Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[tikay]

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.

I had to look that up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies


Amazing what we can learn reading random threads.

I'll now have to find a way to throw that into a convo. Might take a while, but I'll get there.

[MANTIS01]

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.

Every salesman in every industry ask naive people to buy over valued products. If some silver tongued double glazing saleswoman shows me a bit of cleavage and sells me £5k of windows that should be £3k should I have to pay?

[tikay]

I am in the Ivey corner on the basis that he has exploited information he has figured out to his advantage.  The casino agreed to the parameters set by Ivey and are now calling foul. 

This is like a bookie who makes a palp but lets the bet stand and calls palp if it wins and says nothing if it loses in my book. 

We know the odds at house games such as roulette but we also know the house can and does change the playing parameteres by changing the speed of the wheel, the croupier the direction of the ball etc etc.  And in the FBOTS the win % is dictated before we start playing and although the payout % is shown we know that certain establishments can and do tamper with the win %. 

Had Ivey deliberately marked the cards, or come into contact with them then one could come to the conclusion that he did somethingwrong but as it stands and with the information known morally he may be upto no good in this situation but in the eyes of the law I find it impossible to lay blame at his door. 

I don't think that affect the odds in any way, shape, or form, just as "rabbit-hunting" does not change the odds or outcome of a poker hand.

[marcro]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

[tikay]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

Well sort of, yes, ( I don't recall the amount though, I thought it was less than that) but only as a reprisal because, as the story goes, they had been la bit "sharp" with him for some time, & for a considerable amount of money. I don't believe Ivey did anything wrong in that matter, it was just tit for tat really. That matter was eventually settled. If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

The thread has been fascinating. It's really quite something that the traditional "anti-establishment" (or vice-versa, of course) bias colours the judgement of so many of us.

[TightEnd]

Do we think that Ivey's reputation, as a result of this:

- has improved

- has deteriorated

- no change

? 

[tikay]

Do we think that Ivey's reputation, as a result of this:

- has improved

- has deteriorated

- no change

? 

Has to be "no change" for me, all things considered. It depends what our view of him was before this case, of course.
 

[RED-DOG]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

Well sort of, yes, ( I don't recall the amount though, I thought it was less than that) but only as a reprisal because, as the story goes, they had been la bit "sharp" with him for some time, & for a considerable amount of money. I don't believe Ivey did anything wrong in that matter, it was just tit for tat really. That matter was eventually settled. If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

The thread has been fascinating. It's really quite something that the traditional "anti-establishment" (or vice-versa, of course) bias colours the judgement of so many of us.

But everyone has a bias in everything. That doesn't automatically make it wrong. For instance, why not call it supporting the underdog instead of anti-establishment?

[arbboy]

Do we think that Ivey's reputation, as a result of this:

- has improved

- has deteriorated

- no change

?  

IMO his reputation with all his fan boys who he never meets/does business with will have improved because he will be considered a hero.  His rep with any gaming establishment/cash game high roller who he plays with have to have deteriorated to a certain extent in the same way as if i 'pull a stroke' in a betting shop i am going to be less likely to get on in the future.  I think it depends which angle you are looking from.

I also think Ivey was a bit naive thinking he would actually pull this scam off AND get paid in the UK.  It's a double imo.  Firstly, he has to pull off the scam (and win which isn't a certainty but he has much improved odds in his favour) then he has to get paid.  I think he has underestimated the likeliehood of a major UK casino just backing down and paying him and not truely understanding how likely he would be in a court of law in the UK to win this case.

[tikay]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

Well sort of, yes, ( I don't recall the amount though, I thought it was less than that) but only as a reprisal because, as the story goes, they had been la bit "sharp" with him for some time, & for a considerable amount of money. I don't believe Ivey did anything wrong in that matter, it was just tit for tat really. That matter was eventually settled. If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

The thread has been fascinating. It's really quite something that the traditional "anti-establishment" (or vice-versa, of course) bias colours the judgement of so many of us.

But everyone has a bias in everything. That doesn't automatically make it wrong. For instance, why not call it supporting the underdog instead of anti-establishment?

Same thing, really.

I never said (or intended to say) our bias made our view "wrong", I said "it colours our judgement".  It does not necessarily make ir right OR wrong. But it easily can.

The vast majority of those who posted on the thread thought Ivey was the hero, & Crockfords the villain, when the facts, & logic, suggested otherwise. IMO, of course.

I can't think of a good logical reason why, traditionally, we support the underdog, any more than I understand why we happily eat tuna but not dolphin, cows but not horses, rabbits but not dogs.

For the record, I was really not fussed who won the Court case, why should I be?, but I did feel that Ivey had not played fair, & had mischievious intent. He thought he saw a weasel sleeping.   

[david3103]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

Well sort of, yes, ( I don't recall the amount though, I thought it was less than that) but only as a reprisal because, as the story goes, they had been la bit "sharp" with him for some time, & for a considerable amount of money. I don't believe Ivey did anything wrong in that matter, it was just tit for tat really. That matter was eventually settled. If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

The thread has been fascinating. It's really quite something that the traditional "anti-establishment" (or vice-versa, of course) bias colours the judgement of so many of us.

But everyone has a bias in everything. That doesn't automatically make it wrong. For instance, why not call it supporting the underdog instead of anti-establishment?

Same thing, really.

I never said (or intended to say) our bias made our view "wrong", I said "it colours our judgement".  It does not necessarily make ir right OR wrong. But it easily can.

The vast majority of those who posted on the thread thought Ivey was the hero, & Crockfords the villain, when the facts, & logic, suggested otherwise. IMO, of course.

I can't think of a good logical reason why, traditionally, we support the underdog, any more than I understand why we happily eat tuna but not dolphin, cows but not horses, rabbits but not dogs.

For the record, I was really not fussed who won the Court case, why should I be?, but I did feel that Ivey had not played fair, & had mischievious intent. He thought he saw a weasel sleeping.   

Indeed, but he seems to be the one with a wet ear

[SuuPRlim]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

yup.

turns out he is quite sharp...

[arbboy]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

yup.

turns out he is quite sharp...

I really still want to think Genting were sharper, knew totally what he was up to and were willing to take him to court and freeroll him!!

[tikay]

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. 

Didn't Ivey take Vaswani and Goodwin to the cleaners on the golf course for a 7 figure amount shooting way below his "handicap"?

If you bet with Mr Ivey, you'd best keep your wits about you though, for sure. 

yup.

turns out he is quite sharp...

I really still want to think Genting were sharper, knew totally what he was up to and were willing to take him to court and freeroll him!!

BOOM!

Click to see full-size image.

[Marky147]

Didn't they wire him his million back ages ago?