a card that was face-down was within a certain range. By doing this, Ivey and his associate gained an advantage over the casino, which was exploited to the tune of over $10 million.

Both the Borgata and Crockfords have argued that "edge sorting" is the same as cheating and that Ivey's winnings should be forfeited. Ivey, on the other hand, has argued that "edge sorting" is legal and that the casino and card makers should be held responsible for their own ineptitude, and that the job of a professional gambler is to legally push any possible edge.


In his ruling, Judge Hillman stated that:

1. Ivey and his associate had not committed fraud

2. Ivey and his associate had breached their contract after not complying with the New Jersey Casino Control Act


In short - this case is going back to court, as, according to Judge Hillman, the court "must decide whether Borgata's contract-based claims premised on CCA violations are viable, and if so, whether Borgata or Ivey and Sun are entitled to judgment on those claims."

So - this case between the Borgata and Ivey will continue to be battled out in the courts for the time being.

Source: - Federal judge gives split court opinion on Phil Ivey's $10M baccarat win over Borgata


Filed Under: Poker Legal Issues

Related Articles