Phil Ivey’s Semi-Bluff

[barn32]

Poker’s most mysterious and respected player is sitting out this year’s World Series. Is it because he doesn’t care about his legacy? Or because an international scandal threatens his gambling future?

Jerome Graham was awakened by the sun coming up over the horizon of the Atlantic Ocean. He was underneath the Atlantic City boardwalk, sleeping in the sand. The night before he had lost all of his money playing seven-card stud in the Taj Mahal, felted well past the hour of the last bus back upstate to his parents’ house in Roselle. So he slept under the boardwalk as he waited for the first morning bus. It wasn’t the first time he’d done this. He didn’t imagine it would be his last. But this is what it took in the late 1990s to put together a bankroll. Sixteen-hour sessions at the Taj, jumping up stakes to take bigger and bigger shots against better and better players. Analyzing every hand, even the ones you win. Finding somewhere safe and warm to wait for the next bus.

Jerome’s telemarketing job raising money for the Fraternal Order of Police helped replenish his ever-fluctuating stud bankroll. But as he improved and moved up in stakes, he needed to spend more time in Atlantic City. His job and the two-hour bus ride each way was just keeping him away from the action. So he moved out of his parents’ house and got an apartment in Atlantic City. He’d spend every minute he could in the casino card rooms playing poker. He got to know the players, the dealers, the floor managers. The legend of his nights beneath the boardwalk spread. “No Home Jerome” they all called him...

Full Article (http://https://theringer.com/phil-ivey-world-series-of-poker-51cd56b8cccf)

[ReplayRandall]

Here....let ME get the full article:..

https://theringer.com/phil-ivey-world-series-of-poker-51cd56b8cccf

[thaskalos]

And here, in full display, is the big advantage that poker enjoys over horse-betting...when it comes to recruiting young, motivated gamblers to the two games. In poker, it's possible for the best players to start from the smallest stakes, and make it all the way to the top of the poker world...and the transition is out there in the open, for everybody to see. In horse racing...the young gamblers out there aren't even sure if anyone is actually beating the game...in any way, shape or form.

[Secondbest]

And here, in full display, is the big advantage that poker enjoys over horse-betting...when it comes to recruiting young, motivated gamblers to the two games. In poker, it's possible for the best players to start from the smallest stakes, and make it all the way to the top of the poker world...and the transition is out there in the open, for everybody to see. In horse racing...the young gamblers out there aren't even sure if anyone is actually beating the game...in any way, shape or form.

I have to agree. Of everyone in my family from cousins their kids to nieces nephews none ,zero bet horses The ones that gamble all play poker or fantasy .

[thaskalos]

I have to agree. Of everyone in my family from cousins their kids to nieces nephews none ,zero bet horses The ones that gamble all play poker or fantasy .

Some promising "younsgter" will ask me, from time to time, for guidance in his horse-betting endeavors. Without fail...I suggest to him that his time would be better spent investigating poker or sports betting. I can't stand seeing youth go to waste.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Some promising "younsgter" will ask me, from time to time, for guidance in his horse-betting endeavors. Without fail...I suggest to him that his time would be better spent investigating poker or sports betting. I can't stand seeing youth go to waste.

Disagree greatly on sports betting.

That is an even bigger dead end than horse racing as it involves way more people and friends around somebody than a somewhat singular lifestyle of a horse race bettor.

People become way more attached to teams and football games than they ever would with a particular horse, much less a race because there is everybody around them, or on regular TV talking about it.

I have hundreds of people I know on a "handshake" basis. Friends if you will. But I have about a dozen or two that I would even talk to about regarding horse racing.

[BaffertsWig]

And here, in full display, is the big advantage that poker enjoys over horse-betting...when it comes to recruiting young, motivated gamblers to the two games. In poker, it's possible for the best players to start from the smallest stakes, and make it all the way to the top of the poker world...and the transition is out there in the open, for everybody to see. In horse racing...the young gamblers out there aren't even sure if anyone is actually beating the game...in any way, shape or form.

I agree with all of this. Also, the Moneymaker effect and the television coverage (ESPN, Poker After Dark, et al) from the early '00s until Black Friday really helped to promote the game among its younger audience. Horseracing rarely gets national coverage, and when it does, it's sometimes relegated to random cable channels (i.e. NBCSN). Not to mention poker is more social in the sense that as a teenager you could play against your buddies on a Friday night over pizza and a few beers. Throw in the online poker thing, where it was easy to fund an account and action was available 24/7/365, well...

[thaskalos]

I agree with all of this. Also, the Moneymaker effect and the television coverage (ESPN, Poker After Dark, et al) from the early '00s until Black Friday really helped to promote the game among its younger audience. Horseracing rarely gets national coverage, and when it does, it's sometimes relegated to random cable channels (i.e. NBCSN). Not to mention poker is more social in the sense that as a teenager you could play against your buddies on a Friday night over pizza and a few beers. Throw in the online poker thing, where it was easy to fund an account and action was available 24/7/365, well...

Plus...whatever "national coverage" horseracing gets is more likely to REPEL the viewer, than it is to attract him to the game. Take the Kentucky Derby for instance...which is the year's most watched marquee race. What invariably happens in the Derby telecast is that several experts will explain and handicap the Derby beforehand, and offer their selections to the viewers as a "service". Alas...the nature of the game is such that these "expert selections" will lose the vast majority of the time...while some totally ignored horse eventually wins the year's most visable race. Watching this scenario play out...the "uninformed viewing public" -- whom the industry is trying to attract -- is likely to think that, since this game defies the predicting abilities of even the EXPERTS...then, it probably isn't something that the "uninformed" should be venturing in.

[dilanesp]

And here, in full display, is the big advantage that poker enjoys over horse-betting...when it comes to recruiting young, motivated gamblers to the two games. In poker, it's possible for the best players to start from the smallest stakes, and make it all the way to the top of the poker world...and the transition is out there in the open, for everybody to see. In horse racing...the young gamblers out there aren't even sure if anyone is actually beating the game...in any way, shape or form.

It's really a lot harder to build your bankroll in poker now than it was in the past.

Online has been severely harmed post-black Friday, and low limit live poker has crushing rakes.

It's much better, if you really want to make a go at it, to build your bankroll or fundraise outside of poker and come in playing midstakes where the rakes are not crushing.

[dilanesp]

Plus...whatever "national coverage" horseracing gets is more likely to REPEL the viewer, than it is to attract him to the game. Take the Kentucky Derby for instance...which is the year's most watched marquee race. What invariably happens in the Derby telecast is that several experts will explain and handicap the Derby beforehand, and offer their selections to the viewers as a "service". Alas...the nature of the game is such that these "expert selections" will lose the vast majority of the time...while some totally ignored horse eventually wins the year's most visable race. Watching this scenario play out...the "uninformed viewing public" -- whom the industry is trying to attract -- is likely to think that, since this game defies the predicting abilities of even the EXPERTS...then, it probably isn't something that the "uninformed" should be venturing in.

Well, the favorite's been winning the Derby a lot in recent years. They were losing every year in the 1980's and 1990's.

[dilanesp]

On the merits of the Ivey story, in my mind he cheated. I don't think it's 100 percent, and I certainly don't know the New Jersey and English gaming laws that may apply to it, but it's certainly cheating from a conceptual point of view.

But he cheated in a sense that gets back to something a local promoter of sports events once told me. He said that at the arenas he leased, there was often an issue with people sneaking in. If you are the Lakers, of course, you have all sorts of security (although Paul Pierce swears he snuck into games at the Forum as a kid), but if you are just some person putting on a charity tennis match who rents out an arena, you can't afford the same level of security. Which means people inevitably sneak in.

And what he said was that if you sneak in and you don't get caught, you won. You get to see the event for free. His business model assumed that some people would sneak in because hiring more security wasn't cost effective.

But if you get caught-- you're in trouble.

Similarly, United Airlines mistakenly sold thousands of international long-haul first class tickets worth $20,000 each for less than $1000 a few years ago, when purchasers figured out how to game the United website to misconvert the currency. When the error was discovered, they canceled the tickets. The purchasers went to the federal government asking for an order that United honor the tickets, armed with all sorts of arguments about how there was technically an offer and an acceptance and how they could have not realized they were paying an unrealistically low price and everything else. The purchasers lost. You were trying to get one over on United, the government said.

Ivey got caught. Once you get caught, you don't sue and try and claim the winnings. Not knowing anything about the applicable gaming laws, I could have predicted that he wasn't likely to win these court cases. Because he was sneaking in and got caught. Courts have a real problem seeing the inequity in disallowing a guy who figured out a way to game the system to keep his money.

The arguments Ivey made were technicalities. And technicalities rarely win when they are placed up against fundamental fairness. Yes, technically, the casino chose to use decks that could be edge sorted. And the casino was lax in agreeing to rules that allowed that to be exploited. And there's nothing in the casino's rules that prohibited what Ivey did. All true. But that's the trees. The forest was that Ivey had figured out a way to game the system.

The article plays it as "are we condemned to a world where the house always wins". And like it or not, the answer to that question is actually yes. The house has to win house banked games. A casino that allows players to win significant sums will be put out of business relatively quickly. There aren't three options-- house banked games where the house wins, house banked games where the players can win long term, and no games. There are two-- either house banked games are long-term profitable for the house, or they aren't offered. That's why casinos bar card counters, and that's why they refused to pay Ivey.

If you favor legal gambling at all, the house has to win when it banks the game, which means casinos will take action against people who succeed in flipping this. Ivey should have understood this and stuck to poker, or at least given up when his scheme was found out.

[whisperlunch]

Dilanesp, I disagree. At some point the casino needs to be held responsible for their actions. He negotiated the terms in broad daylight. The casino said yes to his demands. They lost. They need to pay. Lesson learned. What I can't figure out is how the management at the casino allowed this to happen. Were they just clueless ? He wanted certain cards and a certain shufle machine and he wanted the cards placed a certain way. He should be paid.

[erikeepper]

Some promising "younsgter" will ask me, from time to time, for guidance in his horse-betting endeavors. Without fail...I suggest to him that his time would be better spent investigating poker or sports betting. I can't stand seeing youth go to waste.

I am doing quite well with horses but was wondering do you think one should learn tournament poker or cash games - IF - one can only play online.

[therussmeister]

On the merits of the Ivey story, in my mind he cheated. I don't think it's 100 percent, and I certainly don't know the New Jersey and English gaming laws that may apply to it, but it's certainly cheating from a conceptual point of view.



In my mind he didn't cheat. I think it's 100%. It is the casino that refused to pay him that was cheating on a conceptual point of view. They must have figured something was up as he was playing but were prepared to let him lose whilst knowing they were not going to pay off he won.

I don't care what New Jersey and English law states, sometimes laws are wrong.

[thaskalos]

On the merits of the Ivey story, in my mind he cheated. I don't think it's 100 percent, and I certainly don't know the New Jersey and English gaming laws that may apply to it, but it's certainly cheating from a conceptual point of view.

But he cheated in a sense that gets back to something a local promoter of sports events once told me. He said that at the arenas he leased, there was often an issue with people sneaking in. If you are the Lakers, of course, you have all sorts of security (although Paul Pierce swears he snuck into games at the Forum as a kid), but if you are just some person putting on a charity tennis match who rents out an arena, you can't afford the same level of security. Which means people inevitably sneak in.

And what he said was that if you sneak in and you don't get caught, you won. You get to see the event for free. His business model assumed that some people would sneak in because hiring more security wasn't cost effective.

But if you get caught-- you're in trouble.

Similarly, United Airlines mistakenly sold thousands of international long-haul first class tickets worth $20,000 each for less than $1000 a few years ago, when purchasers figured out how to game the United website to misconvert the currency. When the error was discovered, they canceled the tickets. The purchasers went to the federal government asking for an order that United honor the tickets, armed with all sorts of arguments about how there was technically an offer and an acceptance and how they could have not realized they were paying an unrealistically low price and everything else. The purchasers lost. You were trying to get one over on United, the government said.

Ivey got caught. Once you get caught, you don't sue and try and claim the winnings. Not knowing anything about the applicable gaming laws, I could have predicted that he wasn't likely to win these court cases. Because he was sneaking in and got caught. Courts have a real problem seeing the inequity in disallowing a guy who figured out a way to game the system to keep his money.

The arguments Ivey made were technicalities. And technicalities rarely win when they are placed up against fundamental fairness. Yes, technically, the casino chose to use decks that could be edge sorted. And the casino was lax in agreeing to rules that allowed that to be exploited. And there's nothing in the casino's rules that prohibited what Ivey did. All true. But that's the trees. The forest was that Ivey had figured out a way to game the system.

The article plays it as "are we condemned to a world where the house always wins". And like it or not, the answer to that question is actually yes. The house has to win house banked games. A casino that allows players to win significant sums will be put out of business relatively quickly. There aren't three options-- house banked games where the house wins, house banked games where the players can win long term, and no games. There are two-- either house banked games are long-term profitable for the house, or they aren't offered. That's why casinos bar card counters, and that's why they refused to pay Ivey.

If you favor legal gambling at all, the house has to win when it banks the game, which means casinos will take action against people who succeed in flipping this. Ivey should have understood this and stuck to poker, or at least given up when his scheme was found out.

IMO...the casino acted more "dishonestly" than Ivey did. The way the scenario played out, it looks as if the casino chose to "take a shot" at Ivey...by placing him in the classic, no-win situation. When you and I make particular requests about the way we want the cards to be shuffled and dealt-out in a casino, then the decision of either allowing or rejecting our request might be made by some unsuspecting pit-boss whom we might be able to fool. But Ivey has the reputation -- and the bankroll -- that demands the attention of the casino elite...and those guys aren't so easy to fool.

My money says the casino knew that Ivey was attempting to "cheat"...but figured that he could lose anyway. After all, Ivey's casino-pit losses are legendary..."advantage play, or no "advantage play". They figured that they would take his money if he lost...and sue and win their case in court, if Ivey won "unfairly". And that's a more "unethical" plan than the one that Ivey carried out.

The casino has its "unfair" tricks when it comes to separating the customers from their money...and some customers have a trick or two of their own. Turnabout is fair play. The "real players" don't cry when they get stuck...and neither should the casino.

[thaskalos]

I am doing quite well with horses but was wondering do you think one should learn tournament poker or cash games - IF - one can only play online.

If you can still play poker online...then you are in a very fortunate situation. Stick to cash games and sit-and-goes...start small...and see how it goes.

I too am doing "quite well" with the horses...but a serious gambler ought to have options available to him, in the event that our favorite game worsens still -- from a bettor's point-of-view.

[BaffertsWig]

If you can still play poker online...then you are in a very fortunate situation. Stick to cash games and sit-and-goes...start small...and see how it goes.



What are the other sites one can play on? I've only played on Bovada (I think it's called Ignition now, haven't been on in a while...)

[thaskalos]

What are the other sites one can play on? I've only played on Bovada (I think it's called Ignition now, haven't been on in a while...)

IMO...there is no poker site operable in the USA that can be trusted with any kind of meaningful cash deposit...unless you live in NJ.

[bigjohna]

global poker been happy with despoit and withdraws methods