Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[BangBang]

My take on this is that if Phil Ivey does not get paid it would be a travesty of English law (bearing in mind this is a civil case)

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

Strategy – A Method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem. 

In this case an advantage. 

Also bearing in mind that the casino entertained the whims of Phil Ivey so in their part they were negligent enough to allow a player to gain an advantage/to effectively incorporate a winning strategy.
The casino and it's staff should have been diligent enough on the day/days to spot this before they allowed the player to increase his bet size.

This is an internal matter the casino should pay out and adopt procedures that stop this from happening in the future.

Tal....?

[bobby1]

What are the cliffs on edge sorting please?

[doubleup]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

[doubleup]

What are the cliffs on edge sorting please?

1 Notice cards are asymmetric

2 Arrange the cards so that the "good" cards can be identified by the asymmetry

3

4 profit

[BigAdz]

What are the cliffs on edge sorting please?

Seems that the high cards have a slightly different pattern if turned at 90 degrees. Ivey also asked for the shuffle machine that didnt turn cards back to a standard, as new pack.

All very clever IMO.

As said, he found an edge thats not illegal, so should be paid.

[BangBang]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

So what you're saying is that the host was negligent? Again which is an internal issue not a legal one.  

A person can only interfere with a game if allowed to or not spotted.  In this case the the croupier agreed to turn certain cards which then gave the player an advantage.  

Common sense says that these croupiers certainly the ones that deal to high rollers should be trained in such ways that would avoid the casino losses through negligence of their own.

Is their a croupier that has dealt to high rollers or someone who has vast knowledge on this type of thing (maybe uncommon) to add some information....

[arbboy]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

So what you're saying is that the host was negligent? Again which is an internal issue not a legal one.  

A person can only interfere with a game if allowed to or not spotted.  In this case the the croupier agreed to turn certain cards which then gave the player an advantage.  

Common sense says that these croupiers certainly the ones that deal to high rollers should be trained in such ways that would avoid the casino losses through negligence of their own.

Is their a croupier that has dealt to high rollers or someone who has vast knowledge on this type of thing (maybe uncommon) to add some information....

The bottom line is you would only pander to a high rollers requests to this level and break fixed company dealing policy when it come to dealing games of chance if he was a massive loser long term.  Therefore, imo, when the so called whale is actually 'having your pants down' with his requests, rather than the other way around, you should just pay him and write it off as a bad experience and learn to just stick to the company policy of dealing.  The reality is Genting's lawyers must be virtually certain under the gaming act that technically they will win the case otherwise they would never risk their rep of 'grimming' a high roller which might cost them much more long term than they stand to gain from this case.

[doubleup]

So what you're saying is that the host was negligent? Again which is an internal issue not a legal one. 

If a bank leaves the door and vault open it's still theft to take their money, negligence is irrelevant if a crime has been committed.

[BangBang]

So what you're saying is that the host was negligent? Again which is an internal issue not a legal one. 

If a bank leaves the door and vault open it's still theft to take their money, negligence is irrelevant if a crime has been committed.

Such a bad example it's comical.

This was based on a game of chance in which the edge is in the casinos favor.  The player has used information and persuasion albeit via "Deception" to put the edge in his favor.   

[BangBang]

I actually don't understand the game fully

With this advantage was there a possibility the player could have still lost? 

[redarmi]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

My understanding is that Ivey specifically set out his terms of playing ie. which brand of cards he needed, which dealers etc in advance and deposited and showed up on the basis of that.  They agreed because they were greedy and now that they have lost they don't want to pay.    If they werent so greedy they would have thought about why he wanted those specific conditions but by agreeing and then not paying they were effectively freerolling him and should pay him.  He didn't manufacture the cards, he didn't touch them, he just requested the casino play the game in a certain way in order for him to be willing to play, at very high stakes.  They were perfectly at liberty to refuse those requests and should have been suspicious but they just wanted the whale and it bit them on the arse.  I dont even see how it can be considerded deception.  They bought the cards, they just weren't as observant as Ivey or his associates with regards to their imperfections.  many years ago Billy Walters sent out teams to check results on a number of roulette wheels and found that there was a bias on one.  He went and bet the numbers that were coming up more often and won something like $3m.  Presumably you think he shouldn't have been paid either?

[BangBang]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

So what you're saying is that the host was negligent? Again which is an internal issue not a legal one.  

A person can only interfere with a game if allowed to or not spotted.  In this case the the croupier agreed to turn certain cards which then gave the player an advantage.  

Common sense says that these croupiers certainly the ones that deal to high rollers should be trained in such ways that would avoid the casino losses through negligence of their own.

Is their a croupier that has dealt to high rollers or someone who has vast knowledge on this type of thing (maybe uncommon) to add some information....

The bottom line is you would only pander to a high rollers requests to this level and break fixed company dealing policy when it come to dealing games of chance if he was a massive loser long term.  Therefore, imo, when the so called whale is actually 'having your pants down' with his requests, rather than the other way around, you should just pay him and write it off as a bad experience and learn to just stick to the company policy of dealing.  The reality is Genting's lawyers must be virtually certain under the gaming act that technically they will win the case otherwise they would never risk their rep of 'grimming' a high roller which might cost them much more long term than they stand to gain from this case.

Thanks for the info...

[arbboy]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

So what you're saying is that the host was negligent? Again which is an internal issue not a legal one.  

A person can only interfere with a game if allowed to or not spotted.  In this case the the croupier agreed to turn certain cards which then gave the player an advantage.  

Common sense says that these croupiers certainly the ones that deal to high rollers should be trained in such ways that would avoid the casino losses through negligence of their own.

Is their a croupier that has dealt to high rollers or someone who has vast knowledge on this type of thing (maybe uncommon) to add some information....

This is a different example related to sports betting rather than casinos but it involves a massive high rolling customer at a previous firm i worked for.  He was losing fortunes to us and asked to have a £100k four fold with the following selections:

random Celtic game over 2.5 goals 1/2
Larrson to score at any time (larrson played for Celtic) evens
Man u over 2.5 goals 4/6
Van Nist to score at any time. 5/4

Obviously the bet is massively correlated in that if either player scores the odds on the game going over 2.5 goals is massively increased.  We knew this but he was kicking off on the phone because he had lost so much blah blah and we decided to just lay him the bet on his terms because he was such a big losing whale vip.  The bet won and we could have grimmed him (ala Genting having freerolled him by winning the bet if it had gone south) and said they were related events.  We didn't and Genting should just pay in this case imo whether they can 'legally' win this battle in court or not.

[doubleup]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

My understanding is that Ivey specifically set out his terms of playing ie. which brand of cards he needed, which dealers etc in advance and deposited and showed up on the basis of that.  They agreed because they were greedy and now that they have lost they don't want to pay.    If they werent so greedy they would have thought about why he wanted those specific conditions but by agreeing and then not paying they were effectively freerolling him and should pay him.  He didn't manufacture the cards, he didn't touch them, he just requested the casino play the game in a certain way in order for him to be willing to play, at very high stakes.  They were perfectly at liberty to refuse those requests and should have been suspicious but they just wanted the whale and it bit them on the arse.  I dont even see how it can be considerded deception.  They bought the cards, they just weren't as observant as Ivey or his associates with regards to their imperfections.  many years ago Billy Walters sent out teams to check results on a number of roulette wheels and found that there was a bias on one.  He went and bet the numbers that were coming up more often and won something like $3m.  Presumably you think he shouldn't have been paid either?

I don't have an opinion on whether he should get paid or not.  I am just pointing out why there's a court case.  As far as your Walters example is concerned, the "edge" was there whether he identified it or not.  Ivey's edge only existed when he persuaded the casino to mark their own cards.

 

[arbboy]

Edge sorting cannot be classed as illegal because the accused only used information already in the public forum/casino, which was readily available, so should be classed as Strategy

You obviously don't understand what went on.  Using deception he persuaded the dealer to organise the cards in such a manner that he could tell whether he would be dealt a favourable card and so increase his bet.

One of the definitions of cheating in the Gambling Act:

cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted,

Although this is a civil and not a criminal case, if Crockfords can get the judge to believe that what Ivey did was "actual or attempted deception or interference ", he won't win and might actually be arrested.

My understanding is that Ivey specifically set out his terms of playing ie. which brand of cards he needed, which dealers etc in advance and deposited and showed up on the basis of that.  They agreed because they were greedy and now that they have lost they don't want to pay.    If they werent so greedy they would have thought about why he wanted those specific conditions but by agreeing and then not paying they were effectively freerolling him and should pay him.  He didn't manufacture the cards, he didn't touch them, he just requested the casino play the game in a certain way in order for him to be willing to play, at very high stakes.  They were perfectly at liberty to refuse those requests and should have been suspicious but they just wanted the whale and it bit them on the arse.  I dont even see how it can be considerded deception.  They bought the cards, they just weren't as observant as Ivey or his associates with regards to their imperfections.  many years ago Billy Walters sent out teams to check results on a number of roulette wheels and found that there was a bias on one.  He went and bet the numbers that were coming up more often and won something like $3m.  Presumably you think he shouldn't have been paid either?

I don't have an opinion on whether he should get paid or not.  I am just pointing out why there's a court case.  As far as your Walters example is concerned, the "edge" was there whether he identified it or not.  Ivey's edge only existed when he persuaded the casino to mark their own cards.

 

Is it just me or do other people think Genting's management at Crockford's are brain dead agreeing to these requests?  If i had a customer who wanted to play a game of chance but only with one specific set of playing cards wouldn't alarm bells be going off everywhere in the building and you would be straight on the phone to the supplier asking wtf is going on and to not just think about withdrawing these cards from use in Ivey's game but in all games in every casino?

Given he can't even touch/shuffle the cards personally why on earth would it matter what set of cards was in play unless there was 100% fraud/cheating going to occur?