Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[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?

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.

Sorry for the delayed reply, been a bit all over the shop this week.

We both know what "fair" is, surely?

When we engage in a wager (including a House Game) we should be able to reasonably expect the other party to play fair, & pay us our rightful dues if we win, assuming we abide by the Rules. And we'll pay up if we lose.

I want to be treated fairly by Casinos & poker sites. Does not seem unreasonable to me that we behave in kind. 

[smurf]

Go on then...i will shake the hornets nest

what if you were playing poker and another player has sussed out certain cards had certain flaws on the back...would we all feel it was acceptable for them to use this information against the other players

also if Ivey has set out to do this...how can we be sure that on his rise to the top of the poker tree he hasn't pulled similar stunts before.

not taking sides just throwing it out there

[cambridgealex]

@smurf, I think it's different. Using a mistake of the manufacturer / casino against the casino is one thing. Using a mistake of the manufacturer / casino against other players is another.

I think it is definitely shady, definitely unethical and dishonest. But I don't think he deserves to lose the case, or the money.

[RED-DOG]

Go on then...i will shake the hornets nest

what if you were playing poker and another player has sussed out certain cards had certain flaws on the back...would we all feel it was acceptable for them to use this information against the other players

also if Ivey has set out to do this...how can we be sure that on his rise to the top of the poker tree he hasn't pulled similar stunts before.

not taking sides just throwing it out there

If the other players had spent years enjoying a built in bias that gave them an unbeatable edge, and then they agreed to a plethora of stipulations regarding which specific cards were used and the way the cards were shuffled and dealt and then they only complained after they had done their dough, then I say again, yes, good luck to him

[AlunB]

Go on then...i will shake the hornets nest

what if you were playing poker and another player has sussed out certain cards had certain flaws on the back...would we all feel it was acceptable for them to use this information against the other players

also if Ivey has set out to do this...how can we be sure that on his rise to the top of the poker tree he hasn't pulled similar stunts before.

not taking sides just throwing it out there

If the other players had spent years enjoying a built in bias that gave them an unbeatable edge, and then they agreed to a plethora of stipulations regarding which specific cards were used and the way the cards were shuffled and dealt and then they only complained after they had done their dough, then I say again, yes, good luck to him

You say this as if it were some kind of evil enterprise, and not the only legitimate way they could actually make any money from the business. And something everyone, well nearly everyone, is aware of from the outset.

[gouty]

Does anyone agree that it would look more shady if he never sued them?

At least this way, win or lose, he has been transparent in explaining his strategy and will walk away from this with his reputation intact. The book or film royalties could be worth more anyway.

nh PI

[OverTheBorder]

I think we are over looking one key question.

Has anyone phoned the police? 

[Woodsey]

Does anyone agree that it would look more shady if he never sued them?

At least this way, win or lose, he has been transparent in explaining his strategy and will walk away from this with his reputation intact. The book or film royalties could be worth more anyway.

nh PI

Being the eternal gambler he's probably thinking along the lines of.....my lawyers are costing me £500k (ok a fictitious figure I know), I stand to get £7 mill, therefore I'm getting 14/1, that must be +EV! 

[arbboy]

Does anyone agree that it would look more shady if he never sued them?

At least this way, win or lose, he has been transparent in explaining his strategy and will walk away from this with his reputation intact. The book or film royalties could be worth more anyway.

nh PI

Being the eternal gambler he's probably thinking along the lines of.....my lawyers are costing me £500k (ok a fictitious figure I know), I stand to get £7 mill, therefore I'm getting 14/1, that must be +EV! 

That' probably exactly how him and his potential backers in the coup are thinking i would imagine as they are a big underdog to win but probably not 14/1!

[MANTIS01]

I would wager Tikay has more money than we think

Does that we include you?

When does the "we" not include the "me"?

When you don't agree with what the 'we' think?

Personally I would replace the "we" with a "you"

[Tal]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/boris-berezovsky-roman-abramovich-legal-fees

[cambridgealex]

I would wager Tikay has more money than we think

Does that we include you?

When does the "we" not include the "me"?

When you don't agree with what the 'we' think?

Personally I would replace the "we" with a "you"

Tom is right. It's a logical fallacy. Why would you, Mantis,  place a wager that Tikay was worth more than you, Mantis thought?

[Karabiner]

Are people cheering on Ivey here?

Personally, yes.

If he can pull off a coup of such magnitude, and do it in such a way that he is actually aided and abbeted by the very same people who now claim to have been robbed, then good luck to him.

You make a good point, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm certainly not cheering against him.

But I'm not a fan of cheating, and don't think the villain should make a huge difference really. Were we all cheering him on when he found an edge against Ram and Marc?

Well I certainly was because he was exploiting their own larcenous intent having taken him for plenty beforehand and thinking it was going to go on for ever.

I'm rarely disappointed to see anyone hoisted by their own petard.

[BigAdz]

Apols if anyone has asked this, or, if it's a dumb question.

Just because we acknowledge the Casino has the built in edge, there is no law that states this I presume?

In which case, if Ivey has done nothing that could be construed as illegal, like tampering with cards or forcing the dealer to do something dodgy( which probably are not actually illegal in themselves) then he has broken no law and should be paid.

I've read enough books on MIT exploits etc, but can't recall the answer, but sure card counting wasn't illegal, casinos just hate it, and so I presume this is the same?

As I said, dumb.

[Royal Flush]

This is the thing, none of us know the law. It would be like someone else coming on here and arguing the finer points of a PHA hand whilst all the while not knowing if a flush beats a straight.

Smurf raises a good point, what if a fish in a regular poker game did this to us? Is that ok seeing as we usually win and now he's biting back?