PDA

View Full Version : Phil Ivey denied $11 million win...


Pages : [1] 2

thaskalos
10-11-2012, 12:27 AM
The world's best poker player has an $11 million win withheld by a London casino.

http://www.inquisitr.com/358942/phil-ivey-denied-11-million-in-poker-winnings-from-casino/

Stillriledup
10-11-2012, 12:33 AM
There's a lot of this going on these days, just refusing to pay gamblers because they can. Ivey will eventually get paid, the negative stigma this place will have isnt worth the 11 million, they dont want the reputation that they can decide if they dont want to pay you or not.

lsbets
10-11-2012, 12:39 AM
I read another article on my phone about this, and it said something along the lines of the woman he was with had been flagged by other casinos.

thaskalos
10-11-2012, 12:46 AM
Yeah...Ivey's female companion supposedly had her membership in another casino revoked.

lamboguy
10-11-2012, 12:58 AM
this is not anything new to the gambling world. i have seen this in Vegas before where they put a baccarat shoe together. but i have never heard or seen anyone try to take down a casino for $11 million in one shot, that is being greedy. they could have got them for something reasonable like $100,000.

it sounds like Ivy tried to set them up by losing first. Billy Walters did the same thing in Roulette to Steve Wynn in the Golden Nugget in Atlantic city. he got paid because all he did was scout the roulette wheels for 2 months and figured out the bias to the wheel.

the bigger question in this case is not that Ivy and his friend took them down, i wonder how the pit boss watching the game let it go on for so long and let them win that type of money to start out. and this had to be an inside job where someone brought the cooler in and had the eye in the sky turn their heads.
they all had to be a part of the conspiracy.

Stillriledup
10-11-2012, 02:05 AM
Yeah...Ivey's female companion supposedly had her membership in another casino revoked.

So, if Ivey had LOST 11 million, would they have given him his money back? Casino Free Rolling Phil, its not right.

Stillriledup
10-11-2012, 02:06 AM
this is not anything new to the gambling world. i have seen this in Vegas before where they put a baccarat shoe together. but i have never heard or seen anyone try to take down a casino for $11 million in one shot, that is being greedy. they could have got them for something reasonable like $100,000.

it sounds like Ivy tried to set them up by losing first. Billy Walters did the same thing in Roulette to Steve Wynn in the Golden Nugget in Atlantic city. he got paid because all he did was scout the roulette wheels for 2 months and figured out the bias to the wheel.

the bigger question in this case is not that Ivy and his friend took them down, i wonder how the pit boss watching the game let it go on for so long and let them win that type of money to start out. and this had to be an inside job where someone brought the cooler in and had the eye in the sky turn their heads.
they all had to be a part of the conspiracy.

How exactly did he set them up? Seems like a legit win to me, even the casino says "they havent found anything".

thaskalos
10-11-2012, 02:15 AM
The casinos are not in the gambling business anymore.

They pretend to welcome the action of the high rollers, and they lick their chops when a player puts $1.6 million of his own money into the game...but they cry like little girls when the "lamb slaughters the butcher". :)

Stillriledup
10-11-2012, 02:41 AM
The casinos are not in the gambling business anymore.

They pretend to welcome the action of the high rollers, and they lick their chops when a player puts $1.6 million of his own money into the game...but they cry like little girls when the "lamb slaughters the butcher". :)

Exactly. Vegas especially is terrified of gamblers, anyone they think has a 'good opinion' is not welcome at the casino. If you want to bet sports there, you gotta look and act like a square.

Robert Fischer
10-11-2012, 04:27 PM
this is not anything new to the gambling world. i have seen this in Vegas before where they put a baccarat shoe together. but i have never heard or seen anyone try to take down a casino for $11 million in one shot, that is being greedy. they could have got them for something reasonable like $100,000.

it sounds like Ivy tried to set them up by losing first. Billy Walters did the same thing in Roulette to Steve Wynn in the Golden Nugget in Atlantic city. he got paid because all he did was scout the roulette wheels for 2 months and figured out the bias to the wheel.

the bigger question in this case is not that Ivy and his friend took them down, i wonder how the pit boss watching the game let it go on for so long and let them win that type of money to start out. and this had to be an inside job where someone brought the cooler in and had the eye in the sky turn their heads.
they all had to be a part of the conspiracy.
true. Sounds exactly right from the details given in the story.

lamboguy
10-11-2012, 04:31 PM
How exactly did he set them up? Seems like a legit win to me, even the casino says "they havent found anything".
he lost $80k first then beat them

thaskalos
10-11-2012, 04:45 PM
Ivey had $1.6 million of his own money in the game...which the casino returned to him. If a man is allowed to gamble at such a high level...then an $11 million win is possible, without cheating.

Phil Ivey's casino gambling exploits are legendary; million dollar win/loss sessions are nothing new to him.

badcompany
10-11-2012, 05:02 PM
Years ago, in the Bahamas I was playing craps at a table that was unbelievably hot. Everyone who got ahold of the dice held them for a half hour. Suddenly, a casino official came to the table and announced that they would be closing early :(

Robert Fischer
10-11-2012, 05:13 PM
Ivey had $1.6 million of his own money in the game...which the casino returned to him. If a man is allowed to gamble at such a high level...then an $11 million win is possible, without cheating.

Phil Ivey's casino gambling exploits are legendary; million dollar win/loss sessions are nothing new to him.

the article leaves out the info we would need, to know how fair the ruling was.

It comes down to what kind of odds he bucked.

If he bet 1.4 million on a single hand to tie and won (8-1payout), I can't see how the casino would have a case - he simply got lucky on a risky gamble.


but if he was playing all night and bucking the odds in an improbable fashion on the Player vs. Bank (pays evens) then the casino has a strong case.

The article makes it seem like the later. Maybe it wasn't ??

Who knows this could all be a publicity stunt too.

horses4courses
02-16-2013, 10:25 PM
this is not anything new to the gambling world. i have seen this in Vegas before where they put a baccarat shoe together. but i have never heard or seen anyone try to take down a casino for $11 million in one shot, that is being greedy. they could have got them for something reasonable like $100,000.

it sounds like Ivy tried to set them up by losing first. Billy Walters did the same thing in Roulette to Steve Wynn in the Golden Nugget in Atlantic city. he got paid because all he did was scout the roulette wheels for 2 months and figured out the bias to the wheel.

the bigger question in this case is not that Ivy and his friend took them down, i wonder how the pit boss watching the game let it go on for so long and let them win that type of money to start out. and this had to be an inside job where someone brought the cooler in and had the eye in the sky turn their heads.
they all had to be a part of the conspiracy.

Interesting that Phil Ivey's name should come up in this recent article about Billy Walters and his penchant for selecting high profile celebrities to use as "beards" for his high stakes sports wagering operation.
I guess Ashton Kutcher was his most recent associate, and he was backed off in Vegas not long ago.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/sport/2013-02-15/ashton-kutcher-sports-betting-esquire-las-vegas-syndicate

Years ago, I read a book by English professional gambler Alex Bird (c.1950-70s) on his success in gambling. The close of his story listed his only regret in how he went about his business. It was that he had not used a high profile celebrity, such as Omar Sharif, to front for him in making wagers. Sharif had developed the reputation as a degenerate gambler.
Any bookmaker, or casino, in Europe would take his action - especially if he was wagering with cash.
Bird figured that he could have kept his ventures running much longer with such a front person - he had been barred all over the place.

Seems Billy Walters thinks the same way. In addition to Ivey and Kutcher - Bruce Willis, Phil Mickleson, and Floyd Mayweather have all been mentioned as possible associates of Walters. Very likely, the female companion of Phil Ivey in the London casino has, also, been an acquaintance of the gambling guru.

Interesting stuff...... :ThmbUp:

lamboguy
02-17-2013, 04:28 AM
that guys works overtime dreaming up ways to get the house. he is the best ever at it. casino;s must spend millions every year to try to protect themselves from this gem of humanity. to give him some credit, i have never heard of him scoring off a degenerate gambler

Dave Schwartz
02-17-2013, 10:10 AM
but if he was playing all night and bucking the odds in an improbable fashion on the Player vs. Bank (pays evens) then the casino has a strong case.

Why, just because he won?

I recall a crap game at the Golden Nugget in 1976 where the dice rolled for almost 2 hours. I know, because I took 2 turns on the stick on that game. It started at the end of my first turn, then my 2 turns on base, one turn on break, back on the stick and one more on the base when the hand ended. around 100-110 minutes. It was a quarter game (to start). At the end, the smallest player had almost $1000 in the rail - LOL - this guy couldn't win money if his life depended upon it.

Every roll of the dice after about 45 minutes took like 2-3 minutes paying off the hard ways and props. Biggest player had around $60k in the rail.

Small limit back then -$500 - but 5x odds. They advertised a $5k limit but you had to negotiate it ahead of time.

Two points I would make:

1. The joint was convinced they were being cheated.

2. People can get lucky. The casinos don't like that but it can happen.

Today, when a casino loses, apparently they sometimes just refuse to pay. "We must have been cheated" from the casino side sounds a lot like the players they used to laugh at.

horses4courses
02-17-2013, 10:17 AM
that guys works overtime dreaming up ways to get the house. he is the best ever at it. casino;s must spend millions every year to try to protect themselves from this gem of humanity. to give him some credit, i have never heard of him scoring off a degenerate gambler

It's been over 30 years since I read that book, but it was the celebrity status of Omar Sharif that Alex Bird was interested in. Of course, it didn't hurt that many people knew that Sharif was a terrible gambler. In the 1960/70s, there were few actors as famous around the world as Sharif. Bird figured, also, that he could have helped him lose a lot less money over time. Maybe even win.

lamboguy
02-17-2013, 10:53 AM
Why, just because he won?

I recall a crap game at the Golden Nugget in 1976 where the dice rolled for almost 2 hours. I know, because I took 2 turns on the stick on that game. It started at the end of my first turn, then my 2 turns on base, one turn on break, back on the stick and one more on the base when the hand ended. around 100-110 minutes. It was a quarter game (to start). At the end, the smallest player had almost $1000 in the rail - LOL - this guy couldn't win money if his life depended upon it.

Every roll of the dice after about 45 minutes took like 2-3 minutes paying off the hard ways and props. Biggest player had around $60k in the rail.

Small limit back then -$500 - but 5x odds. They advertised a $5k limit but you had to negotiate it ahead of time.

Two points I would make:

1. The joint was convinced they were being cheated.

2. People can get lucky. The casinos don't like that but it can happen.

Today, when a casino loses, apparently they sometimes just refuse to pay. "We must have been cheated" from the casino side sounds a lot like the players they used to laugh at.boy do i wish i was on that table :lol:

maddog42
05-13-2013, 08:25 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/phil-ivey-british-casino-embroiled-dispute-over-payment-032520482.html

An article explaining how Ivey allegedly cheated. The late Titanic Thompson
was reputedly able to do this also. I don't think this is illegal.

mountainman
05-13-2013, 11:37 AM
Pay up. You were outsmarted.

PhantomOnTour
05-13-2013, 01:23 PM
Totally bogus - he won that money fair & square...
card up his sleeve? NO
dealer helping him out by manipulating the cards? NO
quick handed trickery at the table? NO

so he notices an anomaly in the card design and capitalizes on it...suppose I spot a track bias and make a few big scores...are the other bettors going to demand their money back because I "cheated" ?

horses4courses
05-13-2013, 01:38 PM
If the cards were faulty, and Ivey was able take advantage of it, it's cheating.
There is not a gaming establishment anywhere that would tolerate this, and the bodies that govern most of them (i.e. Nevada Gaming Control) would side with the house in any such case.

Ivey has no chance in court.
If he wasn't the celebrity that he is, he might face prosecution himself.
Take your stake money and run, buddy......

horses4courses
05-13-2013, 02:47 PM
If the cards were faulty, and Ivey was able take advantage of it, it's cheating.
There is not a gaming establishment anywhere that would tolerate this, and the bodies that govern most of them (i.e. Nevada Gaming Control) would side with the house in any such case.

Ivey has no chance in court.
If he wasn't the celebrity that he is, he might face prosecution himself.
Take your stake money and run, buddy......

Let's put in another way, for all of you siding with the player.

How long do you think Phil Ivey would stick around in a holdem game where one, or more,
of his opponents recognized a pattern on the backs of the community cards?
Do you think he would feel cheated, and demand any losses back?

Robert Fischer
05-13-2013, 04:52 PM
Ok, so the deck that house provided for gambling was flawed.

Ivey apparently took advantage of this.
I don't know whether Ivey should be allowed to profit from their mistake or not. I'm leaning toward "YES", but I haven't put a lot of serious thought in.
I am sure the 'rules' say that he is not.

The bigger questions are not about that ruling(unless you are Ivey), but are in regard to the deck that the house provided being flawed.
HUGE can of worms opened :eek:

wiffleball whizz
05-13-2013, 05:31 PM
Is this baccarat? The cards are in a shoe with a cover on it.....there is no skill in baccarat there are set standards on certain draws is this article a publicity stunt? Phil wasn't cheating

Phil bets 5k a box on dice And is a loose cannon...

I grew up around Phil used to play 3/6 holdem at trop and taj in ac was good back then....he graduated the same high school as me edison nj and played in a lot of clubs in perth amboy nj

Fun fact: in my opinion 2 best players in world are Phil Ivey and Tom durrrrrr dwan....both graduated from Edison nj 2 high schools Edison high school and John p Stevens high school

Phil don't have to cheat games to win he will bury any game he is in he has the heart of a lion

TJDave
05-13-2013, 06:34 PM
Ivey apparently took advantage of this.
I don't know whether Ivey should be allowed to profit from their mistake or not. I'm leaning toward "YES", but I haven't put a lot of serious thought in.


Leaving the register open and unattended is stupid but that don't mean you can take the cash.

Robert Fischer
05-13-2013, 07:46 PM
Leaving the register open and unattended is stupid but that don't mean you can take the cash.
well said. :ThmbUp:



I think the fact that the deck was flawed brings up bigger questions.

Was it 1 flawed deck in that 1 casino that a top world player Ivey just happened to LUCK into? , and immediately noticed?

I don't know cards very well, but I thought they shuffled together a few decks and used new decks every so often.... I'm not sure.

Was every deck flawed??

Is it possible the casino has known about this and been exploiting it??

Did Ivey notice it, or was he tipped off by a casino insider??

If every deck was flawed was this something the manufacturer was involved in??

horses4courses
05-13-2013, 08:01 PM
well said. :ThmbUp:



I think the fact that the deck was flawed brings up bigger questions.

Was it 1 flawed deck in that 1 casino that a top world player Ivey just happened to LUCK into? , and immediately noticed?

I don't know cards very well, but I thought they shuffled together a few decks and used new decks every so often.... I'm not sure.

Was every deck flawed??

Is it possible the casino has known about this and been exploiting it??

Did Ivey notice it, or was he tipped off by a casino insider??

If every deck was flawed was this something the manufacturer was involved in??

It's likely to result from manafacturer error, and that many decks are flawed. Someone may have been sharp enough to pick up on it, or it's possible that an employee, or former employee, of the card company is on the take.
This wouldn't be the first time this situation has arisen, and the casino will always cry foul.

Stillriledup
05-13-2013, 09:49 PM
If the cards were faulty, and Ivey was able take advantage of it, it's cheating.
There is not a gaming establishment anywhere that would tolerate this, and the bodies that govern most of them (i.e. Nevada Gaming Control) would side with the house in any such case.

Ivey has no chance in court.
If he wasn't the celebrity that he is, he might face prosecution himself.
Take your stake money and run, buddy......

You mean he has no chance to lose in court. That's what you meant, right?

Stillriledup
05-13-2013, 09:51 PM
Leaving the register open and unattended is stupid but that don't mean you can take the cash.

Yeah, but if you take the cash and they have no proof you did, can you get in trouble? That's the 64 dollar question.

wiffleball whizz
05-13-2013, 10:17 PM
The problem with stealing or cheating the casino they have the rewind button....and if it doesn't go in the casinos favor the tapes "get lost" or "the camera" wasn't on

horses4courses
05-13-2013, 10:45 PM
The problem with stealing or cheating the casino they have the rewind button....and if it doesn't go in the casinos favor the tapes "get lost" or "the camera" wasn't on

As someone who works in a casino surveillance department, I'd love to see the size of the fine our property would face from the NGCB if we tried to pull that one. #megabucks

wiffleball whizz
05-14-2013, 01:16 AM
As someone who works in a casino surveillance department, I'd love to see the size of the fine our property would face from the NGCB if we tried to pull that one. #megabucks

It's a generalization.....can't tell u how many times there is a ruling or something happens on a game and the camera didn't see it.....

Or how many cameras aren't even on because a lack of manpower up in the room.....100 percent fact

PaceAdvantage
05-14-2013, 02:47 AM
It's a generalization.....Oh, now it's a generalization.

Anyway, can't believe people are ignoring the really important parts of this story. That Ivey requested the dealer HOLD THE CARDS a certain way, differently than normal (don't have a clue how a dealer holds the cards in Punto Banco, some type of baccarat), AND TO USE THE SAME EXACT CARDS THE NEXT DAY!!! And apparently, the casino complied to both requests, remarkably.

How doesn't those two odd requests not raise SERIOUS alarms on the floor? And yet they continued to let him play...

wiffleball whizz
05-14-2013, 03:06 AM
Oh, now it's a generalization.

Anyway, can't believe people are ignoring the really important parts of this story. That Ivey requested the dealer HOLD THE CARDS a certain way, differently than normal (don't have a clue how a dealer holds the cards in Punto Banco, some type of baccarat), AND TO USE THE SAME EXACT CARDS THE NEXT DAY!!! And apparently, the casino complied to both requests, remarkably.

How doesn't those two odd requests not raise SERIOUS alarms on the floor? And yet they continued to let him play...

Casino employees are among the dumbest people on earth trust me....it's a line of work where no college degrees are needed to climb from dealer to vice president or director of a department...

I don't know how to put links on here pace but google how the golden nugget And taj got buried in baccarat because of this gem:

Baccarat game they put the cards in the machine then in the shoe burn the 6 of clubs then has to burn 6 more cards....

Now baccarat there are set procedures of what side player or bank stays or draws.....to make a long story short the cards were never shuffled and all in order....well the sharp Asians players saw notice this a few hands in and they start betting like the results were already in

The cards were literally coming out 3-4-5 clubs then 6-7-8 clubs etc etc etc....the dealer floor people and survaillence never noticed it....there were a ton of terminating the next day....the story leaked out a few months after it happened....google golden nugget and taj mahal baccarat casino losses or scam and read the articles....

PaceAdvantage
05-14-2013, 03:20 AM
Casino employees are among the dumbest people on earth trust me....I smell another generalization disclaimer coming...

wiffleball whizz
05-14-2013, 03:38 AM
I smell another generalization disclaimer coming...

No disclaimer coming for this one I can promise you that......u have 1000s of me working at the casino....and on here we all know I'm not smart!!! :lol: :lol:

But you were right with your post before,...once Ivey asked the dealers to hold the cards a certain way the bells have to start going off!!!!! Good call on that one pace!!!!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

barn32
05-14-2013, 10:14 AM
The world's best poker player has an $11 million win withheld by a London casino.There is no such thing as "the world's best poker player."

Phil Ivey's casino gambling exploits are legendary; million dollar win/loss sessions are nothing new to him.True. However, he was gambling with his income from Full Tilt, which has been estimated at $1,000,000~ a month.

What he was doing was nothing more than degenerate gambling, which for some odd reason has received lauditory praise from otherwise astute observers.

But, there has been speculation that his "daring exploits" were nothing more than publicity stunts for Full Tilt Poker. The ploy was to simply try and play as close to break even as possible thus garnering lots of attention for the site of which he was part owner.

Either way, his current imbroglio will not end well. Casinos do not like it when they are taken advantage of.

horses4courses
05-14-2013, 10:34 AM
It's a generalization.....can't tell u how many times there is a ruling or something happens on a game and the camera didn't see it.....

Or how many cameras aren't even on because a lack of manpower up in the room.....100 percent fact

Obviously, I can't speak for any other surveillance rooms other than those I've worked in. Every game on every table at all times has at least one dedicated camera on it. Each camera is recorded on a DVR, with the video stored for 30 days.
Should any video need to be saved from that game, we have that long to do so, and once it's downloaded it is saved for eternity.
No camera is ever switched off. They can malfunction, but are normally fixed quickly and, if that's not possible, another camera can be used in it's place.

Most of the times that you hear OBS claiming that there was no coverage of an incident on a certain game, you can put it down to "operator error". I won't dispute that casinos aren't staffed with a high percentage of rocket scientists. ;)

PA - your drawing attention to Ivey's request for special handling of the cards is indeed central to the plot. It is, also, very much a red flag as to whether he was cheating. Not knowing the game he was playing, I stayed away from making the point, but it's very likely he was doing it to gain his edge.

barn32
05-14-2013, 12:54 PM
Obviously, I can't speak for any other surveillance rooms other than those I've worked in. Every game on every table at all times has at least one dedicated camera on it. Each camera is recorded on a DVR, with the video stored for 30 days.
This is also true in Las Vegas except for poker, in which case there may or (most likely, but not absolutely) may not be a camera on the game.

wiffleball whizz
05-14-2013, 01:01 PM
This is also true in Las Vegas except for poker, in which case there may or (most likely, but not absolutely) may not be a camera on the game.

Exactly......not absolutely.....cameras in poker are as hit and miss as it gets...especially on weekends too many eyes needed for other parts of Casino

mountainman
05-14-2013, 01:09 PM
Leaving the register open and unattended is stupid but that don't mean you can take the cash.


I would more liken it to selling a real diamond marked at the price of a fake. Is it the buyer's fault that the seller didn't detect the difference?? Or purchased fakes to begin with??? Im sure there are legal precedents that address my analogy- which would make for an interesting court case.

TJDave
05-14-2013, 02:35 PM
I would more liken it to selling a real diamond marked at the price of a fake.

If the buyer knew then he would have an unfair advantage. Courts have ruled in favor of of sellers. It's called 'unconscionable action' or something like that.

maddog42
05-14-2013, 03:31 PM
Leaving the register open and unattended is stupid but that don't mean you can take the cash.

This is a pretty poor analogy to what Ivey did. Titanic Thompson had very good eyesight and could spot minute imperfections in a deck of cards. This is a lot more common than some would think. It is certainly not stealing. I imagine it would still be very hard to beat a card game this way.

maddog42
05-14-2013, 04:03 PM
Ivey has no chance in court.
If he wasn't the celebrity that he is, he might face prosecution himself.
Take your stake money and run, buddy......

Proving (in a court of law) that this is what he was doing is almost impossible.
Since proving this is so difficult, I would say he definitely has a chance. Some lawyer somewhere has told him this or he wouldn't be pursuing it. Ivey is no dummy.

horses4courses
05-14-2013, 04:15 PM
Proving (in a court of law) that this is what he was doing is almost impossible.
Since proving this is so difficult, I would say he definitely has a chance. Some lawyer somewhere has told him this or he wouldn't be pursuing it. Ivey is no dummy.

We'll agree to differ on that.
Defective card patterns are easy to read, if you know what to look for.

If he has a chance, Crockfords would settle with him.
Let's see what happens.....

cordep17
05-14-2013, 04:48 PM
Billy Walters did the same thing in Roulette to Steve Wynn in the Golden Nugget in Atlantic city. he got paid because all he did was scout the roulette wheels for 2 months and figured out the bias to the wheel.

Isn't that like having the track bias? I am no casino aficionado, so this may be a problem, but I don't see a problem with someone going over and beyond to give themselves an edge. As long as you have no say in the outcome, understanding how to make educated guesses in what is supposed to be a game of chance seems reasonable to me.

to pull this to horse racing even more, maybe the tracks did better when people were content with calling it luck. If people start figuring out how to successfully predict the outcomes, then maybe the luck players will leave the table. Once upon a time, PPs weren't even published, and people always attended the races..

TJDave
05-14-2013, 05:47 PM
Isn't that like having the track bias?

The difference is the track pays with OP's money. Unless there is outright collusion they could care less.

Stillriledup
05-15-2013, 03:27 PM
Oh, now it's a generalization.

Anyway, can't believe people are ignoring the really important parts of this story. That Ivey requested the dealer HOLD THE CARDS a certain way, differently than normal (don't have a clue how a dealer holds the cards in Punto Banco, some type of baccarat), AND TO USE THE SAME EXACT CARDS THE NEXT DAY!!! And apparently, the casino complied to both requests, remarkably.

How doesn't those two odd requests not raise SERIOUS alarms on the floor? And yet they continued to let him play...

But i dont understand why they couldnt have said no to those requests. And, once they said yes, doesnt that mean something?

Its not like he twisted their arm behind their back to use certain cards or hold them a certain way, they could have said no.

lamboguy
05-15-2013, 03:41 PM
Isn't that like having the track bias? I am no casino aficionado, so this may be a problem, but I don't see a problem with someone going over and beyond to give themselves an edge. As long as you have no say in the outcome, understanding how to make educated guesses in what is supposed to be a game of chance seems reasonable to me.

to pull this to horse racing even more, maybe the tracks did better when people were content with calling it luck. If people start figuring out how to successfully predict the outcomes, then maybe the luck players will leave the table. Once upon a time, PPs weren't even published, and people always attended the races..i didn't say that Walter's did anything wrong. i have no idea why Steve Wynn would invite him to play anything in his casino's either. but Phil Ivy was nothing but pure greedy. if he beat them for $100,000 they probably would not have said a thing.

there was a guy that hit Keno 3 times in one day someplace in Canada. in 20 years i never saw a guy ever hit Keno. they took the guy out of the hotel in bracelets. another real genius.

thaskalos
05-15-2013, 11:55 PM
There is no such thing as "the world's best poker player."

True. However, he was gambling with his income from Full Tilt, which has been estimated at $1,000,000~ a month.

What he was doing was nothing more than degenerate gambling, which for some odd reason has received lauditory praise from otherwise astute observers.

But, there has been speculation that his "daring exploits" were nothing more than publicity stunts for Full Tilt Poker. The ploy was to simply try and play as close to break even as possible thus garnering lots of attention for the site of which he was part owner.

Either way, his current imbroglio will not end well. Casinos do not like it when they are taken advantage of.

After Chip Reese's death, Ivey is hands down the best poker player in the world...and no one who knows poker would ever disagree with this statement.

He is the "complete" player...being the only player who excels in all facets of the game. He plays all forms of poker exceptionally well...and is as outstanding a player in tournament play as he is in cash games -- a rare phenomenon among the poker elite. His tournament record is truly exceptional...and he would have made a much bigger name for himself in the tournament circuit, were it not for his preference for cash play. He is the only permanent fixture in the world's biggest cash games...while the rest of the player lineup there changes with the times.

In the jaded, jealous world of high stakes poker...Ivey's poker talent places him head and shoulders above everybody else.

In fact...there is a saying that the other high stakes players half-jokingly mutter among themselves. They say that it's all Ivey's money...and they are just temporarily holding it for him.

wiffleball whizz
05-16-2013, 01:58 AM
Phil Ivey best player AINEC

maddog42
05-16-2013, 02:22 PM
In fact...there is a saying that the other high stakes players half-jokingly mutter among themselves. They say that it's all Ivey's money...and they are just temporarily holding it for him.

You have verified what I have long suspected.

tucker6
05-16-2013, 02:32 PM
I've always been a big Ivey fan. Nerves of steel. However, I've always wondered how he could have been conned by Ferguson and Lederer in the first place.

wiffleball whizz
05-16-2013, 03:59 PM
I've always been a big Ivey fan. Nerves of steel. However, I've always wondered how he could have been conned by Ferguson and Lederer in the first place.

Ivey never needed this BS but he prob wanted an easy score....

Lederer and ferguson are the scum of the earth...it's was as big a scam as you will ever see....but People still look at ferguson as "Jesus" or "the guy that can throw cards and cut fruit" Just amazes me

barn32
05-16-2013, 07:53 PM
After Chip Reese's death, Ivey is hands down the best poker player in the world...and no one who knows poker would ever disagree with this statement.I know poker, and I disagree with that statement.

He is the "complete" player...being the only player who excels in all facets of the game.Sorry, but we differ here as well.

He is the only permanent fixture in the world's biggest cash games...while the rest of the player lineup there changes with the times...

In fact...there is a saying that the other high stakes players half-jokingly mutter among themselves. They say that it's all Ivey's money...and they are just temporarily holding it for him.Hmmm, I wonder what Johnny World, Ted Forrest, Johnny Chan, Jenifer Harman, Tom Dwan, Sam Trickett, Billy Baxter and Doyle Brunson (age 79) would say about that.

Just for the curious. (http://www.doylebrunson.com/blog/texdolly/dont-cry-because-its-over-smile-because-it-happened/#more-167)

lamboguy
05-16-2013, 08:10 PM
i think those that think that Ivy is that great must have forgot about Dan Harrington.

wiffleball whizz
05-16-2013, 08:27 PM
i think those that think that Ivy is that great must have forgot about Dan Harrington.

I hate talking about poker players like they are heroes cus they aren't even close.....but I'll say Phil Ivey is in other time zone compared to Dan Harrington...Harrington is a one game player....

To touch on Johnny world he is a piece of garbage....wins like 1.6 million in wpt event at borgata and stiffed the dealers....first class scumbag....

Stillriledup
09-14-2013, 08:11 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420796/I-read-cards-Im-cheat-U-S-poker-ace-suing-Britains-oldest-casino-denied-8million-win-admits-using-controversial-edge-sorting-technique.html

bks
09-18-2013, 07:24 PM
I'm not sure why Ivey admitted anything. He clearly has his reasons.

The material point is that he requested that the same cards be used, and his request was granted by an entity that is among the most sophisticated in the world about schemes to gain an edge over it.

Given that entity's participation was required for the scheme to be successful, it changes the nature of the things. Ivey did not cheat, nor is he at fault for anything (I don;t care what the law says - I'm talking about responsibility). He outwitted an entity who exists in order to rig games in their own favor, and who cannot be conceived of as naive. That entity preys on people who drink too much, have addictions, etc., and do not have to return the fruit of their predation.

They thought they would strip Ivey of his cash, and they got buried. Ivey deserves the cash.

horses4courses
10-03-2014, 11:06 PM
Phil Ivey's $12m dispute with Crockfords casino of London is now at trial.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77991000/jpg/_77991967_77991966.jpg


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29476942


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/champion-poker-player-stitched-up-casino-in-77m-winning-streak-court-hears-9771149.html

Most of you know where I stand on this one.
I will save any further comment until after the verdict.

TJDave
10-05-2014, 06:54 PM
"I consider all the strategies I use to be lawful and I would never cheat in a casino. It is not in my nature to cheat and nor would I risk my reputation by acting unlawfully in any manner."

Mr Justice Mitting, who is hearing the case, has been told by Mr Ivey's counsel, Richard Spearman QC, that the casino's case was "plainly unsustainable".

I doubt this argument will prevail. It is akin to blaming the victim for failing to lock the barn door.

tucker6
10-05-2014, 07:53 PM
"I consider all the strategies I use to be lawful and I would never cheat in a casino. It is not in my nature to cheat and nor would I risk my reputation by acting unlawfully in any manner."

Mr Justice Mitting, who is hearing the case, has been told by Mr Ivey's counsel, Richard Spearman QC, that the casino's case was "plainly unsustainable".

I doubt this argument will prevail. It is akin to blaming the victim for failing to lock the barn door.
A better analogy is to give the numbers to open a safe to a hustler and then declare you were robbed when it occurs. The casino has clear culpability in this case. The alleged crime would never have occurred if they hadn't agreed to the method of play. It was always their choice to bend house rules, and they did. At that point, everything that happens after that is the fruit of that decision.

horses4courses
10-05-2014, 08:04 PM
A better analogy is to give the numbers to open a safe to a hustler and then declare you were robbed when it occurs. The casino has clear culpability in this case. The alleged crime would never have occurred if they hadn't agreed to the method of play. It was always their choice to bend house rules, and they did. At that point everything that happens after that is the fruit of that decision.

I can't resist.

Clear culpability?
Puhleez....... :rolleyes:

Answer me this - would Ivey have set foot
in that casino had the cards not been defective?

TJDave
10-05-2014, 10:08 PM
A better analogy is to give the numbers to open a safe to a hustler and then declare you were robbed when it occurs.

It still would be robbery.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 12:31 AM
It still would be robbery.
Did Ivey force the casino to deal the cards?

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 12:32 AM
I can't resist.

Clear culpability?
Puhleez....... :rolleyes:

Answer me this - would Ivey have set foot
in that casino had the cards not been defective?
Whose responsibility is it to inspect the cards for imperfections?

TJDave
10-06-2014, 01:53 AM
Did Ivey force the casino to deal the cards?

You're suggesting that people who act stupidly are fair game?

tucker6
10-06-2014, 05:36 AM
I can't resist.

Clear culpability?
Puhleez....... :rolleyes:

Answer me this - would Ivey have set foot
in that casino had the cards not been defective?
If they auto shuffle, Ivey is SOL. That is standard procedure. The casino is culpable because it was their negligence that allowed Ivey to cash in on a defect in the cards. In this case, we have two companies that were negligent. The casino and the card manufacturer. Last I checked, Ivey didn't work for either one, nor was his intelligence gained illegally through inside information. He simply pitted one negligence against the other for gain. I don't see the problem.

Don't we see this every day at the track? We look for various advantages in how the horses are being trained and run, and then we look at the track and try to decipher lane biases, etc to our personal advantage. This is the same thing. Two entities running non-perfect enterprises got caught by someone who found the biases.

tucker6
10-06-2014, 05:40 AM
You're suggesting that people who act stupidly are fair game?
I'm trying to imagine a sport where the players who act stupidly are considered fair game. Let me think about that one and get back to you. :rolleyes:

Frost king
10-06-2014, 07:51 AM
So I walk into my neighbours house, see that his safe is never locked, and he never locks the front door also. He also runs earns for me when I ask him to. When he does, he leaves the doors of the house and safe unlocked. So that gives me the right to steal from him? Even though he is a millionaire? Don't think so.

MutuelClerk
10-06-2014, 08:23 AM
Nice neighborhood. Bad analogy.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 09:21 AM
You're suggesting that people who act stupidly are fair game?
No. I am suggesting that the player should be allowed to use his observational skills. What else has he got? If I am sitting next to you while playing poker, and you accidentally expose your hole cards to me...is it illegal for me to act on this newly-acquired information?

horses4courses
10-06-2014, 09:34 AM
We're going to differ on who is at fault here.
All that matters now to both parties is the verdict.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 09:35 AM
So I walk into my neighbours house, see that his safe is never locked, and he never locks the front door also. He also runs earns for me when I ask him to. When he does, he leaves the doors of the house and safe unlocked. So that gives me the right to steal from him? Even though he is a millionaire? Don't think so.
Ridiculous comparison. This is GAMBLING...and the house runs the game, picks the cards, and sets the rules. The player is not an "intruder"; he is the TARGET.

Robert Goren
10-06-2014, 09:39 AM
No. I am suggesting that the player should be allowed to use his observational skills. What else has he got? If I am sitting next to you while playing poker, and you accidentally expose your hole cards to me...is it illegal for me to act on this newly-acquired information?If you playing in a big tournament there are rules for this. I believe the pot is generally dead at this point. There is a honor system in play with poker much as there is in Golf. Losers have hard time understanding it. Winners fully understand why it is in place.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 09:42 AM
If you playing in a big tournament there are rules for this. I believe the pot is generally dead at this point. There is a honor system in play with poker much as there is in Golf. Losers have hard time understanding it. Winners fully understand why it is in place.
And you know this because you've played in "big tournaments"...right? An honor system in a game where the object is to rip your opponent's heart out? Thanks for the laugh...

horses4courses
10-06-2014, 09:53 AM
If they auto shuffle, Ivey is SOL. That is standard procedure. The casino is culpable because it was their negligence that allowed Ivey to cash in on a defect in the cards. In this case, we have two companies that were negligent. The casino and the card manufacturer. Last I checked, Ivey didn't work for either one, nor was his intelligence gained illegally through inside information. He simply pitted one negligence against the other for gain. I don't see the problem.

Don't we see this every day at the track? We look for various advantages in how the horses are being trained and run, and then we look at the track and try to decipher lane biases, etc to our personal advantage. This is the same thing. Two entities running non-perfect enterprises got caught by someone who found the biases.

Ivey had knowledge of the card defect before he went to the casino.
If he didn't know about it, there is no way that he sits down to play
high stakes Punto Banco. Like all casino games, it's a game of chance.
Ivey needed to have the odds tilted in his favor for him to play.

It's like knowing that a heavy favorite in an upcoming stakes race
has been "gotten to". Ivey goes to the track with a suitcase full of
cash to wager against it. The only difference here is that he would be
taking from a pari-mutuel pool instead of the casino's money.

Just because you happen to loathe casinos
doesn't make them any less a victim.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 10:00 AM
If you playing in a big tournament there are rules for this. I believe the pot is generally dead at this point. There is a honor system in play with poker much as there is in Golf. Losers have hard time understanding it. Winners fully understand why it is in place.I am not talking about cards exposed by the poker dealer, Robert. And stop talking to me about poker as if you know what you are talking about. You are the guy who, a few years ago, was saying that all the online poker-playing sites were charging their customers deposit fees...when the truth was that these sites were offering deposit BONUSES. And when I told you this...you were arguing with me while telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 10:07 AM
Ivey had knowledge of the card defect before he went to the casino.
If he didn't know about it, there is no way that he sits down to play
high stakes Punto Banco. Like all casino games, it's a game of chance.
Ivey needed to have the odds tilted in his favor for him to play.

It's like knowing that a heavy favorite in an upcoming stakes race
has been "gotten to". Ivey goes to the track with a suitcase full of
cash to wager against it. The only difference here is that he would be
taking from a pari-mutuel pool instead of the casino's money.

Just because you happen to loathe casinos
doesn't make them any less a victim.
Nonsense. You have no way of knowing if Ivey would play high-stakes punto banco without an "edge". The truth is that Ivey regularly plays high-stakes casino games...and loses millions in the process. In fact...he has jokingly declared that he plays poker in order to win back the money that he loses at the craps table.

Ivey plays anything...edge or not.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 10:19 AM
Just because you happen to loathe casinos
doesn't make them any less a victim.
You work for an institution which endeavors to get its customers drunk so they could be easier to fleece...and you call this institution a "victim"?

What do you do for a hobby...go down to the slaughterhouse and root for the butcher?

horses4courses
10-06-2014, 10:28 AM
You work for an institution which endeavors to get its customers drunk so they could be easier to fleece...and you call this institution a "victim"?

What do you do for a hobby...go down to the slaughterhouse and root for the butcher?

You see....there you go hating again.

tucker6
10-06-2014, 10:34 AM
You see....there you go hating again.
He makes a good point though ...

horses4courses
10-06-2014, 10:39 AM
He makes a good point though ...

It's a ridiculous point.

Just depends on your point of view, which I regard as jaundiced.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 10:44 AM
You see....there you go hating again.
Just joking...I generally agree with you here -- and you know it.

But you are making a mistake when you call the casino a "victim". You remember Leonard Tose...the man who used to own the Philadelphia Eagles back in the days of Dick Vermiel? Tose lost his entire fortune at the casinos, and died penniless...even getting to the point of getting sued by The Sands for about $2 million in gambling debts. At that trial...a casino cocktail waitress testified under oath that her only job at that place was "to keep Mr Tose's glass full". Tose was also an alcoholic.

And you call these leeches "victims"? C'mon...

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 10:45 AM
It's a ridiculous point.

Just depends on your point of view, which I regard as jaundiced.
And your point is unbiased... :rolleyes:

lamboguy
10-06-2014, 10:56 AM
I am not talking about cards exposed by the poker dealer, Robert. And stop talking to me about poker as if you know what you are talking about. You are the guy who, a few years ago, was saying that all the online poker-playing sites were charging their customers deposit fees...when the truth was that these sites were offering deposit BONUSES. And when I told you this...you were arguing with me while telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about.DEPOSIT FEES?

i can't stop laughing now, now that's a good one

lamboguy
10-06-2014, 10:59 AM
Just joking...I generally agree with you here -- and you know it.

But you are making a mistake when you call the casino a "victim". You remember Leonard Tose...the man who used to own the Philadelphia Eagles back in the days of Dick Vermiel? Tose lost his entire fortune at the casinos, and died penniless...even getting to the point of getting sued by The Sands for about $2 million in gambling debts. At that trial...a casino cocktail waitress testified under oath that her only job at that place was "to keep Mr Tose's glass full". Tose was also an alcoholic.

And you call these leeches "victims"? C'mon...i knew the guy that had the option on the team and almost got it, Jaques Zinman. he had a slight problem, he was in the can for income tax evasion for doing the almost the same thing as the large corporations are doing today called tax inversions.

horses4courses
10-06-2014, 11:03 AM
Just joking...I generally agree with you here -- and you know it.

But you are making a mistake when you call the casino a "victim". You remember Leonard Tose...the man who used to own the Philadelphia Eagles back in the days of Dick Vermiel? Tose lost his entire fortune at the casinos, and died penniless...even getting to the point of getting sued by The Sands for about $2 million in gambling debts. At that trial...a casino cocktail waitress testified under oath that only job at that place was "to keep Mr Tose's glass full". Tose was also an alcoholic.

And you call these leeches "victims"? C'mon...

Of course, there will always be examples of abuse.

Nobody is holding a gun to peoples' heads to go into a casino.
For the most part, people visit them for entertainment,
and to have a good time.

Naturally, not everyone can control their actions.
Abolish gambling because there are those who bet beyond their means?
Return to prohibition because of alcoholic tragedies?
Would that really solve anything?

I will grant you that some forms of gambling are more
prone to create addictive behavior than others.
UK bookmakers William Hill, among others, are
waging a constant battle against those opposed to
the installation of slot machines in their UK betting shops.
These types of machines, I understand, are regarded by
some as the "crack cocaine" of gambling devices.
UK bookies are waging a PR battle to justify them.
It's hard to feel sorry for them.

thaskalos
10-06-2014, 11:19 AM
Naturally, not everyone can control their actions.
Abolish gambling because there are those who bet beyond their means?
Return to prohibition because of alcoholic tragedies?
Would that really solve anything?


No...don't abolish gambling...and don't return to prohibition. Just take your losses with dignity and grace, regardless of whether you are a gambler, or a gambling institution. Does the self-respecting gambler go begging for his money back, or run to the courts...when his losses get out of hand? Of course not. He shuts his mouth...and sits on the sidelines and licks his wounds.

The same rule should apply to the casinos. They are in the gambling business...and they run a certain risk of losing too. They are not selling bread.

Frost king
10-06-2014, 02:39 PM
Much to your chagrin, casinos are not in the gambling business. Just like a racetrack is not. They both need to survive off of the churn. They know, if they keep you their long enough, they will beat you. To grind out that kind of money over a two day span, is not about "Lady Luck" smiling down on you. It is about something else. That something else, was that he had a material edge in the game, that was more than just stupid luck. When you play games of chance, you can't be that lucky for so long. So suspicions were raised and the end result, was that he was fingered.

Stillriledup
10-06-2014, 10:25 PM
It all comes down to this. If you're the casino, you gotta pay. If you made a mistake, learn from it and don't do it next time.

horses4courses
10-06-2014, 10:39 PM
It all comes down to this. If you're the casino, you gotta pay. If you made a mistake, learn from it and don't do it next time.

Perhaps, her Majesty's court will agree with you.
Don't bet on it, though.

thaskalos
10-07-2014, 04:31 AM
Much to your chagrin, casinos are not in the gambling business. Just like a racetrack is not. They both need to survive off of the churn. They know, if they keep you their long enough, they will beat you. To grind out that kind of money over a two day span, is not about "Lady Luck" smiling down on you. It is about something else. That something else, was that he had a material edge in the game, that was more than just stupid luck. When you play games of chance, you can't be that lucky for so long. So suspicions were raised and the end result, was that he was fingered.

The racetrack is not out to "beat you". It isn't the track's money that the horseplayer is trying to win. I thought everyone already knew that...

Stillriledup
10-07-2014, 04:54 AM
The racetrack is not out to "beat you". It isn't the track's money that the horseplayer is trying to win. I thought everyone already knew that...

Unless you're a track who's trying to preserve a huge carryover by making a bogus disqualification that they otherwise wouldn't have made.

Not we know any track who did that before, but, you know, its theoretically possible.

TJDave
10-07-2014, 05:23 PM
The racetrack is not out to "beat you". It isn't the track's money that the horseplayer is trying to win. I thought everyone already knew that...

What if the track knew you fixed a race?

Would you still get to cash?

thaskalos
10-07-2014, 05:52 PM
What if the track knew you fixed a race?

Would you still get to cash?
This is a favorite topic of mine, Dave...and here is my opinion:

The track doesn't care about fixed races...and wishes that the entire topic could be swept under the carpet. They take their cut right off the top...and any "fix" that there might be does not cost them anything, monetarily. What IS damaging to them is the bad publicity that they are certain to get if the details of these fixed races get out in the open. Of course...certain betting irregularities are so blatant that there is a public outcry...so the track is obligated to "investigate" the situation. Usually...a great deal of time passes, and nothing comes of it.

If the track was indeed concerned about exposing these "fixed races"...then there would be more thorough investigations done on these irregular betting patterns which occur from time to time. As it stands now...the track just shrugs its shoulders...and blames the betting irregularities on these enigmatic "whales". Even if a daily double, which figured to pay $200, pays $11.60...it was probably some mistake made by some computer late-betting whale. :rolleyes:

horses4courses
10-08-2014, 12:42 PM
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/10/phil-ivey-loses-edge-sorting-court-battle-against-crockfords-19479.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-10-08/poker-pro-ivey-did-cheat-to-win-12-dot-4-million-u-dot-k-dot-judge-rules


Judge John Mitting determined that Ivey's "edge sorting" technique, used to spot tiny variations in the pattern printed on the backs of the cards, constituted as cheating under civil law.

"He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes," Mitting said, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. “This is in my view cheating.”

lamboguy
10-08-2014, 12:47 PM
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/10/phil-ivey-loses-edge-sorting-court-battle-against-crockfords-19479.htm
he should try betting horses at Belmont today, i like the 8th race there #6 VINCEREMOUS. at least if the horse wins he has a ticket and he can go to the teller and cash it.

DJofSD
10-08-2014, 12:51 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/poker-pro-ivey-did-cheat-to-win-12-4-million-u-k-judge-rules.html?hootPostID=092542322683192d1356d761aa65 2f87

Greyfox
10-08-2014, 12:54 PM
Makes me wonder if the Casino slipped the Judge something under the table, ...err bench.

I'm surprised.
The Casino provided the cards and Ivey took advantage of their mistake.

I clearly disagree with the Judge.

PhantomOnTour
10-08-2014, 12:57 PM
Never thought this would be the ruling, but the verdict is the verdict.

Court agrees with H4C

horses4courses
10-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Makes me wonder if the Casino slipped the Judge something under the table, ...err bench.

I'm surprised.
The Casino provided the cards and Ivey took advantage of their mistake.

I clearly disagree with the Judge.

There is an important distinction here.

An outside supplier/manafacturer provided the cards to the casino

Ivey, through outside sources, obtained information on the defect.
That is knowledge that neither you or I are privy to.
Clearly, neither was the casino.

That should not make the casino liable for Ivey
getting an edge on what should be a fair game.
It was no longer a fair game following Ivey's outside contact.

It's like me knowing you were using a certain brand of
playing cards at a poker game in your house.
Would it be fair if I fleeced the entire table due to
my knowledge of a defect in the cards?
I think not.......

Greyfox
10-08-2014, 01:15 PM
There is an important distinction here.

An outside supplier/manafacturer provided the cards to the casino

Ivey, through outside sources, obtained information on the defect.
That is knowledge that neither you or I are privy to.
Clearly, neither was the casino.

...

Any way you carve it, the Casino failed to do their due dilligence.

DJofSD
10-08-2014, 01:16 PM
Any way you carve it, the Casino failed to do their due dilligence.
I agree.

Stillriledup
10-08-2014, 03:14 PM
There is an important distinction here.

An outside supplier/manafacturer provided the cards to the casino

Ivey, through outside sources, obtained information on the defect.
That is knowledge that neither you or I are privy to.
Clearly, neither was the casino.

That should not make the casino liable for Ivey
getting an edge on what should be a fair game.
It was no longer a fair game following Ivey's outside contact.

It's like me knowing you were using a certain brand of
playing cards at a poker game in your house.
Would it be fair if I fleeced the entire table due to
my knowledge of a defect in the cards?
I think not.......

Here's what gets lost in all of this.
The Casino is taking a "vig" of some sort, right?
Which means its different than if Ivey and the casino had an 'equal' chance to win.

If i bet you 5 dollars on the super bowl and i have to pay you 5.50 if i lose, but you only play me 5 if i win, there's a different dynamic there, its not even steven.

horses4courses
10-08-2014, 03:29 PM
Here's what gets lost in all of this.
The Casino is taking a "vig" of some sort, right?
Which means its different than if Ivey and the casino had an 'equal' chance to win.

If i bet you 5 dollars on the super bowl and i have to pay you 5.50 if i lose, but you only play me 5 if i win, there's a different dynamic there, its not even steven.

Vig or no vig, Ivey knew from an outside source that the cards were bad.
The judge, correctly imo, saw it as cheating.

lamboguy
10-08-2014, 03:38 PM
Vig or no vig, Ivey knew from an outside source that the cards were bad.
The judge, correctly imo, saw it as cheating.Phil Ivey was greedy, he tried to take down the casino for 7 million pounds, if he got them for less he might have gotten away with it.

even Bill Walter's knew when it was the time to stop when he was taking down the casino's. i used to watch some of the best pad roller's ever to walk the face of this earth, and they never went after the big money. they made quick hits and walked away from the tables.

horses4courses
10-08-2014, 03:41 PM
Phil Ivey was greedy, he tried to take down the casino for 7 million pounds, if he got them for less he might have gotten away with it.

even Bill Walter's knew when it was the time to stop when he was taking down the casino's. i used to watch some of the best pad roller's ever to walk the face of this earth, and they never went after the big money. they made quick hits and walked away from the tables.

You're right, lambo
A million, or less, and he skates.

He could probably have gotten away with it
in small doses around the world for a while.
Would have backfired sooner or later,
but he would have been well ahead.

lamboguy
10-08-2014, 03:57 PM
You're right, lambo
A million, or less, and he skates.

He could probably have gotten away with it
in small doses around the world for a while.
Would have backfired sooner or later,
but he would have been well ahead.in the mid 70's i was betting Eugene Mayday at Little Caesar's $5000 a game split line NHL hockey, sometimes 5 games a night. he was the guy that claimed he would let you bet whatever you want. after about a month he cut me back to $2000 a game, then a week later i was down to $200 a game. one day he came out of the back room and told me he knew i was robbing him, but he enjoyed it so much that it was worth the money getting lessons from me. i asked him why did he had to cut me back, he told me he didn't want to see me with his 2000 taxicabs that he owned in Los Angeles.

in the world of gambling, nothing good last's forever.

pat
10-08-2014, 03:59 PM
Im sure there were several hands played not just one hand was dealt for 11 mill.The casino somewhere in that time period had the option to close down the table and do an inspection of the equipment or just decide to cut thir losses and end the game and they didnt.They should have been made to pay. I guess the casino donates alot of $$$$ to local politicians and judges.

thaskalos
10-08-2014, 05:33 PM
These "marked" cards...were they only used at Ivey's table? Were OTHER players aware of these card imperfections...or was Ivey the only one? How easy is it to win at that particular version of baccarat armed with the additional knowledge that Ivey possessed? When and how did the house become aware of these card imperfections?

These high-rollers play at private tables. Aren't there additional casino safety measures taken when this much money is at stake? How can marked cards go undetected in big-money games like these?

therussmeister
10-08-2014, 07:47 PM
There is an important distinction here.

An outside supplier/manafacturer provided the cards to the casino

Ivey, through outside sources, obtained information on the defect.
That is knowledge that neither you or I are privy to.
Clearly, neither was the casino.

That should not make the casino liable for Ivey
getting an edge on what should be a fair game.
It was no longer a fair game following Ivey's outside contact.

It's like me knowing you were using a certain brand of
playing cards at a poker game in your house.
Would it be fair if I fleeced the entire table due to
my knowledge of a defect in the cards?
I think not.......
Actually, I have read that it is well known by casinos that this particular design by this manufacturer sometimes has this defect. Indeed it is so well known in the industry that the word gets to people like Phil Ivey.

horses4courses
10-08-2014, 08:03 PM
Actually, I have read that it is well known by casinos that this particular design by this manufacturer sometimes has this defect. Indeed it is so well known in the industry that the word gets to people like Phil Ivey.

Wow.

Maybe he should quit poker, and earn some real money?

Stillriledup
10-08-2014, 10:13 PM
I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who beat them, they should lose their license.

fmhealth
10-08-2014, 10:14 PM
Ivey loses. Real tough beat!!!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-10-08/poker-pro-ivey-did-cheat-to-win-12-dot-4-million-u-dot-k-dot-judge-rules

cj
10-08-2014, 11:33 PM
I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who beat them, they should lose their license.

stillamush.

barn32
10-09-2014, 06:13 AM
I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who cheated them, they shouldn't lose their license.Fixed your post.

tucker6
10-09-2014, 06:53 AM
Ivey loses. Real tough beat!!!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-10-08/poker-pro-ivey-did-cheat-to-win-12-dot-4-million-u-dot-k-dot-judge-rules
Love the comments to that article. Appears very few agree with how the judge connected the dots. The most glaring weakness in the judge's ruling is when he tried to insinuate that Ivey coerced the dealer to participate in his alleged scheme. Nothing of the kind occurred. Ivey played by the rules granted him from the casino, he used the cards dealt by the casino without touching them, and won based upon his superior abilities and intellect. That should be rewarded, not castigated.

horses4courses
10-09-2014, 08:38 AM
won based upon his superior abilities and intellect.

Reading a flawed pattern on the backs of playing
cards is due to superior abilities and intellect?

You're giving the man way too much credit.
He's a cheat.

DJofSD
10-09-2014, 09:07 AM
Reading a flawed pattern on the backs of playing
cards is due to superior abilities and intellect?

You're giving the man way too much credit.
He's a cheat.
Being observant is taking an unfair advantage? I guess then doing paddock inspections is not fair too.

horses4courses
10-09-2014, 09:12 AM
Being observant is taking an unfair advantage? I guess then doing paddock inspections is not fair too.

Oh no, paddock inspections are perfectly fair.

When you get the inside scoop on which horse
has the illegal performance boosters?
Now, that's a little different, don't you think?

DJofSD
10-09-2014, 09:18 AM
Oh no, paddock inspections are perfectly fair.

When you get the inside scoop on which horse
has the illegal performance boosters?
Now, that's a little different, don't you think?
Nice try. Those are different circumstances.

horses4courses
10-09-2014, 09:31 AM
Nice try. Those are different circumstances.

Not at all.
He had information from a third party
which caused him to go to that casino.
That information gave him an advantage.
Otherwise, he wouldn't have gone there.

DJofSD
10-09-2014, 09:50 AM
So basically you're saying he intended to cheat only because he acted on information that was not widely known. He had an edge.

He did not manufacture the cards nor did the person or persons that told him about the defect. The trainer that gives illegal race day medications is cheating and knowledge of such actions without disclosing them to authorities is cheating too.

horses4courses
10-09-2014, 10:17 AM
So basically you're saying he intended to cheat only because he acted on information that was not widely known. He had an edge.

He did not manufacture the cards nor did the person or persons that told him about the defect. The trainer that gives illegal race day medications is cheating and knowledge of such actions without disclosing them to authorities is cheating too.

Pretty much one and the same, in my book.

Just because you find out about a horse
who is "juiced" doesn't mean you will
cash a ticket. It's a big edge, though.

tucker6
10-09-2014, 11:03 AM
Pretty much one and the same, in my book.

Just because you find out about a horse
who is "juiced" doesn't mean you will
cash a ticket. It's a big edge, though.
Same with Ivey, and he admitted as such. Being able to read the cards, even marked cards, is a skill that few have the ability to perform. Then he has to apply that skill successfully during the game with his playing abilities to have any chance of modifying the inherent negative bias in the odds in casino games. Even with all that, he isn't guaranteed to win money. He stated as such at trial by providing exhibits which showed that he sometimes lost his shirt playing the exact same game under the exact same conditions and LOST. Can he now go back and sue those casinos because they allowed him to lose illegally? Tongue-in-cheek there, but it shows the shallowness of your argument.

horses4courses
10-09-2014, 11:20 AM
Same with Ivey, and he admitted as such. Being able to read the cards, even marked cards, is a skill that few have the ability to perform. Then he has to apply that skill successfully during the game with his playing abilities to have any chance of modifying the inherent negative bias in the odds in casino games. Even with all that, he isn't guaranteed to win money. He stated as such at trial by providing exhibits which showed that he sometimes lost his shirt playing the exact same game under the exact same conditions and LOST. Can he now go back and sue those casinos because they allowed him to lose illegally? Tongue-in-cheek there, but it shows the shallowness of your argument.

Well, it seems my argument wasn't too shallow for the judge.

Had Ivey won the case, I'm sure that I'd be getting
my nose rubbed in it by at least a handful on here.

Let's see how the gamblers' Robin Hood does against the Borgata.
Or, is that Robbing Hoodlum? ;)

Greyfox
10-09-2014, 11:37 AM
Well, it seems my argument wasn't too shallow for the judge.

;)

And what percentage of Judges ever visit Casinos and gamble?
In my entire life, I only knew of 1.

There's a good chance that this Judge knew sweet diddly tweet about Casinos and gambling, except from what he read in books or heard at the trial.

thaskalos
10-09-2014, 02:22 PM
Same with Ivey, and he admitted as such. Being able to read the cards, even marked cards, is a skill that few have the ability to perform. Then he has to apply that skill successfully during the game with his playing abilities to have any chance of modifying the inherent negative bias in the odds in casino games. Even with all that, he isn't guaranteed to win money. He stated as such at trial by providing exhibits which showed that he sometimes lost his shirt playing the exact same game under the exact same conditions and LOST. Can he now go back and sue those casinos because they allowed him to lose illegally? Tongue-in-cheek there, but it shows the shallowness of your argument.
It's a no-lose situation for the casino. They know what you are doing right from the start...but they let you play anyway. If you lose, they'll keep the money. But if you win, then they withhold the winnings from you...and call you a cheat. It seems that you are only cheating when you win. :rolleyes:

I think I read that Ivey had $1.6 million of his own money into the game...so he must have been a heavy loser at some point. Wasn't he cheating then?

tucker6
10-09-2014, 03:11 PM
It's a no-lose situation for the casino. They know what you are doing right from the start...but they let you play anyway. If you lose, they'll keep the money. But if you win, then they withhold the winnings from you...and call you a cheat. It seems that you are only cheating when you win. :rolleyes:

I think I read that Ivey had $1.6 million of his own money into the game...so he must have been a heavy loser at some point. Wasn't he cheating then?
According to the judge, you and I are incorrect. Cheating is only one way.

You bring up a good point though. The casino was assessed no liability whatsoever for purchasing and dealing bad cards, and doing so in such a way as to entice a player to cheat. It was simple entrapment.

barn32
10-09-2014, 04:15 PM
Come'on folks he cheated. Everybody knows it. It was also obvious he wasn't going to win this case. He's been pulling this scam all over the world. Perhaps had he not been so greedy he'd still be pulling it. But no, he had to win millions. Now it's the Borgatas turn.

If you take a look at Phil Ivey's graph while playing at Full Tilt it just goes up and up and up. If you take a look at his graph since he left Full Tilt it just goes down and down and down.

Where there's smoke there's fire.

Why not just milk the cow instead of trying to butcher it?

[A Great Example of Very Stupid Cheaters (http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/)]

thaskalos
10-09-2014, 04:50 PM
Everybody knows who he is...and every casino boss knows what he does. And yet...they continue to deal to him. You know why? Because Ivey is a big loser overall in the casino games, "cheating" or not...and the casinos know it.

But now...they don't want to pay him even when he wins. If a guy is a cheater...then don't let him in your casino. But when you allow him to risk $1.6 million of his own money in a game, pretending that you don't know what he is doing...and then deny him his winnings...then you reveal yourself for the chicken-shit casino boss that you are.

lamboguy
10-09-2014, 05:57 PM
i wonder if this will backfire on the casino. why would anyone want to walk in the place and take a shot at them, if you lose, your money is left behind, if you win you greet a courtroom with a judge that's in the bag and you can't get paid.

horses4courses
10-09-2014, 07:14 PM
i wonder if this will backfire on the casino. why would anyone want to walk in the place and take a shot at them, if you lose, your money is left behind, if you win you greet a courtroom with a judge that's in the bag and you can't get paid.

No worries there, lambo

Crockfords is a highly respected name in the business.
They have paid out trillions to winners for close to
two centuries, and will continue to do so.

Robert Fischer
10-09-2014, 07:52 PM
I doubt that Ivey was the only one reading those cards.

PaceAdvantage
10-10-2014, 11:12 AM
Why not just milk the cow instead of trying to butcher it?

[A Great Example of Very Stupid Cheaters (http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/)]What a wild video poker story. You're right. These guys could have easily laid low and collected a nice yearly salary while never purposely going for a jackpot payoff. Yet, they couldn't help themselves and eventually were easily spotted and caught.

What were they thinking? No jackpot = less chance of detection = no IRS reporting...

Stillriledup
10-10-2014, 01:01 PM
It's a no-lose situation for the casino. They know what you are doing right from the start...but they let you play anyway. If you lose, they'll keep the money. But if you win, then they withhold the winnings from you...and call you a cheat. It seems that you are only cheating when you win. :rolleyes:

I think I read that Ivey had $1.6 million of his own money into the game...so he must have been a heavy loser at some point. Wasn't he cheating then?

Its called a "Free roll". The Casino free rolled Ivey. If Phil would have lost 7 million and then said "wait a minute, the cards were flawed,give me my money back", they would have laughed in his face.

Its a gambling game that the casino is running. And, in a gambling game, you're supposed to try and win. Also, if you see the "edge" how are you supposed to "NOT see it"?

If you want to make the case that ivey "cheated" how about i make the case that the casino cheated by having flawed cards. You could also make the case they cheated by charging a "vig" to play. If you charge a vig, its up to you to make sure people don't win....you can't let them play, try and beat them on a free roll and when they beat you, just cry "no fair".

PaceAdvantage
10-10-2014, 01:15 PM
Casinos never present themselves as the enemy...as the one that is out to take all your money, even though they are exactly that.

They would classify the vig as simply something they are entitled to in return for providing the customer with such a satisfying entertainment experience... :lol:

badcompany
10-10-2014, 01:26 PM
According to the judge, you and I are incorrect. Cheating is only one way.

You bring up a good point though. The casino was assessed no liability whatsoever for purchasing and dealing bad cards, and doing so in such a way as to entice a player to cheat. It was simple entrapment.

It seems like Ivey was guilty of not doing the Casino's job for the Casino.

Stillriledup
10-10-2014, 01:44 PM
It seems like Ivey was guilty of not doing the Casino's job for the Casino.

Exactly.

Its funny....its well known that Casino's don't want "winners" betting on their games. They'll kindly ask winning sports bettors to leave if they think you're sharp. So, did they not realize Phil Ivey is one of the sharpest gamblers out there? I'm pretty sure they knew who he was and they still let him play.

Do you know why they let him play? Because they thought they could beat him. And, if they DID beat him, they would have kept the money. AND, if Ivey lost? He wouldn't have cried like a 5 year old that it was "unfair".

badcompany
10-10-2014, 02:14 PM
Leaving the register open and unattended is stupid but that don't mean you can take the cash.

Disagree with the analogy.

This was more a case of a store making a mistake and pricing an item way too low.

You can make the case that what Ivey did was morally wrong but illegal, as it would be in your example.

horses4courses
10-10-2014, 02:39 PM
They would classify the vig as simply something they are entitled to in return for providing the customer with such a satisfying entertainment experience... :lol:

Now, PA, you as a businessman should be familiar with "costs of operation".

Stillriledup
10-10-2014, 06:36 PM
stillamush.

I would have absolutely be honored and humbled if i mushed Ivey here, but i have to say, if you look at the time stamp of my post and the post after mine, his losing this verdict was public knowledge when i made my post. So, i can't take any credit as much as i would love to. ;)

cj
10-10-2014, 06:49 PM
And what percentage of Judges ever visit Casinos and gamble?
In my entire life, I only knew of 1.

There's a good chance that this Judge knew sweet diddly tweet about Casinos and gambling, except from what he read in books or heard at the trial.

The judges from Rounders were gamblers.

therussmeister
10-10-2014, 08:22 PM
I doubt that Ivey was the only one reading those cards.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is technically Ivey wasn't reading the cards, he employed an accomplice that knew how to do it. Was described as a young Asian female. She was the brains of the operation.

thaskalos
10-10-2014, 08:43 PM
Were Ivey and his cheating accomplice detained by the casino...as cheaters usually are?

Stillriledup
10-10-2014, 09:38 PM
Were Ivey and his cheating accomplice detained by the casino...as cheaters usually are?

I wonder if there was a rule on paper that said you can't do what he did. Otherwise, it just looks like they "made up" the rule because he won a lot of money.

Either way you slice it, it stinks to high heaven how a gaming establishment can just decide to not pay if they want to.

Interesting how the European judge ruled in favor of the European company and not the American citizen.

tucker6
10-11-2014, 07:54 AM
I wonder if there was a rule on paper that said you can't do what he did. Otherwise, it just looks like they "made up" the rule because he won a lot of money.

Either way you slice it, it stinks to high heaven how a gaming establishment can just decide to not pay if they want to.

Interesting how the European judge ruled in favor of the European company and not the American citizen.
and further ruled that Ivey could not appeal his ruling. If this was as cut and dried a cheating incident as the judge declared in his comments, why didn't I read before the trial that Ivey had no chance, or why didn't his attorneys advise him of such?

badcompany
10-11-2014, 10:04 AM
Let's say a Blackjack Dealer is dealing in a way that inadvertently lets a player see his down card. Is it the player's obligation to inform the dealer of this?

horses4courses
10-11-2014, 10:52 AM
Let's say a Blackjack Dealer is dealing in a way that inadvertently lets a player see his down card. Is it the player's obligation to inform the dealer of this?

That would depend on the player's conscience.
I'm guessing that over 90% would stay quiet.

"Hole carding" is a form of advantage play, which is treated like counting.
It's not illegal, but will get you backed-off from play.
There are players who look to prey on inexperienced dealers,
and will always sit on 3rd base, to the dealer's right.

Using a device, such as a mirror, to attempt to see that card is cheating,
and will get you thrown in jail.

Stillriledup
10-11-2014, 11:06 AM
That would depend on the player's conscience.
I'm guessing that over 90% would stay quiet.

"Hole carding" is a form of advantage play, which is treated like counting.
It's not illegal, but will get you backed-off from play.
There are players who look to prey on inexperienced dealers,
and will always sit on 3rd base, to the dealer's right.

Using a device, such as a mirror, to attempt to see that card is cheating,
and will get you thrown in jail.

The word "Cheating" has me confused. People go to jail for breaking actual real life laws and, not even people who break real life laws go to jail, its hard to go to jail, you're not going for looking at a card that someone else is showing you

. Plenty of horse trainers "cheat" baseball players "cheat" and so on and so for, none of them are in jail. You don't go to jail for having questionable morals.

DJofSD
10-11-2014, 11:07 AM
The word "Cheating" has me confused. People go to jail for breaking actual real life laws and, not even people who break real life laws go to jail, its hard to go to jail, you're not going for looking at a card that someone else is showing you

. Plenty of horse trainers "cheat" baseball players "cheat" and so on and so for, none of them are in jail. You don't go to jail for having questionable morals.
It's pretty simple: use a mirror, go to jail.

horses4courses
10-11-2014, 11:19 AM
It's pretty simple: use a mirror, go to jail.

Oh, there are many more cheating devices to use than just mirrors.
Most involve cameras and computers.

horses4courses
10-11-2014, 11:21 AM
The word "Cheating" has me confused. People go to jail for breaking actual real life laws and, not even people who break real life laws go to jail, its hard to go to jail, you're not going for looking at a card that someone else is showing you

. Plenty of horse trainers "cheat" baseball players "cheat" and so on and so for, none of them are in jail. You don't go to jail for having questionable morals.

I doubt that any judge would set the bail very high.
But, in most states, you would be arrested and detained.

Stillriledup
10-11-2014, 11:28 AM
It's pretty simple: use a mirror, go to jail.

Its harder than you think. If you're a first offender with an otherwise clean record, you're not going to jail. If you're a habitual offender, you'll be treated differently, but still not likely to serve jail time.

Stillriledup
10-11-2014, 11:29 AM
I doubt that any judge would set the bail very high.
But, in most states, you would be arrested and detained.

I didn't realize Ivey was arrested and detained. News to me. And, since the court found him to be "cheating" when does he report to jail?

:eek:

TJDave
10-11-2014, 03:38 PM
Let's say a Blackjack Dealer is dealing in a way that inadvertently lets a player see his down card. Is it the player's obligation to inform the dealer of this?

Is it cheating?

badcompany
10-11-2014, 04:15 PM
Is it cheating?

Technically, no. It's a game in which the dealer and the players are trying to take each other's money. It's not the player's fault if the dealer is incompetent at it, the same way it's not Ivey's fault that the casino was incompetent in its selection of playing cards.

horses4courses
10-11-2014, 04:19 PM
There should be a Gamblers' Court

All you guys could run it.
Be great.

TJDave
10-11-2014, 04:41 PM
There should be a Gamblers' Court


Gambling

A parallel world where honesty is subjective. ;)

tucker6
10-11-2014, 05:00 PM
There should be a Gamblers' Court

All you guys could run it.
Be great.
who better to judge gambler morality and cheating than those most familiar with the topic. Do you go to a lawyer when you're sick? There are no harsher critics of cheating than gamblers.

horses4courses
10-11-2014, 05:03 PM
There are no harsher critics of cheating than gamblers.

Judging by the overriding sentiment of most on here,
there is no such thing as cheating a casino, or a racetrack.

tucker6
10-11-2014, 05:06 PM
Gambling

A parallel world where honesty is subjective. ;)
Hate to break it to you, but honesty is subjective in many areas of life even in this world.

tucker6
10-11-2014, 05:09 PM
Judging by the overriding sentiment of most on here,
there is no such thing as cheating a casino, or a racetrack.
Ever stop to think that you and the judge may be wrong in your opinions in this case? Just maybe?? ;)

There's plenty of real cheating at casinos and in racing. IMHO, this wasn't one of those occasions.

thaskalos
10-12-2014, 01:10 AM
Ever stop to think that you and the judge may be wrong in your opinions in this case? Just maybe?? ;)

There's plenty of real cheating at casinos and in racing. IMHO, this wasn't one of those occasions.

THIS is cheating.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436703/Archie-Karas-arrested-Pro-gambler-turned-50-40m-caught-cheating-San-Diego.html

badcompany
10-12-2014, 07:59 AM
THIS is cheating.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436703/Archie-Karas-arrested-Pro-gambler-turned-50-40m-caught-cheating-San-Diego.html

The difference is that, in this case, the player committed an act: marking the cards; whereas, Ivey just played the game as it was presented to him.

thaskalos
10-12-2014, 08:16 AM
The difference is that, in this case, the player committed an act: marking the cards; whereas, Ivey just played the game as it was presented to him.
Exactly. The only thing that Ivey did "wrong" was WIN. Had he lost...then there would have been no problem at all. It would have been a different story if he was the card manufacturer, or something. But the casino picks the cards...and the player is held responsible for their "imperfections"?

lamboguy
10-12-2014, 09:03 AM
Exactly. The only thing that Ivey did "wrong" was WIN. Had he lost...then there would have been no problem at all. It would have been a different story if he was the card manufacturer, or something. But the casino picks the cards...and the player is held responsible for their "imperfections"?i know this is a dumb question, but if IVEY had lost, would he have been able to get a remedy in a court of law for his missing money because of bad cards?

badcompany
10-12-2014, 10:50 AM
i know this is a dumb question, but if IVEY had lost, would he have been able to get a remedy in a court of law for his missing money because of bad cards?

My question to him would be: If you knew the cards were bad, why didn't you say something?

tucker6
10-12-2014, 11:08 AM
My question to him would be: If you knew the cards were bad, why didn't you say something?
By what reasoning would he be required legally or morally to do that? Did he make the cards? Deal the cards? Set the rules of the game? No, he did not. He asked if they would deal a certain way, and they complied. Isn't that called consent on the part of the casino?

horses4courses
10-12-2014, 11:18 AM
Isn't that called consent on the part of the casino?

This isn't a rape trial

DJofSD
10-12-2014, 11:22 AM
This isn't a rape trial
No, it's not.

How about a tort, and, breach of contract -- implied contract. No?

tucker6
10-12-2014, 11:47 AM
This isn't a rape trial
An odd leap on your part to equate the word consent with rape. Consent has numerous contexts. The official definition of consent is, "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". I used the word correctly and in the proper context of this thread. Sorry you don't have a real response to the statement.

thaskalos
10-12-2014, 12:04 PM
An odd leap on your part to equate the word consent with rape. Consent has numerous contexts. The official definition of consent is, "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". I used the word correctly and in the proper context of this thread. Sorry you don't have a real response to the statement.

H4C knows which side his bread is buttered on...and he responds accordingly.

horses4courses
10-12-2014, 12:19 PM
H4C knows which side his bread is buttered on...and he responds accordingly.

I've been making and taking bets for over 45 years now.
I have a pretty good idea of what is fair, and what is not.

Phil Ivey went into that casino with the Asian female "Kelly"
on a mission. They were only going to play there provided
the deck(s) were in their favor. That's the bottom line for me,
regardless of the outcome of the play.

Now - I've spent way too much time typing into this thread.
Those with opposite views to mine cannot be swayed,
and I don't buy the argument that Ivey was a victim.

That's it.
Time to move on.

badcompany
10-12-2014, 12:27 PM
By what reasoning would he be required legally or morally to do that? Did he make the cards? Deal the cards? Set the rules of the game? No, he did not. He asked if they would deal a certain way, and they complied. Isn't that called consent on the part of the casino?

None.

It's a hypothetical predicated on Ivey's claiming injury because of "bad cards." In this case, Ivey would be whining after the fact. If I thought I were playing against someone who marked the cards, I wouldn't wait until after I got cleaned out to do something about it.

The reality is that marked cards don't help a dealer in that type of game as they don't do any thinking or make decisions. For example, in Blackjack the dealer keeps hitting until he makes 17 or more.

A legit claim is that of the Players of Ultimate Bet who had to play with "Superusers" who could see their opponents cards.

tucker6
10-12-2014, 12:32 PM
I've been making and taking bets for over 45 years now.
I have a pretty good idea of what is fair, and what is not.

Phil Ivey went into that casino with the Asian female "Kelly"
on a mission. They were only going to play there provided
the deck(s) were in their favor. That's the bottom line for me,
regardless of the outcome of the play.

Now - I've spent way too much time typing into this thread.
Those with opposite views to mine cannot be swayed,
and I don't buy the argument that Ivey was a victim.

That's it.
Time to move on.
To be fair, I don't consider Ivey or the casino victims. The casino chose to become a victim so that they could recoup their losses due to their own negligence. I don't really think they believe themselves victims. It was a ruse, and are very happy today that a judge left them off the hook for their lack of management of the casino.

tucker6
10-12-2014, 12:38 PM
It's a hypothetical predicated on Ivey's claiming injury because of "bad cards." In this case, Ivey would be whining after the fact. If I thought I were playing against someone who marked the cards, I wouldn't wait until after I got cleaned out to do something about it.

We agree. That's the very thing the casino did well after the fact. If the casino doesn't catch these types of things during the game, then that's on them. This after-the-fact lawsuit is for the birds. The casino could have stopped the game after a couple million, but thought they'd get it back. Then when they didn't, they decide the next day that they must have been cheated. That's the crock that doesn't sit well with me. The casino must have suspected something, and had two bites of the apple on this. One while he was playing, and the other via lawsuit. As Thaskalos said a couple pages back, the casino was in a no lose situation, and that makes it blatantly unfair to the patrons. The law should be that you either charge a player with a crime while on premises, or they walk with their money intact.

horses4courses
10-12-2014, 12:51 PM
We agree. That's the very thing the casino did well after the fact. If the casino doesn't catch these types of things during the game, then that's on them. This after-the-fact lawsuit is for the birds. The casino could have stopped the game after a couple million, but thought they'd get it back. Then when they didn't, they decide the next day that they must have been cheated. That's the crock that doesn't sit well with me. The casino must have suspected something, and had two bites of the apple on this. One while he was playing, and the other via lawsuit. As Thaskalos said a couple pages back, the casino was in a no lose situation, and that makes it blatantly unfair to the patrons. The law should be that you either charge a player with a crime while on premises, or they walk with their money intact.

Ivey sued the casino, not the other way around.

I said very early on in this thread that Ivey had no chance in court.
That was based on traditional UK law, whereby gambling debts
cannot be recovered by law. It was always looked upon as a
"gentlemens' matter", and should not be settled legally.

Times have obviously changed,
as this never could have gone to court years back.

badcompany
10-12-2014, 01:02 PM
Ivey sued the casino, not the other way around.

I said very early on in this thread that Ivey had no chance in court.
That was based on traditional UK law, whereby gambling debts
cannot be recovered by law. It was always looked upon as a
"gentlemens' matter", and should not be settled legally.

Times have obviously changed,
as this never could have gone to court years back.

Is this really in the spirit of the law?

We're talking about a professional casino, not some guy who welched on a bet.

lamboguy
10-12-2014, 01:07 PM
i think we should all take up a collection for this poor casino

DJofSD
10-12-2014, 01:11 PM
i think we should all take up a collection for this poor casino
OK, your start, I'll hold it and send it along.

cj
10-12-2014, 02:57 PM
Curious what you guys think of these guys?

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/?mbid=social_twitter

More on the same story here:

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/game-king/

http://www.wired.com/2013/11/video-poker-case/

Stillriledup
10-12-2014, 03:22 PM
Curious what you guys think of these guys?

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/?mbid=social_twitter

More on the same story here:

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/game-king/

http://www.wired.com/2013/11/video-poker-case/

I read that article a few days ago. I think their downfall was greed. The guy who figured this out screwed up when he let someone else into the fold. If he "didnt pull a Harn" he would have been able to milk this for a much longer time under the radar. Nobody would have noticed if he just took out small amounts at a time.

tucker6
10-12-2014, 03:48 PM
Curious what you guys think of these guys?

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/?mbid=social_twitter

More on the same story here:

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/game-king/

http://www.wired.com/2013/11/video-poker-case/
They were too greedy, but they did nothing to the machines, so in my opinion, they were not cheating. They simply found a crack in the casinos own gaming. Is that illegal or morally wrong to find legal edges? I don't think so. I thought it was a bit much that PA sent in Gestapo storm troopers to arrest a man on 'alleged' casino cheating. What in the hell was that all about. It's practically a white crime. In the end, they got the prison time they deserved. NONE.

Whose responsibility is it to prevent bugs from cashing out more winnings than expected? The player or the casino? Clearly the casino.

Stillriledup
10-13-2014, 04:52 AM
http://espn.go.com/espn/chalk/story/_/id/11673834/betting-examining-ethical-line-advantage-play-cheating

Robert Fischer
10-13-2014, 12:25 PM
Now - I've spent way too much time typing into this thread.
Those with opposite views to mine cannot be swayed,
...

That's it.
Time to move on.

This is one of the reasons that I like horse racing.
They actually run a race, and then you get paid for the results immediately, and over time.

Anything like this story - It doesn't matter if you are right. There is no "right". Everyone is right.

cj
10-13-2014, 06:44 PM
They were too greedy, but they did nothing to the machines, so in my opinion, they were not cheating. They simply found a crack in the casinos own gaming. Is that illegal or morally wrong to find legal edges? I don't think so. I thought it was a bit much that PA sent in Gestapo storm troopers to arrest a man on 'alleged' casino cheating. What in the hell was that all about. It's practically a white crime. In the end, they got the prison time they deserved. NONE.

Whose responsibility is it to prevent bugs from cashing out more winnings than expected? The player or the casino? Clearly the casino.

I agree totally, but we all know the casinos are going to get the benefit of the doubt every time by local authorities.

BetHorses!
10-13-2014, 07:07 PM
I agree totally, but we all know the casinos are going to get the benefit of the doubt every time by local authorities.


Greed always does people in....like the pick six catskill crew...those guys could have taken pick fives for life but they chose the breeders cup to shine bright on the radar

cj
10-13-2014, 08:10 PM
Greed always does people in....like the pick six catskill crew...those guys could have taken pick fives for life but they chose the breeders cup to shine bright on the radar

I promise you if I'm ever in on one of these things, nobody will ever find out and I'll drift quietly into the night. (a legal one, that is)

Stillriledup
10-13-2014, 11:01 PM
I agree totally, but we all know the casinos are going to get the benefit of the doubt every time by local authorities.

Especially if the "Defendant" is an American and the casino is in Europe and the judge is in Europe.

They (Wm Hill, etc) should have "made book" on the result, Ivey could have made a large wager against himself winning to hedge.

horses4courses
11-17-2014, 01:21 PM
Ringleaders of an illegal World Cup soccer bookmaking group,
with ties to the Chinese mob.

Phua, Yong and their 23-year-old sons are free on bail posted by poker star Phil Ivey and other poker professionals.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/chinese-mob-linked-world-cup-betting-ring-bust-las-vegas

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/default/files/field/media/web1_CAESARS-RAID_080514ev_006_18.jpg

davew
11-21-2014, 12:27 AM
they seem to have different definition of 'mob' in China

the triad they work for is more like a tour company arranging junkets to Macau for gambling vacations

RunForTheRoses
02-13-2015, 08:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khCM9WmI0uQ#t=176

DJofSD
02-13-2015, 08:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khCM9WmI0uQ#t=176
I hope both the casinos lose -- again.

horses4courses
02-13-2015, 09:40 PM
Starting to see a pattern here, anyone?
Oops.....I didn't mean to say that, considering Mr. Ivey's lucky streak!

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/feb/12/judge-unshuffled-cards-void-game-winnings-must-be-/

Stillriledup
02-13-2015, 10:14 PM
Starting to see a pattern here, anyone?
Oops.....I didn't mean to say that, considering Mr. Ivey's lucky streak!

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/feb/12/judge-unshuffled-cards-void-game-winnings-must-be-/

Good thing about judges is that they are honest and fair, its not like the judges are ever in the pockets of the casino industry. No, not them. Fair and impartial are their middle names. And, they're so fair and impartial that if the casino makes a mistake, they get the customers to pay for the boo boo.

davew
02-14-2015, 03:16 AM
Starting to see a pattern here, anyone?
Oops.....I didn't mean to say that, considering Mr. Ivey's lucky streak!

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/feb/12/judge-unshuffled-cards-void-game-winnings-must-be-/


casinos don't like losing, especially when played for a chump?
why is this in the Ivey thread?

Stillriledup
02-14-2015, 03:01 PM
casinos don't like losing, especially when played for a chump?
why is this in the Ivey thread?

Because its a similar situation in that outside forces are siding with the casinos and not the players.

Dark Horse
02-15-2015, 02:51 AM
Either the casino did not know about edge sorting and it was negligence on their behalf, or they free rolled Ivey. I'm going to guess that it was the first, in which case the number one gambling law should have overruled all others: you pay for your own stupidity. If that's too harsh for people, including casinos, they shouldn't be in the business of gambling.

I don't expect a British judge to understand this, but anybody serious about gambling certainly will.

Dark Horse
02-15-2015, 03:05 AM
Actually, I should correct that. The London casino was both incompetent AND free rolled him. The free rolling is clear from the fact that they didn't pay him. That decision had to have been made during his time at the table.

So it was the casino that cheated on top of being plain stupid.

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 10:50 AM
What a ridiculous theory.

Where are these universal laws of gambling listed?
Your notebook?

If there was such a list, maintaining a fair game,
for both player and casino, would have to be near the top.
Giving both parties the opportunity to win - fair and square.

In Ivey's case, the game was compromised, and he knew it.
Had he not known what he did, or did not have his Asian companion
along to guide him, he would having been playing poker somewhere
instead of fleecing a casino of millions due to flawed playing cards.

You may not see it this way - many others on here may not, either.
All that matters is the law, and how judges rule on these issues.
I doubt that gamblers have looked upon judges very favorably
for the past few centuries, anyway.

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 11:41 AM
What a ridiculous theory.

Where are these universal laws of gambling listed?
Your notebook?

If there was such a list, maintaining a fair game,
for both player and casino, would have to be near the top.
Giving both parties the opportunity to win - fair and square.

In Ivey's case, the game was compromised, and he knew it.
Had he not known what he did, or did not have his Asian companion
along to guide him, he would having been playing poker somewhere
instead of fleecing a casino of millions due to flawed playing cards.

You may not see it this way - many others on here may not, either.
All that matters is the law, and how judges rule on these issues.
I doubt that gamblers have looked upon judges very favorably
for the past few centuries, anyway.
I never, even for a moment, thought that Ivey would win the case against the casino...but that doesn't mean that I thought Ivey did anything wrong. He asked the casino for a favor...and they granted it, without realizing the full implications of the favor that they were granting. That was the CASINO'S fault...not Ivey's.

The normal laws don't apply in casinoland. How else can even a blackjack counter be accused of "cheating"? Does he too interfere with the fairness" of the game? :rolleyes:

lamboguy
02-15-2015, 11:49 AM
I never, even for a moment, thought that Ivey would win the case against the casino...but that doesn't mean that I thought Ivey did anything wrong. He asked the casino for a favor...and they granted it, without realizing the full implications of the favor that they were granting. That was the CASINO'S fault...not Ivey's.

The normal laws don't apply in casinoland. How else can even a blackjack counter be accused of "cheating"? Does he too interfere with the fairness" of the game? :rolleyes:he would have got the very same result in a courtroom in Nevada, he might win his case in New Jersey though.

believe me, i wish that Ivey won even more money and got paid. the casino operators might have the laws in their favor, but they are very far from being righteous and have ruined plenty of family's.

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 12:02 PM
I never, even for a moment, thought that Ivey would win the case against the casino...but that doesn't mean that I thought Ivey did anything wrong. He asked the casino for a favor...and they granted it, without realizing the full implications of the favor that they were granting. That was the CASINO'S fault...not Ivey's.

The normal laws don't apply in casinoland. How else can even a blackjack counter be accused of "cheating"? Does he too interfere with the fairness" of the game? :rolleyes:

I know, we just see this differently.

I agree that the casino staff in London were extremely naive
to grant the players' wishes on how the game should be dealt.
Perhaps they were starstruck? I don't know.

I also agree that the casino should be liable until
the defective cards come into the story.
That changes everything, imo.
There was no other reason that Ivey sat down to play
punto banco in Crockfords, other than that edge factor.

Card counting?
Not cheating, as you know.
You also know the rest of the story.
It's just how it is.

TJDave
02-15-2015, 12:54 PM
If there was such a list, maintaining a fair game,
for both player and casino, would have to be near the top.
Giving both parties the opportunity to win - fair and square.

It is never a fair game. Casinos write the rules and have an edge. The only way the gambler wins is by sheer luck... or cheating.

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 01:25 PM
It is never a fair game. Casinos write the rules and have an edge. The only way the gambler wins is by sheer luck... or cheating.

The gambler has the odds against him, and is accused of cheating when he wins...even if all he is doing is using his mind (card-counting). And yet...the casino that I frequent has a large sign on the building announcing that "WINNERS ARE WELCOMED".

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 01:34 PM
I know, we just see this differently.

I agree that the casino staff in London were extremely naive
to grant the players' wishes on how the game should be dealt.
Perhaps they were starstruck? I don't know.

I also agree that the casino should be liable until
the defective cards come into the story.
That changes everything, imo.
There was no other reason that Ivey sat down to play
punto banco in Crockfords, other than that edge factor.

Card counting?
Not cheating, as you know.
You also know the rest of the story.
It's just how it is.

I have an honest question, H4C:

A well-known professional gambler walks in the place where you work, holding several million dollars in cash...and wants to play some baccarat with slightly modified rules. Who is it that ultimately makes this decision?

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 04:15 PM
I have an honest question, H4C:

A well-known professional gambler walks in the place where you work, holding several million dollars in cash...and wants to play some baccarat with slightly modified rules. Who is it that ultimately makes this decision?

Director of Table Games, or the General Manager

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 04:43 PM
Director of Table Games, or the General Manager
That's what I thought. And I think it's safe to assume that the same people probably made that decision at the London casino too...no? Now...are these the sort of people who get easily "starstruck"? :)

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 04:51 PM
That's what I thought. And I think it's safe to assume that the same people probably made that decision at the London casino too...no? Now...are these the sort of people who get easily "starstruck"? :)

I see your point.
Whoever made the call, it was a bad one.

Still, defective cards were outside their control.
That's how the judges seem to see it, at least.

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 05:06 PM
I see your point.
Whoever made the call, it was a bad one.

I agree. This was the sort of decision which should have caused heads to roll. I wonder if that was the case...

Dark Horse
02-15-2015, 05:28 PM
In Ivey's case, the game was compromised, and he knew it.


He had about a 5-6% edge. Exactly how compromised is that? What about sports bettors who win at a 55-56 ATS clip? It means that he could still lose on any given night.

The main point, to me, is that the London casino free rolled him. As soon as they realized the deck was stacked against them, they should have informed Ivey. A classy place would have paid him his winning up until then, and told him to leave. Instead, they let him play. Because he could lose... In other words, they cheated as much as they accuse Ivey of cheating. They knew, at one point, that they wouldn't pay him. Free rolling is a big no-no. A judge is not going to pick that up, but gamblers know.

tucker6
02-15-2015, 05:41 PM
I see your point.
Whoever made the call, it was a bad one.

Still, defective cards were outside their control.
That's how the judges seem to see it, at least.
When the casino allowed the defective cards into the game, they assumed control imho. At least can we agree that Phil Ivey had less control of the cards compared to the casino? He didn't make the cards, bring them to the game, nor alter them in any fashion. He played by the rules granted him by the casino. What did Ivey do wrong?

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 05:46 PM
When the casino allowed the defective cards into the game, they assumed control imho. At least can we agree that Phil Ivey had less control of the cards compared to the casino? He didn't make the cards, bring them to the game, nor alter them in any fashion. He played by the rules granted him by the casino. What did Ivey do wrong?

He didn't lose.

lamboguy
02-15-2015, 05:46 PM
Phil Ivey got screwed in this deal, but i wonder how many other casino's he got with bad cards. from the bottom of my heart, i wish that he beat them for more millions than he got them for, and got all those guys in suits to their knees just like they do to most of their customer's that walk in those joints.

_______
02-15-2015, 06:11 PM
It is never a fair game. Casinos write the rules and have an edge. The only way the gambler wins is by sheer luck... or cheating.

Or playing a game where the casino takes a rake in a player vs. player bet and being good enough to overcome the rake.

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 07:09 PM
Or playing a game where the casino takes a rake in a player vs. player bet and being good enough to overcome the rake.

It amazes me how people expect casinos to run games
that have no theoretical win percentage for the house.

Just go ahead and build the facilities, staff them,
pay the utilities and insurance, plus any other overheads
you might care to name. That's what the player wants,
or even expects.

Then there's the "look at all the lives they have ruined" types.
Alcohol and drugs have done far more damage to our society,
but this "vice" is legal, so it's much easier to criticize.

Now, I'm not saying that casinos are fun-filled amusement parks.
There is definitely a downside to some of the activities.
I have spent a fair portion of the last 28 years in US casinos.
I can definitely state that I have seen far more people having
fun inside them than not. I have also known many people who
have worked in them, and earned a decent living.

Sure, casinos have their faults, but do you think this
country would be better off if they didn't exist?

thaskalos
02-15-2015, 07:34 PM
It amazes me how people expect casinos to run games
that have no theoretical win percentage for the house.

Just go ahead and build the facilities, staff them,
pay the utilities and insurance, plus any other overheads
you might care to name. That's what the player wants,
or even expects.

Then there's the "look at all the lives they have ruined" types.
Alcohol and drugs have done far more damage to our society,
but this "vice" is legal, so it's much easier to criticize.

Now, I'm not saying that casinos are fun-filled amusement parks.
There is definitely a downside to some of the activities.
I have spent a fair portion of the last 28 years in US casinos.
I can definitely state that I have seen far more people having
fun inside them than not. I have also known many people who
have worked in them, and earned a decent living.

Sure, casinos have their faults, but do you think this
country would be better off if they didn't exist?

They overdo it sometimes, H4C...and they piss the players off as a result.

I was at the craps tables one night at the Mirage...and a guy was throwing the dice for what had to be at least half an hour. I had tried to cut into the game about 15 minutes prior, but there was no empty spot at the table to be found. The only player at the table who wasn't betting $1,000 chips was the shooter...and all the players there were making a killing. The shooter's style was to toss the dice into the air higher than normal, but he knew what he was doing...and he always kept the dice on the table.

Well...after about half an hour of this, a pit boss approaches the shooter and announces in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear:

"Bring the dice down a little bit, sir. Any higher and they'll bring down rain".

The shooter gets flustered and intimidated by the pit boss...and adjusts his toss on the very next roll. And he sevens out. A coincidence, I know, but you should have seen the reaction of the players...who all departed from the table in great haste, after giving the pit boss a piece of their mind.

Why mess with people who are having a good time and are doing nothing wrong? The casino always wins out in the end...so, why not show a little class when it's the players' turn to win?

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 07:41 PM
They overdo it sometimes, H4C...and they piss the players off as a result.

I was at the craps tables one night at the Mirage...and a guy was throwing the dice for what had to be at least half an hour. I had tried to cut into the game about 15 minutes prior, but there was no empty spot at the table to be found. The only player at the table who wasn't betting $1,000 chips was the shooter...and all the players there were making a killing. The shooter's style was to toss the dice into the air higher than normal, but he knew what he was doing...and he always kept the dice on the table.

Well...after about half an hour of this, a pit boss approaches the shooter and announces in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear:

"Bring the dice down a little bit, sir. Any higher and they'll bring down rain".

The shooter gets flustered and intimidated by the pit boss...and adjusts his toss on the very next toss. And he sevens out. A coincidence, I know, but you should have seen the reaction of the players...who all departed from the table in haste.

Why mess with people who are having a good time and are doing nothing wrong? The casino always wins out in the end...so, why not show a little class when it's the players' turn to win?

Nobody's perfect.....some of the bosses sweat every dime.

As long as the shooter is hitting the back wall of the table,
he can throw them near the ceiling. ;)

dirty moose
02-15-2015, 09:24 PM
They overdo it sometimes, H4C...and they piss the players off as a result.

I was at the craps tables one night at the Mirage...and a guy was throwing the dice for what had to be at least half an hour. I had tried to cut into the game about 15 minutes prior, but there was no empty spot at the table to be found. The only player at the table who wasn't betting $1,000 chips was the shooter...and all the players there were making a killing. The shooter's style was to toss the dice into the air higher than normal, but he knew what he was doing...and he always kept the dice on the table.

Well...after about half an hour of this, a pit boss approaches the shooter and announces in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear:

"Bring the dice down a little bit, sir. Any higher and they'll bring down rain".

The shooter gets flustered and intimidated by the pit boss...and adjusts his toss on the very next roll. And he sevens out. A coincidence, I know, but you should have seen the reaction of the players...who all departed from the table in great haste, after giving the pit boss a piece of their mind.

Why mess with people who are having a good time and are doing nothing wrong? The casino always wins out in the end...so, why not show a little class when it's the players' turn to win?

**** THE MIRAGE! I had a problem there years ago. I'll never gamble another dime in that shit hole.

I was out there for a wedding, Mirage was the only spot we were doing any kind of winning at. We had been at the table long enough for the dealers to know a friend and I.

At the point in the shooters roll I had all the bases covered. Had maybe $110 on the inside. I also had a pass line bet. Point was a nine. Shooter threw the dice, one die landed on a 4, the other landed half on a chip and half off. If you rolled the die one way, it was a 7, the other it was a nine.

Dealer calls it 7. Not the box man but the pig dealer. We screamed out to no avail. We protested to the pit boss, he said "if you don't like it, play else where".

I'll never been seen in that casino ever again. We still talk about that story to this day.

Moose.

Robert Fischer
02-15-2015, 10:37 PM
Would a casino have any incentive to cheat by increasing their edge?

We know that they win in the long run, due to the dynamics of the rules giving them a built-in edge, but would there be any logical reasoning that having an additional edge could be to they're advantage?? (e.g. reducing exposure to large wagers and streaks etc...)?


The reason I ask is because

a) I am ignorant and don't know the answer
and b) we have just taken the soundbite of the article to be true, but we haven't done much questioning as to who put the cards in there, and who knew , and who benefited.
It's possible that Ivey's informant was the only one who knew, but it's also possible that a much larger group was in the know than what is assumed.


I think it is pretty certain that to think Ivey 'discovered' an imperfection is naive. He was certainly informed.


So who put the marked cards in place? Was it for Ivey? Was it bigger? Is it possible that the Casino knew?

horses4courses
02-15-2015, 10:45 PM
Would a casino have any incentive to cheat by increasing their edge?

We know that they win in the long run, due to the dynamics of the rules giving them a built-in edge, but would there be any logical reasoning that having an additional edge could be to they're advantage?? (e.g. reducing exposure to large wagers and streaks etc...)?


The reason I ask is because

a) I am ignorant and don't know the answer
and b) we have just taken the soundbite of the article to be true, but we haven't done much questioning as to who put the cards in there, and who knew , and who benefited.
It's possible that Ivey's informant was the only one who knew, but it's also possible that a much larger group was in the know than what is assumed.


I think it is pretty certain that to think Ivey 'discovered' an imperfection is naive. He was certainly informed.


So who put the marked cards in place? Was it for Ivey? Was it bigger? Is it possible that the Casino knew?

Manufacturing flaw in how the cards are cut.
Machine cutting made some edges have a detectable pattern for certain cards.
I don't know the details, or the manufacturer.
I also do not know how long before the London incident that flawed cards
were first noticed in other casinos throughout the world.

There are reports that some people knew of the flaw months before.
It definitely was not done specifically for Ivey.
He was just along for the ride.

ReplayRandall
02-15-2015, 10:54 PM
I think it is pretty certain that to think Ivey 'discovered' an imperfection is naive. He was certainly informed.

So who put the marked cards in place? Was it for Ivey? Was it bigger? Is it possible that the Casino knew?
The manufacturer of the cards may have had an employee who knew of the "irregularities" with the "batch group" of cards and their approximate arrival and implementation into the game. This would also require a "key" casino employee, who was notified of the batch group "ID number", sending word out to the betting syndicate, that the cards were about to be put in play......IMO, and just a theory.

Robert Fischer
02-15-2015, 10:57 PM
Manufacturing flaw in how the cards are cut.
Machine cutting made some edges have a detectable pattern for certain cards.
I don't know the details, or the manufacturer.
I also do not know how long before the London incident that flawed cards
were first noticed in other casinos throughout the world.

There are reports that some people knew of the flaw months before.
It definitely was not done specifically for Ivey.
He was just along for the ride.

It's possible that it was a random flaw, and someone discovered them, and eventually someone that knew informed Ivey.

It's also possible that it was a lot bigger than that.

I don't think we should just assume that the story about it is true.

That's why I ask the question about casino's benefiting. I don't think that they could benefit but i am too ignorant to rule it out.

What i do know is that incentives rule , not chance.
Chance happens sometimes, by chance. What I try to do however, is to understand the incentives and the system, -> then sometimes you can figure out a reality that isn't publicized.

The manufacturer of the cards may have had an employee who knew of the "irregularities" with the "batch group" of cards and their approximate arrival and implementation into the game. This would also require a "key" casino employee, who was notified of the batch group "ID number", sending word out to the betting syndicate, that the cards were about to be put in play......IMO, and just a theory.

seems kind of logical that an employee of the card company would have noticed the irregularities, or even purposely manufactured them.

ReplayRandall
02-15-2015, 11:32 PM
Seems kind of logical that an employee of the card company would have noticed the irregularities, or even purposely manufactured them.
The employee would definitely have worked in quality control, and only his keen eye would have picked up flaw, while still grading batch as acceptable. Too much internal surveillance for a purposely altered batch to go undetected.....

Robert Fischer
02-17-2015, 06:29 PM
The employee would definitely have worked in quality control, and only his keen eye would have picked up flaw, while still grading batch as acceptable. Too much internal surveillance for a purposely altered batch to go undetected.....

That's right, it's likely regulated with internal surveillance.

Inner Dirt
03-10-2015, 10:35 AM
Without more information I cannot form an opinion. To me it depends on the effort Phil made. If he was just sitting at the table and noticed flawed cards or his friend did I say tough toe nails to the casino. If he had inside information from a casino employee or someone else, that is a completely different story. There either was a big conspiracy or the casino employees were pretty incompetent.

The casinos don't want a fair fight on any game at any time, they want the edge and they keep the booze flowing and I have noticed high rollers who seem to be bleeding money are allowed to behave rather poorly. Anywhere other than a casino their behavior would have got them thrown out.

I once got booted from long since gone Kactus Kate's in Stateline Nevada for winning a measly $500, counting at Black Jack. It was a small place and was told I created an "hourly" deficit at the table I played at. I don't think counting is cheating and you can still lose. It isn't easy to do, most people are incapable of it, as the best way to avoid detection is to play at a full table of liquored up people who are noisy. Even if everyone capable of counting did, the casinos would still clean up at black jack.

horses4courses
08-15-2015, 09:19 PM
http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2015/08/15/casino-cards-destroyed-knowing-scheme/31774767/

As much as I have sided with the casinos in Phil Ivey's lawsuits
over his baccarat winnings, even I can't defend the Borgata here.
They destroyed the cards used at the time!

Regardless of Ivey's intent entering the casino to play,
you simply cannot destroy such crucial evidence.

At the casino I work for, I can safely state this could not happen.
Cards would never be destroyed with such haste, especially when
part of a potential lawsuit. It's inexcusable. :ThmbDown:

I'd like to see Ivey keep his winnings from the Borgata.

maddog42
08-16-2015, 07:38 AM
The legendary Titanic Thompson had eyesight so good that he could spot card irregularities and was probably not beyond marking the cards as well.Printing defects are more common than people would have you believe.

Stillriledup
08-28-2015, 06:45 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3213115/Pro-Borgata-uses-booze-sexy-servers-distract-gamblers.html

Valuist
01-04-2018, 04:32 PM
This ESPN 30 for 30 does a great job detailing the Ivey case, if you haven't already heard it:

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=20092430

classhandicapper
01-07-2018, 12:38 PM
I don't know all the details of the Ivey case, but I find myself in the middle on it anyway.

If a dealer happens to accidentally expose their hole card from time to time and I adjust my play to gain an edge am I cheating?

If I happen to notice imperfections in the playing cards and can gain an edge by reading them am I cheating?

I think in both cases you can argue you are taking advantage of the lack of skill on the casino's part for using a bad dealer or deck.

I think you can also argue there are unwritten assumptions about what is "fair" and both peaking or reading cards are not fair.

lamboguy
01-07-2018, 12:49 PM
if a defendant is stupid enough to admit his guilt to a law officer, he can't take it back. if a dealer shows his hole cards its tough titty for the casino. but we all know it doesn't work that way because laws are made to protect the establishment or "the house".

and what about the dealers in poker games that cheat or did cheat regularly. the house could care less about those guys and they knew all along they were dealing bad cards years ago. they didn't care because it wasn't their money.

classhandicapper
01-07-2018, 01:37 PM
In that 30-30 one of the guys mentioned "card counting" and how casinos and private clubs won't pay if they catch you counting. To me that's an entirely different thing. Counting is a card playing skill. As part of practically every card game you are trying memorize which cards have been played (or at least their mathematical value) and adjusting your thinking.

If you were playing in a friendly game and everyone knew you had very good memorization skills, they might not want to play with you, but if they did and you won no one would say a word.

If they caught you reading the back of the cards or peaking at your neighbors cards, you might catch a beating.

That's why I said it's kind of an unwritten rule of the game that marked cards and peaking are cheating. In this case, they didn't supply the marked cards, but they were actively tricking the casino into arranging them in a way they could take advantage of. There's no doubt in my mind that's cheating from a "moral" point of view. On a legal basis you probably aren't doing anything wrong. You are taking advantage of the stupidity of the casino.

lamboguy
01-07-2018, 03:14 PM
i just looked at the cheating record for Las Vegas casino operators. the only thing that showed up was a drawing at Sheldon Adleson's place that gave a car away. the casino got fined and the employee's responsibility for the fix got canned.

but we all know there was a day when they cheated the customer out of as much money as they could ever get. that was before the corporate owner's day.

when someone walks into any of these joints, they are trying to get the place for some money, the hotel is trying to clean out the customer for as much money as they possibly can. that's just the way the place operates. the casino operator protects their interests, they don't let anyone play that has an edge on their games. they know almost every way they can get cheated and they watch for it. the cages are full of cash, and there are 1 million people a day that walk through those places trying to get the money out of the cage.

Valuist
01-08-2018, 03:24 PM
I don't know all the details of the Ivey case, but I find myself in the middle on it anyway.

If a dealer happens to accidentally expose their hole card from time to time and I adjust my play to gain an edge am I cheating?

If I happen to notice imperfections in the playing cards and can gain an edge by reading them am I cheating?

I think in both cases you can argue you are taking advantage of the lack of skill on the casino's part for using a bad dealer or deck.

I think you can also argue there are unwritten assumptions about what is "fair" and both peaking or reading cards are not fair.

If a sloppy dealer exposes a hole card, you are not cheating by taking advantage of that. That is the fault of the casino, for not training their dealer properly.

The casino had every right to refuse Kelly Sun and Ivey's request for the special cards. They chose not to, because as good a poker player as Ivey is, he's known as a square in sports betting. They saw a whale betting at a game (they perceived) he had no advantage. Once they agreed to Ivey's terms, its all on them.

Valuist
01-08-2018, 03:28 PM
So, if Ivey had LOST 11 million, would they have given him his money back? Casino Free Rolling Phil, its not right.

SRU,

I know you aren't posting anymore here, at least in that name, but this post hit the nail on the head. If Ivey had lost, they never would've returned the money.

horses4courses
01-08-2018, 10:07 PM
SRU,

I know you aren't posting anymore here, at least in that name, but this post hit the nail on the head. If Ivey had lost, they never would've returned the money.

If Ivey could prove that the casino cheated him out of that money,
the house would have no option but to return his stake money.
Gamblers seldom see two sides to this story.

A sloppy dealer exposing a hole card is a different situation.
However, with regard to the gambler's motivation to enter the casino in the
first place, there may be parallels. A person who seeks out weak dealers
to supplement his/her income, and only plays when they can gain that edge,
shouldn't expect to be allowed to remain on a casino blackjack table very long.

Likewise, only entering a high stakes gambling establishment when you have
inside knowledge of a flaw in the manufacture of the playing cards, doesn't give
you the right to turn that casino into your personal ATM machine.

Case closed.

thaskalos
01-08-2018, 11:51 PM
If Ivey could prove that the casino cheated him out of that money,
the house would have no option but to return his stake money.
Gamblers seldom see two sides to this story.

A sloppy dealer exposing a hole card is a different situation.
However, with regard to the gambler's motivation to enter the casino in the
first place, there may be parallels. A person who seeks out weak dealers
to supplement his/her income, and only plays when they can gain that edge,
shouldn't expect to be allowed to remain on a casino blackjack table very long.

Likewise, only entering a high stakes gambling establishment when you have
inside knowledge of a flaw in the manufacture of the playing cards, doesn't give
you the right to turn that casino into your personal ATM machine.

Case closed.

I recall a casino boss of years past...who explained his business by saying: "When the lamb goes to the butcher, it may be possible that the lamb could kill the butcher...but we like to bet on the butcher". I wonder what that casino boss would say today...when the "butchers" run crying to the courts of law, to get protection from the "lambs".

classhandicapper
01-09-2018, 02:39 PM
If a sloppy dealer exposes a hole card, you are not cheating by taking advantage of that. That is the fault of the casino, for not training their dealer properly.

The casino had every right to refuse Kelly Sun and Ivey's request for the special cards. They chose not to, because as good a poker player as Ivey is, he's known as a square in sports betting. They saw a whale betting at a game (they perceived) he had no advantage. Once they agreed to Ivey's terms, its all on them.

I'll go back to my original note.

If you were playing cards with some friends, one of them was accidentally exposing his hole card, and you were using it to your advantage would that person get pissed off if they found out?

I think the answer is 100% YES.

Of course it's their fault, but the ethical thing to do is to let them know and continue to play the game as it's intended.

There are two separate standards.

1. Legal
2. Ethical

The legal aspect of this is still being debated. That's what you are talking about.

Looking for a dealer you can outsmart and asking them to use a specific deck with cards arranged a certain way etc... is not ethical behavior. It's kind of like the difference between gambling on a pool game and hustling someone.

classhandicapper
01-09-2018, 02:52 PM
Let's say I am a pool player.

A player that's slightly better than me challenges me to a game. I counter by saying I will play but I get to choose the table we play on. They are all the same brand tables with similar looking clothes so he says "yes" thinking he has a huge edge.

I then take him to the one table in the room in the back where the pockets are tighter than the rest. That's the table I've been practicing on for the last few weeks. I've learned to adjust my game to suit that specific table. We start playing and he's missing a lot of shots he normally makes. I've adjusted my stroke and strategy and start burying him.

I didn't do anything "wrong". He agreed to the terms.

But that's not gambling in a fair way where both sides are equally informed about the game, rules, conditions etc...

It's hustling.

lamboguy
01-09-2018, 03:20 PM
Let's say I am a pool player.

A player that's slightly better than me challenges me to a game. I counter by saying I will play but I get to choose the table we play on. They are all the same brand tables with similar looking clothes so he says "yes" thinking he has a huge edge.

I then take him to the one table in the room in the back where the pockets are tighter than the rest. That's the table I've been practicing on for the last few weeks. I've learned to adjust my game to suit that specific table. We start playing and he's missing a lot of shots he normally makes. I've adjusted my stroke and strategy and start burying him.

I didn't do anything "wrong". He agreed to the terms.

But that's not gambling in a fair way where both sides are equally informed about the game, rules, conditions etc...

It's hustling.they had tables like that at an old pool room on broadway called McGirrs and a place in the combat zone in boston called "the mines", those tight pockets were the equalizer, no matter how good a guy could shoot!

thaskalos
01-09-2018, 03:34 PM
Classhandicapper...you are attempting to instill "ethics" in a gambling arena where they don't exist. Casino gambling isn't akin to sitting down in a "gentlemanly" game of poker with one's friends. The casinos have made it obvious that they will stoop to any measures that they have to in order to separate the customer from his cash...regardless of how "unethical" these measures might be. The early card-counters were using purely their skill while attempting to "beat the dealer"...and the casinos reacted by attempting to rob them through the deployment of crooked dealers. Which side acted more "unethically"?

As we speak...the casinos keep waitresses on the staff whose lone responsibility is to make sure that the liquor-glasses of certain high-betting customers are kept full on a constant basis, so they can keep their gambling "judgement" as off-balanced as possible...without caring in the LEAST about the huge losses that such a mental state invites...and you are here talking to us about "ethics"? The customer should do the "ethical thing" towards the casino...even as casino uses underhanded means to try and ROB him? :eek:

thaskalos
01-09-2018, 03:53 PM
Let's say I am a pool player.

A player that's slightly better than me challenges me to a game. I counter by saying I will play but I get to choose the table we play on. They are all the same brand tables with similar looking clothes so he says "yes" thinking he has a huge edge.

I then take him to the one table in the room in the back where the pockets are tighter than the rest. That's the table I've been practicing on for the last few weeks. I've learned to adjust my game to suit that specific table. We start playing and he's missing a lot of shots he normally makes. I've adjusted my stroke and strategy and start burying him.

I didn't do anything "wrong". He agreed to the terms.

But that's not gambling in a fair way where both sides are equally informed about the game, rules, conditions etc...

It's hustling.

You and I have never met each other...and we both find ourselves around the same Las Vegas poker table. We both scan our competition around the table...trying to spot the "fish" that we could effectively exploit. And once we do...we start disguising our intentions and our skill, in order to take advantage of them so we could take their money...while they, in turn, try to do the same to us. Being the "better players", we take the money, and we march happily to our cars...satisfied with the work that we did. Did we "hustle" anybody? Were we obligated to advertise our skill...so our opponents could have a "fair chance" against us? Did we CHEAT anybody?

There is GAMBLING, and then there are ETHICS...and seldom do the twain meet. As a serious gambler, you try to make money by using whatever "skills" that you possess...while trying to conceal those skills in order to take advantage of the "weaknesses" of others. And, if such an "unethical" behavior keeps you up nights...you keep telling yourself that you are doing nothing ILLEGAL. The gambler operates within the LEGAL boundaries...not the MORAL ones. And...if Ivey had done anything "illegal"...then he would have been ARRESTED. But he wasn't.

Whether you are the customer, or the casino...it is YOUR job to protect your bankroll. Your "competition" won't help you in that regard...nor should they. And there should be no "crying" when your money is gone.

thaskalos
01-09-2018, 04:22 PM
The legal aspect of this is still being debated. That's what you are talking about.


Where is the legal aspect of Ivey's actions, "still debated"? I must have missed it...

tucker6
01-09-2018, 04:38 PM
Looking for a dealer you can outsmart and asking them to use a specific deck with cards arranged a certain way etc... is not ethical behavior. It's kind of like the difference between gambling on a pool game and hustling someone.
If you go to a bar and hustle people at the pool table for drinks or money, should I seek out the straightest stick in the joint or blindly pick out one from the rack so as to not be ethically challenged? That's a serious question to your statement, because if you take your thought further out, any attempt at an advantage could be construed as ethically wrong. I'm simply trying to find out where you believe the ethical standard ends.

tucker6
01-09-2018, 04:44 PM
Let's say I am a pool player.

A player that's slightly better than me challenges me to a game. I counter by saying I will play but I get to choose the table we play on. They are all the same brand tables with similar looking clothes so he says "yes" thinking he has a huge edge.

I then take him to the one table in the room in the back where the pockets are tighter than the rest. That's the table I've been practicing on for the last few weeks. I've learned to adjust my game to suit that specific table. We start playing and he's missing a lot of shots he normally makes. I've adjusted my stroke and strategy and start burying him.

I didn't do anything "wrong". He agreed to the terms.

But that's not gambling in a fair way where both sides are equally informed about the game, rules, conditions etc...

It's hustling.
It's not hustling if you're the one being challenged though. If I were to challenge someone and they asked to pick the table, I'd be more than a little wary of doing so. Just like anything in life, buyer beware. It's no different than any other negotiation in the business world. I'll do X if Y and Z are prerequisite conditions. If those preconditions set up a successful transaction for me, was that ethically wrong or being a better businessman? I see no difference between my business example and your pool example. They both set preconditions that can be denied by the other side prior to beginning the transaction. Same in the Ivey case. The casino could have said no to the precondition but did not. Therefore, Ivey has no moral dilemma imo. He is simply following the rules both sides agreed to prior to play.