Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[arbboy]

This ruling says "Come to the UK and punt but please don't win"!

..

I think it says  "Come to the UK and punt but please don't cheat"!

Agreed.  Don't think it says anything about uk firms grimming punters.  If the court of law had decided Ivey hadn't cheated he would have got paid.

[Jon MW]

This ruling says "Come to the UK and punt but please don't win"!

..

I think it says  "Come to the UK and punt but please don't cheat"!

Agreed.  Don't think it says anything about uk firms grimming punters.  If the court of law had decided Ivey hadn't cheated he would have got paid.

The BBC article I read suggested the judge's comments were that Ivey didn't cheat but what he did meant there was no gaming contract to fulfil. Obviously that was only one source but the impression I got was much more like the first comment rather than the second.

[Tal]

Biggest level since the Cottingley Fairies. No way you believe what you're writing, arbboy. If you tried submitting it for the plot of Ocean's Fourteen, they'd laugh you out of Hollywood.

Agreed i am not saying this is the reality but a really savvy legal team for a top class casino could easily pull off this risk free coup.

Ok. I'm in for 10% if I get the Don Cheadle comedy London accent part.

You would be 1.01 for the posh oxbridge type sitting playing roulette on the next table!

No chance. I've got a very wide range. Don't you read PHA?

Ello gavna. We-ah gerrin roit stitched ap nair! Dat weasel's dan ass, ee 'az!

Cheadle, stick to HBO, son. This one's mine.

[doubleup]

Our chance of being the Las Vegas of the internet has now fkd off for good.

It fkd off for good when Gordon Brown set the duty at 15% in 2006.  Why do you think they have had to change the law just to get a bit of the action.

btw the judge seems to have made a big point on the dealer rotating the cards.  He makes the point that she wouldn't have done this if she had known that she was revealing information about the cards.  And Ivey and companion duped her into being their unwitting accomplice.

[JoeBeevers]

This ruling says "Come to the UK and punt but please don't win"!

..

I think it says  "Come to the UK and punt but please don't cheat"!

Agreed.  Don't think it says anything about uk firms grimming punters.  If the court of law had decided Ivey hadn't cheated he would have got paid.

The BBC article I read suggested the judge's comments were that Ivey didn't cheat but what he did meant there was no gaming contract to fulfil. Obviously that was only one source but the impression I got was much more like the first comment rather than the second.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/08/top-poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings

The Guardian has more detail regarding the judge's ruling including this bit:

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.”

[SuuPRlim]

bullshit game.

I was presented with some evidence from flushy today which made it seem fairly obvious he would lose, but it's bullshit all the same lol

UL Phil, I think he'll be fine though.

[arbboy]

bullshit game.

I was presented with some evidence from flushy today which made it seem fairly obvious he would lose, but it's bullshit all the same lol

UL Phil, I think he'll be fine though.

The fact Genting took it to court in the first place?

[SuuPRlim]

apparently "changing the parameters of the game" in any way = cheating.

Such BS that he says "turn the cards" they turn, they lose and then they dont pay.

[arbboy]

apparently "changing the parameters of the game" in any way = cheating.

Such BS that he says "turn the cards" they turn, they lose and then they dont pay.

If i went into a betting shop and asked a naive cashier to put 100/1 on a slip that should be 10/1 the betting shop wouldn't pay 100/1 though.

[Tal]

apparently "changing the parameters of the game" in any way = cheating.

Such BS that he says "turn the cards" they turn, they lose and then they dont pay.

You in for the Matt Damon role, btw?

Tal Casting Ltd open for business

[SuuPRlim]

I dont think that is the same.

[arbboy]

I dont think that is the same.

It's not the same but it's similar.  Ivey is massively increasing the price he is getting on every bet by taking advantage of the naive cashier/croupier.  Genting shouldn't have naive croupiers dealing this game though to balance the argument any more than you would have a naive cashier working the number1 pitch at Cheltenham on Gold cup day when you are laying 5/6 figure bets to the high rollers.

[relaedgc]

Unsurprising result is unsurprising.

So many anti casino establishment view points. You're blinding yourself from seeing the right and wrong because you have blinkers on when it comes to the 'house'.

[George2Loose]

Unsurprising result is unsurprising.

So many anti casino establishment view points. You're blinding yourself from seeing the right and wrong because you have blinkers on when it comes to the 'house'.

As yours is being the house

[tikay]

More interestingly, if you were in charge of Crockfords, would you still take his action?

Course they will take his action as long as they don't have to pander to his incredible list of demands they agreed to in the past.  Doubt he will be in a rush to give them any action though.  He has been massively free rolled by Crockford's though in my opinion.  If he had knocked out £4/5m doing this he wouldn't have been able to take it to court and say the only reason he invested those sums was because he had an edge over them rather than the other way around.  Crockford's might have even known what he was doing and let him get on with it knowing that if he won they would refuse to pay him and if he did his bollocks then they win.  You never know.  You would have to assume Crockford's security guys are close to the best in the business given the sums of money involved in their establishment on a daily basis and might have even known about these cards being marked like this. VWP to Crockford's if this was the case and having Ivey over on a freeroll.

Arb...really respect your opinion but can you expand on the above please  ?

Are you saying Crockfords  either won his money in the game or withheld his money if he won... hence a free roll  ?

I am not saying they did.  I am saying if they knew he was edge sorting and knew that they would win a legal case in the UK on anyone trying it on in their casinos that they potentially could have freerolled him in this way.  This assumes they have top class management/security which you would imagine in one of the premier westend punting dens and they knew who Ivey was and wasn't asking for all these things for the hell of it.  I would find it hard to believe when Phil Ivey rocks up at a top casino in London most of their staff don't know who he is.

ok cheers...but the bad publicity obv a negative for Crockfords

That's one way of looking at it, Fraser.

You could equally argue, given that the Court ruled, in effect, that he cheated, that the bad publicity is a negative for Mr Ivey's reputation. Casinos chains across the globe will have followed this case with interest, & will now, I imagine, be wary of doing any further Gaming business with him.

Personally, I don't see any reason not to continue to use Genting's various Gaming establishments. (I'm pretty sure you will continue to use them, too!). I'd be very wary of entering into a wager with Mr Ivey though.