Borgata Loses Case Against Gemaco In Phil Ivey Controversy

March 30, 2018 by Natalie Whitehead

The Phil Ivey edge sorting controversy has been in the news for the last few years and has once again made the headlines. This time around the Phil Ivey edge sorting controversy was drudged up again in the media after U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman dropped five out of the six counts that Marina District Development Corp, the parent company of the Borgata Casino brought against Gemaco.

Those who are not familiar with the Phil Ivey edge sorting case will have to go back to 2012 when Ivey and his playing partner Cheung Yin Sun played baccarat and craps which resulted in them winning close to $10 million.

Reports would later surface that Ivey and Cheung used edge-sorting to take advantage of a defect in the cards that were dealt.

Gemaco Playing Cards supplied that defective set of cards and the Borgata’s parent company decided to file a lawsuit against Ivey, Cheung and Gemaco. Judge Hillman had earlier made a decision which forced Ivey and Cheung to return all their winnings to Borgata as edge-sorting is an illegal card counting technique.

There was no ruling on Gemaco at that point of time. Now, Judge Hillman has finally settled the case and absolved Gemaco of all allegations except one. The only claim that Gemaco will have to settle is to replace the defective cards which is the equivalent of paying a little over $25.

Judge Holds Players Accountable Rather Than Defective Cards

The Borgata had brought charges against Gemaco on the basis of negligence but the 27 page ruling from Judge Hillman cleared the company and put the emphasis on the two players. Borgata will most likely move past the final charge which can only fetch them $26.88.

In his ruling, Judge Hillman said

Thus, it is not Gemaco’s cards that were the ‘but for’ cause of Borgata’s losses, but rather all the subsequent required elements requested by Ivey and agreed to by Borgata, each a required and integral part, which together caused Borgata’s losses. It is true that the scheme would not have worked without asymmetrical cards. They were necessary for the scheme. But they were equally insufficient.

Phil Ivey has continued to maintain that he is innocent and never cheated but only took advantage of loopholes to beat the house at its own game.