Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[smurf]

only ever seen him on TV but one thing i have noticed is that in  the early days of fulltilt he was a cheery happy go lucky soul...now recently he looks a miserable @#@#.

Couldn't really care less if he wins or loses to be honest i'm sure he will struggle to crack a smile.   

#suchahardlife

[arbboy]

only ever seen him on TV but one thing i have noticed is that in  the early days of fulltilt he was a cheery happy go lucky soul...now recently he looks a miserable @#@#.

Couldn't really care less if he wins or loses to be honest i'm sure he will struggle to crack a smile.   

#suchahardlife

A lot of the sponsored pro's had big smiles on their faces in the early days of fulltilt.  A few years later we all realised why.

[Skippy]

I wish people in this thread would stop spouting off about what is and isn't legal given, to the best of my knowledge, most of you haven't got a scooby about the law in this area.

I don't think anyone knows what the law is in this area, not lawyers or judges, as I doubt their has been much case law to back it up yet. Haven't gambling debts only been recovered by law for a short period of time? That what makes it interesting to talk about.

[Royal Flush]

What I meant was can we stop using phrases like 'he won the money legally, pay up' because none of us know.

The interesting debate here is around the morality of it all. If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

[FUN4FRASER]

What I meant was can we stop using phrases like 'he won the money legally, pay up' because none of us know.

The interesting debate here is around the morality of it all. If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

So Stop Voicing Opinions In a Forum 

Genius  !

[MintTrav]

If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

Yeah, I don't have a position on the issue, but I have been wondering how much of the support is cheering on 'us' against 'them'. Also, Ivey is fairly popular. I wonder if a less popular player would get the same support. Would you still be saying that the casino should pay if it was Men the Master or Howard Lederer instead of Ivey? If you would, fair enough. Also it's not just Genting - the same case is going on between Ivey and The Borgata, except it's the other way round, ie they are suing him, as he emptied his account as soon as things started to blow up.

[tikay]

If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

Yeah, I don't have a position on the issue, but I have been wondering how much of the support is cheering on 'us' against 'them'. Also, Ivey is fairly popular. I wonder if a less popular player would get the same support. Would you still be saying that the casino should pay if it was Men the Master or Howard Lederer instead of Ivey? If you would, fair enough. Also it's not just Genting - the same case is going on between Ivey and The Borgata, except it's the other way round, ie they are suing him, as he emptied his account as soon as things started to blow up.

Yup, it is par for the course to "support" the punter against the House, just as we always support the lone punter against those nasty bookies, but we don't really know the facts. We do know that, it seems, Mr Ivey thought he had found an exploitable situation, & tried to exploit it.

Whether that was Legal is another matter, few (none?) of us here are sufficiently versed in Gaming Law to know that.

For sure, Genting would have engaged an army of specialist Lawyers & Compliance experts to advise them. Hard to imagine Genting would have gone to Court, given the costs may be huge, unless they hold the view (as advised by their specialist Legal team) that they would win the case.

[Skippy]

It's been said elsewhere (possibly on this thread, probably by Tikay) but I can't believe this is a sensible thing for Ivey to be doing even if he wins. You'd have thought Ivey's reputation would be worth enough to avoid these kind of schemes, because even if he wins, it still makes him look dodgy. Who wants to play cards with someone who exploits marked decks? Do you want Ivey gambling in your casino?

Ivey's a curious character (in lots of ways obviously). He's probably the most famous poker player in the world, but he acts as if he doesn't have a public image at all and is just an anonymous pro gambler/hustler getting it quietly. Occasionally he wakes up and tries to exploit his image (the Ivey League thing, Full Tilt endorsement), then he goes back to doing whatever he wants again.

[pleno1]

Thoughts on iveys net worth?

[Marky147]

Thoughts on iveys net worth?

A lot more than mine

[arbboy]

Thoughts on iveys net worth?

Could be anything from -$10m to + $200m.  Who knows.

[rfgqqabc]

If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

Yeah, I don't have a position on the issue, but I have been wondering how much of the support is cheering on 'us' against 'them'. Also, Ivey is fairly popular. I wonder if a less popular player would get the same support. Would you still be saying that the casino should pay if it was Men the Master or Howard Lederer instead of Ivey? If you would, fair enough. Also it's not just Genting - the same case is going on between Ivey and The Borgata, except it's the other way round, ie they are suing him, as he emptied his account as soon as things started to blow up.

Yup, it is par for the course to "support" the punter against the House, just as we always support the lone punter against those nasty bookies, but we don't really know the facts. We do know that, it seems, Mr Ivey thought he had found an exploitable situation, & tried to exploit it.

Whether that was Legal is another matter, few (none?) of us here are sufficiently versed in Gaming Law to know that.

For sure, Genting would have engaged an army of specialist Lawyers & Compliance experts to advise them. Hard to imagine Genting would have gone to Court, given the costs may be huge, unless they hold the view (as advised by their specialist Legal team) that they would win the case.

The bolded surely applies to Ivey too? As he said in the cbs interview trailer, its important for him to maintain a clean reputation.

Think Iveys net is probably pretty big, hes a degen but hes not stupid either, it'd take a lot for him to lose all the money ftp gave him, never mind money won elsewhere.

[tikay]

If an entity hustled a punter we would be on the punters side. In this case the punter hustled the entity and we still side with the punter, that is the debate worth having imo

Yeah, I don't have a position on the issue, but I have been wondering how much of the support is cheering on 'us' against 'them'. Also, Ivey is fairly popular. I wonder if a less popular player would get the same support. Would you still be saying that the casino should pay if it was Men the Master or Howard Lederer instead of Ivey? If you would, fair enough. Also it's not just Genting - the same case is going on between Ivey and The Borgata, except it's the other way round, ie they are suing him, as he emptied his account as soon as things started to blow up.

Yup, it is par for the course to "support" the punter against the House, just as we always support the lone punter against those nasty bookies, but we don't really know the facts. We do know that, it seems, Mr Ivey thought he had found an exploitable situation, & tried to exploit it.

Whether that was Legal is another matter, few (none?) of us here are sufficiently versed in Gaming Law to know that.

For sure, Genting would have engaged an army of specialist Lawyers & Compliance experts to advise them. Hard to imagine Genting would have gone to Court, given the costs may be huge, unless they hold the view (as advised by their specialist Legal team) that they would win the case.

The bolded surely applies to Ivey too? As he said in the cbs interview trailer, its important for him to maintain a clean reputation.

Think Iveys net is probably pretty big, hes a degen but hes not stupid either, it'd take a lot for him to lose all the money ftp gave him, never mind money won elsewhere.

Yes, that's fair comment. (That it applies to Ivey, not his "clean rep").

[tikay]

It's been said elsewhere (possibly on this thread, probably by Tikay) but I can't believe this is a sensible thing for Ivey to be doing even if he wins. You'd have thought Ivey's reputation would be worth enough to avoid these kind of schemes, because even if he wins, it still makes him look dodgy. Who wants to play cards with someone who exploits marked decks? Do you want Ivey gambling in your casino?

Ivey's a curious character (in lots of ways obviously). He's probably the most famous poker player in the world, but he acts as if he doesn't have a public image at all and is just an anonymous pro gambler/hustler getting it quietly. Occasionally he wakes up and tries to exploit his image (the Ivey League thing, Full Tilt endorsement), then he goes back to doing whatever he wants again.

Don't think it was me, I'm completely ambivelant to the outcome, but I do think it is quite an interesting cause celebre.

In these cases, the great mass of public opinion is always with the punter, of course, which is understandable, but, to me, illogical. We all want Gaming to be fair & just, surely?

[Rexas]

It's been said elsewhere (possibly on this thread, probably by Tikay) but I can't believe this is a sensible thing for Ivey to be doing even if he wins. You'd have thought Ivey's reputation would be worth enough to avoid these kind of schemes, because even if he wins, it still makes him look dodgy. Who wants to play cards with someone who exploits marked decks? Do you want Ivey gambling in your casino?

Ivey's a curious character (in lots of ways obviously). He's probably the most famous poker player in the world, but he acts as if he doesn't have a public image at all and is just an anonymous pro gambler/hustler getting it quietly. Occasionally he wakes up and tries to exploit his image (the Ivey League thing, Full Tilt endorsement), then he goes back to doing whatever he wants again.

Don't think it was me, I'm completely ambivelant to the outcome, but I do think it is quite an interesting cause celebre.

In these cases, the great mass of public opinion is always with the punter, of course, which is understandable, but, to me, illogical. We all want Gaming to be fair & just, surely?

Define fair, Tikay? Pit games by their very nature aren't mathematically "fair".

Something that springs to my mind here is this exploit-ability thing. So, we know for sure when we sit down to play a pit game that we are losing money. We are being exploited by the house, but we already know this, and that makes it ok (I'm not disputing this). With Blackjack, for example, there are proven systems which you can find very easily online and basically work out for yourself that reduce the house edge as much as possible. This is us fighting back against the casino, and this is fine because we're still losing to the casino, just not as much as before. They don't ban people for trying to reduce the house edge, they only get pissy when someone actually does, as in the case of Ivey. He didn't mark the cards or anything like that, the casino supplied him with marked cards and then proceeded to allow him to play several sessions with that deck. He has used an advantage that the house has given him. Tbh, it seems like there's been some negligence on the casino's part, and I don't think their case will hold up in court because they provided the means by which Ivey was able to swing the game in his favour.