All Categories› Poker› Poker Chat

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Ivey in Court

«13

Comments

  • FlashFlushFlashFlush
    edited October 2014
    Can't see Ivey losing. He requested a certain type of deck, they provided it. It's no different to card counting, it's just using all the information available to him.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GlenelgGlenelg
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    Can't see Ivey losing. He requested a certain type of deck, they provided it. It's no different to card counting, it's just using all the information available to him.
    Posted by FlashFlush
     Seems he just has! 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FlashFlushFlashFlush
    edited October 2014
    Yeah just saw the report on it. I think Crockfords has had a lucky escape there. At least they gave Ivey his initial stake back, so the only thing it's cost him, is court fees. Which I expect is similar to dropping a penny down the drain to us regular folk.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    Yeah just saw the report on it. I think Crockfords has had a lucky escape there. At least they gave Ivey his initial stake back, so the only thing it's cost him, is court fees. Which I expect is similar to dropping a penny down the drain to us regular folk.
    Posted by FlashFlush
    Maybe Ivey had a lucky escape, in that he got his stake back?

    Would you not agree that, as in poker, "spirit of the game" is just as important as the rules?

    We can all find dodgy "edges" if we really try, but would it not be better for all of us if we did not?

    Would you rather we all played on a level playing field? I know I would.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GREGSTERGREGSTER
    edited October 2014
    I wonder if crockfords will be looking to give all those that lost playing these rules their money back? Doubt it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    I wonder if crockfords will be looking to give all those that lost playing these rules their money back? Doubt it.
    Posted by GREGSTER
    If they were playing Ivey's "rules" there would not be many on that list - in effect, they could not lose!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FlashFlushFlashFlush
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Maybe Ivey had a lucky escape, in that he got his stake back? Would you not agree that, as in poker, "spirit of the game" is just as important as the rules? We can all find dodgy "edges" if we really try, but would it not be better for all of us if we did not? Would you rather we all played on a level playing field? I know I would.
    Posted by Tikay10
    But casino games, as we all know are not a level playing field are they. It just seems very much a case of they don't like the shoe being on the other foot.

    Although it's not in the spirit of the game and all that, in my eyes they should just put their hands up and say, you know what, you've done us here, stitched up like a kipper. Lets use this as a lesson and learn from it, rather than almost crying off and saying, Ooohhhh this isn't fair we want our money back.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    If you were playing poker with someone and found out they were beating you by marking the cards, would you be happy to say that you just need to learn from it and he can keep your money?

    I'm not going to claim to have any idea about Punto Banco, but essentially Phil Ivey was marking the cards. He asked for a specific deck to be used, which wasn't going to be changed. The only difference was that rather than marking the deck with his own hands he was playing on the naivety of the dealer to mark the deck for him.

    If you think that "the casino should be more savvy" is an excuse for Ivey to receive his "winnings" the same argument could be extended to it being alright for anyone to be cheated at poker, as long as they're inexperienced or trusting enough to allow it to happen. 

    "You didn't spot the Aces up my sleeve, so I deserve to beat you."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • golds95golds95
    edited October 2014
    I dont think you can compare the two in terms of cheating as one if you play fairly you can never win long term, also the casino management gave into every demand thay he wanted which they could have declined. Also if he used his system and maybe lost as he could have in the short term do you think they would have been demanding his money. Course not just seems like there just burnt because someone had the edge on them having the edge.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FlashFlushFlashFlush
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    If you were playing poker with someone and found out they were beating you by marking the cards, would you be happy to say that you just need to learn from it and he can keep your money? I'm not going to claim to have any idea about Punto Banco, but essentially Phil Ivey was marking the cards. He asked for a specific deck to be used, which wasn't going to be changed. The only difference was that rather than marking the deck with his own hands he was playing on the naivety of the dealer to mark the deck for him. If you think that "the casino should be more savvy" is an excuse for Ivey to receive his "winnings" the same argument could be extended to it being alright for anyone to be cheated at poker, as long as they're inexperienced or trusting enough to allow it to happen.  "You didn't spot the Aces up my sleeve, so I deserve to beat you."
    Posted by BorinLoner
    Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here. But I thought Ivey was going by markings that are put on the cards by the manufacturer. Nobody in the casino has altered the cards nor has Ivey himself. If Ivey knows these particular make of cards have different markings on them, then so should the casino. Hence my point, they should learn from their mistake and not allowed that make of playing card in their casino.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • golds95golds95
    edited October 2014
    If you want to bring poker into it its like saying to thr other player can I have aces every hand they say yes so you do then later they tell you they want there money back. And it was a fault in the manufacturing process which he used to his advantage not marking

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    Well, regardless of whether it was a flaw in the manufacturing or an error by the dealer, the cards were marked and that's how he was able to win.

    You absolutely can compare poker (or any other game) to this. If you sit to play punto banco, roulette or anything else, you're accepting that the odds may be against you winning when played within the parameters of the game. You're agreeing to those parameters and so is the other party. That's the "gaming contract" spoken about in this case.

    If you use methods outside of the parameters of that agreement, you're breaking that gaming contract. One of the key parameters of the game in this instance is that all the cards are alike and indistinguishable from the back. One side was aware that this was not the case. The other side was not.

    To bring it back to poker (because I actually know something about that game) if you agree to sit down and play against me with my deck and later discover that my deck is marked in a way that I am familiar with, are you going to think that's fair?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GEO68GEO68
    edited October 2014
    Not good news for Ivey then as I think he has another case pending with a Stateside Casino for the same thing .
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    Well, regardless of whether it was a flaw in the manufacturing or an error by the dealer, the cards were marked and that's how he was able to win. You absolutely can compare poker (or any other game) to this. If you sit to play punto banco, roulette or anything else, you're accepting that the odds may be against you winning when played within the parameters of the game. You're agreeing to those parameters and so is the other party. That's the "gaming contract" spoken about in this case. If you use methods outside of the parameters of that agreement, you're breaking that gaming contract. One of the key parameters of the game in this instance is that all the cards are alike and indistinguishable from the back. One side was aware that this was not the case. The other side was not. To bring it back to poker (because I actually know something about that game) if you agree to sit down and play against me with my deck and later discover that my deck is marked in a way that I am familiar with, are you going to think that's fair?
    Posted by BorinLoner
    but this wouldn't happen. Unlike the Casino and/or dealer i have common sense. I would say no, we'll play with the normal cards thanks.  Or i would check them for markings .....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Maybe Ivey had a lucky escape, in that he got his stake back? Would you not agree that, as in poker, "spirit of the game" is just as important as the rules? We can all find dodgy "edges" if we really try, but would it not be better for all of us if we did not? Would you rather we all played on a level playing field? I know I would.
    Posted by Tikay10
    But isn't he just 'playing against the Casino' ?

    The same way we 'play against the bookies' when betting.
     
    Yet you seem happy to promote and participate in shows with guests which try and gain us an edge on the Bookies... 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : but this wouldn't happen. Unlike the Casino and/or dealer i have common sense. I would say no, we'll play with the normal cards thanks.  Or i would check them for markings .....
    Posted by 1267
    So you always check the decks you play with at home games or casinos? I suspect you generally assume that people are playing fair and don't whip out your magnifying glass before every hand.

    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : But isn't he just 'playing against the Casino' ? The same way we 'play against the bookies' when betting.   Yet you seem happy to promote and participate in shows with guests which try and gain us an edge on the Bookies... 
    Posted by 1267


    When betting against bookies, you're betting on the outcome of a sporting event that everyone assumes is fair. The agreement you're making with the bookie is predicated on that event being played out within the rules of the sport. If you have inside information that a sporting event WILL have a particular outcome (e.g. because the ref's been nobbled), you're not making a fair bet. That's analagous to Phil Ivey knowing which cards are which in this case.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GELDYGELDY
    edited October 2014
    Have to agree with borin here
    The casino is merely facilitating a game of cards. But in this case Ivey has found a way to defraud the casino while playing. As the judge said it's not about whether the casino could have protected itself better it's about what Ivey was doing. He wasn't playing cards he was scamming the casino. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : So you always check the decks you play with at home games or casinos? I suspect you generally assume that people are playing fair and don't whip out your magnifying glass before every hand. When betting against bookies, you're betting on the outcome of a sporting event that everyone assumes is fair. The agreement you're making with the bookie is predicated on that event being played out within the rules of the sport. If you have inside information that a sporting event WILL have a particular outcome (e.g. because the ref's been nobbled), you're not making a fair bet. That's analagous to Phil Ivey knowing which cards are which in this case.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    Yes.
    Would definately check if somebody said 'lets use this certain deck'  like Ivey did.

    Ivey knows the cards, but he does not know the outcome.  Back to poker for you, I;ve got Aces, i know you have Ace king (due to markings). We go all-in.  Yes i have an edge, but i do not know for sure the outcome.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MilitantGMilitantG
    edited October 2014
    The fact is Ivey did not cheat, he used his intelligence and outsmarted the casino.

    It seems that it's ok for casinos to give high rollers free drinks and stuff to encourage them to stay and spend (lose) more money but not for them to use their brain and win.

    A casino claiming the moral high ground, well i'll be damned.

    It will be interesting to see how the US courts will deal with Ivey's other case.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    Have to agree with borin here The casino is merely facilitating a game of cards. But in this case Ivey has found a way to defraud the casino while playing. As the judge said it's not about whether the casino could have protected itself better it's about what Ivey was doing. He wasn't playing cards he was scamming the casino. 
    Posted by GELDY
    Lollll He'd be in jail.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Yes. Would definately check if somebody said 'lets use this certain deck'  like Ivey did. Ivey knows the cards, but he does not know the outcome.  Back to poker for you, I;ve got Aces, i know you have Ace king (due to markings). We go all-in.  Yes i have an edge, but i do not know for sure the outcome.
    Posted by 1267
    I might not be certain to lose any particular hand but I would be pretty certain to lose in the long run which is how all odds-based gambling works... and you would still have been cheating me by knowing my hand.

    Whether the casino should have allowed Ivey to request a particular deck wouldn't alter the fact that they believed the game to be playing out within the standard rules. If Ivey had said "I want to use this particular deck because I can identify each card from the back. Is that okay with you?" and the casino had agreed, then that would have been a fair game - All sides would know the whole story before the game started. Obviously Ivey was not so forthcoming when making his request.

    I would assume that casinos tend to pander to the odd superstitions of people willing to gamble for millions of pounds. I'd imagine that's what they thought they were doing here.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    The fact is Ivey did not cheat, he used his intelligence and outsmarted the casino. It seems that it's ok for casinos to give high rollers free drinks and stuff to encourage them to stay and spend (lose) more money but not for them to use their brain and win. A casino claiming the moral high ground, well i'll be damned. It will be interesting to see how the US courts will deal with Ivey's other case.
    Posted by MilitantG
    The fact is that Ivey won by means outside of the rules of the game. He gained an advantage from knowing something that the rules of the game say he shouldn't know and which he didn't disclose to his opponent (the casino). That sounds a lot like cheating to me.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I might not be certain to lose any particular hand but I would be pretty certain to lose in the long run which is how all odds-based gambling works... and you would still have been cheating me by knowing my hand. Whether the casino should have allowed Ivey to request a particular deck wouldn't alter the fact that they believed the game to be playing out within the standard rules. If Ivey had said "I want to use this particular deck because I can identify each card from the back. Is that okay with you?" and the casino had agreed, then that would have been a fair game - All sides would know the whole story before the game started. Obviously Ivey was not so forthcoming when making his request. I would assume that casinos tend to pander to the odd superstitions of people willing to gamble for millions of pounds. I'd imagine that's what they thought they were doing here.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    I wouldn't be cheating you though, the information is there for both of us to see.




    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : The fact is that Ivey won by means outside of the rules of the game. He gained an advantage from knowing something that the rules of the game say he shouldn't know and which he didn't disclose to his opponent (the casino). That sounds a lot like cheating to me.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    If the Casino was facilitating the game correctly. He would not be able to know something that he shouldn't be able to. He's just exploited the casino's failures to take proper security measures. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I wouldn't be cheating you though, the information is there for both of us to see .
    Posted by 1267
    The data is there for everyone who's looking for it but only you know a) that it's present and b) what it means. 

    When a poker player marks the cards at the table, he doesn't share that with the rest of the players and he doesn't tell them what each marking means. He's doing it to gain an unfair advantage. If he did tell everyone it would be fair and would alter the game dramatically but, as he doesn't, he's cheating them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : If the Casino was facilitating the game correctly. He would not be able to know something that he shouldn't be able to. He's just exploited the casino's failures to take proper security measures. 
    Posted by 1267
    You're back to "it's alright to cheat if the other guy doesn't catch you."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MilitantGMilitantG
    edited October 2014
    So the Casino is allowed to get you wasted to gain an unfair advantage as long as you the opponent willingly accept free drinks.
    Which imo sounds like the same as what Ivey did when he requested a specific deck, which they willingly provided.

    But it's ok if the Casino try to gain an advantage.

    Tbh my opinion won't change as I doubt yours will, so gg.

    P.S. It would be interesting to see a poll on this.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : The data is there for everyone who's looking for it but only you know a) that it's present and b) what it means.  When a poker player marks the cards at the table, he doesn't share that with the rest of the players and he doesn't tell them what each marking means. He's doing it to gain an unfair advantage. If he did tell everyone it would be fair and would alter the game dramatically but, as he doesn't, he's cheating them.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    nobody marked any cards. Everybody had the same info literally right infront of them.  Define cheating ? 
    To me cheating is breaking the rules, i don't see how he broke any.    He just exploited stupid casino staff.

    Funny that the Casino probably thought 'haha we'll let this stupid idiot use that deck, he probably thinks they bring him luck' and we'll exploit him for all his money with our small edge.  When infact the opposite happened.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    So the Casino is allowed to get you wasted to gain an unfair advantage as long as you the opponent willingly accept free drinks. Which imo sounds like the same as what Ivey did when he requested a specific deck, which they willingly provided. But it's ok if the Casino try to gain an advantage. Tbh my opinion won't change as I doubt yours will, so gg. P.S. It would be interesting to see a poll on this.
    Posted by MilitantG
    If you let yourself get drunk, you're giving an advantage to your opponent. If they don't force the drinks on you they're not doing anything unfair; you're undermining your own chances. You know the consequences of getting yourself drunk and nobody is hiding those consequences from you. A better example than providing free drinks to players would be the casino surreptitiously spiking players drinks. 

    The casino was not aware of the consequences of using this particular deck and Ivey did not share that information with them. The casino wasn't making an informed decision.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mrsduckmrsduck
    edited October 2014
    Anyone got a picture of the deck?
    :)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.