Phil Ivey Loses Crockfords Casino Lawsuit!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debi
  • Start date Start date
Woooaaahh!! sound like theres a lot to the story! yikes.
 
it´s like playing blackjack, casinos dont have any good reason to forbid people to play with strategy but if they feel losing they just kick people out and ban them, at the end is a business they strongly care,

and in the Ivey`s case same things happened, if he had lost there were no news but because he managed to win taking advantage of all fair variables and info then they made up a case about cheating however

entertaining story as are all regarding casinos
 
Keith_MM said:
actually flip this round and change the game.

lets take blackjack and house has pre edge sorted the decks so all A,2,3,4,5,6 are turned one way. do you think the game is now fair when the house can now have much better odds of taking another card without busting knowing that the top card of the deck is 6 or lower . Is the house cheating? I think most people would agree that they are , so why should Ivey doing it be any different.
Click to expand...
Well In BlackJack the house has no choice but to take another card or not, it all depends on if they are above 17 and if it's a soft or hard 17

An for the if I think it's fair (If the house could choose not to take a card like you meant in your example)... If the house says can we turn these cards around and we "agree" like the house did in Ivey's situation then sure.. They can do it... Is it fair if we allow them to turn these cards around and play and try to beat the house then when we lose say "You guys turned certain cards around give me my money back"
*unquote*

The house is known to gamble on "Whales" competing with other Casino's over them and they compete to the point of risk where they accommodate a whales requests that they just wouldn't an ordinary player, or they even give them better odds in a game such as Black Jack where for every $10,000 you lose on a bet we will give you $3,000 back so you are only risking $7,000 on a $10,000 bet.

Crocks Ford gambled and they lost when they accommodated Phil Ivey's request in order to get him playing at their Casino..

The Casino claims they didn't know about edge sorting which is either:

1.) A complete lie and they Free rolled Ivey, letting him have a 5-6% edge (Yes an edge as Edge sorting does not guarantee winning) on them (The Casino) knowing they would just do what they did in order ot keep the losses.

2.) Were telling the truth and if this is the case they are incompetent (IMO) Casinos spend Millions of dollars to prevent cheating and Advantage play (Which I separate as they are NOT the same thing, Though the Judge who probably knows nothing about the gambling world thinks so)

to not know about edge sorting is the Casinos own fault and it SHOULD have been a 12 Million USD lesson to them. It is the Casinos obligation to keep up with all old and new ways players gain an edge.

I said it in the other thread, If you want to ban Advantage players you are 100% in your right to do so but once they play and win you can not keep that money, You can stop their play during play but your losses are now losses.

Also it's the Casinos own fault for using cards with defects on them! Phil Ivey didn't put any markings on the cards, How can Phil Ivey be at fault when the Casino used defective cards and when the casino agreed to his request which allowed him to edge sort...

The casino claims that they thought Ivey was doing this out of superstition which again is either a lie or incompetence, I don't care if Ivey said or just implied that the Easter Bunny wanted him to have the dealer turn certain cards around and use an automatic shuffling machine and an Asian dealer - If the Casino agrees it's their own fault...

I think the Casino's have a case against the company that makes their playing cards. I never would of imagined they had a case against Phily Ivey.
 
I think this is the fault of the casino. Even if this is seen as cheating.. Can compare it to a incident which happend at my school a while ago. A teacher accidentally also gave the answers to the exam with us. We used it, is this cheating? Yes. Does that mean we all get a 1 for our exam? Ofcourse not, it was seen as the teachers fault. Ivey should challenge this on appeal. They should resign the guy who works at the casino who made this leak or who ever made the casino use these cards.
 
S3mper said:
I think the Casino's have a case against the company that makes their playing cards. I never would of imagined they had a case against Phily Ivey.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Wow can't believe they actually say he cheated baccarat is one of the games they allow note taking and for you to employ diffrent strategies . I firmly believe Ivey didn't cheat there just trying to give poker players another black eye to deal with .
 
S3mper said:
Crocks Ford gambled and they lost when they accommodated Phil Ivey's request in order to get him playing at their Casino..

The Casino claims they didn't know about edge sorting which is either:

1.) A complete lie and they Free rolled Ivey, letting him have a 5-6% edge (Yes an edge as Edge sorting does not guarantee winning) on them (The Casino) knowing they would just do what they did in order ot keep the losses.
Click to expand...
if it's a lie that the casino's didn't know about edge sorting ....how did Ivey manage to do it all around the world if the casino's knew about it. The casino's will only find out about it if they catch someone in the act or someone tells them about it.

2.) Were telling the truth and if this is the case they are incompetent (IMO) Casinos spend Millions of dollars to prevent cheating and Advantage play (Which I separate as they are NOT the same thing, Though the Judge who probably knows nothing about the gambling world thinks so)
Click to expand...
What the judge knows about the gambling world is irrelevent. he is there to apply UK law and make a judgement on that basis , not on the basis of what foreign gamblers would prefer.
to not know about edge sorting is the Casinos own fault and it SHOULD have been a 12 Million USD lesson to them. It is the Casinos obligation to keep up with all old and new ways players gain an edge.
Click to expand...
And did Ivey show that the casino should have known about edge sorting.Who had heard about edge sorting before this case came about. What you are trying to claim is that its fine to cheat because the casino should know all the possible ways that they can be cheated.This is clearly ludicrous as new means of cheating will be invented and you are saying that casinos should already have thought about those new cheating methods and be taking measures to prevent them.
I said it in the other thread, If you want to ban Advantage players you are 100% in your right to do so but once they play and win you can not keep that money, You can stop their play during play but your losses are now losses.

Also it's the Casinos own fault for using cards with defects on them! Phil Ivey didn't put any markings on the cards, How can Phil Ivey be at fault when the Casino used defective cards and when the casino agreed to his request which allowed him to edge sort...
Click to expand...

not putting a mark on the cards is a moot point as he had quite clearly identified those cards by rotating them and in doing so had marked those cards as different to the rest of the deck. By doing so he was stacking the deck in his own favour.Yes the cards were defective but they were only defective in the sense that they stood out when rotated.In effect , its an argument for single colour card backs to avoid any problems like this.

The casino claims that they thought Ivey was doing this out of superstition which again is either a lie or incompetence, I don't care if Ivey said or just implied that the Easter Bunny wanted him to have the dealer turn certain cards around and use an automatic shuffling machine and an Asian dealer - If the Casino agrees it's their own fault...

I think the Casino's have a case against the company that makes their playing cards. I never would of imagined they had a case against Phily Ivey.
Click to expand...

big part of the problem for iveys case was that the request to turn the cards was made by "kelly" in mandarin to the dealer and that was the part that fell foul of the law. In doing so they deceived the casino about the reasons for rotating the cards and the deception is the part that cost him the case.The full judgement will no doubt spell out the reasons for the decision.
 
Keith_MM said:
if it's a lie that the casino's didn't know about edge sorting ....how did Ivey manage to do it all around the world if the casino's knew about it. The casino's will only find out about it if they catch someone in the act or someone tells them about it.
Click to expand...

The answer to that one could only be incompetence at the casinos that let him do it AND paid him (see: the Borgata).

While edge sorting was only discovered as an advantage play method relatively recently (in the past decade IIRC), there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it was something the casino game security industry knew about well before Ivey's session at Crockfords.
 
Keith_MM said:
What the judge knows about the gambling world is irrelevent. he is there to apply UK law and make a judgement on that basis , not on the basis of what foreign gamblers would prefer.
Click to expand...

I'll go with a quote from the producer of the 60 minutes Ivey story

"A gamblers view on cheating and the General publics view on cheating are two entirely different things"

Since what the decision came down to was if the judge viewed it as cheating or not so it's not really irrelevant.
 
Keith_MM said:
And did Ivey show that the casino should have known about edge sorting.Who had heard about edge sorting before this case came about. What you are trying to claim is that its fine to cheat because the casino should know all the possible ways that they can be cheated.This is clearly ludicrous as new means of cheating will be invented and you are saying that casinos should already have thought about those new cheating methods and be taking measures to prevent them..
Click to expand...

I don't view Edge sorting as cheating at all you are combing the two as if they are the one in the same. If a player cheats he should not be allowed to keep his/her winnings, if a player is an advantage player such as a card counter it is the casinos job to identify them as an advantage player and then ban them. Not let them play and then not pay them.
 
Keith_MM said:
\
not putting a mark on the cards is a moot point as he had quite clearly identified those cards by rotating them and in doing so had marked those cards as different to the rest of the deck. By doing so he was stacking the deck in his own favour.Yes the cards were defective but they were only defective in the sense that they stood out when rotated.In effect , its an argument for single colour card backs to avoid any problems like this.



big part of the problem for iveys case was that the request to turn the cards was made by "kelly" in mandarin to the dealer and that was the part that fell foul of the law. In doing so they deceived the casino about the reasons for rotating the cards and the deception is the part that cost him the case.The full judgement will no doubt spell out the reasons for the decision.
Click to expand...

Since he didn't mark the cards himself is huge in this, The casino used defective cards, the casino owned defective cards.

Isn't it the pit bosses job to know whats going on at all of their tables? Especially when it was probably just one table with Phil Ivey on his own in an exclusive high roller room (Don't know if that's how it was but I'm assuming so) Shouldn't the pit boss of asked the dealer what was said? Also how hard is it for the pit boss to notice the dealer turning the cards around... Sounds like more incompetence to me.



Of course this sounds like I'm trying to justify something that shouldn't need it.
 
Pay the man his money!

The Montreal Casino had a problem with the Keno RNG and a man figured it out. He used his knowledge to win $600K. They investigated and when they found they had made the mistake they paid the man.

Why is it different with Ivey?

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22615380.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Casino

Keno scandal

In April 1994, Daniel Corriveau won $600,000 CAD playing keno. He picked 19 of the 20 winning numbers three times in a row. Corriveau claims he used a computer to discern a pattern in the sequence of numbers, based on chaos theory. However, it was later found that the sequence was easy to predict because the casino was using an inadequate electronic pseudorandom number generator. In fact, the keno machine was reset every morning with the same seed number, resulting in the same sequence of numbers being generated. Corriveau received his winnings after investigators cleared him of any wrongdoing.
 
Gorak said:
Pay the man his money!

The Montreal Casino had a problem with the Keno RNG and a man figured it out. He used his knowledge to win $600K. They investigated and when they found they had made the mistake they paid the man.

Why is it different with Ivey?
Click to expand...

For one, Canada and the England are two different countries with two different legal systems.

Plus it's a different game, different circumstances, Ivey engaged in a certain amount of deception while the Keno guy didn't...
 
I think it is likely that the judge looked at all the fact as presented, which is something I am quite certain none of us have seen, and made a decision based on the law.

All this speculation is pretty funny, people form biased opinions based on little to no first hand knowledge and then engage in long winded arguments among themselves without fact to support them.

Entertaining indeed 🙂
 
For me whether it is cheating or not is debatable but I do think it shows a lack of moral character on Ivey's part.
 
kind of sounded like a witch hunt to me. i wonder if someone more likeable was on trial or a nobody what the outcome would have been.
 
Saw the news, Ivey lost the case.
don't know if it is the final result
but honestly to say, disappointed.
 
curtinsea said:
I think it is likely that the judge looked at all the fact as presented, which is something I am quite certain none of us have seen, and made a decision based on the law.

All this speculation is pretty funny, people form biased opinions based on little to no first hand knowledge and then engage in long winded arguments among themselves without fact to support them.

Entertaining indeed 🙂
Click to expand...

Judges have been known to not do that

The Influenza case being a big one

Till more info comes out I'm going to widely speculate and argue lol
 
Well its not a suprise. Casinos are paying taxes, so they have their business well secured.
 
I don't like the decision, but emotions and opinions aside.

My understanding is The ruling was based on civil law of contract.
Players and Casinos are effectively entering in to a contract to play a game according to the rules of the game.
The Judge commended Ivey on his honesty that Ivey freely admitted to observing and making use of a fault in the cards.
If the Judge actually used the word cheating I think that was uncalled for, his job was simply decide whether the contract was invalidated.
The other questions that don't appear to have been considered are whether the Casino showed any negligence in providing faulty decks and allowing them to be misused for so long, and whether their actions were a deliberate attempt to defraud, you lose you lose, you win we void.

Perhaps Ivey's legal team could have worded the claim differently.
eg 'He won they should pay him, boo hoo', would be easily rebuffed by the agreement to play in the prescribed fashion.
However showing that both parties were aware of the fault and therefore mutually agreeing to a different set of rules might have produced a different result.

As people we see the difference between right and wrong, the legal system just sees pages of words.
I wonder if 'successful' lawyers take advantage of 'faults' in the legal systems.
 
Back
Top