Isn't the ruling above saying just that? Otherwise they're having their cake and eating it too. So which is it?
Now if any other player performed such a task, sure, they're probably able to make a case too. But not every baccarat player met the criteria in this case.
Now rotate some of the cards 180°. Those rotated cards are now distinguishable from the other cards, because the card print is not rotational-symmetric. This rotation is what caused the cards to be marked, even though the printed pattern was exactly the same.
Typically card backs are rotational-symmetric in order to avoid this. However, it seems like this particular pattern had imperfections -- within 1/32 of an inch -- which a trained eye could recognize. (The judge even admitted this as quite a feat.)
The player (Ivey) did not bring, substitute, touch nor coerce the casino into doing anything with the cards. His assistant asked the dealer to flip some cards and he abided willingly, supposedly on behest of the casino to accomodate a whale. They did nothing under the table.
Like most people on here IANAL, but this ruling doesn't seem right, where "right" is the letter of the law.
> Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
Specifically, it seems like the cards were "placed in a condition" and "operated in a manner" which "alter[ed] the normal chance of the game" for Ivey and Sun.
They were marked when Ivy's assistant asked to turn the 9s around 180 degrees.
The design on all the cards was identical; it's not as though face cards had a different pattern on the back. The design just happened to be very slightly asymmetric so that turning the 9 cards served to mark them.
If you were not able to turn the cards, the asymmetric back would provide no information.
But, they did. So the games played with those cards(/unshuffled decks) shouldn't count.
If the law doesn't function in both directions it isn't law, it's codified graft.
But it does appear to be dependent on knowledge, as per the law quoted in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13227445
Ivey and Sun knew how to read the marked cards.
But that's only half the post you linked to... Importantly, the precedent involving the unshuffled deck didn't involve knowledge. Despite everyone's intentions the game was not setup correctly so it didn't count.
If so, then these games (all games with these decks) were also not setup correctly. Either all games with these cards are improper or none are.
And importantly, nothing other than penalizing the casino will change anything. This ruling incentivizes them to leave marks in their cards, dice, etc, and call them out in the future to invalidate any unpleasant results.