Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[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

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?

I think it's better to draw a comparison from outside of gambling. It's a bit like buying something in a shop that's marked up incorrectly or taking £100 from a cash machine that is dispensing twice as much. It's not criminal, but pretty hard to argue for it morally or ethically. We tend to rationalise it due to the arms length nature of the thing. We'd never do it to a single shopkeeper, but happy to do it to a multi-national etc.

Vegas guys have a very different view from us on this. They see it as a war between casinos and punters and if you have an edge then fair play to you. I think we, and certainly I, tend to view it more as a business and a transaction. And to be honest our way round is more productive both in the short and the long term from a business and a customer perspective.

[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

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.

I was talking more about paying 15% tax on gaming revenues (I know Sky Bet already pay it on sports betting)

[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.

I was talking more about paying 15% tax on gaming revenues (I know Sky Bet already pay it on sports betting)

Oh I see, sorry. Same for everyone though.

I don't need to tell you how much the whole industry is growing y-o-y, & especially next door, where the numbers are going through the roof. The important thing is they will have budgeted for it. The business world revolves around budgets. Beat the budgets, the world is fine, miss the budgets (or forecasts as we call them) & the pain is immense.

We must also recognize the role Online Poker plays in a multi-media Gaming site. It does not exist for the reasons most think.

[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

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.

I was talking more about paying 15% tax on gaming revenues (I know Sky Bet already pay it on sports betting)

Oh I see, sorry. Same for everyone though.

I don't need to tell you how much the whole industry is growing y-o-y, & especially next door, where the numbers are going through the roof. The important thing is they will have budgeted for it. The business world revolves around budgets. Beat the budgets, the world is fine, miss the budgets (or forecasts as we call them) & the pain is immense.

We must also recognize the role Online Poker plays in a multi-media Gaming site. It does not exist for the reasons most think.

Ahh the quiet joy of the reforecast meeting.

Poker plays a different role at Sky Bet than most companies I would wager. I think casino is where most people are going to feel the pain. Hence the frantic lobbying to try and get it reduced to 10%. A 15% hit on gross revenues could easily put some smaller operators out of business.

[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.

I was talking more about paying 15% tax on gaming revenues (I know Sky Bet already pay it on sports betting)

Oh I see, sorry. Same for everyone though.

I don't need to tell you how much the whole industry is growing y-o-y, & especially next door, where the numbers are going through the roof. The important thing is they will have budgeted for it. The business world revolves around budgets. Beat the budgets, the world is fine, miss the budgets (or forecasts as we call them) & the pain is immense.

We must also recognize the role Online Poker plays in a multi-media Gaming site. It does not exist for the reasons most think.

Ahh the quiet joy of the reforecast meeting.

Poker plays a different role at Sky Bet than most companies I would wager. I think casino is where most people are going to feel the pain. Hence the frantic lobbying to try and get it reduced to 10%. A 15% hit on gross revenues could easily put some smaller operators out of business.

Ha? We even forecast reforecasts.

You are right, it plays a particular role next door, though presumably similar to the likes of Wm Hill, Paddy Power etc.

Casino is HUGE these days, the numbers are jaw-dropping, (HUGE turnover, small but gilt-edged return) but we have to remember that Online Casino numbers work in a very odd way. A guy can Deposit & sit down with £10, & he can re-circulate that 20 times in a day, so I'm not really aware of how Tax takes account of all that. Presumably just the final numbers, not every time he re-circulates his £10?

To me, one of the greatest miracles of our society is how attractive Online Slots (or even "Live" slots) are. What an extraordinary thing. Each to their own though. They probably think poker players are equally daft. In theory, the average player probably has less of a disadvantage v the house with Slots than Poker or Sports Betting. Interesting food for thought.

[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

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.

I was talking more about paying 15% tax on gaming revenues (I know Sky Bet already pay it on sports betting)

Oh I see, sorry. Same for everyone though.

I don't need to tell you how much the whole industry is growing y-o-y, & especially next door, where the numbers are going through the roof. The important thing is they will have budgeted for it. The business world revolves around budgets. Beat the budgets, the world is fine, miss the budgets (or forecasts as we call them) & the pain is immense.

We must also recognize the role Online Poker plays in a multi-media Gaming site. It does not exist for the reasons most think.

Ahh the quiet joy of the reforecast meeting.

Poker plays a different role at Sky Bet than most companies I would wager. I think casino is where most people are going to feel the pain. Hence the frantic lobbying to try and get it reduced to 10%. A 15% hit on gross revenues could easily put some smaller operators out of business.

Ha? We even forecast reforecasts.

You are right, it plays a particular role next door, though presumably similar to the likes of Wm Hill, Paddy Power etc.

Casino is HUGE these days, the numbers are jaw-dropping, (HUGE turnover, small but gilt-edged return) but we have to remember that Online Casino numbers work in a very odd way. A guy can Deposit & sit down with £10, & he can re-circulate that 20 times in a day, so I'm not really aware of how Tax takes account of all that. Presumably just the final numbers, not every time he re-circulates his £10?

To me, one of the greatest miracles of our society is how attractive Online Slots (or even "Live" slots) are. What an extraordinary thing. Each to their own though. They probably think poker players are equally daft. In theory, the average player probably has less of a disadvantage v the house with Slots than Poker or Sports Betting. Interesting food for thought.

It will be based on hold/gross/whatever you want to call it. In other words what the operator records as gross revenue in the period. As far as I know anyway. Which eventually is everything the player deposits in most cases. One of the saddest phrases in a company's income statement is talk of a "recycled" casino jackpot.

Totally agree on slots. I simply don't get it. Never have, and never will. But they have always been the big revenue driver and (many) customers love them.

[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.

A really dull clarification

Doubleup sent me where he quoted from - and I will concede that he didn't do any sneaky journalistic selective quoting. I think the part he quoted was part of the prospective legislation in the Gambling Act whereas what I was looking at were the explanatory notes for the Act and they do seem to contradict a bit. However it's such an esoteric point as I think the conclusion still remains that it will probably come down to the casino lawyers saying, "that's cheating", and Ivey's lawyers saying, "no it isn't"

[AlunB]

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.

A really dull clarification

Doubleup sent me where he quoted from - and I will concede that he didn't do any sneaky journalistic selective quoting. I think the part he quoted was part of the prospective legislation in the Gambling Act whereas what I was looking at were the explanatory notes for the Act and they do seem to contradict a bit. However it's such an esoteric point as I think the conclusion still remains that it will probably come down to the casino lawyers saying, "that's cheating", and Ivey's lawyers saying, "no it isn't"

I just had a look and both the original version of the Act (as enacted) and the prospective version define what cheating means in relation to gambling. And both refer to interference with how gambling is conducted.

[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.

A really dull clarification

Doubleup sent me where he quoted from - and I will concede that he didn't do any sneaky journalistic selective quoting. I think the part he quoted was part of the prospective legislation in the Gambling Act whereas what I was looking at were the explanatory notes for the Act and they do seem to contradict a bit. However it's such an esoteric point as I think the conclusion still remains that it will probably come down to the casino lawyers saying, "that's cheating", and Ivey's lawyers saying, "no it isn't"

I just had a look and both the original version of the Act (as enacted) and the prospective version define what cheating means in relation to gambling. And both refer to interference with how gambling is conducted.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/notes/division/5/3/7/1/7

Is where I was quoting from which included the line, "The word "cheating" is not defined "

[AlunB]

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.

A really dull clarification

Doubleup sent me where he quoted from - and I will concede that he didn't do any sneaky journalistic selective quoting. I think the part he quoted was part of the prospective legislation in the Gambling Act whereas what I was looking at were the explanatory notes for the Act and they do seem to contradict a bit. However it's such an esoteric point as I think the conclusion still remains that it will probably come down to the casino lawyers saying, "that's cheating", and Ivey's lawyers saying, "no it isn't"

I just had a look and both the original version of the Act (as enacted) and the prospective version define what cheating means in relation to gambling. And both refer to interference with how gambling is conducted.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/notes/division/5/3/7/1/7

Is where I was quoting from which included the line, "The word "cheating" is not defined "

No, but it is made more clear how it is intended to apply in this specific instance in the act itself

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

[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 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.

Yes. But only GC license holders not Joe Public. Here is an example.

Pub landlord is taking bets on a Saturday and laying them himself. I contact commission to complain as its not far from my shop and I was fed up warning him.They can take no action as he is not licensed by them although I am. How dumb is that?

So in essence they can only sanction license holders. I thought I read that they had made a statement that they were watching this case with interest. If the court decides that they have withheld payment wrongly then they will get a sanction or warning on their license. If it goes in their favour then that's the end of it.

The sooner this toothless quango is disbanded the better.

It's such an interesting case though. And I have changed my mind several times debating it with mates, we think it will get settled before court. Not exactly getting it quietly is it?

[AlunB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182004/Pensioner-74-ran-black-market-betting-shop-lounge-earning-2-000-day-jailed-18-months.html

[SuuPRlim]

described himself as a "professional gambler"



Fun article, hilarious how they make him look in his picture like peadophile/herowin addict in the picture.

[redsimon]

described himself as a "professional gambler"



Fun article, hilarious how they make him look in his picture like peadophile/herowin addict in the picture.

Good to see his sentence was longer than that intially given to Stuart Hall

[doubleup]

Yes. But only GC license holders not Joe Public. Here is an example.

wat? 

They have the power to initiate a prosecution of the offences detailed in the Gambling Act.  Cheating is one of those crimes.  Just like the FSA/FCA has the power to prosecute.  It's a power specifically provided by parliament to certain bodies.    How often they use the power is another issue entirely. 

And they most certainly ain't being disbanded as every online poker/ sportsbetting/ casino site will be regulated by them in a year or so.