blonde poker forum

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/05/breaking-news-phil-ivey-suing-crockfords-casino-for-7-8m-14945.htm (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/05/breaking-news-phil-ivey-suing-crockfords-casino-for-7-8m-14945.htm)

it's long since known that gambling debts are unenforceable.

good luck to him, but he'll never win. best hope is they pay out to avoid court.

You are joking right?

Gambling debts are completely enforceable as long as the transaction that caused them was legal.

I remember reading about this last year...they basically accused him of cheating but after interrogating staff and going through CCTV could find no evidence if I recall.

pretty sure if he had a receipt and they have no proof he was doing anything wrong they would be foolish to go to court...how bad will the publicity become if a casino is seen to refuse to pay out winnings with no evidence of wrong doing...could be very bad for Genting.

although of course there could be far more to this story than we are being told.

Yeah I've been hauled up for this on these threads before. Last Labour Government made them enforceable.

*ahem* that'll be why I'm a lapsed lawyer then not an actual one. oops. apologies.

I can vouch for that.

No wonder he is so good at poker, he can read the back of cards. Live cards are rigged like online :( I quit this game.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323122/Gambler-won-7-8m-reading-cards-How-tiny-flaw-deck-design-given-poker-star-upper-hand.html

Crockfords Casino point of view.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/crockfords-casino-hits-back-in-77m-fight-over-winnings-with-top-gambler-phil-ivey-8626545.html

Regards

M
 

Even if Ivey had noticed the flaw and taken advantage... so what? Casinos fault for putting on the game surely.

Unless they're about to contact everyone who had played and lost when there were imperfect cards and offer them refunds then I don't see how they've got a leg to stand on.

^^^^+1

lol he allegedly manipulated the cards to take advantage of the design flaw.  In the Gambling Act cheating is described as

....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, or

(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

thats pretty wide but could very arguably include what Ivey is accused of.

If the casino's story is to be believed he is certainly a cheat and doesn't deserve a penny.

True, they should pay up for this reason. I still question Ivey's morals though. It's pretty close to stealing.

More so than when a bad player sits down in a cash game?

As far as I can tell the casino were offering him a game where he had an edge (if all this is true of course) and he took it.

Sorry could either of you explain a) who should get refunds and b) why should they get refunds?

Well, if the casinos argument is "the cards were marked therefore the game wasn't fair so we're not paying out" then surely they should also be refunding the losses of anyone who played in this "unfair game"?

Do you actually know the rules of Punto?

Only vaguely. Not a game I play.

well the rank of the card could be written on their backs in fluorescent green and the punter wouldn't be disadvantaged in any way.

Yeah, but if they're going to withhold winnings then it essentially means they're freerolling. Keep the money if they win, make money anyway if they don't.

ok so no contacting everyone for refunds then?

Getting back to Ivey - he allegedly with the help of his companion contrived to manipulate the orientation of favourable cards, so that he would be able to see if he was going to be dealt a favourable card.  If he was, he would increase his bet.

The allegation was not merely looking at the back of a marked card, it was "interference....with the process of gambling" and that is cheating and illegal.

Whether the casino deserves what they got or even if they were freerolling is another matter, but if the facts as set out are to be believed, Ivey doesn't deserve a penny.



 

I still don't get it. If cards were marked surely its at least 1 deck that is marked and at best he could identify that 1 of the 52 marked cards are about to be dealt? And with the cards in the shoe he can only see the back of the top card when he bets. How is it possible to cheat?

The theory:

The cards are assymetric in some way.  His companion persuades the dealer to rotate the nines and eights so the edge displaying the assymetric characteristic is at the bottom of the card.  The cards are stacked in an auto shuffler after the deck has been dealt so the orientation doesn't alter.  The assymetric characteristic can then be seen on the bottom edge of the card if it is a 9 or 8.  To know your first card is a 9 or 8 would be a huge advantage.  Even if you were only right 50% of the time it would still be an edge.

Due to a "superstition"  of Ivey the cards were apparently dealt before he placed a bet making the reading of the backs easier, and the manager was asked to leave the room because he was bad luck.

more fool the casino for allowing any of these things to happen

They free rolled him - simple! Now pay the man his money

What's simple about it?

If someone went in to a shop and purchased 100 cans of lager but scanned a 99p pair of socks x100, does that mean it's acceptable because he 'got it through'?

It was won by deception. Granted, it's a 'Casino' but whether you like or dislike their business ethics, it's still legitimately protected by law.

The casino willfully disregarded their own rules and safety measures because the guy was going to be paying for their xmas party by gambling with millions of pounds! More fool them!

Yes.

He openly cheated, but the Casino should pay out to a cheat because they humoured a high profile poker player with 'superstitions' i- n no way infringing upon the security or fairness of the game - but for the fact that unbeknownst to them they had a stock of decks fraught with minor print errors. To the unfair benefit of the player.

Given the fact that Ms Sun is a known cheat and is barred from a number of US establishments also somewhat implies that it was calculated, and irrespective of the fact that they pandered to his whims, it's still cheating.

Just like murder is still murder, regardless of who what why where and when.

pretty brave statement in open forum

There seems to been many things in PI favour here - could it also be that  he got lucky?

How are they even going to prove that the deck used on the night is the one they produce in court? As soon as ivey left the table they lose that arguement id imagine

How has he cheated? If it's as reported, he's not marked the deck himself. He's played the game as it was presented to him, and he's encouraged the casino to modify the game which they were happy to do. It's turned into a +EV game for Ivey and now it's all boo hoo, so unfair.

If on the other hand he's bribed the dealer to change the rules or rotate cards or anything else, then fair enough, go to jail.

Ivey is a private punter, a gambler man who hopes to win V the house.

He took advantage as a private punter and got lucky v a big corporate monster.

I'm sorry Genting it's not Ivey who is the problem it's the folk you pay to make your business work.  

Genting should be embarrassed whining over a winner because they dropped the ball.

Regards

M

That is the only way he wins - on a technical argument that the casino agreed to cash his chips and send him his winnings.  They should have actually sought to have him prosecuted for cheating if they felt that had happened.  Having said that, if he hasn't been in the UK since the incident, he might actually be arrested if he returns - which would be a lol.  

Surprised Genting didn't pay straight away.

Also surprised they didn't sue the card manufacturer.

But most of all I'll be very very surprised if Ivey wins, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue.

Must be the first time anyone has ever said that bit in bold. Ever.

That's the Chuck Norris of poker you're talking about.

I'm looking at a cardback with poker stars written on it.  Obv if I rotate it poker stars is upside down.  There was not necessarily an error in manufacture, just an assymetry in design.

I don't understand why it's so confusing an issue.

If an ATM pays you out wrong, you're obliged to pay back the money.

If you're paid out via a Casino because there was an overpayment, or because the fairness and integrity of the game was compromised, legally speaking it is considered as deception/theft and they are able to recover this money via legal channels.

The only difference is that people seem to think that simply because it's a casino, they deserve to be cheated.

Is that the general consensus, in essence?

huh?

The back of every card should be exactly the same.

I was on Ivey's side until I heard he was getting all 4 cards exposed before he placed his bet.

I though he was just looking at the top card and betting one way or another based on that.

If it isn't cheating, it is walking very close to the line.

TBH I don't care who wins. I certainly don't like casinos much, but I don't like Ivey much either.

He was allegedly asking for some of the cards to be turned around "for luck".  So if he was asking for 8s and 9s to be turned around, as alleged, then he knows which they are if the words "poker stars"* are upside down.   

They also alleged he insisted on using the electronic shuffle which would mean once the 8s and 9s were upside down they would remain so.

* or whatever the asymmetry was in this case.

Pretty much this.  If everything everyone has said is right it seems that he did everything in his power to tip the scales in his favour and use his sway as a high roller to ensure he wasnt discovered earlier.  I don't have much sympathy for a casino that allows any of this stuff to happen but you can see how it did.  I am not overly keen on the business ethics of casinos overall but I am not sure Ivey is any better tbh.

Wish i could post my thoughts...

Brings back scandal memories. Can't believe it's been 5years since the bf sng scandal, 8 years since the Stan James hendonmob one.

wow

Test your memory. Who won the hendonmob overall league in that year, it's first in existence. Close friend of yours is a clue

Jamie i remember when he went to vegas

His prize was trip there and seat in a satellite to the 5 diamond (very winnable tournament that) we had only got back from Vegas about 3 weeks prior to this.

Amusing story one night on that HM trip he had got a tad wasted and found himself outside his room with no key, he walked to the house phone on his floor and called reception, they said security would be along in 15 mins. Obv at this point you sigh and go down to get a new key, not Jamie, he called them back not 30 seconds later and said "don't worry ive kicked the door in, no need for them now"

Obv within 2 mins security were at the door letting him in :)

Superb

can someone remind me of the golf story wasn't Ivey involved in that one to? Was he the one being cheated? And of so didn't he refuse to pay up - or was that someone else?

Had Spillane on the phone every day for about a week.

"do you know who this DubaiMill ***** is? His name is David Shallow."

"He's trying to screw us over!"

I got screwed lost a 75/25 to win it hu. I was young and naive, if that was now I'd have been no offers 3/4 handed after a more subtle route than I tried to take

Presumably Ivey is entirely blameless in this, and this whole sorry episode is down to all the bad things Stars have done?

The story was Ivey misled Ram Vaswani and Marc Goodwin about his handicap and smashed them at golf.  Goodwin walked off before the end of the round and refused to pay, Vaswani finished up but not sure if he paid.  There was a thread about it on here at the time that apparently Ivey posted on lol

Really?

Probably not him  http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=19569.msg400682#msg400682

Could have been him until the "Reagrds, Phil" ending.

Doubt that's how he rolls.

Was posted from Spain, and has a hotmail address.

If I was a gambler, I'd say ts not him.

I was thinking more 'the goal posts have been moved'

What's your opinion on the Punto scam, James?

LOL yes, that too.

If an ATM pays you out wrong you are obliged to return it to the bank? Think I'd prefer to die than do that.

nice thatcherite attitude

And if it underpays you?

Are the banks going to give back our money?

Would go ape shit.

Yes. I requested £500 but the machine gave me £300 and ate my card.

Bank sorted it no problem.

What about if like in greece they jus decide to take 30% of savings just because they think it is a good idea? What about the billions they already took from the public to bail them out and pay their fat cat bosses millions in bonuses for not doing a good job. Will these monies be given back?

That was the Government, I believe, they simply used the Banks as the instrument to implement.

As Tikay said that was the government not the bank.

And when the banks get re-privatised they should make that money back - they 'could' even make a profit, obviously it could get screwed up and the government makes back a bit less then it paid - but the value of them not going under will more than make up the difference if there is one.

Yeah I know, they still handed over money to the government which was not theirs to give tho so not to far fetched. just a flippant point about the little man getting screwed in many different areas and not alot can be done about it. It was a good point about the casino contacting all losers in punto to give them their money back but doubt it will happen.

The law is the law, & the law obliged them to do it, they did not have a choice.

It had nothing to do with the banks.

The "little man" does not do so badly, one way & another.

It was Cyprus and was abandoned.

I read that if you left your money in a Cypriot bank for 10 years and then you'd faced the levy you would still have done better than someone who had left his money in a UK bank for 10 years.

The Cyprus banks were busto

The deposit guarantee scheme covered up to €100k

Those with over €100k lost money, just like they would in the UK (£80k deposit guarantee)

Mantis could derail an orbiting planet

I think this goes out of the window when you, the Casino, change the game yourself.

If I come to your casino and successfully persuade you to take all the 4s and 5s out of your blackjack shoe, we are now playing a modified game which you agreed to. If I play and win, it's no use going "Waaahhh, it's all so unfair" afterwards.

The "fairness and integrity of the game" was compromised BY THE CASINO!

Oh God, I've just had a terrible flashback to the "overpaid by the bookies" thread.

How long ago was that? 2007?

how about the tall anon overpaid by the vic thread

That's just the one I was thinking of.  

The same people who whine about poorer people getting hand outs are the first ones who reckon the banks/casinos owe them and are happy to screw them if possible.

A few weeks ago the ATM outside work was paying out double. You asked for £200 and it gave you £400. Within a few minutes the queue snaked around the carpark, it looked like a big conga and there was a fun carnival atmosphere.