Mayfair Casino witholding Ivey's winnings

[titaniumbean]

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, but I definitely think he's been freerolled and that the casino are incompetent scummers (shock).

[edgascoigne]

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, but I definitely think he's been freerolled and that the casino are incompetent scummers (shock).

1/5 Casino staff incompetence
7/2 Deliberate freerolling

[arbboy]

Does any really think this was the first and only time Ivey and Crockford's locked horns using edge sorting tactics?  Have there been other occasions when it's happened and there have either been no major win/loss for either party or Ivey had done his money heavily in the past and this has just been swept under the carpet.  I find it hard to believe this is the one and only time this has happened if he was a reg at Crockford's.

[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, but I definitely think he's been freerolled and that the casino are incompetent scummers (shock).

1/5 Casino staff incompetence
7/2 Deliberate freerolling

I would back the 1/5 as it is virtually certainly this but it doesn't stop him still being freerolled all the same, albeit accidently, because of the incompetence.

[relaedgc]

I don't think it is the same at all.

Sports Betting has conditional variables, which is why they adjust the odds.

Baccarat/Punto is always the same. Unchanging. So are the other games. It's more akin to betting on someone being sent off and you've paid them to get sent off than it is to do with a conditional variable such as weather in racing.

So sorry.

[arbboy]

I don't think it is the same at all.

Sports Betting has conditional variables, which is why they adjust the odds.

Baccarat/Punto is always the same. Unchanging. So are the other games. It's more akin to betting on someone being sent off and you've paid them to get sent off than it is to do with a conditional variable such as weather in racing.

So sorry.

I don't expect you to agree you work for a casino group.  Do you think the senior staff at crockford's were suitably qualified to inspect/manage a game of this size given the decisions they allowed to be made given it is the flagship casino in the Genting group and arguably in the uk for high rollers.

[Simon Galloway]

Having worked in a casino, and having punted on the other side of the table on a very rare occasion   I can provide an alternative view to George's comments.

If someone goes into a shop and the server gives too much change, I know some won't, but I'd like to think people will point it out.  If the dealer paid out over the top, it is certainly true that I'd expect less people to point it out.  One reason is that joe public actually often has no clue what the correct payout should have been.  Another reason is that many still feel cheated by previous horrendous decisions they have suffered at the hands of unenthusiastic/uncaring staff and if they "get some of it back" then that's ok in their book.  Whilst people should try and live by their own code and not be lowered to someone else's, I understand why people do it, in the same way that I understand (but don't agree with) why cricketers who nick one behind don't walk, as they see it evening out with the last shocker they were given.

Now in my time dealing, I can tell you that pit bosses on average are far more superstitious than any hi-roller.  Show a pit boss two roulette tables, one winning and one losing and ask them to close one of them, and 95% of the time you will find yourself closing the same table.  Most of the superstitions are just bunkum and don't materially effect the game %.  But pit bosses (and anyone on a bonus%) absolutely are trying their level best to ensure that the house edge is allowed to be achieved, and enhanced wherever possible whilst being careful not to contravene the applicable Gaming Laws.

I have never returned from a break and been invited to "go and deal on AR3 and make sure the game is being run in a fair manner to enable us to collect on our 2.7% edge".  I absolutely have been invited to go onto AR3 and "spin the guy off the table/"put it in tier and keep it there" (gee sure)/to not return any losing bets over the table max/to not comment if the player chose to rip up the card on a losing outcome / the list goes on...

I stopped feeling sorry for punters when I noticed there were no chains forcing them to stay at the table and take the worst of it.
I stopped feeling sorry for the house when I experienced first hand just how smarmy and underhand most managers/pit bosses could be in pursuit of profit.

I'll balance things up a little bit too.  I've known a lot of decent managers to even out the many that were drastically under-skilled (they'd just been there the longest and got promoted factory-styleee)  I've never personally been asked to do anything which would be in clear contravention of the Gaming Act.  So I've never been asked to short-change anyone or deliberately "pinch a split" or anything like that.  But if a manager can keep a hi-roller on the promises who is showing all the tell-tale signs of doing his best to do his absolute bollocks.... they will.

And to arbboy, yes it would have been cute to have double-crossed Ivey with a reverse-freeroll, but no it definitely wouldn't have been the case.  As has been pointed out already, that would require co-operation that would be foolish to expect.

[relaedgc]

As an addendum, I agree that it is perhaps somewhat negligent in hindsight

But in fairness to these supposedly incompetent individuals, I had never heard of 'edge sorting' until this court case and I didn't realise such a defect in card print existed. I don't necessarily think it's a glaring case of incompetence. An oversight, though, yes.

We live and learn. You can be assured that every UK Casino is aware of it now!

PS: I agree that superstition is abound on both sides of the tables. It's bollocks, though, and any casino employee that is blinded by mysticism in their professional capacity is probably operating above their level of competence.

[arbboy]

As an addendum, I agree that it is perhaps somewhat negligent in hindsight

But in fairness to these supposedly incompetent individuals, I had never heard of 'edge sorting' until this court case and I didn't realise such a defect in card print existed. I don't necessarily think it's a glaring case of incompetence. An oversight, though, yes.

We live and learn. You can be assured that every UK Casino is aware of it now!

PS: I agree that superstition is abound on both sides of the tables. It's bollocks, though, and any casino employee that is blinded by mysticism in their professional capacity is probably operating above their level of competence.

Edge sorting is clearly not going to happen in the vast majority of small level games but i would expect the Crockford's staff to be the cream of the crop and for their management to know their game inside out and/or suitable training expenditure be spent on them to ensure they do.  This is why they have the top job in the UK's premier casino and are put in charge of dealing single games which turnover more money in one session than some of Genting's other casino's will turn over annually.  In the same way as i wouldn't expect a ladbrokes cashier in a back street shop to understand the game in the same level of detail to the two guys standing on ladbrokes pitch at cheltenham on the rails laying 6 figure wages during the festival to high rollers.  

[arbboy]

Having worked in a casino, and having punted on the other side of the table on a very rare occasion   I can provide an alternative view to George's comments.

If someone goes into a shop and the server gives too much change, I know some won't, but I'd like to think people will point it out.  If the dealer paid out over the top, it is certainly true that I'd expect less people to point it out.  One reason is that joe public actually often has no clue what the correct payout should have been.  Another reason is that many still feel cheated by previous horrendous decisions they have suffered at the hands of unenthusiastic/uncaring staff and if they "get some of it back" then that's ok in their book.  Whilst people should try and live by their own code and not be lowered to someone else's, I understand why people do it, in the same way that I understand (but don't agree with) why cricketers who nick one behind don't walk, as they see it evening out with the last shocker they were given.

Now in my time dealing, I can tell you that pit bosses on average are far more superstitious than any hi-roller.  Show a pit boss two roulette tables, one winning and one losing and ask them to close one of them, and 95% of the time you will find yourself closing the same table.  Most of the superstitions are just bunkum and don't materially effect the game %.  But pit bosses (and anyone on a bonus%) absolutely are trying their level best to ensure that the house edge is allowed to be achieved, and enhanced wherever possible whilst being careful not to contravene the applicable Gaming Laws.

I have never returned from a break and been invited to "go and deal on AR3 and make sure the game is being run in a fair manner to enable us to collect on our 2.7% edge".  I absolutely have been invited to go onto AR3 and "spin the guy off the table/"put it in tier and keep it there" (gee sure)/to not return any losing bets over the table max/to not comment if the player chose to rip up the card on a losing outcome / the list goes on...

I stopped feeling sorry for punters when I noticed there were no chains forcing them to stay at the table and take the worst of it.
I stopped feeling sorry for the house when I experienced first hand just how smarmy and underhand most managers/pit bosses could be in pursuit of profit.

I'll balance things up a little bit too.  I've known a lot of decent managers to even out the many that were drastically under-skilled (they'd just been there the longest and got promoted factory-styleee)  I've never personally been asked to do anything which would be in clear contravention of the Gaming Act.  So I've never been asked to short-change anyone or deliberately "pinch a split" or anything like that.  But if a manager can keep a hi-roller on the promises who is showing all the tell-tale signs of doing his best to do his absolute bollocks.... they will.

And to arbboy, yes it would have been cute to have double-crossed Ivey with a reverse-freeroll, but no it definitely wouldn't have been the case.  As has been pointed out already, that would require co-operation that would be foolish to expect.

This is so typical of the level of intelligence of the vast majority of casino managers i have ever met.  It's actually incredible how they are more deluded about ev/% edge than the punters themselves.  Why are they not trained to keep spinning the wheel as quick as possible for as often as possible and the rest will take care of itself?  Do these manages actually beleive dealers can spin certain sections of a wheel?  It just goes back to my previous comment of how badly managed the vast majority of gambling/gaming firms are at the senior level.

[Royal Flush]

Marc your point about a freeroll is getting a tad tiresome, there is no chance in hell Ivey was ever going to lose in this spot, he had a huge edge and an even larger bankroll.

[arbboy]

Marc your point about a freeroll is getting a tad tiresome, there is no chance in hell Ivey was ever going to lose in this spot, he had a huge edge and an even larger bankroll.

So you think this was the one and only time he has attempted this coup in the uk then I assume as it is certain he wins the world every time he attempts it so if his edge is so big?

[relaedgc]

How often do you think a misprinted deck finds it way on the a casino table?

Heh

[titaniumbean]

As an addendum, I agree that it is perhaps somewhat negligent in hindsight

But in fairness to these supposedly incompetent individuals, I had never heard of 'edge sorting' until this court case and I didn't realise such a defect in card print existed. I don't necessarily think it's a glaring case of incompetence. An oversight, though, yes.

We live and learn. You can be assured that every UK Casino is aware of it now!

PS: I agree that superstition is abound on both sides of the tables. It's bollocks, though, and any casino employee that is blinded by mysticism in their professional capacity is probably operating above their level of competence.

wait, what, are you serious?

They had one job, and failed at it, miserably.

they are then allowed to freeroll the customer for millions.


cool story bro, all seems legit.

[Honeybadger]

there is no chance in hell Ivey was ever going to lose in this spot, he had a huge edge and an even larger bankroll.

This is definitely incorrect. True, if Ivey was able to play forever then he would eventually win. But don't underestimate variance. I used to take advantage of certain casino promotions. In one of these promotions they were offering 40 to 1 on one number for three hours every day for a whole month. We played the entire month, three hours every day. And I think our record was 160 spins in an hour (the table was usually empty apart from us). That's a pretty big sample size. And we had a 10.7% edge. Yet we lost £56,000 over the course of the month. It is perfectly possible to lose for a very long period of time even when you have a massive edge. Not likely, but perfectly possible.

There was no guarantee that Ivey was going to be able to continue his edge sorting indefinitely. He could have lost several million to them and then had to pull out either because he had other committments, or because he had lost too much money. For that matter the casino might have just got wise to what was going on and stopped the dealer turning the cards around. Coup over and he never got to reach the long-term.

Ivey has definitely been freerolled here, although I suspect it has almost certainly been done unintentionally.