blonde poker forum

Federal judge gives split court opinion on Phil Ivey $10M baccarat win over Borgata

http://blogs.northjersey.com/meadowlands-matters/federal-judge-gives-split-court-opinion-on-phil-ivey-10m-baccarat-win-over-borgata-1.1681211?platform=hootsuite

Does the CCE agreement state that you have to agree to play at a disadvantage for the gambling to be legal?

In between all the "judge was rigged" posts there are some informed thoughts on the ruling in this thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip-sponsored-online-poker-report/decision-ivey-borgata-case-1635357/

Some think it is a very tenuous judgement and could be extended to any request that is granted to a vip and subsequently proves to EV+ for the customer.   

The House has an Edge........ Never a Problem

The Punter finds an Edge .....The House squeals like a Pig

Pathetic

If I'm understanding it correctly the judge is saying that theres an implied contract when you sit down to play that you will lose in the long run and the state gets a cut otherwise the game wouldn't be offered, so if you tilt the odds in your favour even if it isn't against the rules of the game you breach that implied contract

Assume that would apply to card-counters too.

Seems a bit daft to me that card-counting might be illegal activity.

It's an awful precedent to set but it's in the gov't favour, they tax casinos and can't tax us so they want to make sure the house wins! Very manipulative use of the law for the direct benefit of the law makers.

actually in the usa they do tax winners, so even that part of the judgement doesn't stack up.

Ivey has just lost his uk appeal, cheating was ok but he can't have the money as he was cheating - or something

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-player-loses-appeal-against-london-casino-over-77m-edge-sorting-win (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-player-loses-appeal-against-london-casino-over-77m-edge-sorting-win)

If someone loses £7.7m edge sorting (and can prove he was edge sorting in the game) and therefore is a cheat and there is effectively no contract between the two parties do they get their original £1m stake refunded and all their losses as well or is the decision simply just results orientated?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/poker-player-loses-appeal-against-london-casino-over-his-77-mill/

This is a better article explaining 'edge sorting' in a lot more detail if anyone is unaware what it actually means and the edge created for the player.

not really, two of the judges appear to have said that you can be convicted of criminal cheating even if you think what you have done wasn't dishonest.

as an aside one of the judges also gave some views on other betting angles:

It is possible to think of actions which are neither deception nor interference with the process of the game, which may in some circumstances constitute cheating. For example, someone who has material information (for example, as to whether a star player will play in a particular game) which is not in the public domain may place a bet on the result of the game on the basis of that information. That person may be guilty of cheating because he has used his unequal access to confidential information to make a profit. In this type of situation, Parliament may well have taken the view that it was enough that covert use of confidential information was intrinsically wrong and that it could amount to cheating without any requirement for subjective dishonesty

Phil Ivey Files Protest to Claimed Damages in Borgata Edge-Sorting Case

http://www.flushdraw.net/news/phil-ivey-files-protest-claimed-damages-borgata-edge-sorting-case/

Ivey's appeal goes to the Supreme Court next week, here is a long write up of his career and related poker history.

https://theringer.com/phil-ivey-world-series-of-poker-51cd56b8cccf (https://theringer.com/phil-ivey-world-series-of-poker-51cd56b8cccf)

Heard a lot of ba stories about him. Apparabtly in very bad place.

Great read, thanks for posting

Case kicks off at 10.30 this morning - live stream on the supreme court website :D

The latest of the 30 for 30 podcasts is about the Ivey edge sorting cases.

It focuses more on the Chinese accomplice but she has quite an interesting story.

30for30podcasts.com (http://30for30podcasts.com)

Incredible listen.... ty for posting

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/25/poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-over-77m-winnings-from-london-casino?CMP=share_btn_tw

quote from the piece

 "...one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation.”

"The concept of dishonesty is central to a whole range of offences, including fraud."

says lawyer seriously worried about getting paid....

It was a bit odd that the judges went into a wider area, given that they say it didn't matter in Ivey's case (I might be wrong as I just skimmed to the end of the judgement)

Therefore in the present case, if, contrary to the conclusions arrived at above,
there were in cheating at gambling an additional legal element of dishonesty, it
would be satisfied by the application of the test as set out above. The judge did not
get to the question of dishonesty and did not need to do so. But it is a fallacy to
suggest that his finding that Mr Ivey was truthful when he said that he did not regard
what he did as cheating amounted to a finding that his behaviour was honest. It was
not. It was a finding that he was, in that respect, truthful. Truthfulness is indeed one
characteristic of honesty, and untruthfulness is often a powerful indicator of
dishonesty, but a dishonest person may sometimes be truthful about his dishonest
opinions, as indeed was the defendant in Gilks. For the same reasons which show
that Mr Ivey’s conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, cheating, the better view
would be, if the question arose, that his conduct was, contrary to his own opinion,
also dishonest

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf

Sky News piece on Ivey has Nick Wealthhall as the “poker expert”........were you taking your nap?

 Victoria Coren M.‏Verified account @VictoriaCoren

In today's Observer: does Phil Ivey ever really lose...? I'm thinking it through like a poker hand.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/casinos-gamble-on-their-credibility

Write up of the case in the Supreme Court by Joshua Rozenberg

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/june-2020/stinger-stung/ (https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/june-2020/stinger-stung/)

Then it is being discussed today at 4pm on radio 4 (law in action)

Thanks for the heads-up. (Love radio stuff me)