how is this not cheating?
so is it fair for a horse to be given steroids or how about paying a ref so he looks the other way. Im personaly dissapointed in phil he is a world class poker star and trys to cheat at bakkart wtf dude in my opinion he should be banned from all card games every where! its like finding out mcguire jucied and letting him keep the home run record.he has lost all my respect as a player and his advantage was huge ! if you knew what was low and high cards how unfaur would it be at the poker table?🙁
so is it fair for a horse to be given steroids or how about paying a ref so he looks the other way. Im personaly dissapointed in phil he is a world class poker star and trys to cheat at bakkart wtf dude in my opinion he should be banned from all card games every where! its like finding out mcguire jucied and letting him keep the home run record.he has lost all my respect as a player and his advantage was huge ! if you knew what was low and high cards how unfaur would it be at the poker table?🙁
smoked100000 said:
How is it cheating if the other side agrees to the rules of the game?
The cards that were going to be used were agreed to by the casino.
Using your baseball example, it'd be like trying to say that someone's statistics didn't count because the balls were juiced -- only the balls were juiced by MLB with their full knowledge.
The casino fully agreed to all of Phil's terms. If they didn't think the cards Phil wanted were legitimate, then they shouldn't have agreed to them and allow them to be placed in play.
Saying you've lost respect for him for using an edge that the casino agreed to is silly, in my opinion. There was nothing that happened in this game that was not fully agreed to in advance by the casino -- its the entire reason Ivey took his action there, because they agreed to give him an edge.
You should be applauding the man -- not one thing he did was unethical. The only people being unethical here are the casino. Had they beaten Phil, would they have said the game was unfair then? Of course not, they agreed to the rules.
EDIT: Do a google search of "Advantage Play." It's extremely common at the professional level.
rrickir said:
if you noticed this thread is over two years old . he never got paid his winnings and the ruling meant the casino didn't have to pay . BUT there was another case in jersey where he did get the money and they (the borgata) sued to get
it back. not sure of the outcome in that one but I know their lawyers added the ruling from the first case to the Borgata case as evidence.
not sure if that one is over but been quite awhile. google can probably
tell you, I looked a little but didn't find the answer.
I remember when this came out. That casino and judge were the ones at fault. The casino agreed to Iveys demand. That's the end of it. All they had to do was say, we don't honor your requests for this game anymore and stopped the play. Phil would have asked why, they could have told him why or simply said they don't have to answer. Instead they used his status to draw business, and then were sore losers and didn't want to pay the man when they agreed to his requests. 90% of judges have been influenced under the radar with gifts or funds some sort of way, that's why jury trials were invented. One person with one mind sitting on a bench playing GOD Judge and Jury, will never be 100% accurate on appropriate decisions. NEVER!!
Everything is a negotiation! When you have a bankroll of a whale, unlike some poor sap like myself, you have a certain amount of influence that allows you to set forth some ground rules in how you play. If the casino agrees to those rules then that is on them.
If you get into a deal with someone that does not necessarily work out in your favor that is called a bad decision. But in business you do not get your money back. In my mind it would be cheating if he marked the cards. The casino picked the cards, its up to them to do their due diligence to ensure the cards don't have an inherent tell.
And as asked in the 60 minutes piece, had he lost would the casino do anything to give him the money back?
If you get into a deal with someone that does not necessarily work out in your favor that is called a bad decision. But in business you do not get your money back. In my mind it would be cheating if he marked the cards. The casino picked the cards, its up to them to do their due diligence to ensure the cards don't have an inherent tell.
And as asked in the 60 minutes piece, had he lost would the casino do anything to give him the money back?
Seems like nobody wins this here. The casino comes off looking stupid for agreeing to the request to flip the cards and then won't pay. Phil probably paid a substantial amount to defend his case and gets nothing. I don't know if Phil has any business ventures planned but you can bet this won't help move things along.
those casinos are making billions what the hell is 12 million to them lmfao cheat them every chance you get they are cheating you every chance they get lol especially the indian casinos they are screwing everybody ...payouts not right its impossible to win anymore at them trust me i know ive lost probably 500k to them so if i could find an edge to win i damn sure would do it no problem.
It sure sounds like cheating to me. I realize that the casinos are set up to take your money, but if you which cards are high and low based on looking at the deck, then you are cheating in my book. I think the judge made the right decision.
IVEY SHOULD GET PAID HIS WINNINGS!!!! The casinos put these decks of cards in play so it's their hard luck Ivey knows how to play the system. The casinos would not pay the money back if Ivey had lost and it was proven they had the advantage....Oh wait, don't all casinos have the advantage over the players????? Ivey is a savvy gambler and the casinos should just suck it up and pay the winner 😕
Debby
Debby
100% cheating
Once I found out Ivey used another player to help him edge, it was cheating. Had Ivey used this technique by himself, I would've said he used the casinos flaw against itself. Anytime you go into a gambling situation and use teamwork to beat players or the game, I consider that cheating.
Once I found out Ivey used another player to help him edge, it was cheating. Had Ivey used this technique by himself, I would've said he used the casinos flaw against itself. Anytime you go into a gambling situation and use teamwork to beat players or the game, I consider that cheating.
Totally agree - with the words by `Palmtreegirl` !
Naturally 100% cheating & fraud !
And nothing matter - why he did this : for grabbing money or he want to show for all around that there is some `hole` in casino system.
Think many-many his fans will re-view their thoughts about him after that all.
-
Life is short one - so hurry up by every second !
Naturally 100% cheating & fraud !
And nothing matter - why he did this : for grabbing money or he want to show for all around that there is some `hole` in casino system.
Think many-many his fans will re-view their thoughts about him after that all.
-
Life is short one - so hurry up by every second !
I don't understand how being an advantage player over a casino tarnishes his reputation? Being a poker pro basically is being an advantage player over other players in the poker room. I guess I don't see how using intelligence to find an edge can be classified as one good in one scenario and bad in another. I understand him losing sponsorship's simply from the lawsuit bringing negative publicity but I think it is somewhat trivial for us players to look down on him.