Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="DS3, post: 5379676, member: 407846"]
The Ivey case was interesting. A lot of people within the poker community sided with Ivey and essentially said the casinos, both in London and the US, had it coming as they had allowed themselves to be manipulated via edge sorting.

However, I was on the fence as Ivey was not playing the game Baccarat/ Punto Banco as designed, plain and simple, he was exploiting the dealer and cards. That the judgements went against him both in the US and US was no surprise although I felt a fair result would have been that Ivey and the casinos met in the middle and Ivey might keep fifty percent of the winnings.

However, if you are asking about what is acceptable, there was  a standard in UK law regarding what was acceptable in  terms of cheating/fraud prior to this case (not actually applied in Ivey's case) which is the following - from the Financial Times...

"...the go-to test of dishonesty...the two-step test asks whether a defendant knew his actions would be deemed dishonest by a reasonable person, but went ahead and committed them anyway".

That makes a lot of sense to me.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us