blonde poker forum

Got greeeeedy...

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=77912007

Hi-tech spy technology gave poker gang a winning hand
MELVYN HOWE
 
POKER cheats who used James Bond-style spy equipment to pocket an estimated £250,000 from casinos were caught only after staff could not explain their extraordinary run of luck.

Yau Yiu Lam and his two partners in crime repeatedly preyed on London casinos using miniature "up-the-sleeve" cameras and virtually invisible earpieces to chalk up a string of spectacular wins.

In the scam, Lam filmed cards being dealt by the croupier. The footage was beamed to an accomplice in a van equipped with video recorders and monitors. The secretly shot images were played in slow motion so the cards could be identified as they were laid face down on the table. The vital information was then relayed to a hidden microphone worn by the third gang member, Bit Chai Wong, a seasoned player, sitting at the poker table.

Police believe the gang targeted six of London's 25 casinos, making £38,000 in one week alone. "These casinos have suggested they may have experienced losses of as much as £250,000 from this scam," Detective Inspector Darren Warner, of the Metropolitan Police, said.

But their success proved their downfall.

In the early hours of one morning in September 2005, staff at the Mint Casino in Kensington became suspicious about Wong's apparently extraordinary run of luck. Out of 44 "plays", she lost only ten - well above statistical odds - and the police were called in.

Lam, 45, Wong, 39, and Fan Leung Tsang, 41, who was positioned in the van, appeared at London's Southwark Crown Court yesterday.

Derek Mather, prosecuting, said the scam revolved around three-card poker and identifying whether the cards the croupier dealt himself constituted a better hand than those given to the player.

Once staff realised they were being cheated and then saw Tsang's white van parked outside the casino's Silver Room bay window, they lost no time in contacting the police.

Wong and Lam were the first to be detained and their hi-tech equipment was seized.

Officers then knocked on the van's door, but before Tsang opened it, he tried to destroy the secret footage of the evening's play. Despite his efforts, police experts were later able to piece some of the film back together.

Further incriminating material was recovered from the trio's addresses, including what appeared to be a dry-run tape where the cheats were clearly trying to work out the best position for their hidden camera.

Lam, who pleaded guilty to one count of "cheating at play" under the 1846 Gaming Act, was sentenced to nine months. Tsang and Wong were also given nine-month prison sentences but suspended for two years.

In addition, they were ordered to carry out 150 hours' unpaid community work and were forbidden from entering any casino or other gambling club for the next 24 months.

The judge, Geoffrey Rivlin, QC, told the trio, all from London: "The method actually used by you could never have been conceived at the time parliament passed this act, for, in order to carry out this cheat, you made ingenious use of hi-tech microelectrical equipment."

He said the result gave them a "virtually foolproof advantage" to walk away with thousands of pounds.

The judge, who was dealing with the gang only for the Mint Casino offence, went on: "The crime of cheating at play may well be over 150 years old, but as has been demonstrated in this case, it is still alive and kicking.

"The offence you committed was obviously a carefully planned and executed crime."

The judge ordered the forfeiture of the van and all the technical equipment seized.

Outside court, Mr Warner said he believed this was the first hi-tech sting of its kind in the country; it had allowed the gang to cheat at least one casino out of a significant amount of cash.

Normally, offences of this type were extremely difficult to prove, he said, adding: "It is the only time, as far as I am aware, that people carrying out such a cheat have been arrested red-handed. It is a first."

Information from Mint and five other London casinos that he refused to identify suggested losses of up to £250,000, although the night they were detained, Wong's poker successes had put only £3,520 in her pocket.

Michael Hoskins, director of security for Mint's owner, Stanley Casinos, said: "The arrest and conviction of these people show that the police and casino security industry working together can, and will, prevent this type of attempt to defraud our industry.

"I am particularly pleased that our crime prevention systems were tested and were successful in detecting what, for the UK casino industry, was the first success against this type of electronic theft."

People say poker is a game of *luck*. It's NOT. It's PART luck, PART camera and man in a van.

Read about this in the paper last week - its the quote above that makes me laugh. All gamblers beware, don't ever experience a "lucky streak" in a casino otherwise you will find yourself spending a night in the cells!! :D

how did the casino make a loss? surley it would be the players, and the casino still making a profit from rake???

Funny you say that a couple of years ago a friend of a friend had a run of luck at Star City casino playing 3 card poker, he won a rediculous amount in a very short time whilst drunk.
Security came and grabbed him (there was an almighty struggle :D) and he was taken to a back room for several hours while they went thru the security tapes.
Needless to say there was no problem and they released him, the thing is they are allowed to do this!!!!

Talking of coming and grabbing him, I read an interesting article by a legal eagle a few years back, just as the railways and London Underground were clamping down on fare dodgers. Try to get past the turnstile without 'a valid ticket' and they will apprehend you there and then until the police came. The legal eagle pointed out that for a citizen to detain another citizen like this is done so on extremely shaky legal foundations, and if they don't have just cause or cannot demonstrate it, they can get very seriously done. You a passenger and they a station manager who suspects you of wrongdoing doesn't cut the mustard with a court if they have you up against a wall because they think you're at it. Similarly: a casino thinks you're on too good a roll (it will happen to anyone who plays a lot at least once) and they decide to 'detain you' while they check it out, on a 'hunch' which subsequently just turns out to be a lucky streak? Er, I think no. I suspect a guy walking past my house is the guy who peed on my roses, excuse me while I tie him up in my porch while I check out the CCTV. People in the UK still have some rights, I think...