More details have emerged in Borgata’s lawsuit against poker legend Phil Ivey, his supposedly accomplice Cheng Yin Sun, and card manufacturer Gemaco. Ivey (pictured) and Sun are being accused of using a technique known as “edge-sorting” to make off with $9.8 million at the baccarat tables, while Gemaco is being sued for producing the flawed cards that allowed the pair to gain the statistical edge over the casino.

According to the lawsuit, Ivey contacted Borgata in April 2012 with a list of demands for playing a session of high-stakes baccarat at $50,000 a hand. Those demands included a dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese, a purple deck of Gemaco playing cards, a pit to himself, permission to have a guest at the table, and use of an automatic shuffler.

The lawsuit details that Ivey played four sessions in 2012, all of which went exceedingly well for the poker pro. In April of that year, he played for 16 hours and banked $2.416 million and in May he played a total of 56 hours, taking home $1.597 million. In July, he was allowed to up his maximum bet to $100,000 per hand and walked away with $4.787 million.

But Ivey’s most interesting session came in October, just as the Crockfords casino in London announced that it was withholding his £7.8 million win at Punto Banco due to suspicion of cheating by “edge-sorting.” Borgata officials claim they questioned Ivey about the incident, to which he responded that he was “disgusted” and was tired of speaking about it. He then said that he planned to sue Crockfords (pictured) for the winnings.

Borgata allowed him to continue playing, but now says that Ivey proceeded to lose up to $2.7 million back to the casino on purpose in order to make the cheating seem less obvious.

Gaming lawyer Maurice VerStandig believes the case against Ivey and Sun is dubious at best. “Edge-sorting falls somewhere between card counting and weighted snake eyes – and the law is yet to figure out just where,” he told PokerNews. “There is no real precedent for cases like this.”

VerStandig highlighted as ridiculous the unusual claim by Borgata that Ivey used the casino’s own shuffling machine as his “cheating device.” “The suggestion that a casino can be fraudulently induced into dealing a card game with its own cards, equipment, and personnel is seemingly fantastical,” he said. He also pointed out that the casino agreed to all of Ivey’s terms in advance.

While he believes that the Borgata’s case against Ivey and his companion doesn’t hold much water, he believes the casino’s suit against card manufacturer Gemaco, with its lack of quality control, is valid.

“Borgata lost just under $10,000,000 to a player who exploited this lack of uniformity; law and reason alike support the suggestion that Gemaco likely acted negligently and breached a warranty or two along the way.” In fact, he believes the suit against Ivey and Sun only serves to water down the “otherwise robust pleading” against the manufacturer.

US District Court Judge Noel Hillman has already told Borgata’s lawyers that the suit needs to be cleaned up before proceedings can continue. Apparently, the casino’s legal team failed to identify Ivey’s home state, only saying that he was a “citizen of the United States currently residing in Mexico.” The lawsuit made the same generalization when describing Sun’s state of residence.

But, while these errors have been pointed to in the poker media as a blow to Borgata’s case, VerStandig said, “The flaws that led to this specific order are both common and hyper-technical.” Even so, if the suit is not amended before April 24, the judge will be forced to throw it out.

Want the latest poker headlines and interviews? Follow PocketFives on Twitterand Like PocketFives on Facebook. You can also subscribe to our RSS feed.