The cased that has been in the air for over five years now is taking a different twist. It involves Phil Ivey, who is 2012 won a whopping $10.1 million when playing a mini-baccarat game.Although poker legend Phil had maintained that he did not depend on mere luck when he won the mini-baccarat price, he incorporated wit and skill, The Borgata casino has been argued that he needs to repay the money because of Gemaco, the card developers acted with ignorance.
In what has been seen by many as just a way to get them off the hook, the Atlantic City gaming facility is now claiming that Gemaco is liable for what transpired nearly five years ago that led to Phil Ivey and his partner Kelly Sun win the over $10 million.
While tabling a sample of the cards developed by Gameco, especially the purple cards, Borgata casino now says that the card developer is solely responsible for Phil and partner taking such a huge sum of money from the Borgata casino facility.
It should, however, be remembered that the duo has more than once acknowledged that for them to be on top of the game, thus making real money mobile casino site a real juicy adventure, they employed what is known as ‘edge-sorting.’
Phil and his partner also said that they do not see the need for the gaming facility to sue the game developers because there was not a single defect on the card. They claim that not any ordinary player who enjoys online slots habitually could win that amount of money thus they also applied wit and appropriate skills.
But even as the duo continue asserting that it was within their abilities to hit the high mark, gaming experts agree that dangerous edge-sorters have the potential to identify even slightest and seemingly unnoticed flaws thus gaining an advantage of whatever New Jersey casino that hosts them.
Just late last year, a court in New Jersey ruled in favor of Borgata casino when it ordered the duo to repay the over $10 million that it ‘illegally’ won. During the ruling, the judge observed that Phil and his friend benefited from what they did not take part in. In part, the ruling said, “the duo got took advantage of a game that contained ‘marked parts,’ which they did not even physically see. This was an apparent manipulation to rob the gaming facility.” Following the ruling, it is evident that Phil and his partner knew what could happen.
The court heard that the duo entered the facility and demanded to play a particular Gemaco card game. In making such an informed demand, the duo had the foreknowledge of some little difference between the card patterns, particularly in the back.
The ‘informed’ gamers went ahead to ask a game dealer at the facility to rotate some cards, which they wanted. This gave them a chance to mark the cards they needed.
The duo has appealed against the ruling. If the appeal is successful, The Borgata casino will not stop there but to sue the manufacturer.