Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[cambridgealex]

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?

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?

Obviously not, ridiculous comparison.

Obviously not, ridiculous comparison.

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.

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.

[Royal Flush]

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?

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?

Obviously not, ridiculous comparison.

Obviously not, ridiculous comparison.

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.

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?

[SuuPRlim]

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"

[Woodsey]

The chance would be a fine thing 

[Kmac84]

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. 

[arbboy]

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.

[Kmac84]

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. 

[TightEnd]

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/

[TightEnd]

Click to see full-size image.

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

[arbboy]

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/

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?

[doubleup]

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?

[Tal]

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

[arbboy]

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.

[doubleup]

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

[arbboy]

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?