Hubbry Logo
Edge sortingEdge sortingMain
Open search
Edge sorting
Community hub
Edge sorting
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Edge sorting
Edge sorting
Edge sorting
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A deck of cards with an asymmetrical back pattern may be susceptible to edge sorting, if the pattern is the same on every card. A card which has been rotated 180 degrees (here, the third card from the left) will become visibly distinct from one which has not.

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] The technique requires the player to trick the dealer into rotating specific, high-value cards so that they are distinguishable from lower-value ones after shuffling.

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 the technique to be 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 2016, a Federal Judge ruled that Ivey and Cheung Yin Sun were required to repay US$10 million to the Borgata. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman ruled that while Ivey and Sun did not commit fraud, they did breach their contract with the casino by not abiding by a New Jersey Casino Controls Act provision that prohibited marking cards. Although they did not mark the cards, using the tiny imperfections in the cards to gain an advantageous qualified as an illegal advantage.[7]

Later in 2012, the Huffington Post reported that Ivey had won £7.7 million (approx. $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]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Edge sorting

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Edge sorting is an technique primarily employed in card games such as and punto banco, where players identify subtle, unintentional asymmetries or imperfections in the edge patterns on the backs of playing cards to determine whether a face-down card is of high or low value. This method relies on manufacturing variations in card decks, particularly those from brands like Gemaco, which can create distinguishable differences between the long edges of cards when viewed from the side, allowing skilled players to sort and track valuable cards (such as six through nine in ) without physically handling the deck. To execute it effectively, players often request specific conditions, such as using a particular deck and having the dealer rotate cards 180 degrees during dealing—typically under the pretext of —to orient the cards for edge visibility. The technique gained widespread notoriety through its use by professional poker player and his associate Cheung Yin Sun, who applied it in high-stakes sessions in 2012, winning £7.7 million (approximately $10 million) at London's Crockfords Club casino and $9.6 million at the Hotel Casino in Atlantic City. In both instances, the casinos withheld the winnings, alleging cheating, leading to prolonged legal battles; the UK ruled in 2017 that Ivey's actions constituted cheating under the Gambling Act 2005 by unlawfully altering the game's conditions, even absent overt dishonesty, while the U.S. case against was settled out of court in 2020 for an undisclosed amount after initial judgments favored the casino. Legally, edge sorting occupies a gray area in , viewed by courts as a form of advantage play that exploits procedures rather than traditional like marked cards, prompting worldwide to adopt countermeasures such as more symmetric card designs, automatic shufflers, and stricter dealer protocols to prevent its use. Despite the controversies, proponents argue it demonstrates exceptional observational skill, blurring the lines between legitimate strategy and impropriety in gaming.

Overview

Definition and Principles

Edge sorting is a technique employed in , primarily in card games such as and , where players exploit minute manufacturing imperfections on the backs of playing cards to identify whether a face-down card is of high or low value. These imperfections arise from inconsistencies in the printing and cutting processes, creating asymmetrical patterns along the edges of the cards that are imperceptible to the untrained eye but discernible with careful observation. Unlike traditional , which relies on probability and memory, edge sorting leverages physical defects to gain predictive information about card identities, thereby shifting the odds in the player's favor without altering the cards themselves. The core principle of edge sorting hinges on the exploitation of non-uniform card backs, where decorative patterns extend unevenly to the edges due to imprecise tolerances. In ideally produced decks, card backs are symmetrical with white borders to mask such flaws, but in defective decks—often used in casinos for cost reasons—the patterns reveal subtle differences when cards are rotated or viewed from specific angles. Players identify "edge markers," such as elongated or shortened motifs on the long edges, to categorize cards into groups; for instance, in , distinguishing high-value cards (typically 6 through 9) from lower ones is sufficient, as these determine critical outcomes like player or banker wins. This method requires a deck with consistent defects and minimal to preserve orientations, allowing players to track cards across multiple hands. To implement edge sorting, players subtly influence the dealer's handling of cards during the initial sort or cut, often by requesting specific rotations under the guise of —such as asking for cards to be turned 180 degrees if they are "lucky" or aligned in a certain way—without revealing the strategic intent. Once sorted, the asymmetrical edges enable identification during , enabling informed betting decisions; for example, wagering heavily on the player hand when a high-value card is detected in the . The technique can yield a significant house edge reduction, with estimates suggesting up to a 6.76% player advantage in under optimal conditions, though success depends on the defect's visibility and the game's rules. This form of advantage play occupies a gray area between skill-based strategies and manipulation, as it uses observable casino-provided materials without external aids.

Historical Development

The concept of edge sorting, involving the exploitation of manufacturing asymmetries on the backs of playing cards to identify high-value cards, traces its origins to 19th-century discussions of cheats and protections. In his 1891 book Baccarat Fair and Foul, Professor Hoffmann described various manipulations in , including techniques that relied on card irregularities visible from the edges, highlighting early awareness among game protectors of such advantage plays in European casinos. By the mid-20th century, literature on detecting explicitly addressed edge-based card identification. Frank Garcia's 1977 work How to Detect Crooked , Marked Cards and Loaded Dice (2nd edition, pages 101–103) outlined methods for spotting and countering irregularities in card edges that could reveal values without marking, emphasizing their use in table games like and . Similarly, Bill Friedman's 1982 Casino Management (page 44) discussed protective strategies against "first-card knowledge" exploits, indirectly referencing edge imperfections as a known in casino operations. The technique evolved into a formalized advantage play method in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, as increasingly used mass-produced card decks with subtle flaws. While not newly invented, edge sorting gained practical refinement through gamblers targeting specific card manufacturers, such as those producing asymmetrical patterns on long edges, allowing players to sort decks pre-deal for an informational edge of up to 6% in . This development was driven by broader advancements in advantage play communities, where such exploits were shared discreetly to avoid countermeasures like card rotation or borderless designs.

Technique

Card Imperfections and Identification

Edge sorting relies on subtle imperfections in the backs of playing cards, which create asymmetrical patterns that can distinguish card orientations when viewed from the edges. These defects typically arise during the or cutting process, where decorative elements—such as repeating motifs of circles or diamonds—are not perfectly centered or aligned, resulting in one long edge of the card displaying a different proportion of the pattern compared to the opposite edge. This variation is the same for all cards and is often imperceptible when cards are face up but becomes identifiable from the side when cards are oriented differently. The identification process begins with selecting decks known to have exploitable flaws, such as those produced by manufacturers like Gemaco, whose cards featured a purple-backed design with white circles that were asymmetrically cut. Players request the use of these specific decks, often citing preferences for brand or color. During the play of initial hands, after cards are revealed, the player collaborates with an accomplice to instruct the dealer to rotate targeted high-value cards (6-9 in ) 180 degrees during collection—framed as a about card orientation or "good luck"—without alerting the to the intent. Low-value cards (A-5 and 10-K, scored 0-5 in ) are left unrotated. This rotation alters the edge presentation based on value: when the card is later dealt face down, the player observes the exposed edges (typically a small portion visible in ) to determine if the asymmetry matches the "high-value" orientation. shufflers, which preserve card facing and rotation, ensure the orientations carry through the , allowing repeated identification without reshuffling disrupting the setup. In the 2012 Borgata case, and accomplice Cheung Yin Sun exploited Gemaco cards' defects to identify 6-9s, resulting in a player advantage of approximately 6.765% overall, with up to 21.5% on Player bets and 5.5% on Banker bets, depending on visibility and the identified card's impact. In the Crockfords case, a similar method was applied to a different deck with comparable imperfections, where Ivey requested high-stakes private play and specific card handling to facilitate edge observation. The technique requires exceptional and practice to discern differences as small as 0.5 mm in pattern alignment, often under low-light conditions. Courts in both the and have described these imperfections as unintentional variances, not deliberate markings, but ruled the deliberate and exploitation as under gaming laws. Success depends on the defect's consistency across the deck; not all cards or brands exhibit usable asymmetries, limiting the method to certain suppliers.

Application During Gameplay

Edge sorting is primarily applied in games like , where players exploit asymmetrical patterns on card backs to identify high-value cards (typically 6 through 9) without physical contact. During gameplay, the technique begins with the player or an accomplice requesting the dealer to orient specific cards in a particular direction, often under the pretext of to avoid suspicion. For instance, in baccarat sessions, the accomplice communicates in a foreign language, such as Mandarin, instructing the dealer to rotate "good" cards (high values) 180 degrees during collection after revelation while leaving "bad" cards (low values) unrotated, ensuring the edge patterns align consistently for later identification. Once the cards are sorted and placed into the automatic —which preserves their orientation without randomizing rotations—the is prepared for dealing. As cards emerge from the during subsequent hands, the player observes the exposed edge patterns from their position at the table, allowing them to distinguish high from low cards with high accuracy before placing bets. This is particularly effective for identifying the value of the first card dealt, enabling strategic betting on Player or Banker hands to reverse the house edge from approximately 1.06%–1.24% to a player advantage of about 6.76%. In practice, as demonstrated in high-stakes play, the accomplice monitors the edges closely while the primary player, such as , makes large wagers based on the identified card values, often escalating bets on confirmed high-card outcomes. The method relies on the dealer's compliance during the initial sorting phase and the absence of card rotation in the shuffler, maintaining the exploitable throughout multiple rounds until the shoe is depleted. This application requires precise observation and quick decision-making, typically yielding significant wins over repeated sessions without altering the game's rules or using prohibited devices.

Notable Cases

Phil Ivey at Borgata

In April 2012, professional poker player Phil Ivey contacted the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City, New Jersey, to arrange high-stakes baccarat sessions, marking the beginning of a series of visits that employed edge sorting. Ivey, accompanied by associate Cheung Yin "Kelly" Sun, requested specific conditions to facilitate the technique, including a private gaming pit, a Mandarin-speaking dealer, the use of purple Gemaco playing cards, and an automatic shuffler that preserved card orientation. During play, Sun directed the dealer to rotate certain cards 180 degrees based on verbal cues in Mandarin—"beautiful" (hao) for high-value cards (6 through 9) and "not beautiful" (bu hao) for others—allowing Ivey to identify card values from their asymmetrical edges when they reappeared in subsequent deals. This method exploited manufacturing imperfections in the Gemaco cards, granting Ivey an estimated 6.765% advantage over the house's typical 1.06% edge in Punto Banco baccarat by revealing the value of the first card dealt. Over four sessions in 2012, Ivey won a total of $9.626 million from . The first session on April 11 lasted 16 hours with average bets of $25,000, yielding $2.416 million; the second on May 3 spanned 56 hours at $36,000 average bets for $1.597 million; the third on July 17 involved 17 hours at $89,000 average bets, netting $4.788 million; and the fourth in October added $825,000 over 18 hours with $93,800 average bets. Ivey did not physically handle the cards, adhering to standard rules, but the coordinated requests and rotations enabled the edge-sorting scheme without detection during the sessions. Borgata discovered the anomaly after reviewing surveillance footage and card patterns post-sessions, prompting the casino to file a civil in May 2014 against Ivey, Sun, and card manufacturer Gemaco Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of . The complaint alleged 12 counts, including , , , and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, asserting that the edge-sorting constituted cheating under gaming regulations (N.J.S.A. § 5:12-115) by deceiving the dealer and manipulating game integrity. In October 2016, U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman ruled in favor of , finding that Ivey and Sun had breached their implied contract to play fairly and ordering repayment of the full $9.626 million winnings plus $500,000 in accrued interest, totaling over $10 million; however, RICO and claims were dismissed as they did not apply to state-regulated gaming. Ivey appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2017, arguing that edge sorting was legitimate advantage play akin to card counting, as he had disclosed his preferences to Borgata without violating explicit rules or using devices. The appeal process extended into 2020, during which Borgata pursued Ivey's assets, including attempts to seize $124,000 from his 2019 World Series of Poker winnings and filings in Nevada courts. On July 2, 2020, the parties reached a confidential settlement during Third Circuit mediation, vacating the district court's judgment and resolving all related claims, including those against Sun and the Nevada proceedings; specific terms were not disclosed, but the agreement allowed Ivey to resume participation in U.S. poker tournaments without further asset threats.

Phil Ivey at Crockfords

In August 2012, professional poker player , accompanied by Cheung Yin Sun, visited Crockfords Club Casino in , part of Genting Casinos Ltd, to play Punto Banco, a variant of . They were granted access to a high-stakes private room and requested specific conditions, including the use of eight decks of Angel Playing Cards produced by Angel Co Ltd, a Mandarin-speaking female , and an automatic shuffling machine. These cards featured minute manufacturing imperfections on their edges, allowing for the identification of high-value cards (6 through 9) when oriented correctly, providing an estimated 6.5% advantage over the house. During the session starting on , Ivey and Sun employed edge sorting by observing the backs of the cards as they were dealt and directing the , Kathy Yau, to rotate certain cards 180 degrees based on whether Ivey declared them "lucky" or "unlucky," under the pretense of . Ivey did not handle the cards himself but instructed Sun, who spoke to Yau in Mandarin, to ensure the rotations aligned the asymmetrical patterns for later identification from the edges during subsequent deals. They also requested that the same of cards be reused across hands, preserving the sorted order until the automatic shuffler was used only at the end of the shoe. Over two days of play, Ivey staked £1 million and won approximately £7.7 million. Upon reviewing CCTV footage after the session, Crockfords suspected and refused to pay the winnings on August 30, 2012, instead refunding Ivey's original stake. Ivey subsequently sued Genting Casinos in the , seeking recovery of the £7.7 million plus interest, arguing that his actions constituted legitimate skill and did not breach any rules. In October 2014, Mr Mitting ruled in favor of the , finding that edge sorting amounted to under section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, as it interfered with the game's required element of chance by effectively sorting the deck in advance. Ivey appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in November 2016 upheld the High Court's decision by a majority, determining that cheating did not require proof of dishonesty under the objective test applicable to civil claims, though one judge dissented on the need for subjective dishonesty per the criminal standard in R v Ghosh. The case reached the UK Supreme Court, which in a unanimous judgment on October 25, 2017, dismissed Ivey's final appeal. The Court clarified that cheating under the Act involves any deliberate act that improperly affects the game's outcome, regardless of dishonesty, and affirmed that Ivey's coordinated deceptions—such as the rotations and card reuse requests—violated the implied contractual term for Punto Banco to be played fairly as a game of chance. As a result, the casino retained the winnings, marking a significant precedent on the boundaries of advantage play in gambling.

Legality

In the landmark case Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords UKSC 67, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Phil Ivey's use of edge sorting in Punto Banco (a variant of baccarat) at Crockfords Club constituted cheating under section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. The court determined that Ivey's actions—requesting specific card orientations and using an accomplice to identify asymmetrical patterns on card backs—manipulated the dealing process in a way that exploited manufacturing imperfections, thereby gaining an illegitimate advantage not intended by the game's rules. Although the judgment primarily addressed civil contract law, it clarified that cheating does not require proof of dishonesty under the criminal standard, but in this instance, Ivey's conduct was deemed inherently dishonest by objective standards. As a result, the casino was not obligated to pay out the £7.7 million in winnings, and the contract was voided, restoring the parties to their pre-gaming positions. A significant broader impact of the ruling was the overhaul of the test for dishonesty in . The rejected the second limb of the R v Ghosh QB 1053 test, which had required assessing whether the defendant realized their actions were dishonest by ordinary standards. Instead, it established a two-stage : first, ascertaining the facts as the defendant believed them to be; second, evaluating whether those actions would be considered dishonest by reasonable and honest people, without regard to the defendant's subjective belief. This shift, while originating in a dispute, has since influenced cases involving and . In the United States, the federal district court in Marina District Development Co., LLC v. Ivey (No. 1:14-cv-02283, D.N.J. 2016) held that Ivey and his associate Yin Sun breached their implied contract with the Hotel Casino & Spa by employing edge sorting during high-stakes baccarat sessions in April 2012. The court found that the technique violated the Casino Control Act (N.J.S.A. 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b)), specifically prohibitions against using marked or altered cards, as Ivey's requests for card rotation and pattern identification effectively turned the deck into a marked one, providing "first card knowledge" and skewing the odds. Although the casino's claims of fraud and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence of intent to defraud, the breach of claim succeeded because the players failed to adhere to the casino's rules and the statutory framework governing gameplay. The court ordered Ivey and Sun to repay $9.6 million in winnings plus $500,000 in related comps, totaling $10.13 million, to restore the ante. This ruling emphasized that edge sorting, while not traditional sleight-of-hand cheating, undermined the integrity of regulated by circumventing house rules without altering physical equipment. Ivey's subsequent appeals were denied, leading to a 2020 settlement where he repaid the amount, though the core legal findings on breach and regulatory violation stood. A related U.S. ruling occurred in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 309 F.R.D. 157 (D. Conn. 2015), involving Cheung Yin Sun's edge sorting during at in late 2011. The federal district granted summary judgment for the casino, finding that Sun's technique violated tribal gaming regulations under the (25 U.S.C. § 2710) and the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, as it involved improper marking of cards through orientation requests. The denied Sun's claim for $1.148 million in withheld winnings, affirming that such advantage play breached the implied and gaming integrity rules. These rulings from multiple U.S. jurisdictions and the have set precedents distinguishing edge sorting from legitimate advantage play, such as , by classifying it as a form of prohibited manipulation.

Ethical Distinctions from Other Methods

Edge sorting occupies a controversial position on the ethical spectrum of advantage techniques, positioned between legitimate skill-based methods like and illicit practices such as marking cards or using hidden devices. Unlike , which relies solely on mental acuity to track visible card values and probabilities without any deception or alteration of game conditions, edge sorting involves deliberate requests to casino staff—often framed as superstitions—to orient cards in ways that exploit manufacturing asymmetries. This element of inducement has led courts to view it as introducing dishonesty, distinguishing it ethically from pure observational skills. For instance, in the proceedings of , the trial court noted that edge sorting "is quite different from the advantage which may accrue to a punter as a result of counting the cards," classifying it as under civil law due to the manipulative steps taken to fix the deck order. In contrast to outright , which typically entails active of the game's integrity—such as physically marking cards, employing , or deploying electronic aids—edge sorting leverages pre-existing imperfections in card production without any physical tampering by the player. Proponents argue this preserves the game's , as the defects are inherent to the equipment provided by the , akin to how advantage players might exploit procedural flaws like predictable shuffles. However, legal analyses highlight that the technique's reliance on dealer complicity through misleading instructions crosses an ethical threshold by undermining the implied contract of fair play, even if no statutes explicitly prohibit it. The in Borgata Hotel & Spa v. Ivey (2016) ruled that edge sorting breached the Control Act by allowing players to "unilaterally adjust the odds of a in [their] favor," in violation of the essential purpose of legalized . Ethically, some gambling experts equate edge sorting to other forms of advantage play, asserting that it merely exploits systemic vulnerabilities much like or , without violating information symmetry through illegal means. Professional poker author Ed Miller, reflecting on Ivey's cases, noted, "I really see very little difference between what Ivey did and what we did [in card counting teams]," framing both as legitimate gamesmanship against casino-imposed edges like the house advantage in (typically 1.06% for banker bets). Yet, this perspective remains debated, as edge sorting's requirement for specific accommodations—such as custom card sets or language-specific dealers—introduces a layer of potential that pure skill methods lack, placing it closer to ethical gray areas on the advantage play continuum. Analyses from the International Association of Gaming Advisors position edge sorting squarely in the middle of the advantage play spectrum, creating challenging legal questions due to its intermediate nature between innocent techniques and outright .

Countermeasures

Casino Detection Strategies

Casinos employ several strategies to detect edge sorting during gameplay, primarily focusing on behavioral cues and procedural anomalies that deviate from standard play. One key method involves training dealers and floor staff to identify suspicious requests from players, such as repeatedly asking for cards to be rotated or turned in specific orientations, which is a hallmark of edge sorting to align imperfections for later identification. Surveillance teams monitor these interactions in real-time, often using overhead cameras to observe patterns in player-dealer exchanges that could indicate exploitation of card backs. Another detection approach centers on analyzing betting patterns and win rates. Casinos track deviations from expected outcomes, such as unusually high win streaks in games like or , prompting immediate reviews of footage and session data. For instance, in high-stakes sessions, security may flag players who consistently bet large amounts on hands likely to benefit from sorted edges, as seen in investigations following significant payouts. Internal audits, including post-session reviews of card decks for handling irregularities, further aid detection by correlating player actions with any preserved orientations. To enhance detection, many integrate technology and procedural checks. Surveillance systems monitor for anomalous behaviors, such as frequent requests for new decks or specific seating arrangements that facilitate edge viewing. Staff are also trained to note accomplices, like interpreters or associates, who may assist in signaling or confirming card identities without direct manipulation. Once suspected, initiate discreet investigations, reviewing video recordings and player histories to confirm edge sorting before intervening, often resulting in withheld winnings or bans.

Industry Prevention Measures

Casinos have adopted modified procedures to counteract edge sorting by randomizing card orientations during the . A common technique involves incorporating a "turn," where the dealer rotates one half of the divided deck 180 degrees relative to the other half before interleaving them, ensuring that card backs are not consistently aligned for edge identification. This method disrupts the predictability of edge patterns that players might exploit, and it has become a standard practice in many games following high-profile incidents. Additionally, some require all bets to be placed before any cards are exposed, preventing players from adjusting wagers based on observed edges during the deal. To address manufacturing imperfections at the source, the industry has shifted toward using decks with symmetric back designs or uniform borders that eliminate exploitable asymmetries. Cards featuring white borders around the pattern or precisely mirrored motifs on opposite edges make it difficult or impossible to distinguish high-value cards from low ones based on edge views alone. These higher-quality decks, though slightly more expensive, are increasingly adopted by casinos to minimize the risk without altering aesthetics significantly. Technological innovations have also emerged as prevention tools, such as the Shield Card Shoe developed by UNLV student Brittney Martino in 2015 (US Patent 9,895,599, issued February 6, 2018). This patented device fits into standard dealer shoes and uses integrated LED lights to project a uniform color overlay or white background onto the backs of cards as they are dealt, obscuring any edge imperfections and rendering sorting ineffective. The invention, born from a class, aims to provide a non-intrusive solution that maintains game integrity while allowing clear visibility for legitimate play once cards are fully revealed. While not yet universally implemented, such tools represent ongoing efforts to adapt to advantage play techniques through engineering rather than procedural changes alone. As of 2025, additional measures include the use of ISO-certified shuffling machines, which enhance of card orientations to further mitigate edge-sorting risks.

References

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/25/poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-over-77m-winnings-from-london-casino
  2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41751208
  3. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/dishonesty-redefined-as-us-gambler-loses-10-million-uk-lawsuit-idUSKBN1CU24N/
  4. https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/07/phil-ivey-borgata-settlement-37591.htm
  5. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1352&context=mslj
  6. https://www.theiaga.org/assets/advantageplay-schweitzer.pdf
  7. https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/a-few-historical-references-to-edge-sorting
  8. https://www.casino.org/blog/edge-sorting/
  9. https://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-card-trick-alleged-10-million-casino-scam/story?id=44300467
  10. https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article345760.html
  11. https://www.casino.org/news/borgata-sues-gemaco-cards-over-10-million-phil-ivey-edge-sorting-case/
  12. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2021/02/Carr.pdf
  13. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29543448
  14. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29476942
  15. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1091&context=glj
  16. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_14-cv-02283/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_14-cv-02283-0.pdf
  17. https://highstakesdb.com/news/high-stakes-reports/phil-ivey-and-the-20million-edge-sorting-saga-ends-a-timeline
  18. https://bj21.com/articles/law-and-taxes/ivey-borgata-settle
  19. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/67.html
  20. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/ivey-v-genting-casinos-4148.php
  21. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pdf
  22. https://casetext.com/case/sun-v-mashantucket-pequot-gaming-enter-enterprise
  23. https://www.espn.com/espn/chalk/story/_/id/11673834/betting-examining-ethical-line-advantage-play-cheating
  24. https://www.casinomeister.com/blog/what-is-edge-sorting/
  25. https://www.unlv.edu/igi/cgi/innovations
  26. https://cetaskforce.ca/iso-certified-shufflers-mitigating-edge-sorting-attacks/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.