blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2024, 11:48:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2274241 Posts in 66768 Topics by 16955 Members
Latest Member: Airdraken
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Poker Forums
| |-+  The Rail
| | |-+  Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 ... 30 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings  (Read 74887 times)
arbboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13285


View Profile
« Reply #345 on: October 09, 2014, 01:55:06 PM »

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

Yes
Logged
redsimon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8707



View Profile
« Reply #346 on: October 09, 2014, 02:03:31 PM »

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?
Logged

Success has many parents but failure is an orphan

http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 47061



View Profile WWW
« Reply #347 on: October 09, 2014, 02:05:52 PM »

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?


Why did they return it?

Did they return money to everyone who played with those cards?
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
arbboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13285


View Profile
« Reply #348 on: October 09, 2014, 02:14:30 PM »

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?


Why did they return it?

Did they return money to everyone who played with those cards?

The case wasn't about the actual cards it was about what Ivey did to the cards to get his edge.
Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 47061



View Profile WWW
« Reply #349 on: October 09, 2014, 02:21:56 PM »

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?


Why did they return it?

Did they return money to everyone who played with those cards?

The case wasn't about the actual cards it was about what Ivey did to the cards to get his edge.


He didn't do anything to them.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
arbboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13285


View Profile
« Reply #350 on: October 09, 2014, 02:24:14 PM »

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?


Why did they return it?

Did they return money to everyone who played with those cards?

The case wasn't about the actual cards it was about what Ivey did to the cards to get his edge.


He didn't do anything to them.

Ok what he asked the dealer to do with them.
Logged
doubleup
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7070


View Profile
« Reply #351 on: October 09, 2014, 02:36:43 PM »

Slight sidetrack, but do you think Genting should have witheld the million if they suspected foul play?


Why did they return it?

Did they return money to everyone who played with those cards?

ianal but I understand that their assertion was that the Ivey's cheating nullified the contract and the remedy for that is to return the parties to the position they were in before the contract*, so Ivey gets his money back.

btw you are putting too much emphasis on the asymmetric cards.  The primary reason that the judge ruled that Ivey cheated was because his accomplice manipulated the Chinese speaking dealer by speaking to her in Chinese and persuading her to turn certain cards when she didn't know the implication of this.

*I have often though that internet poker companies seizing the money in accounts for breaches of T&C is an extremely dodgy practice, I wonder if it will change now that the UKGC are regulating most companies.



 
Logged
bobby1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9588



View Profile
« Reply #352 on: October 09, 2014, 04:23:30 PM »

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

- has improved

- has deteriorated

- no change



If you had played any high stakes poker with Ivey or private games etc would you now be left wondering how legit those games were?

The guy seems well connected these days when you look at who he is bailing out, if he can find out one set of cards has a defect can it be a massive price there could be others?

Logged

“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”
AndrewT
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15495



View Profile WWW
« Reply #353 on: October 09, 2014, 05:25:38 PM »

I really can't see why this is so complicated. Genting ran a game which was set up in such a way so that they had an advantage. Ivey/associate asked them if they would make a change which resulted in the advantage lying with them. Genting agreed.

To then say afterwards 'but we didn't know it would lose us the advantage - this nullifies the arrangement between us' is crock. As someone said previously, surely this now means that anyone who has ever played a casino game with Genting who didn't realise that casino games are mathematically biased against them and cannot be beaten with any system or playing style should get their money back. 'I thought it was a fair game - I didn't realise what I was agreeing to'.
Logged
SuuPRlim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10536



View Profile
« Reply #354 on: October 09, 2014, 07:43:35 PM »

*I agree with you ^^^ but...

Apparently UK Casino laws says any action which alters the parameters of game as set out by the casino nullifies the gambling.

I agree it's BS.

Ivey's rep is fine, and I dont think anyone is going to question his integrity in poker games, it wasn't like he had a load of 7's 8's and 9's up his sleeve or was using his iPhone to interfere with the dice or anything, all he was doing here was seeing all the angles and having the balls to take them.
Logged

MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #355 on: October 10, 2014, 01:50:57 AM »

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.

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.

It would be a proper coup for them if they had agreed with their legal team that anyone who attempted it in their casinos would always lose their case in a court of law in the UK and they were willing to let it happen if the punter doing it was staking big enough to give them a big enough freeroll against him.


To make that work, several employees (albeit senior and very well-paid employees but still employees, not owners) would have to be willing to lie in court if necessary. A lot of senior employees would know the situation and they would all have to stick to the same story and then be willing to live with the possibility that one of the others would give the game away one day, with the catastrophic effect that would have on their careers and the possibility of going to prison.
Logged
relaedgc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1186


View Profile
« Reply #356 on: October 10, 2014, 10:02:00 AM »

Unsurprising result is unsurprising.

I am still amused by how many people are blinkered by their Anti-Casino tunnel vision.

What is a casino? A venue that offers game of chance, which favour the house (obviously - or people wouldn't offer the chance) where upon people stake money for a chance to win more money.

If you think it is unfair that they have the benefit of the house edge please turn around from this conversation and don't participate any further. It wouldn't be a viable business/service if they couldn't make it pay for itself. Same as high street bookmakers or online poker sites.

Ivey played one of these games. The conditions of the game are what they are.

The following things occurred which exploited/abused the nature of the game.

* He took advantage of a misprinted design to an advantage, using his accomplice to spin a story of superstition which was in fact done to manipulate and abuse said flaw.

So please explain to me why everyone is struggling to accept that this is wrong.

If you were playing a cash game with him, and he used this to wipe you out - are you going to sit there and say that it is a completely valid technique?

I don't care if people dislike casinos and see them as a blight on society - but it doesn't change ethics. If it's wrong, it is wrong. It has always amazed me how people seem to thing one up manship is perfectly okay in a casino. E.g a payout is wrong and people think they shouldn't  have to pay it back. It doesn't apply to an elderly pensioner, though.

He played a game of chance. He exploited the game not through a technique requiring brainpower or intelligence, but by manipulating a flaw and secretly and inadvertently exploiting the dealer in to making it easier for him to profit from it.

If he had said from the outset, "Hey. This deck is flawed. Mind if we use it so I can profit unfairly by manipulating information that shouldn't be available to me in this game of chance?"

Would the casino have allowed it to happen? No. And there's your answer.
Logged

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."
Friedrich Nietzsche
smurf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 819


View Profile
« Reply #357 on: October 10, 2014, 10:40:04 AM »

These same casinos have provided Ivey with a platform to ply his trade and make a substantial living - seems rather knobbish to then try cheating them

Caught out by greed no doubt - he could have quite feasibly played for seven or eight nights and lost on a couple and still made his 7m with out any suspicions being raised if he is that way inclined
Logged
AndrewT
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15495



View Profile WWW
« Reply #358 on: October 10, 2014, 10:58:18 AM »

If you were playing a cash game with him, and he used this to wipe you out - are you going to sit there and say that it is a completely valid technique?

If I'd brought the cards and it was my cards we were using then I'd say yes, it is valid. WP him for spotting something I'd missed. Same as if I had a tell I didn't know about - I'd hardly expect him to not use that against me.

If he had said from the outset, "Hey. This deck is flawed. Mind if we use it so I can profit unfairly by manipulating information that shouldn't be available to me in this game of chance?"

'Dude - you totally scratch your nose every time you bluff' - he doesn't have to get my permission to use this against me.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 11:00:37 AM by AndrewT » Logged
AndrewT
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15495



View Profile WWW
« Reply #359 on: October 10, 2014, 11:03:13 AM »

As far as I'm concerned Genting should just have taken their medicine and sucked it up - the guy got one over on us - WP, we were punished because we weren't very good at our jobs, in future we're going to actually check the cards we use.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 ... 30 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.248 seconds with 21 queries.