 |
|
10-08-2014, 01:16 PM
|
#106
|
|
Screw PC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greyfox
Any way you carve it, the Casino failed to do their due dilligence.
|
I agree.
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 03:14 PM
|
#107
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horses4courses
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 03:29 PM
|
#108
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,568
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 03:38 PM
|
#109
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,754
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horses4courses
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.
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 03:41 PM
|
#110
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,568
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lamboguy
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 03:57 PM
|
#111
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,754
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horses4courses
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 03:59 PM
|
#112
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 146
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 05:33 PM
|
#113
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,549
|
Questions...questions...
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?
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 07:47 PM
|
#114
|
|
Out-of-town Jasper
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,364
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horses4courses
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.
__________________
“If you want to outwit the devil, it is extremely important that you don't give him advanced notice."
~Alan Watts
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 08:03 PM
|
#115
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,568
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by therussmeister
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?
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 10:13 PM
|
#116
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who beat them, they should lose their license.
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 10:14 PM
|
#117
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 684
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2014, 11:33 PM
|
#118
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,828
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who beat them, they should lose their license.
|
stillamush.
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2014, 06:13 AM
|
#119
|
|
tmrpots
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,285
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2014, 06:53 AM
|
#120
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,170
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fmhealth
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
