Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[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 !!

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?

In this case no because you pay people 6 figure salaries to spot this (relatively obvious to anyone in the trade at that level of management to get the gig at Crockford's in the first place - you should also know who Ivey is imo as that is part of the job and put two and two together and work out that his requests are probably a sting in operation).  If not, politely decline his request and if he stops playing just because of that you know he was having your pants down and you have correctly done your security job that you are paid to do.

Does the bookmaker in my example have the right to go to court to 'protect himself from cheating' because i have had a bet where i have a 20% edge rather than him? - (cheating which really means the passing of the expected edge from house to punter - it's not gtd said punter still wins although it is more likely than it should be). 

Your definition of cheating the house would include card counting then i assume as well as that passed the edge from house to punter as well?

[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?

In this case no because you pay people 6 figure salaries to spot this (relatively obvious to anyone in the trade at that level of management to get the gig at Crockford's in the first place - you should also know who Ivey is imo as that is part of the job and put two and two together and work out that his requests are probably a sting in operation).  If not, politely decline his request and if he stops playing just because of that you know he was having your pants down and you have correctly done your security job that you are paid to do.

Isn't that a bit like saying you don't deserve protection from the police if you are robbed because you employ security?

[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 !!

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?

In this case no because you pay people 6 figure salaries to spot this (relatively obvious to anyone in the trade at that level of management to get the gig at Crockford's in the first place - you should also know who Ivey is imo as that is part of the job and put two and two together and work out that his requests are probably a sting in operation).  If not, politely decline his request and if he stops playing just because of that you know he was having your pants down and you have correctly done your security job that you are paid to do.

Isn't that a bit like saying you don't deserve protection from the police if you are robbed because you employ security?

No because if your bank is robbed you 100% lose the money stolen.  There is no freeroll.  The casino has lost EV it hasn't lost a said amount of money unless you want to be results orientated.  You can't get freerolled when you rob a bank either because if you win you get the money you have stolen.

If a casino is robbed it get's protection from the legal system.  However, it hasn't been robbed it has mismanaged their margins on a risk based investment.  

Their business is risk management so they should employ suitably qualified people to manage that risk and any risk of being exploited by savvy punters like Ivey (that's one of their business expenses they have and the reason why they have said house edge in all games which is gtd if the games are carried out correctly to pay for these expenses to ensure this doesn't occur).  They mis managed the product on the night in question through lax security.  Any other risk management business which did the same would have done their money, stopped crying, learnt their lesson (prevention is better than cure - so they should have invested in the first place to find out about these things - doing their money is the payback from not investing up front to find out about these risks and they should have paid the penalty for lax security) and got on with it without freerolling said investor.

[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?

In this case no because you pay people 6 figure salaries to spot this (relatively obvious to anyone in the trade at that level of management to get the gig at Crockford's in the first place - you should also know who Ivey is imo as that is part of the job and put two and two together and work out that his requests are probably a sting in operation).  If not, politely decline his request and if he stops playing just because of that you know he was having your pants down and you have correctly done your security job that you are paid to do.

Isn't that a bit like saying you don't deserve protection from the police if you are robbed because you employ security?

No because if your bank is robbed you 100% lose the money stolen.  There is no freeroll.  The casino has lost EV it hasn't lost a said amount of money unless you want to be results orientated.  You can't get freerolled when you rob a bank either because if you win you get the money you have stolen.

I think this is arguing a separate point, but let's agree to differ.

[atdc21]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

[AlunB]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

Again +1

[Kmac84]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

That's not really true though, the law is subjective. 

[Tal]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

That's not really true though, the law is subjective. 

That is completely wrong.

The law must by its nature be objective. Moral law is subjective, but the actual law must be objective.

[DungBeetle]

True.  Same with when people moan about tax avoidance.  If you don't like it - change the law.  Laws should be impartial and have no regard to moral viewpoints.

[Kmac84]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

That's not really true though, the law is subjective. 

That is completely wrong.

The law must by its nature be objective. Moral law is subjective, but the actual law must be objective.

But in cases like this I think much of it comes down to interpretation and how the rules are enforced. 

Once Gentings had accepted Ivey's wager that in my opinion in binding. 

[Tal]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

That's not really true though, the law is subjective. 

That is completely wrong.

The law must by its nature be objective. Moral law is subjective, but the actual law must be objective.

But in cases like this I think much of it comes down to interpretation and how the rules are enforced. 

Once Gentings had accepted Ivey's wager that in my opinion in binding. 

It sounds like semantics but it's really important to recognise the distinction:

The law is objective, but there will be subjective interpretation by anyone looking at the facts and seeking to apply them to the law.

An objective and independent legal system is the bedrock of a democracy.

[Royal Flush]

I think people are getting confused/swayed with what the law is and what they want it to be/or would like it to be to fit their beliefs.
Im not on the casinos side or Iveys, but it appears the law as it stands, no matter what we think of that law has been broken.
 

It really is this simple, somehow people keep banging that drum though.

[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?

In this case no because you pay people 6 figure salaries to spot this (relatively obvious to anyone in the trade at that level of management to get the gig at Crockford's in the first place - you should also know who Ivey is imo as that is part of the job and put two and two together and work out that his requests are probably a sting in operation).  If not, politely decline his request and if he stops playing just because of that you know he was having your pants down and you have correctly done your security job that you are paid to do.

Isn't that a bit like saying you don't deserve protection from the police if you are robbed because you employ security?

No because if your bank is robbed you 100% lose the money stolen.  There is no freeroll.  The casino has lost EV it hasn't lost a said amount of money unless you want to be results orientated.  You can't get freerolled when you rob a bank either because if you win you get the money you have stolen.

If a casino is robbed it get's protection from the legal system.  However, it hasn't been robbed it has mismanaged their margins on a risk based investment.  

Their business is risk management so they should employ suitably qualified people to manage that risk and any risk of being exploited by savvy punters like Ivey (that's one of their business expenses they have and the reason why they have said house edge in all games which is gtd if the games are carried out correctly to pay for these expenses to ensure this doesn't occur).  They mis managed the product on the night in question through lax security.  Any other risk management business which did the same would have done their money, stopped crying, learnt their lesson (prevention is better than cure - so they should have invested in the first place to find out about these things - doing their money is the payback from not investing up front to find out about these risks and they should have paid the penalty for lax security) and got on with it without freerolling said investor.

I see you added a fuller explanation to this, so just to give my two cents.

This is what we meant by agree to differ. You appear to see what he did as a risk they should be aware of, the courts (and I) see it as cheating and a criminal offence.

[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 !!

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?

In this case no because you pay people 6 figure salaries to spot this (relatively obvious to anyone in the trade at that level of management to get the gig at Crockford's in the first place - you should also know who Ivey is imo as that is part of the job and put two and two together and work out that his requests are probably a sting in operation).  If not, politely decline his request and if he stops playing just because of that you know he was having your pants down and you have correctly done your security job that you are paid to do.

Isn't that a bit like saying you don't deserve protection from the police if you are robbed because you employ security?

No because if your bank is robbed you 100% lose the money stolen.  There is no freeroll.  The casino has lost EV it hasn't lost a said amount of money unless you want to be results orientated.  You can't get freerolled when you rob a bank either because if you win you get the money you have stolen.

If a casino is robbed it get's protection from the legal system.  However, it hasn't been robbed it has mismanaged their margins on a risk based investment.  

Their business is risk management so they should employ suitably qualified people to manage that risk and any risk of being exploited by savvy punters like Ivey (that's one of their business expenses they have and the reason why they have said house edge in all games which is gtd if the games are carried out correctly to pay for these expenses to ensure this doesn't occur).  They mis managed the product on the night in question through lax security.  Any other risk management business which did the same would have done their money, stopped crying, learnt their lesson (prevention is better than cure - so they should have invested in the first place to find out about these things - doing their money is the payback from not investing up front to find out about these risks and they should have paid the penalty for lax security) and got on with it without freerolling said investor.

I see you added a fuller explanation to this, so just to give my two cents.

This is what we meant by agree to differ. You appear to see what he did as a risk they should be aware of, the courts (and I) see it as cheating and a criminal offence.

yes pretty much sums it up.  I see it as a battle where the fittest survive.  If i was buying a company and my due diligence performed is better than yours into the market/sector/company accounts etc than yours i don't consider that cheating.  You are able to find out exactly the same information as me 100% legally just like the casino, should it choose to spend the time/money/effort that Ivey did, can find out exactly what Ivey was doing and protect itself against it.  Interesting debate though.

[TightEnd]

Phil Ivey is appealing the decision against him in the £7.7 million "edge sorting" case with Crockfords Casino.

" Ivey’s lawyer, Matthew Dowd of Archerfield Partner LLP, said:

“I can confirm that Phil Ivey filed papers at the Court of Appeal last week. Phil is seeking to appeal the decision on the basis that the Judge was incorrect in both fact and law to conclude that “edge sorting” was cheating, particularly in circumstances where the Judge made it very clear in his judgment that he considered Phil to be a truthful witness and that he accepted that Phil genuinely believes that his actions during the game at Crockfords did not constitute cheating.”

Ivey has always been open about the fact he used “edge sorting” during his extended winning session, yet maintains that doing so does not constitute cheating. Ivey faces a similar case in the United States after the Borgata filed a $9.6 million lawsuit against him. "

http://uk.pokernews.com/news/2014/11/phil-ivey-set-to-appeal-against-crockfords-decision-15568.htm