If this is true, then it changes my mind about the casino being responsible (quoting from this article: [old link~tb]
Through his friend Sun, Ivey would ask that the flawed cards be dealt a certain way due to superstition. The dealer was then given instructions on how to turn the cards as they were being dealt. The lawsuit cites this dealing method enabled Ivey to arrange “good cards” in a way that allowed him to gain an unfair advantage.
That to me is different from just noticing on his own that the cards are flawed. Actually having an accomplish with him to instruct the dealer on how to deal the cards, and then saying it's because of "superstition" is disingenuous at best. I remember reading elsewhere that his "accomplice", Cheng Yin Sun, actually asked the dealer for these specific cards, but I can't remember where I read that; will have to find the source later if I can.
I suppose you could say the casino still has some fault because a) they should have known the cards were flawed through some type of auditing or inspection process of the equipment, and b) allowing the player to dictate how the cards were dealt, but still, as I said, if the above is true, then it is pretty suspect, and I'm not going to buy the "superstition" excuse.