Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[doubleup]

FFS willl you stop bleating on about the flawed cards - they aren't the reason the judge said he cheated.  In fact if the scheme relied solely on observing flawed cards, it wouldn't have been cheating.

The judge said that he cheated because Ivey's accomplice, speaking in Chinese to the specifically selected Chinese speaking dealer, persuaded the dealer using deception to rotate the relevant cards so that Ivey could identify their rank and that if the dealer hadn't been deceived and knew the true purpose of the rotation she wouldn't have complied.

[smurf]

Although he did ask for a specific colour and make of card knowing they were flawed like in this other case against him

http://www.legaluspokersites.com/news/phil-ivey-seeks-dismissal-of-the-borgatas-9-6-million-baccarat-lawsuit/3607

[relaedgc]

A tell is your own betrayal.

A marked deck is not. If you lost losing a marked deck and you applauded him for his ingenuity, then I really don't see the point in trying to discuss it with you.

Like I said. If he had explained his intentions at the beginning, the dealer would have said GTFO. Thus, we can recognise there was a deception.!

[SuuPRlim]

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.

Whereas the point is pretty good I think there is one fairly big point your missing, and that is that every business, be it a gambling business, a roofing business or a dry cleaners is susceptible to personal negligence, and most of us in the real world have to pay the price if we don't safeguard against it.

Casinos and bookmakers conduct such a natural disdain from people because they operate in a manner to fully exploit (albeit perfectly legally and within the boundaries of there rules which everyone can read/see) mistakes from sir customers but they cry like you can't imagine and refuse liability when it's the oer way.

Again I accept this is all fairly clearly laid out for us all when we gamble against them so it's all fair and fair, but you can't be that surprised when we hear a story of the casinos dropping a major clanger, one of everyone's gambling heros spanking them for a big amount and we all wanna cheer him on!!

[77dave]

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

[GreekStein]

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

attempting to get that bet at evens was rediculous anyway

[arbboy]

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

attempting to get that bet at evens was rediculous anyway

Bet of the year.  Would love to know if anyone actually laid it.

[arbboy]

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

The deck of cards can be as flawed as you want.  Unless the dealer agrees to turn the cards as per Ivey's instructions , ivey has no edge at all no matter how flawed the deck was.

[relaedgc]

Yes - so he and his companion claim that they're superstitious and the casino indulge their request. Why? Because it's exploitive? No. Because it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and thus there is no harm done to either side.

Unbeknownst to them, Ivey is in fact taking advantage of them.

Like I said - had he said, "Hey. I am going to exploit this flawed deck you have, is that okay?" then the dealer/casino refuse. So we know from this fact that it was wrong.

I've always known it to be a fair environment. They have an inherent edge in their games, so they don't seek to tarnish their reputation by disputing variances or minor mistakes. But if someone openly cheats, they will always refuse to pay. Ivey is lucky he didn't leave with the money because they would have had it all back off of him in the courts.

It's clear cut and simple. Withdraw £100 from an ATM and if you receive £200, you can bet your life that the bank will ask you to pay it back. Wrong is wrong. Don't let your judgment be clouded. Ethics are very simple. If it feels dishonest, it probably is dishonest.

[arbboy]

Yes - so he and his companion claim that they're superstitious and the casino indulge their request. Why? Because it's exploitive? No. Because it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and thus there is no harm done to either side.

Unbeknownst to them, Ivey is in fact taking advantage of them.

Like I said - had he said, "Hey. I am going to exploit this flawed deck you have, is that okay?" then the dealer/casino refuse. So we know from this fact that it was wrong.

I've always known it to be a fair environment. They have an inherent edge in their games, so they don't seek to tarnish their reputation by disputing variances or minor mistakes. But if someone openly cheats, they will always refuse to pay. Ivey is lucky he didn't leave with the money because they would have had it all back off of him in the courts.

It's clear cut and simple. Withdraw £100 from an ATM and if you receive £200, you can bet your life that the bank will ask you to pay it back. Wrong is wrong. Don't let your judgment be clouded. Ethics are very simple. If it feels dishonest, it probably is dishonest.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say.  I am not a casino employee either for balance.  However, i would think a casino manager/inspector/pitboss who are in charge of games of this size in Genting's flagship casino should be aware of this 'tactic' and if someone asks for the requests Ivey did to 100% know why he was asking for them and decline them politely.  Ivey has effectively been freerolled in this spot because if he had done exactly the same thing and dropped £5m with the same 6% edge in his favour instead of 1% against him (numbers made up but close enough for argument's sake) the case would never have gone to court, Genting would have banked the £5m and never have taken this to court to recover the EV they still effectively lost from Ivey that day even though they won £5m in real terms. 

Ivey would have sucked it up having had 'the best of it' like most professional gamblers do every day but on this occasion he did his cash.  However, because the world is results orientated and Ivey won Genting can escape because of the way the law works.  I would like to think numerous senior managers/inspectors on duty that night have been fired from Crockford's for the total lack of professionalism/knowledge of their chosen industry in handling this incident and the head of training at Genting has also suitably been relieved of his duties for not suitably training their senior staff in their flagship casino.  No mention has been made of this.  

[Rexas]

Yes - so he and his companion claim that they're superstitious and the casino indulge their request. Why? Because it's exploitive? No. Because it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and thus there is no harm done to either side.

Unbeknownst to them, Ivey is in fact taking advantage of them.

Like I said - had he said, "Hey. I am going to exploit this flawed deck you have, is that okay?" then the dealer/casino refuse. So we know from this fact that it was wrong.

I've always known it to be a fair environment. They have an inherent edge in their games, so they don't seek to tarnish their reputation by disputing variances or minor mistakes. But if someone openly cheats, they will always refuse to pay. Ivey is lucky he didn't leave with the money because they would have had it all back off of him in the courts.

It's clear cut and simple. Withdraw £100 from an ATM and if you receive £200, you can bet your life that the bank will ask you to pay it back. Wrong is wrong. Don't let your judgment be clouded. Ethics are very simple. If it feels dishonest, it probably is dishonest.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say.  I am not a casino employee either for balance.  However, i would think a casino manager/inspector/pitboss who are in charge of games of this size in Genting's flagship casino should be aware of this 'tactic' and if someone asks for the requests Ivey did to 100% know why he was asking for them and decline them politely.  Ivey has effectively been freerolled in this spot because if he had done exactly the same thing and dropped £5m with the same 6% edge in his favour instead of 1% against him (numbers made up but close enough for argument's sake) the case would never have gone to court, Genting would have banked the £5m from their whale and Ivey would have sucked it up having had 'the best of it' like most professional gamblers do every day but on this occasion he did his cash.  However, because the world is results orientated and Ivey won Genting can escape because of the way the law works.  I would like to think numerous senior managers/inspectors on duty that night have been fired from Crockford's for the total lack of professionalism/knowledge of their chosen industry in handling this incident and the head of training at Genting has also suitably been relieved of his duties for not suitably training their senior staff in their flagship casino.  No mention has been made of this.  

If he's been freerolled as you say, which admittedly does seem like the case here, I wouldn't fire them, I'd promote them for earning the chain a gtd few million.

[arbboy]

Yes - so he and his companion claim that they're superstitious and the casino indulge their request. Why? Because it's exploitive? No. Because it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and thus there is no harm done to either side.

Unbeknownst to them, Ivey is in fact taking advantage of them.

Like I said - had he said, "Hey. I am going to exploit this flawed deck you have, is that okay?" then the dealer/casino refuse. So we know from this fact that it was wrong.

I've always known it to be a fair environment. They have an inherent edge in their games, so they don't seek to tarnish their reputation by disputing variances or minor mistakes. But if someone openly cheats, they will always refuse to pay. Ivey is lucky he didn't leave with the money because they would have had it all back off of him in the courts.

It's clear cut and simple. Withdraw £100 from an ATM and if you receive £200, you can bet your life that the bank will ask you to pay it back. Wrong is wrong. Don't let your judgment be clouded. Ethics are very simple. If it feels dishonest, it probably is dishonest.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say.  I am not a casino employee either for balance.  However, i would think a casino manager/inspector/pitboss who are in charge of games of this size in Genting's flagship casino should be aware of this 'tactic' and if someone asks for the requests Ivey did to 100% know why he was asking for them and decline them politely.  Ivey has effectively been freerolled in this spot because if he had done exactly the same thing and dropped £5m with the same 6% edge in his favour instead of 1% against him (numbers made up but close enough for argument's sake) the case would never have gone to court, Genting would have banked the £5m from their whale and Ivey would have sucked it up having had 'the best of it' like most professional gamblers do every day but on this occasion he did his cash.  However, because the world is results orientated and Ivey won Genting can escape because of the way the law works.  I would like to think numerous senior managers/inspectors on duty that night have been fired from Crockford's for the total lack of professionalism/knowledge of their chosen industry in handling this incident and the head of training at Genting has also suitably been relieved of his duties for not suitably training their senior staff in their flagship casino.  No mention has been made of this.  

If he's been freerolled as you say, which admittedly does seem like the case here, I wouldn't fire them, I'd promote them for earning the chain a gtd few million.

I agree with you if they deliberately freerolled him and were suitably skilled/knowledgeable to know the details vwp to them.  The reality is all the staff involved from inspector level/camera security guy all the way up to general manager that night at the casino (exclude the croupier as there is no reason for her to have this level of knowledge/maybe the inspector as well) were massively underskilled/qualified to be dealing a game of this size imo and had no idea what was going on when they 100% should have done to be in such a senior position in the flagship casino of the Genting brand in the UK.

  
Whether they won £7m that night or lost £7m to ivey the long term is they lost 6% of their turnover in ev long term that night to Ivey (assuming Ivey had a 6% edge over them because of this edge sorting for arguments sake - I don't know the exact edge he had).  

My point is if Genting won there is no court case and the money is banked even though they have lost the same EV as if Ivey won.  The clueless senior management get a big pat on the back for looking after Ivey all night and ironing him out even though they were clueless and had no idea what was going on and every time he had a £100k bet they were setting fire to £6k of Genting's cash effectively.  Ivey doesn't get the same treatment when it's the other way around and i think that is unfair.  It just shows you how results orientated and badly run the vast majority of gaming establishments are from a management point of view.  In this case the law is massively on their side.

[arbboy]

Yes - so he and his companion claim that they're superstitious and the casino indulge their request. Why? Because it's exploitive? No. Because it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and thus there is no harm done to either side.

Unbeknownst to them, Ivey is in fact taking advantage of them.

Like I said - had he said, "Hey. I am going to exploit this flawed deck you have, is that okay?" then the dealer/casino refuse. So we know from this fact that it was wrong.

I've always known it to be a fair environment. They have an inherent edge in their games, so they don't seek to tarnish their reputation by disputing variances or minor mistakes. But if someone openly cheats, they will always refuse to pay. Ivey is lucky he didn't leave with the money because they would have had it all back off of him in the courts.

It's clear cut and simple. Withdraw £100 from an ATM and if you receive £200, you can bet your life that the bank will ask you to pay it back. Wrong is wrong. Don't let your judgment be clouded. Ethics are very simple. If it feels dishonest, it probably is dishonest.

This is like saying if you are a bookmaker at Ascot and it starts raining heavily and the going goes from firm to soft in an hour and a high roller comes up to back the horse in the race which loves soft ground and you haven't altered your price from 20/1 when the ground was firm to 10/1 (what it should be if the going is soft).  If said high roller had £500 at 20/1 and the bet was struck and the horse won the said bookmaker could then take said high roller to court and say 'i didn't know the punter had 'cheated' by knowing the ground had gone soft and i didn't therefore i refused to pay him.  However if the horse lost the money would stay in the bookies satchel and nothing would be said.

  As a senior industry professional you would be expected to know it's raining and the going is now soft.  Just like the senior management/security staff at Crockford's should have been suitably skilled to know what ivey was up to.  If they are not suitably skilled then they shouldn't be in the role and/or the head of training should be fired for gross misconduct for not training his staff in just fundamental advantage play as this which kills their employers theoretical edge.

[JoeBeevers]

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

attempting to get that bet at evens was rediculous anyway

So easy to say after the event.

It looks like more people, particularly online, thought Ivey would win and even after the ruling people still think that he should have won.

[arbboy]

Ivey knew the cards were flawed before he got to the casino.

Ivey only went to the casino cos he knew they were using the flawed decks

Ivey admitted in court that he is up £1.4m from previous visits to Crockfords.

I'd think Joe will struggle to get any action at evs for Ivey to win against the Atlantic City casinos.

attempting to get that bet at evens was rediculous anyway

So easy to say after the event.

It looks like more people, particularly online, thought Ivey would win and even after the ruling people still think that he should have won.

I never thought Ivey would win purely because Genting would never have taken the case to court if they had any doubt at all from their specialist legal team they would lose.  However, i still think Ivey has been freerolled if that makes sense from my posts.