This is almost certainly unlawful in the UK. Phil Ivey lost a lawsuit just for edge sorting. Introducing a device is far more obviously dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivey_v_Genting_Casinos

▲

giobox 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd never heard of "edge sorting" prior to this comment, but reading the Wikipedia entry for it, it strikes me that the technique relies entirely on the cooperation of the croupier/dealer coupled with inconsistent printing/cutting of the pattern on the rear of the card?

I've not spent a lot of time in casinos, but I am surprised that given the technique is apparently widely known, dealers are not more reluctant to accede to player's requests to rotate a card for "luck" or "superstition", or whatever other rhetorical device is used to convince.

It also seems like simply taking care in the production of the cards and their backing design would afford a significant degree of preventative protection too. Sure it might drive the cost of a pack of cards up given the extra precision needed when printing and cutting the cards, but this does not seem beyond the resources of a casino.

I'd love to see footage of how Ivey manipulating the dealer into rotating cards unfolded.

	▲	burningChrome 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>>> relies entirely on the cooperation of the croupier/dealer coupled with inconsistent printing/cutting of the pattern on the rear of the card? AFAIK there wasn't overt cooperation with the dealer. Ivy gave the casino a set of rules he would play by if the casino hosted him. He brought a woman who was an expert in reading the miscut edges of the cards. The "cooperation" was that Ivy demanding the same set of cards (the ones his expert was able to read) were not allowed to be removed from play - that was one of his specific demands, the dealer was merely doing what he was told to do by the casino. This is what gave him an edge and allowed him to retain it. By not letting the dealer/casino switch decks to one his expert couldn't read, the casino made the case he cheated. Even though, they took his action on the basis of the demands he made - so had Ivy lost a few million, the casino would be trumpeting that they beat one of the greatest card players. When they got took for a ton of money? Then, and only THEN it seems they refused to pay him and the court case ensued.