The case of Phil Ivey versus Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa on the baccarat dispute takes another whole new plot twist after the playing card manufacturer Gemaco reminds the court of a significant revelation that came from Chen Yin Sun, dubbed the Queen of Sorts, and mainly Ivey's sidekick/companion that helped him win $9.6 million at the baccarat tables in 2012.
The Gemaco cards
The Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa admitted (in a response to a countersuit that Ivey filed in the past) that the playing cards used in the controversial lawsuit had been destroyed, explaining that this is a common practice done in casinos. Playing cards utilized in casino operations are regularly destroyed or disposed of in different ways. The used card decks can either be given to customers, sold in their in-house gift shops, or donated to support charities and worthy causes.
The countersuit as filed by Ivey is that he and Chen Yin Sun cannot properly defend themselves when the playing cards in question have been destroyed. However, the Borgata reasoned that destroying the cards is a common practice done in casinos and that the playing cards used were most likely gone (either destroyed or disposed of) before they first became aware of the edge sorting scheme.
The most recent news about this topic was that Borgata emerged triumphant in the case, and Phil Ivey had to find a way to gather $10.1 million right after a judge came to a decision that Phil Ivey and his co-conspirator Chen Yin Sun had tricked the casino and illegally won the money.
On the other hand, Ivey strongly believes he has done nothing illegal, and points out he only outwitted the casino and it was their fault for allowing it to happen. After what seemed like utter defeat, Ivey decided to take the case all the way up to the US Third Circuit Court of Appeal; however, he will have to wait for any development on this as Borgata is still busy with settling their separate dispute with the Gemaco company.
Derived from a classic analytical deduction, the lawyers representing the Borgata casino deemed that if the imperfections on the playing cards of Gemaco were not there in the first place, then Chen Yin Sun would have never been able to use her edge sorting technique, and therefore Ivey would not have won any money at all from that - which highly makes sense.
In case the judge also agreed that Gemaco was at fault here, would that mean that the card manufacturing company would have to repay the Borgata and Ivey is off the hook?
The legal team representing Gemaco John Brennan said that last week they filed to the court a "Responding Statement of Uncontested Material Facts" and an interesting part of it was number 15. The writing on number 15 focused on a statement that Chen Yin Sun said in court, that she can do edge sorting even when the Gemaco's cards are not being used, which means that The Borgata (Atlantic City) and the Crockford's (London) cases could not have been her first times doing the card flaw-identifying technique.
Point number 15 said, "Sun confirmed that she can identify imperfections with any cards, regardless of who manufactures them. Sun further testified that the card manufacturer is irrelevant and that she is able to gain advantage with any card and can pick up imperfections in almost all instances."
The file also suggests that the Gemaco cards have met the standard of imperfection (up to 1/32nd of an inch) as set by the governing body.
If this is true, does this mean Gemaco is no longer obligated to pay, and if so, will that imply that Sun has unintentionally screwed up her partner with this statement of hers?