Jump to content

Poker Player Phil Ivey Loses Court Case to London Casino


MKnight82

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41751208

The American was challenging a Court of Appeal judgement that Crockfords Club could refuse to pay up when Ivey won the cash playing card game punto banco.

The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards.

Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage.

The 40-year-old, a former winner of the World Series of Poker, had arranged to play a private game of punto banco - a form of baccarat - at the casino in Mayfair, along with a fellow gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, during a visit to London in 2012.

Crockford's owner, Genting Casinos UK, said the two players jointly used the technique of "edge-sorting", which involves identifying minute differences in the patterns on the back of playing cards and exploiting that information to increase the chances of winning. Genting said this was not a legitimate strategy.

However, Mr Ivey contended that the technique was not a form of cheating because it did not involve dishonesty.

He said that he had merely exploited Crockfords' failure to take proper steps to protect itself against a gambler of his ability - and he was therefore entitled to his full winnings, rather than just having his initial £1m stake returned to him.

So Ivey intentionally targeted this Casino because he figured out they weren't protecting the identity of the cards well.  He made a boatload of cash off of their mistake, and the courts bailed out the Casino.  This seems ridiculous to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MKnight82 said:

So Ivey intentionally targeted this Casino because he figured out they weren't protecting the identity of the cards well.  He made a boatload of cash off of their mistake, and the courts bailed out the Casino.  This seems ridiculous to me.  

That’s absurd. Hope he can continue his fight and it’s not over just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, domepatrol91 said:

That’s absurd. Hope he can continue his fight and it’s not over just yet.

This is probably a ruling where the courts feel its in the public's best interest for more people to not attempt this, but in Ivey's instance he should probably win this case.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, texans_uk said:

How is this different from counting cards? Isn't that illegal? 

Card counting is not illegal anywhere in the US or UK. Casinos are, however, private businesses and have the right to keep a player from playing. They are also allowed to talk to a player or otherwise distract the player from keeping accurate counts.

An exception is in Atlantic City where a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling keeps casinos from discriminating based on player skill. They are still allowed to attempt to distract a card counter.

It is not different from card counting at all and therefore Ivey should win this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that he also lost the American case that the Borgata had against him for the same thing. 

Personally, I don't think that it's cheating. He and his partner made several requests, which they knew would give them an advantage, but the casino had to agree to them....I don't think that Ivey and his partner should be liable for the Casino not understanding that. They could have declined the request. 

What he was doing was a huge swing in his favor. Counting cards gives the player all of about a 1% advantage over what they normally have. Not a big difference. What Ivey was doing was slanting it 6% in his favor. Plus, the effort it took to exploit the flaw from his partner, not to mention even find it, is pretty impressive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, flyers0909 said:

If anyone is more interested in this, specifically his partner, there's a 30 for 30 podcast on it.  

Yep, its actually pretty good too. I haven't tried too many of the 30 for 30 podcasts yet, but I wanted to listen to that one because it was on a topic that interested me. Had a lot of decent insight into they why, and how. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...