Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[aaron1867]

Think Ivey will get his money, IMO.

But if he does & casino pays out £8m + costs, is it not possible for him to claim more through loss of possible interest?

[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.

The Gambling Commission could/would never prosecute any punter or wish to either.

They most def could and would.  Cheating is a crime defined in the Gambling Act.  They are responsible for instituting prosecutions for the crimes defined in the Gambling Act.

[tikay]

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 most def could and would.  Cheating is a crime defined in the Gambling Act.  They are responsible for instituting prosecutions for the crimes defined in the Gambling Act.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you 2xUp, but have there been previous instances where the GC have prosecuted players?

Off the top of my sleepy head, I'm stuggling to think of an example, but maybe I've got memory loss. I'm pretty sure punters &/or poker players must have stolen from Casinos previously though. In fact, I KNOW they have, & so do you. (Not suggesting Ivey stole here, as that's not cut & dried). Did they get prosecuted by the GC?

There have been cases of malpractive, with, say, magnetic devices on roulette wheels, da de da, but if memory serves correct, they faced Legal action & court cases instigated by the Operator, not the GC.

[doubleup]

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

[tikay]

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

Thanks. Guess they just don't use them very often.

None of us know exactly how the GC works, so we must not be overly critical from our comfy armchairs, but I must say, from where I sit, I don't have a deal of admiration for the way the GC goes about it's duties.

[doubleup]

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

Thanks. Guess they just don't use them very often.

None of us know exactly how the GC works, so we must not be overly critical from our comfy armchairs, but I must say, from where I sit, I don't have a deal of admiration for the way the GC goes about it's duties.

Well you had better pucker up cos they'll be licensing all online gambling in the UK in about a year.

[tikay]

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

Thanks. Guess they just don't use them very often.

None of us know exactly how the GC works, so we must not be overly critical from our comfy armchairs, but I must say, from where I sit, I don't have a deal of admiration for the way the GC goes about it's duties.

Well you had better pucker up cos they'll be licensing all online gambling in the UK in about a year.

A move I approve of 100%, (privately, & wearing a business hat) you may be assured. A wonderful thing.

[Tal]

I'll keep names out of it in case I misremember or the story I was told was embellished.

A well known poker player was in a casino that had seen better days. He liked a spin on the little wheel and had been playing for a while, when he noticed that the wheel next to his had been coming up with a higher proportion of numbers from one section than the others.

He migrated over and, when chance allowed, gave the wheel a close look to find - to his amazement - there was a slight bow in the wheel in one part, probably due to it being near a window and perhaps not used all that often (gives you an idea of the establishment). It seemed enough to justify testing, as it might just be enough to give them an edge.

Sure as eggs is eggs, he and some friends quietly played away and made a very pretty penny from their venture.

Question: in the situation I have described above, has the poker player done anything wrong?

[tikay]

OOh, AlUn B itt.

Great news. Evens he can't resist Posting. Welsh, see.

[doubleup]

Question: in the situation I have described above, has the poker player done anything wrong?

There are people who say "I'd rather starve than take dole money", but unless they are actually unemployed and skint (and starving) it's a hollow statement. 

Right now I'd say that knowing a wheel is biased is taking advantage, but if I was nearly broke (and the cause of my brokeness was the roulette wheel) my tune would change.


 

[AlunB]

I'll keep names out of it in case I misremember or the story I was told was embellished.

A well known poker player was in a casino that had seen better days. He liked a spin on the little wheel and had been playing for a while, when he noticed that the wheel next to his had been coming up with a higher proportion of numbers from one section than the others.

He migrated over and, when chance allowed, gave the wheel a close look to find - to his amazement - there was a slight bow in the wheel in one part, probably due to it being near a window and perhaps not used all that often (gives you an idea of the establishment). It seemed enough to justify testing, as it might just be enough to give them an edge.

Sure as eggs is eggs, he and some friends quietly played away and made a very pretty penny from their venture.

Question: in the situation I have described above, has the poker player done anything wrong?

Yes

[AlunB]

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

Thanks. Guess they just don't use them very often.

None of us know exactly how the GC works, so we must not be overly critical from our comfy armchairs, but I must say, from where I sit, I don't have a deal of admiration for the way the GC goes about it's duties.

Well you had better pucker up cos they'll be licensing all online gambling in the UK in about a year.

A move I approve of 100%, (privately, & wearing a business hat) you may be assured. A wonderful thing.

I'm sure your employers are extremely excited about making less money

[Tal]

I'll keep names out of it in case I misremember or the story I was told was embellished.

A well known poker player was in a casino that had seen better days. He liked a spin on the little wheel and had been playing for a while, when he noticed that the wheel next to his had been coming up with a higher proportion of numbers from one section than the others.

He migrated over and, when chance allowed, gave the wheel a close look to find - to his amazement - there was a slight bow in the wheel in one part, probably due to it being near a window and perhaps not used all that often (gives you an idea of the establishment). It seemed enough to justify testing, as it might just be enough to give them an edge.

Sure as eggs is eggs, he and some friends quietly played away and made a very pretty penny from their venture.

Question: in the situation I have described above, has the poker player done anything wrong?

Yes

You might know more about this stuff than most from your editorial days, but there must be hundreds of similar stories about.

Is it different to betting on the One dog at Walthamstow dogs because you've noticed the inside is quicker before the bookies?

[Jon MW]

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.

Exactly cheating is a criminal offence, this reminds me somewhat of the argument some used earlier on - if he was cheating, why would the casino bother giving him back his original stake?

And part of the reason why it's not clear cut is because this

In the Gambling Act cheating is defined as
"actual or attempted deception or interference...with.....the process by which gambling is conducted"

is not quite true

The Gambling Act specifically doesn't define cheating at all

The word "cheating" is not defined but has its normal, everyday meaning.

is a direct quote from section 1 of part of it

The part you quoted also added

Subsection (3) does not provide an exhaustive definition of cheating. It is made expressly without prejudice to the general meaning of cheating established in subsection (1).

In other words - if there was a prosecution for cheating, it would be up to the courts to decide whether what Ivey did constituted cheating - given that a lot of poker players and gamblers don't agree on this point then it shows that it would probably come down to who was personally more convincing in court.

I suspect that's what the court case that is going ahead will come down to as well.

[tikay]

28
Investigation and prosecution of offences(1)The Commission—
(a)may investigate whether an offence has been committed under this Act, and
(b)may institute criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may be exercised whether in response to information received by the Commission or otherwise.
(3)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the institution of proceedings in Scotland.

Cheating is an an offence under the Act.  The Gambling Commission has the above powers to prosecute offences under the Act.

Whether they choose to use these powers is another matter, but it is a fact that they have the powers.

Thanks. Guess they just don't use them very often.

None of us know exactly how the GC works, so we must not be overly critical from our comfy armchairs, but I must say, from where I sit, I don't have a deal of admiration for the way the GC goes about it's duties.

Well you had better pucker up cos they'll be licensing all online gambling in the UK in about a year.

A move I approve of 100%, (privately, & wearing a business hat) you may be assured. A wonderful thing.

I'm sure your employers are extremely excited about making less money

I'd imagine they are bright enough to see a short term negative as a long term positive.

Compliance IS expensive, but has to be good for everybody, impo.