Not having watched the video of 60 Minutes yet, but having read a lot about Ivey’s activities in this situation, it appears to me that he ASKED for a lot of help to accomplish what he did, and he took advantage of marked cards (that he did not mark, nor any accomplice; they came that way from the manufacturer).
The question, in my mind, is did he “cheat” in doing so, or did he take advantage of the CASINO’s failure (1) to examine the cards adequately before putting them in play, and (2) refusing to continue using a deck when the casino’s own procedures required those decks to be replaced at intervals and (3) refusing to turn cards when requested to do so.
I see this as a case of a casino using weak or improper procedures and violating its own protective policies, in order to keep a high roller happy and playing with an expectation that said gambler would lose, and then not taking responsibility for that, when the violations resulted in the player winning.
Of course, in Vegas, the courts are heavily biased against players, and that may be the case in other places as well. And of course, how the courts rule on a matter resolves the particular dispute, but does not really establish “right” or “wrong.”
–BG
2a. Re: Ivey on 60 minutes
How I would rule if I were the judge might depend on how surreptitious he
was about asking the dealer to turn the cards around. If that was why he
wanted the dealer to speak Mandarin, he lied to the interviewer and the
casinos, but I find it hard to believe that that could be done without
being detected.
···
Ivey on 60 minutes, a lot of info on “advantage play” versus “cheating”