blonde poker forum

Looks like Ivey went on a spin up and they didn't fancy weighing him in.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213888/World-s-number-poker-player-wins-7-3m-nights--London-casino-REFUSES-pay-launches-internal-inquiry.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213888/World-s-number-poker-player-wins-7-3m-nights--London-casino-REFUSES-pay-launches-internal-inquiry.html)

His mother, Pamela Ivey, who lives in Las Vegas, said: ‘He never mentioned it.

It can’t have been very important to him, or  I think he’d have mentioned it.’

Just LOL!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213888/World-s-number-poker-player-wins-7-3m-nights--London-casino-REFUSES-pay-launches-internal-inquiry.html

Ivey bangs a casino for 8figures US$ over a short space of time.

Sure that's never happened before.

This is a massive story, Mainly as Genting are the owners and are massive in UK casinos.

Hit n run players are exactly what layers dont want but 7.3m at 150k a hand is heater and a half over 7 hours.

I would imagine he will be their sponsored pro and shareholder shortly.

All stinks a bit really but if gambling commisssion are involved it cannot be a PR stunt.

or is he just that lucky?

Why no reason as to why thru are with holding it? After interviews they've ruled out collusion so what could it be?

WAl

This is the Daily Mail, if the Leveson enquiry taught us anything it´s that this is almost certainly completely made up.

doubt that - they would get sued till their eyes popped out.

Can't see what possible grounds they have to refuse paying.  The only way to cheat in punto banco would be to completely rig the deck or have staff pay out on losers, neither of which seems plausible.

There are other ways to cheat at punto banco.

enlighten me

 

Yes, but how much did he lose?

You are going to have to take me word for it for now :D  But trust me, do not take bets that there aren't other ways to play it as a +EV game.  FWIW, I 100% don't think Ivey will have been doing this.

i can see 7.3 million reasons.

Having worked briefly as a croupier I would say casino staff have about as much understanding of the odds / probability / luck as the average punter*. Hence I suspect their default position is - How can he have won that much? Thats impossible he must be cheating!

*One pit boss was consistently telling me to change the speed I was spinning the ball "so it hits a different number"

I'm sure the other High Stakes Casino's in London want this sorting asap.

I don't think the worlds biggest gamblers would want to punt if there is drama after a big win.

Regards

M


 

Just had a call from the Daily Mail while I was having a pub lunch to get the obligatory 'expert' (lol) quote on whether Ivey cheated or not. I pretty much said the standard stuff - Ivey is considered the best poker player in the world, poker is a game of skilll and chance, house games are just a game of chance, extreme winning and losing streaks happen all the time in gambling, Ivey is rich.

Now comes the fun sweat - how misquoted will I get?

Oh well, the books going to get a plug either way.

Lol at the quote ' skill free game'

Has anyone been to Crockfords? What's it like? I quite fancy it, but there a few million reasons why I probably can't.

No such thing as bad publicity?

You should have said "please don't talk to me, I'm concentrating on my pub lunch."

Yeah I have beena  few times.  It is pretty classy and they do look after you well.

lol you probably are not gonna get through the door wearing Reebok Classics skippy.

Yup just don't win there

Cliffs: Senior Management of High End casino don't understand normal volatility.

unsure if serious... anyone have any idea how long can they 'legally' withhold winnings?

Deadly serious. Not sure on latter part.

Winning a lot of money gambling then not being able to get your hands on it?

I wonder how that feels for Phil 'Full Tilt' Ivey.

Ivey plays £1mill wins £7mill = Wadey pulls out crumpled tenner on wheel of death fleeces Dtd £70.....same thing

Literally this.

Alot of casino management dont understand (as someone said). A pitboss on a cruise ship once used to believe that if a dice table was losing, changing the dice and putting the ones that had been taken off in the freezer would help. That came from the term "the dice are hot".

Staff also get told off when a table is losing. Even though they obviously have no influence.

Just ridic really

Andrew hits the spot.

As far as I know, casino can simply refuse to pay out and just give the stake back. Can't imagine it's different to a High Street Ladbrokes in that respect.

Gambling contract is void ab initio etc.

Just does untold damage to the reputation of the brand. Market pressures and so on.

Literally not this.

Wadey can win £70 on one spin.

Ivey needs a huge and extended run of luck to win £7 million at these limits.

I think it's very very unlikely Ivey cheated.

But if it was my £7 million I would check out every possibility before I paid out.

We don't know the limits Ivey played. Even at the £100k which was mentioned in the article, he's going to find that mighty difficult to spin up to £7.3m betting on banker or dealer. Some casinos do pay 9/1 on the tie (which brings it down to only a 4% house edge) so betting the tie would mean he would have to get less lucky to get to £7.3m, and it would not be unimaginable.

But really, there's no skill or advantage play in the game - degen's gonna degen.

I read a book which explored the possibility of counting cards at punto banco.

It came to the conclusion it is beatable but you will end up having about 1 bet every 20 shoes.

Try sitting in a casino for 10 hours without having a bet, see how long you last.

I'm not going to claim to pretend to understand what the term in italics means but surely once they've taken your bet they have to pay you out if you win?

You're saying that if I was to put £1,000 on 35 and there's police, judges, jurys, security, inspectors, cameras etc all watching and they've checked the equipment and we're 100% certain this is a valid bet, the casino can accept the bet, watch 35 land, and still decide not to pay out? Surely not...

What seems to have happened here is;

Ivey wants limits upped, casino unsure, Ivey says he's planning on playing for a decent amount, they 3x his limit. He goes on a mad spin, runs up £7.3m profit and decides to call it quits, apparently Ivey is 'notorious' for "hit n running" casinos (lol prolly ridic lifetime loser to casinos) there is rumblings from the top about doing 7.3m over 8 gambling hours and they investigate to try nit out of it.

Seems pretty stnd for me, they hate giving good action casinos/bookies etc

The law has historically treated gambling with contempt, saying that it is immoral and that a contract is unenforceable; it is just a gentleman's agreement. (Ab initio just means that it is a void contract from the second it is signed)

The only legal obligation is to refund the stake.

Nowadays, attitudes are a bit more modern, but I'm not aware of the law changing so significantly as to enable winners to sue successfully.

If it is different for casinos, or if the law has changed in the last 7 years since I finished my studies, fair enough. It does raise an interesting question, of course.

This is why I asked...

Surely the reason gamblars exist is purely because a run like this is 'possible' if theoretically unlikely.

The story of the guy in LV who ran up 10k by playing pool vs a whale, then poker vs the best then dice to 40mil. And blew it all in 18months.

This is the reason they do it isn't it?

Sick to go on such a heater and then casino says "you can't win that much, unlucky".  What if he lost that much???

Interestingly, one of the last cases I studied at Uni said that, as long as you didn't know about my post above at the time you placed your bet, you can ask for your losing stake to be returned.

Now that is incredibly difficult for anyone - let alone one of the most famous gamblers in the world - to prove.

It was all a fair old while back in legal terms, so if anyone knows more about this than I, I would welcome the chance to learn.

I find this stuff fascinating.

Should the law be there to protect people like Mr Ivey in this situation? Should the courts be full of people who have done their proverbial at the Gala between 2 and 4 on Sunday morning, claiming that they didn't know what they were doing, that the machine was rigged and that, had they known the house wasn't obliged to pay out if they won, they'd have stumbled into a different casino/taxi home?

This used to be the case.  The gambling act 2005 changed the law so that gambling contracts are now enforceable.

It's not even that much of a hit is the odd thing. He is a regular punter in a number of Gentings casinos in London.

I see. Fair enough, Doobs. They don't teach you what's happening next year, shamefully, but that is interesting.

I'm surprised it's been refused, even still. Surely they want a guy who will punt that much back in their casino?

Some light reading for you

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/pdf/gambling%20contracts.pdf

I know its already been said but its not difficult to spin £100 to a grand in Punto.....if they are going to let someone sit with £1million at £150k a hand what do they expect?

Or do the rules state you can only leave when you have lost! They let him come back for a second night according to reports!

not really - if you sat down with 10 £100k bets and decided to toss coins against someone with £7m you would win his £7m 12.5% of the time.  Punto Banco has a small edge to the house - if the prob of hero to win was .495 the odds are 6%.

The Mail now claims that the case is going to court.  If this happens, the Gambling Commission upholds the reputation of simiilar institutions as being rubber stamps manned by incompetents.  

When deciding to give a big punter big limits, one of the key things to consider is the player's propensity to lose.

Three players may spin up a big win off you.

One keeps playing until he loses it all back. Another books the win, but loses it back to you on subsequent visits. The third books the win and you never see him again.

Even though the maths and margin are the same in all three cases, you can see which players are the ones you don't mind taking the hit off.

Are you sure your maths is correct?

I'm not brilliant at probability, but I would have guessed it was a lot bigger than 7/1 to win 70 units at even money with a 10 unit starting bank.

If it's the same maths as in the 2+2 thread, and I think it is, it comes from this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin

think about the coin toss example  - it is a zero sum game, to turn the 10 bets into 80 bets must be 7-1. 

After 3000 flips you're about 11.8% to have got the 70 units, 85% to have gone busto.

Yeah sorry for bringing up Wadey as an example as the maths are obv in correct. He never wins and if he ever looks like making a profit then Ali bag o bollocks nips him :)

Ok after a bit of thought, I accept this now.

But are you sure the house edge in baccarat wouldn't decrease this chance by more than you are suggesting?

The house edge is apparently 1.24% - tbh not sure if this is 48.76/51.24 or 49.38/50.62.

If the first the spin-up is 1.24% (wierdly), the second its 4.5%.

For every 101.24 you bet you return 100.

I believe.

Yeah, it would - the edge in baccarat is 1.06% on the banker bet and 1.24% on the player. Betting red/black in roulette (2.7% edge) you'd hit the 70 bet win only about 1% of the time, so I'd guess baccarat would be something like 4-5%

So the second calculation then, so hardly burn the witch time

 

 Also did they increase his limits when he was winning? They don't usually do that.

His limit was originally £50,000 p/box, this doesn't mean he was ACTUALLY betting 50k a box though, surely it's more likely he was betting less initially and trying to press? So when he upped his limits to £150k he prolly had a "roll" of less than £1m and was almost certainly betting LESS than £150,000 p/ box, but was obv betting 150k a box all the time during the majority of the heater up to £7.3m

Either way it's a strange decision to up his limits because he only has £1m (unless they are thinking he'll likely wire more in if he does it, or has been extended credit of some sort) If a guy has £1m to gamble with you're just as likely to get it at £50k a box as you are at £150k a box over a decent amount of time, but way more likely to get whacked for big sums at £150k than £50k

In my experience in online casinos and sportsbooks often when someone has a big win from something with a fairly small probability of happening then something is wrong.  When I first started in the game I would work out the probabilities and then just authorise the payments but people more experienced than me were always suspicious and I thought they were just bad losers etc but over the long run they were generally proven to be correct and I would say on 70%+ of occasions if someone won a lot of money and wasn't a really regular customer they were cheating in some way or there was a software glitch or something like that.  I think the problem in tis case is that Ivey does this all over the world and he is a regular customer of casinos and has no history of this but if his companion was banned from the casino for something and this was his first time there then I can't blame them for being suspicious but ultimately they will have to pay him and he will probably be found to have done absilutely nothing wrong.

How much of PI's net worth do you think £1 million represents? I know pre-Black Friday everyone in the 'know' was talking about him being worth nine figures, but surely nobody believes that anymore.

lol, not even close I'd guess at less than 50.

You really think as much as that?

Didn't he have a divorce ding dong with his ex-wife - there must be some figures in the public domain due to that.

He did. There were lots of stories like this at the time http://www.lvrj.com/news/ex-wife-of-poker-star-ivey-got-millions-in-divorce-settlement-135846023.html

But nothing that came close to giving a sensible estimate of net worth. Not that's it's any of my business, I'm just professionally curious. And nosey. Mostly the latter.

If he's worth less than $100m he's a fool.

As good a poker player as he may be I have always assume that the -EV gambling will catch up with him eventually.  It is probably okay when you have $1m a month or whatever from FTP coming in the door in addition to your poker income to be playing $50k a hand and having $100k -ev sports bets but when that stops you have to be able to slow down and I am not usre he can or has.

He certainly seems to have a level of hospitality offered to him by the Vegas casinos that would suggest he's a favourable customer.

"Life is too easy without craps"

Doubt many punters can borrow the casino's jet to fly over and see their dentist :D

I'll take the unders for any amount at any odds.

I've heard from pretty decent sources he's always going skint Ivey.

There's plenty of room for you both to be right, then.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/16139-phil-ivey-admits-to-noticing-flaws-in-cards-at-crockfords-en-route-to-12-1-million-win



Not sure what to think, is it cheating or isn't it?

I thought not.  But a friend of mine asked me:  If you're walking past a bank and all the windows are smashed and the vault is open are you OK to help yourself to the money?

Im not sure I agree with this as the casino put their money out there to be won.  They're perfectly happy to take your money when the odds are in their favour, but dont want to pay out when the tables are turned.

this would be stealing as it is still the banks property. If a cash machine had a flaw that you noticed if you pressed the £10 and it gave you a £20...you're within your rights to keep it - morally maybe not, but legally I believe you are.

Same with a till, you pay what is displayed, so if a ticket price shows £25 but the till displays 25p, you pay 25p!.  If you knew aisle 4 till was flawed when entering fruit, where would you buy all your fruit from?!

they spend millions trying to prevent people getting anywhere near an even money bet. this is their whole reason for existence, they should obv have to pay out.

if you're playing blackjack and notice what cards come out, you know with your eyes,  should you politely apologise and refuse to keep on playing when there are more big cards in the shoe?

Are you sure about any of this?

Try turning that upside down.

If your friend left a £10 note on his desk at work does the bloke who sits next to him have the right to steal it if your friend turns his back or pops to the loo?

when you go to a shop and they give incorrect change, it's your fault right?

taking 10 quid off someones desk is stealing, someone offering a service as their business and 'doing it wrong' is not YOU going out to steal is it!

If a bank makes a mistake then you still have to pay it back if they ask for it, the amount at the till is slightly more complicated.

It's a contract, both sides have to agree to the terms. If the till says 25p the shop has offered the contract, you can accept that contract but then the shop still has to confirm it's side of the contract - they don't have to, just like if an internet promotion shows completely the wrong price, they can just say no.

I'm pretty confused why people are comparing outright stealing to tilting the odds in your favour - surely the only sensible comparison is to card counting in blackjack?

Exactly, Jon.

But need I remind my learnèd friend of the case of Finders v Keepers?

Hypothetically:

You're playing head up poker against someone you have a small edge over.
They beat you for about $12.1m, and as they are getting up to cash out, you notice that there are irregularities in the deck that you feel they must have exploited.

What would you do? 

As far as I understand it he wasn't CERTAIN to win most hands.

In punto banco you can be dealt a maximum of 6 cards, he was only seeing 4 of them.

A huge edge, but not free money.

lol this wasn't a fortunate happenstance of stumbling across a marked deck.  

Ivey went to the casino accompanied by a woman who was an expert at noticing irregular decks.

He asked for several deck changes

When a suitable deck was found he insisted that it was never changed

His companion asked the dealer in chinese to rotate certain cards "for luck"

After the deck was orientated to his liking, Ivey asked for stakes to be increased and crushed

Agreed, he knew exactly what he was doing.

But so should the casino, surely?

How is any of that relevant?

Everything they did was agreed to by the casino, there was no technological help and it didn't result in a certainty - there was still an element of chance; isn't that the same as card counting (if somewhat more complicated)

In the Gambling Act cheating is defined as

"actual or attempted deception or interference...with.....the process by which gambling is conducted"

Ivey went to the casino with the precise intention of creating a situation where the odds of the game were changed from a small house advantage to a large Ivey advantage by effectively (via his companion) persauding the dealer to mark the cards for him.  That was his plan, there is no point in claiming anything else.

Its up to the court to decide whether this pre-meditated strategy was cheating.

The world of poker has plenty of people who would go out of their way not to take unfair advantage and unfortunately plenty who grab every angle.  But walk a mile in someones shoes etc, so each to his own.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what happened.  As I understood it, there was a manufacturing error with some of the cards and the patterns on the back were not consistant. 

But if there's no point claiming anything else then best just leave it.

do you have any clue at all?

His companion asked the dealer to rotate favorable cards so that the assymetric marking would be visible at the bottom of the shoe and reveal the card when it was next dealt.  He insisted on an automatic shuffler as that would not rotate the cards as a manual shuffle would.

the casino still accepted his requests because they thought they were going to fleece him.

is he meant to not pay attention and look at his own cards or something. clearly similar to card counting in blackjack and not being some kind of thief.

Well whatever lets see what the court thinks - presumably its a flip, as the Gambling Commission would have prosecuted him for cheating if it was at all cut and dried.

So the dealer wasn't marking the cards for him then.

Raise!

I said effectively marking -- you had no clue how the thing worked, so don't pretend you were technically right  ;)

I think if he substantially increased his betting, including asking for the Max to be raised, purely due to the fault then that changes things for me and tips it towards cheating.

To use the cash machine example mentioned, if you go to the hole in the wall, ask for £50 and it's given you £100 instead then you've had a touch.  It's a pretty different spot if you are told about a machine giving out double money and go get in the queue for it on only that basis.  I think the law agrees as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7306289.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7306289.stm)

Call.

Actually did having read a very informative article about what happened (several months ago).  It was the gap between effectively and persuading.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/11/article-2323122-19BB5386000005DC-723_634x499.jpg)

Croupier's arms ridiculously long, and Ivey's resemble those of a T-Rex.

This is a pretty complicated case and could actually be a landmark case for either side.

If it's proven that Ivey went to the casino with the intention of using the flaws on the cards for his personal gain then in my opinion, it's deception and the casino won't have to pay out.

But if Ivey was already at the casino and then noticed these irregularities in the cards and used them to his advantage he won't because it'll be impossible to quantify the amount of money he won using this unfair advantage and he had no intention when he went into the casino to do this.

The Casino has to prove intention which is going to be pretty hard to do.

The case isn't that simple..
 

the casino accepted to up the bets, and to keep moving the cards. it's their fault.

My Personal view is this...

The casino should pay out as it's an error on their side. 

In my black Jack days, I remember how the casino would give me free drinks at the table and even increase my limit while I was completely pissed to get my money..

exactly, it's ridic poor form to try and freeroll him by refusing to pay out. skank fuckers

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/11/article-2323122-19BB5386000005DC-723_634x499.jpg)

So, Don Cheadle was dealt cards by Joss Stone.

Excellent.

It seems that the debate in this thread boils down to 'it isn't cheating if we don't agree with the rule'

How could you even imply this? People have expressed personal opinions like myself, but the debate is still whether it's classed as cheating. Read my first post

"This is a pretty complicated case and could actually be a landmark case for either side.

If it's proven that Ivey went to the casino with the intention of using the flaws on the cards for his personal gain then in my opinion, it's deception and the casino won't have to pay out.

But if Ivey was already at the casino and then noticed these irregularities in the cards and used them to his advantage he won't because it'll be impossible to quantify the amount of money he won using this unfair advantage and he had no intention when he went into the casino to do this.

The Casino has to prove intention which is going to be pretty hard to do.

The case isn't that simple.."

casino's are such nits, you were sposed to have an edge, you didn't suck it up, pay the man and don't let it happen next time.

Ivey's right when he says it was made easier for him because they panda to his every wish to keep his action. The sharks get sharked every once in a while, that's how gambling goes

The Gambling Commission could/would never prosecute any punter or wish to either.

They are concerned with operators acting in a fair and open manner, money laundering from crime and protecting vulnerable people from doing their nuts in.

Both parties in this issue are daft. Ivey took the piss really. 2m he would of got paid straight away and come back next year for another go. But even the mighty Phil Ivey broke the golden rule and went for the golden goose instead of the eggs.

Think Ivey will get his money, IMO.

But if he does & casino pays out £8m + costs, is it not possible for him to claim more through loss of possible interest?

They most def could and would.  Cheating is a crime defined in the Gambling Act.  They are responsible for instituting prosecutions for the crimes defined in the Gambling Act.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you 2xUp, but have there been previous instances where the GC have prosecuted players?

Off the top of my sleepy head, I'm stuggling to think of an example, but maybe I've got memory loss. I'm pretty sure punters &/or poker players must have stolen from Casinos previously though. In fact, I KNOW they have, & so do you. (Not suggesting Ivey stole here, as that's not cut & dried). Did they get prosecuted by the GC?

There have been cases of malpractive, with, say, magnetic devices on roulette wheels, da de da, but if memory serves correct, they faced Legal action & court cases instigated by the Operator, not the GC.

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

Thanks. Guess they just don't use them very often.

None of us know exactly how the GC works, so we must not be overly critical from our comfy armchairs, but I must say, from where I sit, I don't have a deal of admiration for the way the GC goes about it's duties.

Well you had better pucker up cos they'll be licensing all online gambling in the UK in about a year.

A move I approve of 100%, (privately, & wearing a business hat) you may be assured. A wonderful thing.

I'll keep names out of it in case I misremember or the story I was told was embellished.

A well known poker player was in a casino that had seen better days. He liked a spin on the little wheel and had been playing for a while, when he noticed that the wheel next to his had been coming up with a higher proportion of numbers from one section than the others.

He migrated over and, when chance allowed, gave the wheel a close look to find - to his amazement - there was a slight bow in the wheel in one part, probably due to it being near a window and perhaps not used all that often (gives you an idea of the establishment). It seemed enough to justify testing, as it might just be enough to give them an edge.

Sure as eggs is eggs, he and some friends quietly played away and made a very pretty penny from their venture.

Question: in the situation I have described above, has the poker player done anything wrong?

OOh, AlUn B itt.

Great news. Evens he can't resist Posting. Welsh, see.

There are people who say "I'd rather starve than take dole money", but unless they are actually unemployed and skint (and starving) it's a hollow statement. 

Right now I'd say that knowing a wheel is biased is taking advantage, but if I was nearly broke (and the cause of my brokeness was the roulette wheel) my tune would change.


 

Yes

I'm sure your employers are extremely excited about making less money

You might know more about this stuff than most from your editorial days, but there must be hundreds of similar stories about.

Is it different to betting on the One dog at Walthamstow dogs because you've noticed the inside is quicker before the bookies?

Exactly cheating is a criminal offence, this reminds me somewhat of the argument some used earlier on - if he was cheating, why would the casino bother giving him back his original stake?

And part of the reason why it's not clear cut is because this


is not quite true

The Gambling Act specifically doesn't define cheating at all
is a direct quote from section 1 of part of it

The part you quoted also added

In other words - if there was a prosecution for cheating, it would be up to the courts to decide whether what Ivey did constituted cheating - given that a lot of poker players and gamblers don't agree on this point then it shows that it would probably come down to who was personally more convincing in court.

I suspect that's what the court case that is going ahead will come down to as well.

I'd imagine they are bright enough to see a short term negative as a long term positive.

Compliance IS expensive, but has to be good for everybody, impo.

I think it's better to draw a comparison from outside of gambling. It's a bit like buying something in a shop that's marked up incorrectly or taking £100 from a cash machine that is dispensing twice as much. It's not criminal, but pretty hard to argue for it morally or ethically. We tend to rationalise it due to the arms length nature of the thing. We'd never do it to a single shopkeeper, but happy to do it to a multi-national etc.

Vegas guys have a very different view from us on this. They see it as a war between casinos and punters and if you have an edge then fair play to you. I think we, and certainly I, tend to view it more as a business and a transaction. And to be honest our way round is more productive both in the short and the long term from a business and a customer perspective.

I was talking more about paying 15% tax on gaming revenues (I know Sky Bet already pay it on sports betting)

Oh I see, sorry. Same for everyone though.

I don't need to tell you how much the whole industry is growing y-o-y, & especially next door, where the numbers are going through the roof. The important thing is they will have budgeted for it. The business world revolves around budgets. Beat the budgets, the world is fine, miss the budgets (or forecasts as we call them) & the pain is immense.

We must also recognize the role Online Poker plays in a multi-media Gaming site. It does not exist for the reasons most think.

Ahh the quiet joy of the reforecast meeting.

Poker plays a different role at Sky Bet than most companies I would wager. I think casino is where most people are going to feel the pain. Hence the frantic lobbying to try and get it reduced to 10%. A 15% hit on gross revenues could easily put some smaller operators out of business.

Ha? We even forecast reforecasts.

You are right, it plays a particular role next door, though presumably similar to the likes of Wm Hill, Paddy Power etc.

Casino is HUGE these days, the numbers are jaw-dropping, (HUGE turnover, small but gilt-edged return) but we have to remember that Online Casino numbers work in a very odd way. A guy can Deposit & sit down with £10, & he can re-circulate that 20 times in a day, so I'm not really aware of how Tax takes account of all that. Presumably just the final numbers, not every time he re-circulates his £10?

To me, one of the greatest miracles of our society is how attractive Online Slots (or even "Live" slots) are. What an extraordinary thing. Each to their own though. They probably think poker players are equally daft. In theory, the average player probably has less of a disadvantage v the house with Slots than Poker or Sports Betting. Interesting food for thought.

It will be based on hold/gross/whatever you want to call it. In other words what the operator records as gross revenue in the period. As far as I know anyway. Which eventually is everything the player deposits in most cases. One of the saddest phrases in a company's income statement is talk of a "recycled" casino jackpot.

Totally agree on slots. I simply don't get it. Never have, and never will. But they have always been the big revenue driver and (many) customers love them.

A really dull clarification

Doubleup sent me where he quoted from - and I will concede that he didn't do any sneaky journalistic selective quoting. I think the part he quoted was part of the prospective legislation in the Gambling Act whereas what I was looking at were the explanatory notes for the Act and they do seem to contradict a bit. However it's such an esoteric point as I think the conclusion still remains that it will probably come down to the casino lawyers saying, "that's cheating", and Ivey's lawyers saying, "no it isn't"

I just had a look and both the original version of the Act (as enacted) and the prospective version define what cheating means in relation to gambling. And both refer to interference with how gambling is conducted.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/notes/division/5/3/7/1/7

Is where I was quoting from which included the line, "The word "cheating" is not defined "

No, but it is made more clear how it is intended to apply in this specific instance in the act itself

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42/enacted

Yes. But only GC license holders not Joe Public. Here is an example.

Pub landlord is taking bets on a Saturday and laying them himself. I contact commission to complain as its not far from my shop and I was fed up warning him.They can take no action as he is not licensed by them although I am. How dumb is that?

So in essence they can only sanction license holders. I thought I read that they had made a statement that they were watching this case with interest. If the court decides that they have withheld payment wrongly then they will get a sanction or warning on their license. If it goes in their favour then that's the end of it.

The sooner this toothless quango is disbanded the better.

It's such an interesting case though. And I have changed my mind several times debating it with mates, we think it will get settled before court. Not exactly getting it quietly is it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182004/Pensioner-74-ran-black-market-betting-shop-lounge-earning-2-000-day-jailed-18-months.html

described himself as a "professional gambler"

:)

Fun article, hilarious how they make him look in his picture like peadophile/herowin addict in the picture.

Good to see his sentence was longer than that intially given to Stuart Hall :)

wat? 

They have the power to initiate a prosecution of the offences detailed in the Gambling Act.  Cheating is one of those crimes.  Just like the FSA/FCA has the power to prosecute.  It's a power specifically provided by parliament to certain bodies.    How often they use the power is another issue entirely. 

And they most certainly ain't being disbanded as every online poker/ sportsbetting/ casino site will be regulated by them in a year or so.

So much herowin in this thread

Really interested to see how this case turns out

Settled out of court (NAP)

Why do you think it will certainly be settled out of court Alun, they have had plenty of time to sort it and surely Mayfair Casino must not have thought Ivey will have just forgot about the money?

Because neither of them will want to lose and both Ivey and casinos hate negative (or any) publicity. Can't imagine either being super keen to go to court.

Yeah agree settled out of court. Casino will probably settle for between 30-50% of losses imo

50% + is my guess

Pretty surprised they didn't just pay and then ban him.

Publicity so far must be pretty bad.

If just one Arab high roller sees this and is scared he's not going to be paid if he wins and stops playing there it will cost them far more than they are quibbling with Ivey over.

They should have never aired this in public.

Genting Worldwide pls V a Gambler. 

Genting Casino. There in control of the game and the environment.

So a judge asks

Who Supplied the cards, dealers, inspectors, management and security, Everything was down to the house it's private property and they took the chance to take him on.

What are they moaning about!

I really can't see how Genting will win this. They dropped the ball V the wrong punter.

Regards

M

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/champion-poker-player-stitched-up-casino-in-77m-winning-streak-court-hears-9771149.html

Facing a $9.6 million lawsuit from The Borgata, Ivey is now taking his fight public and will appear on 60 Minutes Sports on Showtime on Tuesday October 7. CBSNews.com released a look into the story on Tuesday which provides some insight into Ivey’s expected defense – that edge sort isn’t cheating.

preview of the video at

http://www.bluff.com/news/phil-ivey-takes-on-60-minutes-dan-shak-facing-lifetime-ban-60916/

Although it's a bit shady from Ivey, surely blame lies within the casino? They should have changed the dealer/ deck of cards etc, to control the conditions. Don't let him keep playing to the point of winning millions and then refuse to pay out.

I agree with what you say apart from "Although it's a bit shady from Ivey"

Regards

M

Very hard to see why Genting would ever risk the rep of Crockford's as a high rollers den by not paying out here unless they think they have a cast iron case against Ivey in a court of law.  I agree they should pay.  They pandered to his every whim to suck him in then did their dough on a game of chance with a tiny edge.  Just pay Genting and protect your rep for the high rollers you iron out year after year at Crockford's.  Pretty sure they will win the case though otherwise it would never have gone to court in the first place.  They would have just weighed him in if they had any doubt they would lose.

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....?

What are the cliffs on edge sorting please?

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.

1 Notice cards are asymmetric

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

3 ??????

4 profit

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.

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.

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.   

I actually don't understand the game fully

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

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?

Thanks for the info...

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.

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?  

What sort of money will both sides of spent in taking this to court?

Like it's been said, it's so negative for Genting in the long run, if the whales see that one of the most well known professional gamblers on the planet isn't being paid out and is being taken to court, they have to rethink whether they want to use that casino in the future

How did he persuade them to mark their own cards?  They were already marked when they bought them.  That is the whole point.  They just didn't notice the mark.

Casino Makes its Living Milking Punters with its "House Edge"

Punter is too smart and finds a Legal way to beat the " House Edge"

House Crys Like a Baby and withholds Punters Money    Fucking Disgrace !

Punters shouldn't play in establishment that doesn't pay its debts

This.

FFS   He persuaded them to arrange the deck so that he could identify good cards.  If certain cards hadn't been turned round by the dealer, the marking would have been irrelevant.  So persuading the dealer to manipulate the cards is one of the crucial elements of Ivey's scheme.  

The casino (Genting Group) believes that its employees were manipulated into playing a game that it had not authorised. Ivey believes he asked to play a game with certain rules and the casino agreed.  

I hope that Ivey's lawyers grill the casino about their knowledge of edge sorting and advantage techniques.  If it transpires that they were free-rolling, the Gambling Commission should revoke their license and look into criminal charges.  On the other hand, if Ivey's scheme specifically revolved around persuading a junior employee, the Chinese speaking dealer, to manipulate the cards so that he could make his bets, then he shouldn't be paid and be charged with cheating.

    


  

There is no way, imo of course, that a game of this size the dealer alone would have been allowed to make a decision based on cards being turned around.  The inspection/pit boss plus the camera guys would have definitely have had to give the ok for normal procedure to be broken in dealing the cards in this manner.  There is no way the dealer would have been allowed to do this without far more senior members of staff agreeing to it.  If the dealer was allowed to do this without question then wtf was the pitboss/inspector doing in a game of this size given he/she would have been watching this game exclusively surely with no other distractions?

What really gets me about this is Ivey lives in Las Vegas.  This is no secret.  He can presumably get all the action he wants within a five minute drive of his house.  Did they think he was coming to London with all of the these prerequisites just because he fancied fish and chips for a change?

Where can we watch it?

Think they sent a jet over to collect him from Barca so he could play there.

Agree with you

they didn't think anything at the time , it was merely a desperate after thought and that was to withhold his winnings.

 

Fish and chips, though.

Cryptic, yet predictable a response as this is...never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

I wish people in this thread would stop spouting off about what is and isn't legal given, to the best of my knowledge, most of you haven't got a scooby about the law in this area.

One thing we can agree on though is that morally (pumter vs casino) he should be paid, much the same as if you get hustled etc, the law is something we don't know about but as has been stated i doubt genting would go this far unless they are right.

Sigh

Its a forum where people " are meant to be allowed " to voice an opinion  !

Kill peoples opinions , it kills the thread and kills the forum  !   Is that what you want  ?

Do you have any idea of the law in this area? Or did you just want to end the thread or limit debate?

Agree with the second paragraph...

only ever seen him on TV but one thing i have noticed is that in  the early days of fulltilt he was a cheery happy go lucky soul...now recently he looks a miserable @#@#.

Couldn't really care less if he wins or loses to be honest i'm sure he will struggle to crack a smile.   

#suchahardlife

A lot of the sponsored pro's had big smiles on their faces in the early days of fulltilt.  A few years later we all realised why.

I don't think anyone knows what the law is in this area, not lawyers or judges, as I doubt their has been much case law to back it up yet. Haven't gambling debts only been recovered by law for a short period of time? That what makes it interesting to talk about.

What I meant was can we stop using phrases like 'he won the money legally, pay up' because none of us know.

The interesting debate here is around the morality of it all. If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

So Stop Voicing Opinions In a Forum 

Genius  !

Yeah, I don't have a position on the issue, but I have been wondering how much of the support is cheering on 'us' against 'them'. Also, Ivey is fairly popular. I wonder if a less popular player would get the same support. Would you still be saying that the casino should pay if it was Men the Master or Howard Lederer instead of Ivey? If you would, fair enough. Also it's not just Genting - the same case is going on between Ivey and The Borgata, except it's the other way round, ie they are suing him, as he emptied his account as soon as things started to blow up.

Yup, it is par for the course to "support" the punter against the House, just as we always support the lone punter against those nasty bookies, but we don't really know the facts. We do know that, it seems, Mr Ivey thought he had found an exploitable situation, & tried to exploit it.

Whether that was Legal is another matter, few (none?) of us here are sufficiently versed in Gaming Law to know that.

For sure, Genting would have engaged an army of specialist Lawyers & Compliance experts to advise them. Hard to imagine Genting would have gone to Court, given the costs may be huge, unless they hold the view (as advised by their specialist Legal team) that they would win the case.

It's been said elsewhere (possibly on this thread, probably by Tikay) but I can't believe this is a sensible thing for Ivey to be doing even if he wins. You'd have thought Ivey's reputation would be worth enough to avoid these kind of schemes, because even if he wins, it still makes him look dodgy. Who wants to play cards with someone who exploits marked decks? Do you want Ivey gambling in your casino?

Ivey's a curious character (in lots of ways obviously). He's probably the most famous poker player in the world, but he acts as if he doesn't have a public image at all and is just an anonymous pro gambler/hustler getting it quietly. Occasionally he wakes up and tries to exploit his image (the Ivey League thing, Full Tilt endorsement), then he goes back to doing whatever he wants again.

Thoughts on iveys net worth?

A lot more than mine :D

Could be anything from -$10m to + $200m.  Who knows.

The bolded surely applies to Ivey too? As he said in the cbs interview trailer, its important for him to maintain a clean reputation.

Think Iveys net is probably pretty big, hes a degen but hes not stupid either, it'd take a lot for him to lose all the money ftp gave him, never mind money won elsewhere.

Yes, that's fair comment. (That it applies to Ivey, not his "clean rep").

Don't think it was me, I'm completely ambivelant to the outcome, but I do think it is quite an interesting cause celebre.

In these cases, the great mass of public opinion is always with the punter, of course, which is understandable, but, to me, illogical. We all want Gaming to be fair & just, surely?

Define fair, Tikay? Pit games by their very nature aren't mathematically "fair".

Something that springs to my mind here is this exploit-ability thing. So, we know for sure when we sit down to play a pit game that we are losing money. We are being exploited by the house, but we already know this, and that makes it ok (I'm not disputing this). With Blackjack, for example, there are proven systems which you can find very easily online and basically work out for yourself that reduce the house edge as much as possible. This is us fighting back against the casino, and this is fine because we're still losing to the casino, just not as much as before. They don't ban people for trying to reduce the house edge, they only get pissy when someone actually does, as in the case of Ivey. He didn't mark the cards or anything like that, the casino supplied him with marked cards and then proceeded to allow him to play several sessions with that deck. He has used an advantage that the house has given him. Tbh, it seems like there's been some negligence on the casino's part, and I don't think their case will hold up in court because they provided the means by which Ivey was able to swing the game in his favour.

Exactly....

Casino agreed to bend or break it's own rules so the onus of responsibility (or Vicarious responsibility) is the casinos not the players...

Whether PH lied about his reasons for making the requests he made or not, the casino accepted so the onus of responsibility is internal...

As I said before for it to be fair they should pay PH and admit internal negligence...

He's obv been getting the lot year in year out at poker for a long time.

He was getting huge payments from FTP (like $920k/month) for years.

He has an extremely extravagant lifestyle so a ton of $$$ have disappeared that way.

Has he made any investments?

He divorced not so long ago which must have been a massive kick in the financial goolies.

His gambling stories are only documented to a point - we've no idea how much he's lost (if at all given all these edge sorting things) in the pit.

In short, I've absolutely no idea.

What would be your guess Pads?

About 350

I think around 35.0 million seriously though so wasn't really trolling.

When I read the TFT thread posters can get a bit of stick if they just put up straightforward fancies.

However, bets are well received if people have info the bookies haven't considered. This is classed as a good bet!

Would take the unders for my net at 1.1

+1

Everyone, just everyone has less money than you think.

I would wager Tikay has more money than we think

the lawsuit is 1/3 of 35m though, if people dont think ivey should persue because of his image are the people thinking he has less than 35m then that doesnt make sense to me :D

Seems to make sense to me that he was recruited/used as the perfect front man for an edge sorting team due to his well known degen tendencies. The fact that $x milli is in play in the courtroom doesn't mean it's his own cash

BTW anyone been following the Privateworld threads on 2+2 in NVG?, Implied there that he hasn't got assets worth seizing or the US Govt would be on his case

Yeh, Ivey was defo not playing his own money here, and prolly not in borgata either but then IDK anything about that.

I got told who it was fronting the cash in this spot, actually fairly obvious when you think about it...

Tikay, obv :)

Putting two and two together and possibly getting five but Ivey is cloesly connected to another famous gambler already mentioned in this thread and has fronted for him in the past.  Possible connection here?

More likely the guys he's been bailing out of jail I would think.

Ahhh i thought you meant it was 350mil. I'd take over on 35 too.

""As a professional gambler, my job is to lawfully reverse or reduce the perceived house edge. I consider all the strategies I use to be lawful and I would never cheat in a casino. It is not in my nature to cheat and nor would I risk my reputation by acting unlawfully in any manner."

"My integrity is infinitely more important to me than a big win, which is why I have brought these proceedings to demonstrate that I have been unjustly treated.""

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/Ivey:-It-s-my-job-to-take-down-casinos-_87374/

tilting for Ivey to be going on TV to explain his "edge sorting" technique

I guess he'd have preferred that no-one knew he was doing it lol

anyone like to price up the outcome of the case? I don't want to bet it i am just interested in people's views.  Does anyone make Ivey a fav?  I think Genting have to be a big fav to win the case.
 

Corporates are always going to be a favourite in these cases because they (probably unfairly) tend to get the benefit of the doubt as upstanding corporate citizens especially against a "professional gambler".  Like it or not there is just a reputational advantage for Genting.   I do think Ivey probably has a case though or he wouldnt pursue it.  Maybe 4/9 Genting?

Hope Ivey wins, casinos want to have their cake and eat it.

The guys who filmed the roulette wheel got away with it, so I don't think there is an assumption in the Casino's favour.  It just comes down to whether the law thinks that Ivey made passive use of the agreed game conditions or actively interfered by choice of cards and getting the dealer to rotate them.

Does that we include you?

I think Ivey is a favorite tbh.

Why dave? I am not disagreeing just interesting in your views.

If any reg or known poster thinks Ivey is favourite and would like an even bet PM me.

dont see how the casino will win, they will have to pay out ivey for sure imo! id have £20 on it :D

Careful everyone, chris is a legal expert in this area and is definitely in possession of all the facts, and he's capable of making logical decisions with that information.

Literally none of the above is true.

ha i have no arguments there, but have read the thread, and agree with dave, think the courts will find in Iveys favour

O I'm sorry, that actually does make you an expert. Also, you're not a total dick.

Also, neither of the above are true.

When does the "we" not include the "me"?

Champion poker player Phil Ivey 'stitched up' casino in £7.7m winning streak, court hears

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/champion-poker-player-stitched-up-casino-in-77m-winning-streak-court-hears-9771149.html

When you don't agree with what the 'we' think?

What counts as an Ivey win Joe? Does he have to get all the money or does a settlement count?

If the result is not either:

A) he gets all his winnings
or
B) he gets none of his winnings

then all bets are void.

If anyone wants action then I need a PM with real name, email address, phone number and amount bet. Must be a reg or known player.

As it will probably happen - what about an appeal, Joe? 

Result of this case.

Happy to bet on appeal too later, not sure it will happen though, certainly not a a guarantee here.

Unless there's a very good reason, there won't be an appeal, IMO.

Ivey will do a "Winslow Boy" IMO

Yes, but you have to be able to gain permission to appeal. You can't just go to the Court of Appeal because you disagree. It's also very expensive.

Would expect the parties would agree to be bound by the ruling, unless there were something particularly odd.

Are people cheering on Ivey here?

On a forum full of poker players/ gamblers is there anyone not cheering on Ivey?

Personally, yes.

If he can pull off a coup of such magnitude, and do it in such a way that he is actually aided and abbeted by the very same people who now claim to have been robbed, then good luck to him.

 :hello:

You make a good point, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm certainly not cheering against him.

But I'm not a fan of cheating, and don't think the villain should make a huge difference really. Were we all cheering him on when he found an edge against Ram and Marc?

Plus an Ivey win makes me a bit uncomfortable as a punter. If we accept it's OK tp push the limits of what constitutes cheating against the casino we're sort of accepting it's OK for them to push the limits of what's acceptable back. You may, of course, feel they do so already.

Sorry for the delayed reply, been a bit all over the shop this week.

We both know what "fair" is, surely?

When we engage in a wager (including a House Game) we should be able to reasonably expect the other party to play fair, & pay us our rightful dues if we win, assuming we abide by the Rules. And we'll pay up if we lose.

I want to be treated fairly by Casinos & poker sites. Does not seem unreasonable to me that we behave in kind. 

Go on then...i will shake the hornets nest

what if you were playing poker and another player has sussed out certain cards had certain flaws on the back...would we all feel it was acceptable for them to use this information against the other players

also if Ivey has set out to do this...how can we be sure that on his rise to the top of the poker tree he hasn't pulled similar stunts before.

not taking sides just throwing it out there

@smurf, I think it's different. Using a mistake of the manufacturer / casino against the casino is one thing. Using a mistake of the manufacturer / casino against other players is another.

I think it is definitely shady, definitely unethical and dishonest. But I don't think he deserves to lose the case, or the money.

If the other players had spent years enjoying a built in bias that gave them an unbeatable edge, and then they agreed to a plethora of stipulations regarding which specific cards were used and the way the cards were shuffled and dealt and then they only complained after they had done their dough, then I say again, yes, good luck to him

You say this as if it were some kind of evil enterprise, and not the only legitimate way they could actually make any money from the business. And something everyone, well nearly everyone, is aware of from the outset.

Does anyone agree that it would look more shady if he never sued them?

At least this way, win or lose, he has been transparent in explaining his strategy and will walk away from this with his reputation intact. The book or film royalties could be worth more anyway.

nh PI

I think we are over looking one key question.

Has anyone phoned the police?  /:-|

Being the eternal gambler he's probably thinking along the lines of.....my lawyers are costing me £500k (ok a fictitious figure I know), I stand to get £7 mill, therefore I'm getting 14/1, that must be +EV!  ;woohoo;

That' probably exactly how him and his potential backers in the coup are thinking i would imagine as they are a big underdog to win but probably not 14/1!

Personally I would replace the "we" with a "you"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/boris-berezovsky-roman-abramovich-legal-fees

Tom is right. It's a logical fallacy. Why would you, Mantis,  place a wager that Tikay was worth more than you, Mantis thought?

Well I certainly was because he was exploiting their own larcenous intent having taken him for plenty beforehand and thinking it was going to go on for ever.

I'm rarely disappointed to see anyone hoisted by their own petard.

Apols if anyone has asked this, or, if it's a dumb question.

Just because we acknowledge the Casino has the built in edge, there is no law that states this I presume?

In which case, if Ivey has done nothing that could be construed as illegal, like tampering with cards or forcing the dealer to do something dodgy( which probably are not actually illegal in themselves) then he has broken no law and should be paid.

I've read enough books on MIT exploits etc, but can't recall the answer, but sure card counting wasn't illegal, casinos just hate it, and so I presume this is the same?

As I said, dumb.

This is the thing, none of us know the law. It would be like someone else coming on here and arguing the finer points of a PHA hand whilst all the while not knowing if a flush beats a straight.

Smurf raises a good point, what if a fish in a regular poker game did this to us? Is that ok seeing as we usually win and now he's biting back?

Adz the key here is card counting is a mind skill which cannot be proven is taken place with 100% certain.  Casino management can suspect it all they like but they could never accuse a player on 'cheating' by using the technique.  What Ivey has done is up to debate whether it's cheating or not.  Card counting could never be considered cheating.

I believe in this case the casino will feel their procedures have been broken and they will look to use that as their arguement. The fact the dealer/pit staff agreed to the terms may lead to Genting saying that they were in on the fixing/scam.This is not the first time something like this has happened and wont be the last.
Im not saying it is fixing/scam but I would be very confident in that is part of their arguement. Also surveillance could be involved.
These type of incidents are very common worldwide but its a highlighted case because of the punter involved .

Book still open for a while, case could be decided soon.

Any more Ivey backers (at evens) please PM me real name, email address and phone number plus amount you want and I'll reply to confirm action. Only regs and known players please.

I agree with this regarding the procedures.  Does anyone know if any heads have rolled at Genting for this?  I would imagine numerous people on duty that night would have been suspended/sacked from dealer/inspector/pitboss/general manager upwards for allowing so many bog standard procedures to be broken at such high stakes.

I also think its pointless comparing it to other scenarios, the casino will definately look to procedure violation imo and certain staff may become the fall guys in this case. If a procedure has been violated it does not matter if the pit staff agreed to it, Genting could say they were also part of the team.
My opion is Phil Ivey loses.

Obviously not, ridiculous comparison.

Why are you comparing this scenario with a game of poker, it has no relevance at all in this legal case. I thought you realised that James. Surprised you quoted this comparison to be honest

Joe, what odds are you offering for PI to lose the case?

I'm not

Flushy's point I think is just the morality/ethics of the two scenarios.  The casino's "fish" using suspect methods to fight back is admired by poker players, but the same poker players wouldn't be happy if a fish in their game started to employ dodgy tactics.

 

Was worth a try..  ;)

I wonder what Mark Goodwins opinion on this is lol

Why is it a ridiculous comparison? Other than in baccarat the casino tells us the exact chance of us winning where is in poker we don't tell the fish he is a fish.

Fuck me James, which card rooms have you been playing in? Everywhere I go they fall over each other to tell me I am a fish.

lol in before me  :D

Come to Brighton, we will make you feel welcome.

You will have to buy your own dinner though ;)

Because Ivey is punishing the casino for it's own mistake (using faulty decks/ not being thorough enough, whatever you want to call it).

The poker player is punishing OTHER PLAYERS for the casinos mistake.

So it's ok in a home game then?

I don't really know anything about this legally, I'm just putting m,shelf in the shoes of a judge, who knows little to nothing about poker and how hell look at it;

What are the rules?
Were the rules enforced?
We're the rules broken?

Given that Ivey never touched or deliberately interfered with the deck himself, I don't see how it's fair if he loses?? He asked for so etching and the casino, believing they still had an edge in the situation obliged. Turns out they made a bad call, why Gould they get their money back? Also, however I dont know if the judge will realise this, but obviously the edge Ivey has wasn't exactly massive and the variance of four sessions is still very big, so he could very easily have lost, in which case the casino would have kept his million very happily (prolly wouldn't have noticed)

It's sort of comparable to me playing woodsey heads up at poker, because I know for a fact I make 5bb/100 against him, however turns out woodsey been getting coaching off galfond and is now sick good, so I lose 2bb/100 against him, we play 2000 hands I realise he's better and say "well this int fair is it, you don't get to keep your winnings"

The chance would be a fine thing  ;djinn;

I am in the Ivey corner on the basis that he has exploited information he has figured out to his advantage.  The casino agreed to the parameters set by Ivey and are now calling foul. 

This is like a bookie who makes a palp but lets the bet stand and calls palp if it wins and says nothing if it loses in my book. 

We know the odds at house games such as roulette but we also know the house can and does change the plaingparameteres by changing the speed of the wheel, the croupier the direction of the ball etc etc.  And in the FBOTS the win % is dictated before we start playing and although the payout % is shown we know that certain establishments can and do tamper with the win %. 

Had Ivey deliberately marked the cards, or come into contact with them then one could come to the conclusion that he did somethingwrong but as it stands and with the information known morally he may be upto no good in this situation but in the eyes of the law I find it impossible to lay blame at his door. 

Please tell me you are joking kmac about the bolded statements and it's just a level!  People lose at roulette because you are supposed to.  Casinos/bookmakers don't have to fiddle with the pay out % it takes care of itself.

The bold statements you make are the most tilting statements ever made by degen's in the gambling world that you ever have to listen to who are just looking for someone to blame when they gamble on a product they are supposed to lose at.  Guess what bookies hold % over their whole shop estates for the whole year for roulette across millions of spins are close to 3%.  Why is this?  Because that's the edge they are supposed to have.

Can you also name which establishments you know tamper with the win % and/or where your opinion on this comes from?  Surely not results orientated from your own wins and losses in certain establishments?

The vast majority of mugs don't realise if you put £330 in a FOBT as a starting balance and play £100 a spin every 30 seconds (pretty standard practice on a fobt i would have thought with repeat bet button etc if you are playing max £100 stake a spin) then in an hour if you are skint you have run totally in line with EV.  (120 spins losing the 2.75% house edge per spin).  If you are level you have 'won' £330 effectively compared to EV.  If you play £100 a spin for 3 hours you are supposed to have lost a grand.  You haven't 'run bad'.  The machines are not bent.  That is what is supposed to have happened to your £1000 invested.  (you will have actually invested £36,000 in those 3 hours and lose 2.75% of it or £1000) The thing about FOBT's people don't realise how much their turnover is because you don't ever feed in that much money in real cash terms into the machine because of the churn effect which makes people think they are losing much bigger % of what they stake when they actually are not.

I know your supposed to lose at these games took me a while to realise that as I ran like god on the machines for a while when they first hit the high st bookies. 

As to the bolded part, I'd rather not say but I know of establishments that have messed around with the win % of said machines.  I'm not saying that happens at Gentings but there are unscrupulous mofos all over the place. 

The High Court of Justice in England ruled against Phil Ivey Wednesday, with the judge ruling that edge sorting amounted to cheating in civil law.

Ivey will not be able to collect on the £7.7 million ($12.2 million) he won playing Punto Banco using that technique at Crockfords in London.

BBC News correspondent Angus Crawford provided more details just moments after the ruling was made.


http://www.bluff.com/news/phil-ivey-loses-judgment-in-12-2m-cheating-case-61241/

(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/491256/stream_img.jpg)

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-10-08/top-poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-7-7m-casino-case/

quelle surprise!  The 1.01 on Genting landed with ease.  I wonder what Ivey has knocked out on legal fees taking this to court compared to the upside of winning?

I don't know what the comment "cheating under civil law" means in legalese, but anyone think there is a chance Ivey will be charged with cheating under criminal law?

More interestingly, if you were in charge of Crockfords, would you still take his action?

Course they will take his action as long as they don't have to pander to his incredible list of demands they agreed to in the past.  Doubt he will be in a rush to give them any action though.  He has been massively free rolled by Crockford's though in my opinion.  If he had knocked out £4/5m doing this he wouldn't have been able to take it to court and say the only reason he invested those sums was because he had an edge over them rather than the other way around.  Crockford's might have even known what he was doing and let him get on with it knowing that if he won they would refuse to pay him and if he did his bollocks then they win.  You never know.  You would have to assume Crockford's security guys are close to the best in the business given the sums of money involved in their establishment on a daily basis and might have even known about these cards being marked like this.  VWP to Crockford's if this was the case and having Ivey over on a freeroll.

Interesting also that it was an insta-judgement not a tank-judgement.

Can someone explain to me how using this deck(s) of cards which was not perfectly cut how does that help the player know what card is underneath?  Surely if the cards are not cut correctly during manufacture then all the cards will have the same imperfect pattern on them?  What am i missing here?  Unless the manufacturer is deliberately marking certain cards different to others in which case surely there would be a law suit against the manufacturers from the casinos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JQVfVtpSYp4

I have just watched this Joe hence my question.  I don't get it.  Sorry if i am missing something as i don't know how they manufacture cards but surely if one card is accidently cut incorrectly then it will be totally random and could be the ace, two king etc etc or all the cards in a given deck are cut imperfectly in which case where is the edge unless it's been done on purpose by the manufacturer on certain cards to give players in the know an edge?  Confused!

It's all cards in the deck. By inverting one card, or one type of card, you can identify it before it is dealt. Effectively it is marking the cards.

imagine for the sake of argument that there is a big red blob on one side edge of the cards.  You ask the dealer to turn the big red blob to the left hand side for a "good" card.  He then puts that in the box to hold used cards in that orientation.  So the pack goes into the shuffle machine and the orientation isn't changed.  Then the shuffled pack is put into the shoe.  The red blobs will be visible at the bottom of the card in the shoe, if the card is "good"

Try this video where he goes hi...lo...etc

http://apheat.net/2012/11/30/video-what-is-edge-sorting/

 

So if all cards in deck have the same fault where is the edge for the player?  I still don't get it.

Because the player asked for specific cards to be "turned around"?

Ok i get that now.  ty for the video.  That video is much better at explaining the advantage than the previous one.  Surely a shimmy shuffle in between shoes by the dealer would kill any advantage edge sorting would have (although its obviously time consuming)?   If that is too time consuming just turning part of the deck during a shuffle is easy enough to do with no time lost as well if you suspect edge sorting is being used which they must surely have realised with Ivey at Crockford's.  I assume it's just lax procedures by casino management which allows this to ever happen?

They insist on shuffle machines, I told you above

It isn't lax procedures.  It is deliberately amending procedures to satisfy a customer request.  Go in to a "bottom end" casino which targets getting 500 people through the door and taking £50 off each of them and tell them that you want the roulette dealer to always pass you chips with their left hand.  They will tell you to jog on.  Now go into a high end casino with a $10M facility and make the same request and you'll get it, if that is what you want.  Same chain, same dealer procedure manual.

What high roller is ever going to ask for these procedures to occur without edge sorting being the reason?  This is why i believe Genting might have agreed to it knowing they could free roll Ivey as stated before.

Hi rollers like to feel important.  They want special treatment.  They have their own superstitions.  It is not at all uncommon for a hi-roller to make demands "I only want to be dealt to by females" a frequent example.

No rational reason for it, no edge being sought or gained, just that's how they....er....roll.

Sure i agree with that totally.  However, when they ask for every possible edge sorting tactic surely alarm bells are going off?  Especially when it's the world biggest poker player making them?

For the particular stuff asked for in this case... it points to a very obvious attempt to edge sort.  What level of knowledge the gaming staff had of that prior to this case.. idk.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were security professionals employed by casinos that had never heard of it.  I would have assumed that Crockfords would pay enough to get good employees in.  Maybe they didn't.

Arb...really respect your opinion but can you expand on the above please  ?

Are you saying Crockfords  either won his money in the game or withheld his money if he won... hence a free roll  ?

I am not saying they did.  I am saying if they knew he was edge sorting and knew that they would win a legal case in the UK on anyone trying it on in their casinos that they potentially could have freerolled him in this way.  This assumes they have top class management/security which you would imagine in one of the premier westend punting dens and they knew who Ivey was and wasn't asking for all these things for the hell of it.  I would find it hard to believe when Phil Ivey rocks up at a top casino in London most of their staff don't know who he is.

ok cheers...but the bad publicity obv a negative for Crockfords

It's great publicity for Crockford's imo.  They have shown that cheats won't be accepted in their casino and they will be challenged in a court of law if they try.

Time will tell I guess...I think the opposite to you at this stage but then Im on Iveys side and have a bias against the big boys

guess what hes saying is that they knew what he was doing, and wouldnt have said anything if hed lost, but obviously snapped him off when he scooped. if thats the case, thats pretty ool

I just think it would be really funny if Ivey did get freerolled after shooting Genting an angle like this to try and have them over.  We will never ever know.  It's pretty unlikely he has in the way i suggest and it's probably just down to bad management that the incident ever happened in the first place the way it did.  However, surely these big casino group's security department's talk about things like edge sorting and the legal side of it in every country they trade.  It would be a proper coup for them if they had agreed with their legal team that anyone who attempted it in their casinos would always lose their case in a court of law in the UK and they were willing to let it happen if the punter doing it was staking big enough to give them a big enough freeroll against him.

It's definitely ool but their reputation would always be protected as no-one could ever prove this had happened so they could never lose their repuation.

Biggest level since the Cottingley Fairies. No way you believe what you're writing, arbboy. If you tried submitting it for the plot of Ocean's Fourteen, they'd laugh you out of Hollywood.

Agreed i am not saying this is the reality but a really savvy legal team for a top class casino could easily pull off this risk free coup if the upside was suitably large enough.  Plus imagine the dent to Ivey's ego if he ever found out that he got levelled in this way by a casino when he thought he was pulling off a monster coup.

Ok. I'm in for 10% if I get the Don Cheadle comedy London accent part.

You would be 1.01 for the posh oxbridge type sitting playing roulette on the next table!

Original story published stated he got his stake money of £1million  returned.

thought he had lost the case today

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/08/top-poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings

Well that would pretty high levelling. This is all in hindsight remember?

The most important factor of the whole thing is, as you are saying, is the precedent this ruling may have?

The U.K. Will have the most regulated gambling market in the world in 2 months with many country's looking at how it has happened and trying to replicate it. I think this ruling against Ivey is wrong. GC license states you must operate in fair and open manner and the operator has. The punter has not, I agree, but should be paid.

This ruling says "Come to the UK and punt but please don't win"!

Our chance of being the Las Vegas of the internet has now fkd off for good.

I think it says  "Come to the UK and punt but please don't cheat"!

Agreed.  Don't think it says anything about uk firms grimming punters.  If the court of law had decided Ivey hadn't cheated he would have got paid.

The BBC article I read suggested the judge's comments were that Ivey didn't cheat but what he did meant there was no gaming contract to fulfil. Obviously that was only one source but the impression I got was much more like the first comment rather than the second.

No chance. I've got a very wide range. Don't you read PHA? :D

Ello gavna. We-ah gerrin roit stitched ap nair! Dat weasel's dan ass, ee 'az!

Cheadle, stick to HBO, son. This one's mine.

It fkd off for good when Gordon Brown set the duty at 15% in 2006.  Why do you think they have had to change the law just to get a bit of the action.

btw the judge seems to have made a big point on the dealer rotating the cards.  He makes the point that she wouldn't have done this if she had known that she was revealing information about the cards.  And Ivey and companion duped her into being their unwitting accomplice.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/08/top-poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings

The Guardian has more detail regarding the judge's ruling including this bit:

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.”

bullshit game.

I was presented with some evidence from flushy today which made it seem fairly obvious he would lose, but it's bullshit all the same lol

UL Phil, I think he'll be fine though.

The fact Genting took it to court in the first place?

apparently "changing the parameters of the game" in any way = cheating.

Such BS that he says "turn the cards" they turn, they lose and then they dont pay.

If i went into a betting shop and asked a naive cashier to put 100/1 on a slip that should be 10/1 the betting shop wouldn't pay 100/1 though.

You in for the Matt Damon role, btw?

Tal Casting Ltd open for business

I dont think that is the same.

It's not the same but it's similar.  Ivey is massively increasing the price he is getting on every bet by taking advantage of the naive cashier/croupier.  Genting shouldn't have naive croupiers dealing this game though to balance the argument any more than you would have a naive cashier working the number1 pitch at Cheltenham on Gold cup day when you are laying 5/6 figure bets to the high rollers.

Unsurprising result is unsurprising.

So many anti casino establishment view points. You're blinding yourself from seeing the right and wrong because you have blinkers on when it comes to the 'house'.

As yours is being the house

That's one way of looking at it, Fraser.

You could equally argue, given that the Court ruled, in effect, that he cheated, that the bad publicity is a negative for Mr Ivey's reputation. Casinos chains across the globe will have followed this case with interest, & will now, I imagine, be wary of doing any further Gaming business with him.

Personally, I don't see any reason not to continue to use Genting's various Gaming establishments. (I'm pretty sure you will continue to use them, too!). I'd be very wary of entering into a wager with Mr Ivey though. 

I had to look that up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies


Amazing what we can learn reading random threads.

I'll now have to find a way to throw that into a convo. Might take a while, but I'll get there.

Every salesman in every industry ask naive people to buy over valued products. If some silver tongued double glazing saleswoman shows me a bit of cleavage and sells me £5k of windows that should be £3k should I have to pay?

I don't think that affect the odds in any way, shape, or form, just as "rabbit-hunting" does not change the odds or outcome of a poker hand.

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

Well sort of, yes, ( I don't recall the amount though, I thought it was less than that) but only as a reprisal because, as the story goes, they had been la bit "sharp" with him for some time, & for a considerable amount of money. I don't believe Ivey did anything wrong in that matter, it was just tit for tat really. That matter was eventually settled. If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

The thread has been fascinating. It's really quite something that the traditional "anti-establishment" (or vice-versa, of course) bias colours the judgement of so many of us.

Do we think that Ivey's reputation, as a result of this:

- has improved

- has deteriorated

- no change

? 

Has to be "no change" for me, all things considered. It depends what our view of him was before this case, of course.
 

But everyone has a bias in everything. That doesn't automatically make it wrong. For instance, why not call it supporting the underdog instead of anti-establishment?

IMO his reputation with all his fan boys who he never meets/does business with will have improved because he will be considered a hero.  His rep with any gaming establishment/cash game high roller who he plays with have to have deteriorated to a certain extent in the same way as if i 'pull a stroke' in a betting shop i am going to be less likely to get on in the future.  I think it depends which angle you are looking from.

I also think Ivey was a bit naive thinking he would actually pull this scam off AND get paid in the UK.  It's a double imo.  Firstly, he has to pull off the scam (and win which isn't a certainty but he has much improved odds in his favour) then he has to get paid.  I think he has underestimated the likeliehood of a major UK casino just backing down and paying him and not truely understanding how likely he would be in a court of law in the UK to win this case.

Same thing, really.

I never said (or intended to say) our bias made our view "wrong", I said "it colours our judgement".  It does not necessarily make ir right OR wrong. But it easily can.

The vast majority of those who posted on the thread thought Ivey was the hero, & Crockfords the villain, when the facts, & logic, suggested otherwise. IMO, of course.

I can't think of a good logical reason why, traditionally, we support the underdog, any more than I understand why we happily eat tuna but not dolphin, cows but not horses, rabbits but not dogs.

For the record, I was really not fussed who won the Court case, why should I be?, but I did feel that Ivey had not played fair, & had mischievious intent. He thought he saw a weasel sleeping.   

Indeed, but he seems to be the one with a wet ear

yup.

turns out he is quite sharp...

I really still want to think Genting were sharper, knew totally what he was up to and were willing to take him to court and freeroll him!!

BOOM!


(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01466/cottingley-fairies_1466870i.jpg)

Didn't they wire him his million back ages ago?

Yes

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?

Why did they return it?

Did they return money to everyone who played with those cards?

The case wasn't about the actual cards it was about what Ivey did to the cards to get his edge.

He didn't do anything to them.

Ok what he asked the dealer to do with them.

ianal but I understand that their assertion was that the Ivey's cheating nullified the contract and the remedy for that is to return the parties to the position they were in before the contract*, so Ivey gets his money back.

btw you are putting too much emphasis on the asymmetric cards.  The primary reason that the judge ruled that Ivey cheated was because his accomplice manipulated the Chinese speaking dealer by speaking to her in Chinese and persuading her to turn certain cards when she didn't know the implication of this.

*I have often though that internet poker companies seizing the money in accounts for breaches of T&C is an extremely dodgy practice, I wonder if it will change now that the UKGC are regulating most companies.



 

If you had played any high stakes poker with Ivey or private games etc would you now be left wondering how legit those games were?

The guy seems well connected these days when you look at who he is bailing out, if he can find out one set of cards has a defect can it be a massive price there could be others?

I really can't see why this is so complicated. Genting ran a game which was set up in such a way so that they had an advantage. Ivey/associate asked them if they would make a change which resulted in the advantage lying with them. Genting agreed.

To then say afterwards 'but we didn't know it would lose us the advantage - this nullifies the arrangement between us' is crock. As someone said previously, surely this now means that anyone who has ever played a casino game with Genting who didn't realise that casino games are mathematically biased against them and cannot be beaten with any system or playing style should get their money back. 'I thought it was a fair game - I didn't realise what I was agreeing to'.

*I agree with you ^^^ but...

Apparently UK Casino laws says any action which alters the parameters of game as set out by the casino nullifies the gambling.

I agree it's BS.

Ivey's rep is fine, and I dont think anyone is going to question his integrity in poker games, it wasn't like he had a load of 7's 8's and 9's up his sleeve or was using his iPhone to interfere with the dice or anything, all he was doing here was seeing all the angles and having the balls to take them.

To make that work, several employees (albeit senior and very well-paid employees but still employees, not owners) would have to be willing to lie in court if necessary. A lot of senior employees would know the situation and they would all have to stick to the same story and then be willing to live with the possibility that one of the others would give the game away one day, with the catastrophic effect that would have on their careers and the possibility of going to prison.

Unsurprising result is unsurprising.

I am still amused by how many people are blinkered by their Anti-Casino tunnel vision.

What is a casino? A venue that offers game of chance, which favour the house (obviously - or people wouldn't offer the chance) where upon people stake money for a chance to win more money.

If you think it is unfair that they have the benefit of the house edge please turn around from this conversation and don't participate any further. It wouldn't be a viable business/service if they couldn't make it pay for itself. Same as high street bookmakers or online poker sites.

Ivey played one of these games. The conditions of the game are what they are.

The following things occurred which exploited/abused the nature of the game.

* He took advantage of a misprinted design to an advantage, using his accomplice to spin a story of superstition which was in fact done to manipulate and abuse said flaw.

So please explain to me why everyone is struggling to accept that this is wrong.

If you were playing a cash game with him, and he used this to wipe you out - are you going to sit there and say that it is a completely valid technique?

I don't care if people dislike casinos and see them as a blight on society - but it doesn't change ethics. If it's wrong, it is wrong. It has always amazed me how people seem to thing one up manship is perfectly okay in a casino. E.g a payout is wrong and people think they shouldn't  have to pay it back. It doesn't apply to an elderly pensioner, though.

He played a game of chance. He exploited the game not through a technique requiring brainpower or intelligence, but by manipulating a flaw and secretly and inadvertently exploiting the dealer in to making it easier for him to profit from it.

If he had said from the outset, "Hey. This deck is flawed. Mind if we use it so I can profit unfairly by manipulating information that shouldn't be available to me in this game of chance?"

Would the casino have allowed it to happen? No. And there's your answer.

These same casinos have provided Ivey with a platform to ply his trade and make a substantial living - seems rather knobbish to then try cheating them

Caught out by greed no doubt - he could have quite feasibly played for seven or eight nights and lost on a couple and still made his 7m with out any suspicions being raised if he is that way inclined

If I'd brought the cards and it was my cards we were using then I'd say yes, it is valid. WP him for spotting something I'd missed. Same as if I had a tell I didn't know about - I'd hardly expect him to not use that against me.


'Dude - you totally scratch your nose every time you bluff' - he doesn't have to get my permission to use this against me.

As far as I'm concerned Genting should just have taken their medicine and sucked it up - the guy got one over on us - WP, we were punished because we weren't very good at our jobs, in future we're going to actually check the cards we use.

FFS willl you stop bleating on about the flawed cards - they aren't the reason the judge said he cheated.  In fact if the scheme relied solely on observing flawed cards, it wouldn't have been cheating.

The judge said that he cheated because Ivey's accomplice, speaking in Chinese to the specifically selected Chinese speaking dealer, persuaded the dealer using deception to rotate the relevant cards so that Ivey could identify their rank and that if the dealer hadn't been deceived and knew the true purpose of the rotation she wouldn't have complied.

Although he did ask for a specific colour and make of card knowing they were flawed like in this other case against him

http://www.legaluspokersites.com/news/phil-ivey-seeks-dismissal-of-the-borgatas-9-6-million-baccarat-lawsuit/3607

A tell is your own betrayal.

A marked deck is not. If you lost losing a marked deck and you applauded him for his ingenuity, then I really don't see the point in trying to discuss it with you.

Like I said. If he had explained his intentions at the beginning, the dealer would have said GTFO. Thus, we can recognise there was a deception.!

Whereas the point is pretty good I think there is one fairly big point your missing, and that is that every business, be it a gambling business, a roofing business or a dry cleaners is susceptible to personal negligence, and most of us in the real world have to pay the price if we don't safeguard against it.

Casinos and bookmakers conduct such a natural disdain from people because they operate in a manner to fully exploit (albeit perfectly legally and within the boundaries of there rules which everyone can read/see) mistakes from sir customers but they cry like you can't imagine and refuse liability when it's the oer way.

Again I accept this is all fairly clearly laid out for us all when we gamble against them so it's all fair and fair, but you can't be that surprised when we hear a story of the casinos dropping a major clanger, one of everyone's gambling heros spanking them for a big amount and we all wanna cheer him on!!

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

attempting to get that bet at evens was rediculous anyway

Bet of the year.  Would love to know if anyone actually laid it.

The deck of cards can be as flawed as you want.  Unless the dealer agrees to turn the cards as per Ivey's instructions , ivey has no edge at all no matter how flawed the deck was.

Yes - so he and his companion claim that they're superstitious and the casino indulge their request. Why? Because it's exploitive? No. Because it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and thus there is no harm done to either side.

Unbeknownst to them, Ivey is in fact taking advantage of them.

Like I said - had he said, "Hey. I am going to exploit this flawed deck you have, is that okay?" then the dealer/casino refuse. So we know from this fact that it was wrong.

I've always known it to be a fair environment. They have an inherent edge in their games, so they don't seek to tarnish their reputation by disputing variances or minor mistakes. But if someone openly cheats, they will always refuse to pay. Ivey is lucky he didn't leave with the money because they would have had it all back off of him in the courts.

It's clear cut and simple. Withdraw £100 from an ATM and if you receive £200, you can bet your life that the bank will ask you to pay it back. Wrong is wrong. Don't let your judgment be clouded. Ethics are very simple. If it feels dishonest, it probably is dishonest.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say.  I am not a casino employee either for balance.  However, i would think a casino manager/inspector/pitboss who are in charge of games of this size in Genting's flagship casino should be aware of this 'tactic' and if someone asks for the requests Ivey did to 100% know why he was asking for them and decline them politely.  Ivey has effectively been freerolled in this spot because if he had done exactly the same thing and dropped £5m with the same 6% edge in his favour instead of 1% against him (numbers made up but close enough for argument's sake) the case would never have gone to court, Genting would have banked the £5m and never have taken this to court to recover the EV they still effectively lost from Ivey that day even though they won £5m in real terms. 

Ivey would have sucked it up having had 'the best of it' like most professional gamblers do every day but on this occasion he did his cash.  However, because the world is results orientated and Ivey won Genting can escape because of the way the law works.  I would like to think numerous senior managers/inspectors on duty that night have been fired from Crockford's for the total lack of professionalism/knowledge of their chosen industry in handling this incident and the head of training at Genting has also suitably been relieved of his duties for not suitably training their senior staff in their flagship casino.  No mention has been made of this.  

If he's been freerolled as you say, which admittedly does seem like the case here, I wouldn't fire them, I'd promote them for earning the chain a gtd few million.

I agree with you if they deliberately freerolled him and were suitably skilled/knowledgeable to know the details vwp to them.  The reality is all the staff involved from inspector level/camera security guy all the way up to general manager that night at the casino (exclude the croupier as there is no reason for her to have this level of knowledge/maybe the inspector as well) were massively underskilled/qualified to be dealing a game of this size imo and had no idea what was going on when they 100% should have done to be in such a senior position in the flagship casino of the Genting brand in the UK.

  
Whether they won £7m that night or lost £7m to ivey the long term is they lost 6% of their turnover in ev long term that night to Ivey (assuming Ivey had a 6% edge over them because of this edge sorting for arguments sake - I don't know the exact edge he had).  

My point is if Genting won there is no court case and the money is banked even though they have lost the same EV as if Ivey won.  The clueless senior management get a big pat on the back for looking after Ivey all night and ironing him out even though they were clueless and had no idea what was going on and every time he had a £100k bet they were setting fire to £6k of Genting's cash effectively.  Ivey doesn't get the same treatment when it's the other way around and i think that is unfair.  It just shows you how results orientated and badly run the vast majority of gaming establishments are from a management point of view.  In this case the law is massively on their side.

This is like saying if you are a bookmaker at Ascot and it starts raining heavily and the going goes from firm to soft in an hour and a high roller comes up to back the horse in the race which loves soft ground and you haven't altered your price from 20/1 when the ground was firm to 10/1 (what it should be if the going is soft).  If said high roller had £500 at 20/1 and the bet was struck and the horse won the said bookmaker could then take said high roller to court and say 'i didn't know the punter had 'cheated' by knowing the ground had gone soft and i didn't therefore i refused to pay him.  However if the horse lost the money would stay in the bookies satchel and nothing would be said.

  As a senior industry professional you would be expected to know it's raining and the going is now soft.  Just like the senior management/security staff at Crockford's should have been suitably skilled to know what ivey was up to.  If they are not suitably skilled then they shouldn't be in the role and/or the head of training should be fired for gross misconduct for not training his staff in just fundamental advantage play as this which kills their employers theoretical edge.

So easy to say after the event.

It looks like more people, particularly online, thought Ivey would win and even after the ruling people still think that he should have won.

I never thought Ivey would win purely because Genting would never have taken the case to court if they had any doubt at all from their specialist legal team they would lose.  However, i still think Ivey has been freerolled if that makes sense from my posts.

I never thought Ivey would win, but I definitely think he's been freerolled and that the casino are incompetent scummers (shock).

1/5 Casino staff incompetence
7/2 Deliberate freerolling

Does any really think this was the first and only time Ivey and Crockford's locked horns using edge sorting tactics?  Have there been other occasions when it's happened and there have either been no major win/loss for either party or Ivey had done his money heavily in the past and this has just been swept under the carpet.  I find it hard to believe this is the one and only time this has happened if he was a reg at Crockford's.

I would back the 1/5 as it is virtually certainly this but it doesn't stop him still being freerolled all the same, albeit accidently, because of the incompetence.

I don't think it is the same at all.

Sports Betting has conditional variables, which is why they adjust the odds.

Baccarat/Punto is always the same. Unchanging. So are the other games. It's more akin to betting on someone being sent off and you've paid them to get sent off than it is to do with a conditional variable such as weather in racing.

So sorry.

I don't expect you to agree you work for a casino group.  Do you think the senior staff at crockford's were suitably qualified to inspect/manage a game of this size given the decisions they allowed to be made given it is the flagship casino in the Genting group and arguably in the uk for high rollers.

Having worked in a casino, and having punted on the other side of the table on a very rare occasion  ;ashamed; I can provide an alternative view to George's comments.

If someone goes into a shop and the server gives too much change, I know some won't, but I'd like to think people will point it out.  If the dealer paid out over the top, it is certainly true that I'd expect less people to point it out.  One reason is that joe public actually often has no clue what the correct payout should have been.  Another reason is that many still feel cheated by previous horrendous decisions they have suffered at the hands of unenthusiastic/uncaring staff and if they "get some of it back" then that's ok in their book.  Whilst people should try and live by their own code and not be lowered to someone else's, I understand why people do it, in the same way that I understand (but don't agree with) why cricketers who nick one behind don't walk, as they see it evening out with the last shocker they were given.

Now in my time dealing, I can tell you that pit bosses on average are far more superstitious than any hi-roller.  Show a pit boss two roulette tables, one winning and one losing and ask them to close one of them, and 95% of the time you will find yourself closing the same table.  Most of the superstitions are just bunkum and don't materially effect the game %.  But pit bosses (and anyone on a bonus%) absolutely are trying their level best to ensure that the house edge is allowed to be achieved, and enhanced wherever possible whilst being careful not to contravene the applicable Gaming Laws.

I have never returned from a break and been invited to "go and deal on AR3 and make sure the game is being run in a fair manner to enable us to collect on our 2.7% edge".  I absolutely have been invited to go onto AR3 and "spin the guy off the table/"put it in tier and keep it there" (gee sure)/to not return any losing bets over the table max/to not comment if the player chose to rip up the card on a losing outcome / the list goes on...

I stopped feeling sorry for punters when I noticed there were no chains forcing them to stay at the table and take the worst of it.
I stopped feeling sorry for the house when I experienced first hand just how smarmy and underhand most managers/pit bosses could be in pursuit of profit.

I'll balance things up a little bit too.  I've known a lot of decent managers to even out the many that were drastically under-skilled (they'd just been there the longest and got promoted factory-styleee)  I've never personally been asked to do anything which would be in clear contravention of the Gaming Act.  So I've never been asked to short-change anyone or deliberately "pinch a split" or anything like that.  But if a manager can keep a hi-roller on the promises who is showing all the tell-tale signs of doing his best to do his absolute bollocks.... they will.

And to arbboy, yes it would have been cute to have double-crossed Ivey with a reverse-freeroll, but no it definitely wouldn't have been the case.  As has been pointed out already, that would require co-operation that would be foolish to expect.

As an addendum, I agree that it is perhaps somewhat negligent in hindsight

But in fairness to these supposedly incompetent individuals, I had never heard of 'edge sorting' until this court case and I didn't realise such a defect in card print existed. I don't necessarily think it's a glaring case of incompetence. An oversight, though, yes.

We live and learn. You can be assured that every UK Casino is aware of it now!

PS: I agree that superstition is abound on both sides of the tables. It's bollocks, though, and any casino employee that is blinded by mysticism in their professional capacity is probably operating above their level of competence.

Edge sorting is clearly not going to happen in the vast majority of small level games but i would expect the Crockford's staff to be the cream of the crop and for their management to know their game inside out and/or suitable training expenditure be spent on them to ensure they do.  This is why they have the top job in the UK's premier casino and are put in charge of dealing single games which turnover more money in one session than some of Genting's other casino's will turn over annually.  In the same way as i wouldn't expect a ladbrokes cashier in a back street shop to understand the game in the same level of detail to the two guys standing on ladbrokes pitch at cheltenham on the rails laying 6 figure wages during the festival to high rollers.  

This is so typical of the level of intelligence of the vast majority of casino managers i have ever met.  It's actually incredible how they are more deluded about ev/% edge than the punters themselves.  Why are they not trained to keep spinning the wheel as quick as possible for as often as possible and the rest will take care of itself?  Do these manages actually beleive dealers can spin certain sections of a wheel?  It just goes back to my previous comment of how badly managed the vast majority of gambling/gaming firms are at the senior level.