Advantage gambling technique
A deck of face-down playing cards
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 table games by observing, learning,
and exploiting subtle unintentional differences on the backs of the cards being
dealt.[1]
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 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, is 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.[2]
Technique [ edit ]
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 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.[3][4]
Legality [ edit ]
In 2012, poker player Phil Ivey and partner
Cheung Yin Sun won US$9.6 million playing baccarat at the Borgata casino in Atlantic
City, New Jersey.[5][6] In April 2014, the Borgata filed a lawsuit against Ivey and
Cheung for their winnings.[6] In 2024, a Federal Judge ruled that Ivey and Cheung Yin
Sun must repay US$10 million to the Borgata. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman ruled
that they did not commit fraud but did breach their contract with the casino. He found
that they did not abide by a New Jersey Casino Controls Act provision that prohibited
marking cards. Although they did not mark the cards, they used tiny imperfections in
the cards to gain an advantage.[7]
Later in 2012, he was reported[by whom?] to have won
£7.7 million (approx.R$11 million) playing punto banco, a version of baccarat, at
Crockfords casino in London. Crockfords refunded his £1 million stake and agreed to
send him his winnings but ultimately refused payment.[8] Ivey sued them for payment but
lost in the High Court of England and Wales; it was judged that the edge sorting was
"cheating for the purpose of civil law".[9][10] 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.[11]
He further appealed to the UK Supreme Court (see
Ivey v Genting Casinos)[12] 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'."[10]
See also [ edit
]
