Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[doubleup]

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.

[theprawnidentity]

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) persuading the dealer to mark the cards for him.  That was his plan, there is no point in claiming anything else.

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.

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

[doubleup]

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) persuading the dealer to mark the cards for him.  That was his plan, there is no point in claiming anything else.

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.

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 

[TommyD]

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

[theprawnidentity]

you had no clue how the thing worked, so don't pretend you were technically right  

Call.

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

Click to see full-size image.

[kinboshi]

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

[BangBang]

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..
 

[titaniumbean]

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

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

[BangBang]

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

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..

[titaniumbean]

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

[Tal]

Click to see full-size image.

So, Don Cheadle was dealt cards by Joss Stone.

Excellent.

[Royal Flush]

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

[BangBang]

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.."

[SuuPRlim]

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

[gouty]

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.

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.