This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advantage.
I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his character. The specificity of the conditions he asked for should have tipped his hand earlier than they did, but the casinos probably treated him like any other baccarat whale.
Hopefully this decision is reversed. I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker.
I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his character. The specificity of the conditions he asked for should have tipped his hand earlier than they did, but the casinos probably treated him like any other baccarat whale.
Hopefully this decision is reversed. I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker.