Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[SuuPRlim]

Yeh I thought the same stu, Ivey could have easily lost here, it's gambling after all, then I found out exactly what "edge sorting" was, who was bankrolling Ivey  and read he'd mentioned he'd be in town for 4 days and would be playing every day...

Chance of not profiting here was likely >1% genuinely.

You will have to explain that to me, Dave.

If he was 99% certain to turn a profit, and many have suggested he is worth tens of millions, why would he want or need bankrolling? Are you suggesting he was just a front man for this attempted coup? Or is he not, after all, worth as much as some think?

If I had a 1/100 shot, I sure as hell would not be selling any action if I could afford to keep the lot.

Apparently Ivey was approached by a very well known high stakes gambler in Hong Kong, introduced to "edge sorting" they picked Ivey because he is i) very shrewd gambler and ii) because he has a international reputation as a very high stakes pit games player. Deal was he gets the action, they provide him with his glamorous assistant (key to whole thing) and the monies (I'm only guessing but imagine he had a lot more 1m bullets behind) to gamble with and he gets a freeroll % (prolly a pretty big one comparitively given veyr few players will get such high limits as unknowns in a casino - if they known as sharp punters then they'll get zero action and obviously the risk of something like whats happened happening.)

IDK how much money Ivey has, not a clue, but it's no secret he's down tens of millions in the pit and betting sports, someone with such a degenerate personality and who gambles at the highest stakes possible is always going to find himself liquid cash broke reasonably frequently, I'm sure he's probably cut the gambling back a fair bit since the FT gravy train rolled out of town and he might have a high non-liquid net worth (as you'd hope someone who's +$15m online poker and was getting $900k p/month dividend for the best part of decade would be) but I'd be very surprised if he had a liquid bankroll to sustain the swings of 100,000 pounds/box punto banco.

When people assume he has a $35m poker roll I find it very unrealistic to think any pro poker player has that sort of liquid bankroll. (Haralabous Voulgaris might be the only one close)

That isn't to say that he wouldn't have taken 100% of the action if he'd had the chance (he degen after all) but as far I'm aware that wsn't the deal he had.

I'm actually pretty surprised that they allowed/risked this going public as now "edge sorting" is well known the opportunity to do it again seems to have passed - I wonder how much casino's have lost to it lifetime ....

[relaedgc]

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.

wait, what, are you serious?

They had one job, and failed at it, miserably.

they are then allowed to freeroll the customer for millions.


cool story bro, all seems legit.

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.

wait, what, are you serious?

They had one job, and failed at it, miserably.

they are then allowed to freeroll the customer for millions.


cool story bro, all seems legit.

They were caught out by a scam that they hadn't been made aware of it.

This is a high end venue that handles probably between £10-£100m per day. You don't get action by telling punters to gtfo when they ask for you to indulge their harmless superstitions. Like I said, they didn't know they were being scammed else they obviously wouldn't have allowed it to happen.

It's not idiotic at all. It's easy to say it in hindsight.

If you're sat on a £1-£2 cash game and a mega whale sits down and asks the dealer to slide his cards face down across the table instead of pitching, most people will be rubbing their hands together and grinning like the Cheshire cat. I suppose Crockfords felt the same. They, just like the players at that cash game, would let it take place because they wwere unaware of the danger.

Yes. It's huge money. Such mistakes are costly in a high end venue. I am sure that they've made far more expensive ones. They learn. The industry learns. Edge sorting has just been wiped out as a valid scam vs. Casinos.

[Marky147]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/12/poker-casino-phil-ivey-gambling

Vicky Coren Mitchell's take on it.

[atdc21]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

[AlunB]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

+1000

[titaniumbean]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

[AlunB]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

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

[titaniumbean]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

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

good answer.  [ ]

as there are only a few sub sections feel free to suggest one that applies.


it's fun to see the responses of those from inside the casino/gambling industry and those from outside. nee bias.

[AlunB]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

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

good answer.  [ ]

as there are only a few sub sections feel free to suggest one that applies.


it's fun to see the responses of those from inside the casino/gambling industry and those from outside. nee bias.

3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) 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

[AlunB]

Apologies if this has already been quoted

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating.

“The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating.

“Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

“It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino, for which he was not responsible.

“He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation.

Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.

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

[arbboy]

There is no doubt in a court of law Ivey 'cheated' in the uk.  The thing i still can't get my head around is how none of the senior management in Crockford's knew what edge sorting was.  I appreciate it's not widely known to casual gamblers but surely to experienced seasoned pit/general managers and senior security staff of the flagship UK casino it must be known and what Ivey was up to?  It's obviously an 'advanced' cheating technique but surely you would expect your senior security/management to understand the basics of it and that turning the cards in this manner would only be done for that reason and no other reasons?

[arbboy]

Apologies if this has already been quoted

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating.

“The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating.

“Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

“It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino, for which he was not responsible.

“He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation.

Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.

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

I would argue it's negligent on the casino's behalf that their senior staff and security staff didn't know the consequences of what the dealer did.  As such, even if there is only a 1 or 2% chance of ivey doing his money with this edge (don't want to go into the whole freerolling argument again) he has still effectively been freerolled by Genting even if it's just a tiny degree.  

Just in the same way as if the boss of a bookmaker standing at ascot saw his most junior member of staff lay me £100k ew on the worse possible bad ew race where i had a huge edge over him (like ivey did in this case) the bets were laid then when the horse won or placed i was told the bet was voided and my stake returned but if it lost in incredible circumstances (ie not placed at all so i lose both the win and place bets when it would be 90%+ to place and i would at least get the vast majority of my money back) the bookmaker would not be allowed to freeroll me in this spot.  There is no 'cheating' taken place in this example but i am taking away all the EV the bookie has and transferring that edge and more to myself the punter in a similar way ivey did.

It would be the senior bookmakers responsiblity to say 'no bet' prior to the bet being accepted because he is suitably skilled to know he is setting fire to EV to accept the bet in the first place.  In a similar way the senior people at Crockford's should have been experienced enough to say 'no bet' to ivey.

[titaniumbean]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

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

good answer.  [ ]

as there are only a few sub sections feel free to suggest one that applies.


it's fun to see the responses of those from inside the casino/gambling industry and those from outside. nee bias.

3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) 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

brilliant how this means nothing. is it deception if I try and count the deck in BJ, is it deception if I pretend to be drunker than I am?


that judges ruling is an absolute joke and it's unsurprising that casino employees seem to be sticking up for the casino in this case, shock.


if Ivey asked the dealers/casino to turn up face down cards is he cheating or would the dealer just be a complete gibbon for doing it? what if they didn't realise the edge it gave him 

 it seems like you're desperately trying to protect the casino whilst they engage in their societally important fleecing of the degenerate/ignorant.  it's not like the sole role of the casino is to run the game for their own edge, yet when they are too incompetent to see when they are being had they are allowed to freeroll the player. cool story.




exatly what arbboy said, utter incompetence from the people running the game, whos job it was to procure the cards, enforce the integrity of the game etc.  you had one job !!

[arbboy]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

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

good answer.  [ ]

as there are only a few sub sections feel free to suggest one that applies.


it's fun to see the responses of those from inside the casino/gambling industry and those from outside. nee bias.

3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) 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

brilliant how this means nothing. is it deception if I try and count the deck in BJ, is it deception if I pretend to be drunker than I am?


that judges ruling is an absolute joke and it's unsurprising that casino employees seem to be sticking up for the casino in this case, shock.


if Ivey asked the dealers/casino to turn up face down cards is he cheating or would the dealer just be a complete gibbon for doing it? what if they didn't realise the edge it gave him 

 it seems like you're desperately trying to protect the casino whilst they engage in their societally important fleecing of the degenerate/ignorant.  it's not like the sole role of the casino is to run the game for their own edge, yet when they are too incompetent to see when they are being had they are allowed to freeroll the player. cool story.




exatly what arbboy said, utter incompetence from the people running the game, whos job it was to procure the cards, enforce the integrity of the game etc.  you had one job !!

It's for these once a year coups that the head of security at Genting (circa £100k a year plus benefits i would imagine) gets paid for to avoid happening and he has massively failed in his job imo yet the court still jump in and save his arse (and probably his job).

[AlunB]

Although Vickys article is very good, she has missed the point with her scenarios she describes with the prop bet gambles v the case of Ivey and the casino. In the prop bets , no rules were broken, as non seemed to of been made, BUT the casino clearly does have a set of rules, which were broken. From what i gather, the whole outcome of the case revolved around not whether Ivey was clever enough to 'get one over 'one the casino, but whether he broke their rules, which by playing in the first place he had in effect agreed to.

what did Ivey do other than request things that the casino instantly pandered to because they assumed it couldn't hurt them??

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

good answer.  [ ]

as there are only a few sub sections feel free to suggest one that applies.


it's fun to see the responses of those from inside the casino/gambling industry and those from outside. nee bias.

3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) 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

brilliant how this means nothing. is it deception if I try and count the deck in BJ, is it deception if I pretend to be drunker than I am?


that judges ruling is an absolute joke and it's unsurprising that casino employees seem to be sticking up for the casino in this case, shock.


if Ivey asked the dealers/casino to turn up face down cards is he cheating or would the dealer just be a complete gibbon for doing it? what if they didn't realise the edge it gave him 

 it seems like you're desperately trying to protect the casino whilst they engage in their societally important fleecing of the degenerate/ignorant.  it's not like the sole role of the casino is to run the game for their own edge, yet when they are too incompetent to see when they are being had they are allowed to freeroll the player. cool story.




exatly what arbboy said, utter incompetence from the people running the game, whos job it was to procure the cards, enforce the integrity of the game etc.  you had one job !!

I'm not a casino employee. And I never have been. I just don't agree that it's OK to cheat a casino.

In terms of the law it's vague at the start because it has definitions underneath. They go together.

3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) 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

In other words a deception or interference with the process in which gambling is conducted. Not just a general deception. In this case he interfered with the cards in a way that gave him an unfair advantage.

So taking this argument wider, if some person or some company doesn't spot they are being cheated do they not deserve protection from cheating under the law?