A Deeper Look at the Borgata Lawsuit Against Phil Ivey

The Borgata’s civil lawsuit against Phil Ivey has the entire poker world talking, and the story has gotten enough attention that it has gone viral, and is being reported on just about every news and gossip site on the Internet.

Read the list of mainstream outlets that have covered this story compiled by F5 Poker.

In my initial write-up on the story I laid out the reasoning behind the lawsuit by the Borgata, and why they may have a case against Ivey. However, the case has quite a few holes in it, not to mention that most people talking about the story are misconstruing certain aspects of the story.

What is the Borgata accusing Ivey of?

It seems to me that people are oversimplifying the matter into a cheating/not cheating debate. But as we know casinos are constrained by such terms –in blackjack card-counting is not considered cheating but it is still a violation of the casinos house rules.

This seems to be a very close analogy to what the Borgata is alleging Ivey is guilty of.

Whether Ivey technically cheated is a moot point in my opinion, as cheating is somewhat of an arbitrary term –especially if you ask Bill Clinton.

For instance, if you asked me if Ivey cheated while playing Baccarat at the Borgata I would say no. On the other hand if you asked me if Ivey violated the Borgata’s house rules my response would be, I don’t know.

It’s also true that Ivey doesn’t have to be found guilty of cheating to lose the case, so the debate over whether he cheated or not doesn’t seem overly important. You can go to the ATM and receive $10,000 instead of $10 without committing a crime, but if you keep the money you have in fact committed crime.

What is important in the Ivey vs. Borgata situation is whether or not Ivey broke New Jersey gaming laws when he edge sorted –and precisely how he accomplished this seems to be the crux of the case –premeditation and whether he agreed to play the game fairly seem to be the main points of contention.

As I brought to light in my previous column, the NJ laws are fairly clear that any tactic that corrupts the randomness of the game is prohibited –by either the house or the player– and seems to be highly contingent on the player’s intentions:

“Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards… which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which … tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.”

The Borgata’s claim doesn’t seem to be one of outright cheating, rather that Ivey did not participate in the game in good faith, as is called for under New Jersey laws, and as the Borgata requires under its house rules.

The cases

Aaron Todd of CasinoCityTimes.com did an excellent job of laying out the case for Phil Ivey.

There are several really strong arguments in Ivey’s favor, most notably that the Borgata agreed to Ivey’s terms, Ivey never physically touched or altered the cards, and the Borgata paid him out. Todd also makes the more existential argument about what would happen if even with the edge Ivey still lost.

While I don’t agree with all of his assessments, it’s a good read, and lays the foundation for what Ivey’s defense will likely be.

The opposing viewpoint was somewhat taken on by deadspin, who did a good job describing why Ivey may have violated New Jersey gaming statutes (the comments section of the column is also enlightening).

And of course you can also read my write up from this weekend for more information on why Ivey may be guilty in this case based on the reading of New Jersey’s statutes.

Other factors at play

We also have to consider that this is a civil case, this is not a criminal case where Ivey must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case you only need to be just over 50%, which is why if this matter went to trial neither side would be feeling overly confident in my opinion.

There is also the matter of who has jurisdiction over this case. As this article demonstrates, this case may be a local matter and not a federal matter (the Borgata filed their complaint in federal court) based on where the parties reside.

Play Now

100% up to $3,000 Bonus

Bovada is our most recommended ONLINE CASINO and POKER ROOM for US players with excellent deposit options. Get your 100% signup bonus today.