Phil Ivey denied $11 million win...

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

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]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

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.

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

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]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

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]

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]

http://www.courierpostonline.com/sto...heme/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.

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

[maddog42]

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]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-gamblers.html

[Valuist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

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.