Ivey wins £7m but casino refuses to pay out

[cmoney]

Your absolutely right about the casino offering high rollers different terms, but they would never make a "bedshit" clause where any game security breaches or errors would be ignored and paid off as if they did not exist. If they did make such a clause and Ivey could produce evidence of it, then this situation will get really fun as the casino will suddenly find themselves in even greater "bedshit" than they already are, with the Gaming Commission of the UK.

It is an interesting case that is for sure. Ivey isnt dumb, and he must have thought it through, spoke to counsel, before deciding to admit what he did. This tells me he has a good case.

[JimmyG_415]

I don't see how they kept letting him do this.
I could see, yeah, OK we will hold the cards this way, until he just started crushing.

It is almost like they free rolled Ivey.
They figured out his scam, let him do it, as he has an edge, but it doesn't guarantee he wins.

Then if he lost, of well, thank you Mr Ivey, here is your comp.

but, if he wins, then go to the gaming authority and claim he was cheating.

[Seca Tekcop]

I don't see how they kept letting him do this.
I could see, yeah, OK we will hold the cards this way, until he just started crushing.

It is almost like they free rolled Ivey.
They figured out his scam, let him do it, as he has an edge, but it doesn't guarantee he wins.

Then if he lost, of well, thank you Mr Ivey, here is your comp.

but, if he wins, then go to the gaming authority and claim he was cheating.

The house would never knowingly allow a player to have a huge edge, and then let them bet enormous sums of money against them. Remember also that it was Ivey working very hard with the asain expert to get the edge over the house.

Its like we ran a footrace against one another. You represent the casino and I represent Ivey. You are a slightly better runner than me, that represents the house advantage. What you don't know is that one of the souls of your sneakers is about to peel off. I DO know this however and so I am willing to race against you for a huge wager. I have information you don't know about, I have a big advantage over you. As you are a better runner than me and you are unaware of your sneaker situation you take your bet. What needs to be established are the rules of the race. There may a rule in our race such as "running shoes must be in normal condition" [gaming equipment is to be in normal condition, fair and unbiased (excluding the house mathematical edge)]. We race; your soul peels off and I crush you in the race. You can claim because of the rules that your sneakers were not in normal condition as stated by the rules. If on the other hand we race and your soul does not peel off like I thought it would and you beat me it becomes problematic for me to claim that I shouldn't have to pay because my attempt;not to cheat; but to take advantage of you failed.

[gauchojake]

I'd be careful about using the term foot race around these parts.

[Seca Tekcop]

I'd be careful about using the term foot race around these parts.

lol my bad

[zealanddonk]

We race; your soul peels off and I crush you in the race. .

You probably want to be careful mentioning souls and black folk around here as well, unless you meant sole.

[Seca Tekcop]

We race; your soul peels off and I crush you in the race. .

You probably want to be careful mentioning souls and black folk around here as well, unless you meant sole.

LOL your soul right...yes I mean sole (i kant spel veri gud)

[Belly Buster]

[Dan Druff]

Offer for the footrace is still open.

At odds, of course.

[Vintage_one]

Update:

http://www.highstakesdb.com/4153-mau...ds-update.aspx

Pretty interesting .

[cmoney]

Update:

http://www.highstakesdb.com/4153-mau...ds-update.aspx

Pretty interesting .

Where is the update? I think this is what we have been talking about for the last 2 pages.

[Steve-O]

Your absolutely right about the casino offering high rollers different terms, but they would never make a "bedshit" clause where any game security breaches or errors would be ignored and paid off as if they did not exist. If they did make such a clause and Ivey could produce evidence of it, then this situation will get really fun as the casino will suddenly find themselves in even greater "bedshit" than they already are, with the Gaming Commission of the UK.

It is an interesting case that is for sure. Ivey isnt dumb, and he must have thought it through, spoke to counsel, before deciding to admit what he did. This tells me he has a good case.

He really only had two options:

1) admit it and see if he could win on the grounds that "edge sorting" is perfectly legal
2) deny it, and fight the case on the grounds that he didn't "edge sort," which would basically take any attempt at calling "edge sorting" legal off the table (otherwise why deny it)

Working against him is the fact that this same woman is banned from casinos for this AND more importantly, lost a $1 million Las Vegas case on the same grounds. So you have precedent (albeit from a foreign court) and Ivey having knowledge that this practice is not accepted in the eyes of the casino.

I would bet he loses the case if it goes to court, but will probably settle for some undisclosed amount

[Charham]

It is an interesting case that is for sure. Ivey isnt dumb, and he must have thought it through, spoke to counsel, before deciding to admit what he did. This tells me he has a good case.

He really only had two options:

1) admit it and see if he could win on the grounds that "edge sorting" is perfectly legal
2) deny it, and fight the case on the grounds that he didn't "edge sort," which would basically take any attempt at calling "edge sorting" legal off the table (otherwise why deny it)

Working against him is the fact that this same woman is banned from casinos for this AND more importantly, lost a $1 million Las Vegas case on the same grounds. So you have precedent (albeit from a foreign court) and Ivey having knowledge that this practice is not accepted in the eyes of the casino.

I would bet he loses the case if it goes to court, but will probably settle for some undisclosed amount

I think based on the reports that he is saying its legal #1. The part about the lady being banned and losing a case combined with any behavior that they may have used to deceive means settle as you suggest. How much? I am guessing 500k to 1mm, as it is not a good case, but enough to make the casino pay him to go away and focus on training their employees for goodness sake. If any employees were in on it case goes away obv.

[Charham]

This story is very interesting, international, mysterious Chinese ladies, big $, casinos, etc. Sort of James Bond like.

[Dan Druff]

Ivey had no choice but to admit he was edge sorting. There is a mountain of evidence against him that proves he was doing this, so he would be foolish to deny it and hinge his case upon that.

Similarly, if I won money in blackjack while counting cards yet denied the winnings, I would sue the casino, but would also admit I was card counting.

I don't know British law well, so I can't comment on how likely he is to win.

However, it really comes down to what defines "casino cheating" in British law.

If I were ruling in this case, I would award the money to Ivey.

On Ivey's side is the fact that he was using information that he acquired simply from observing the game. He did not use any devices to gain an edge. He was not in cahoots with any casino employees. He did not access any areas of the casino where he was not allowed, nor did he tamper with any of their devices or equipment.

On Crockfrod's side, Ivey not only purposely sought to take advantage of an erroneously-produced deck of cards, but he also had his accomplice manipulate the casino staff to spread the cards in a manner where it gave him a further edge. They can show bad faith in that Ivey's accomplice asked them to lay the cards a certain way (making the flaw easier to see), and obviously did not state the real reason she wanted them laid that way. This is different than the dealers choosing on their own which way to lay the cards, and that configuration happening to allow Ivey to gain an extra edge. Here they asked for a change in the standard dealing in order to take advantage of a flaw in the deck. This is where I feel Crockford's has the best counter to Ivey's claim.

Still, in my opinion, your implied contract with the casino should only go as far as the player not receiving outside help, from either devices or employees. That is, if you can talk casino employees into dealing into a disadvantageous way, then the casino should eat whatever losses occur, provided that the dealer was not a knowing accomplice.

The casino should be responsible to maintain their own edge. It is not the player's responsibility to "forget" what he sees, when he observes information that can swing the odds on his side.

[BeerAndPoker]

If a player is able to gain an edge exploiting a flaw that a casino has by just using their brain knowledge itself and no other tools such as cell phones, cameras, working in teams, metal type stick devices like people used up in slot machines years ago, etc. then the casino should have to suck it up and pay them. It can be an expensive lesson but if they don't discover it at first then it's not the players fault.

Phil Ivey is high stakes degen gambler who can shoot off a few million one day and make a few million the next. When you gambling at the stakes he does it's probably not uncommon to have big runs in a game. Some casinos won't take action at the stakes he wants to play and others will do so which those casinos really need to pay attention.

Crockfords should be offering a settlement in the middle in hopes Phil Ivey will take it otherwise if he don't then they should just suck it up and pay him then tell Ivey his business is not welcome in their establishment again.