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

2

Comments

  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : 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.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    As an 18 year old, entering a Casino. I knew nothing about gambling.  Did the casino tell me that the roulette wheel gave them an edge?  Did they f***k.  So why must Ivey share his information ?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : 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.
    Posted by 1267

    I'll point out again that not everybody had the same information right in front of them because the casino did not know to look for it and would not have been able to interpret it. It's the difference between data and information. I could post something on this forum containing a code to deliver a secret message. The data would be in plain sight but only someone with the appropriate cipher would have access to the information.

    One of the rules of the game is that the players (both the casino and its customers) are not able to identify the cards when they're face down. Clearly that was not the case here and Ivey was able to identify the cards. That's outside the rules of the game. 

    The bolded part seems to be the crux of your argument - Stupid people can be tricked more easily, therefore it's alright to do so. As it happens I don't agree that the casino staff were stupid. Not only would it be reasonable for them to assume that the deck was properly made and wasn't flawed, they were also aware that pay-outs could be withheld if suspicions arose. Which is what happened here.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : As an 18 year old, entering a Casino. I knew nothing about gambling.  Did the casino tell me that the roulette wheel gave them an edge?  Did they f***k.  So why must Ivey share his information ?
    Posted by 1267
    The rules of roulette are widely available and, if you ask what the payouts are, you can see for yourself that the odds are not in your favour.

    As I said much earlier, Ivey entered into an agreement with the casino to play Punto Banco. The rules of the game include the requirement that neither side can identify the face down cards. Ivey being able to do so meant he was acting outside the rules of the game and therefore outside of his agreement with the casino.

    It's not a question of whether Ivey should have shared his information with the casino because of course they would have refused to use the particular deck if he had. It's a question of whether Ivey won the money within the parameters of the game and within the parameters of the agreement he made with the casino - The gaming contract. It's clear that he did not win within those parameters, reneging on his side of the agreement. As a result, the casino is under no obligation to honour it's side of the agreement.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I'll point out again that not everybody had the same information right in front of them because the casino did not know to look for it and would not have been able to interpret it. It's the difference between data and information. I could post something on this forum containing a code to deliver a secret message. The data would be in plain sight but only someone with the appropriate cipher would have access to the information. One of the rules of the game is that the players (both the casino and its customers) are not able to identify the cards when they're face down. Clearly that was not the case here and Ivey was able to identify the cards. That's outside the rules of the game.  The bolded part seems to be the crux of your argument - Stupid people can be tricked more easily, therefore it's alright to do so. As it happens I don't agree that the casino staff were stupid. Not only would it be reasonable for them to assume that the deck was properly made and wasn't flawed, they were also aware that pay-outs could be withheld if suspicions arose. Which is what happened here.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    The data/information was literally their to be seen by anybody with eyes.
    Like i said in my post above.  As an 18 year old, the casino do not tell me they have an edge. I use my own brain/eyes to find this information out.
    As for the casino staff being idiots, it seems alot of them were.  If you read up on it, they were picking up the top card and turning it 180 degress for Ivey and placing it right in front of him (thinking it was superstition).   Only took them 12 mill to catch on.

    As for the cards, he was not able to identifty the card when face down.   He was just pretty sure that a specific pattern of cards were 7s 8s or 9s. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : The rules of roulette are widely available and, if you ask what the payouts are, you can see for yourself that the odds are not in your favour. As I said much earlier, Ivey entered into an agreement with the casino to play Punto Banco. The rules of the game include the requirement that neither side can identify the face down cards. Ivey being able to do so meant he was acting outside the rules of the game and therefore outside of his agreement with the casino. It's not a question of whether Ivey should have shared his information with the casino because of course they would have refused to use the particular deck if he had. It's a question of whether Ivey won the money within the parameters of the game and within the parameters of the agreement he made with the casino - The gaming contract. It's clear that he did not win within those parameters, reneging on his side of the agreement. As a result, the casino is under no obligation to honour it's side of the agreement.
    Posted by BorinLoner
    Only when you know where to look, much like the patterning of the cards.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Only when you know where to look, much like the patterning of the cards.
    Posted by 1267
    You can ask somebody at the wheel. Nobody is hiding that information from you. In Ivey's case, he knew the rules he was agreeing to play by and knew a way to get around them. In doing so, he broke the rules. He possessed information he wasn't entitled to possess.

    I won't keep going over the same ground again and again. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : You can ask somebody at the wheel. Nobody is hiding that information from you. In Ivey's case, he knew the rules he was agreeing to play by and knew a way to get around them. In doing so, he broke the rules. He possessed information he wasn't entitled to possess. I won't keep going over the same ground again and again. 
    Posted by BorinLoner
    They could have asked Ivey, much like they did . in court, and he admitted it.  The information WAS there, right infront of them.
    Like i said, if he wasn't entitled to possess that information, the casino should have stopped him from possessing it.
    Off to watch England anyway. Hopefully they don't exploit San Marino's lack of failure to take proper security measures in defence , coz that would be cheating.  :)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited October 2014
    This is my take on it.........

    In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating.

    Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not (Asymmetric -  definition, not identical on both sides of a central line)

    For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........

    Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)
     
    After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique.

    This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HENDRIK62HENDRIK62
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    This is my take on it......... In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating. Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not ( Asymmetric -  definition, not identical on both sides of a central line) For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........ Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)   After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique. This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table. 
    Posted by POKERTREV

    +1
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tomgooduntomgoodun
    edited October 2014
    So my 3 weeks of making a seven sided dice to take to my local casino to use as my " lucky die" have been a waste of time then...b.ugger.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    This is my take on it......... In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating. Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not ( Asymmetric -  definition, not identical on both sides of a central line) For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........ Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)   After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique. This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table. 
    Posted by POKERTREV
    Great post Trev.

    A really fascinating topic, this. There are threads about it on every poker forum. On the Forum elsewhere I frequent most regularly, the thread runs to over 500 posts. The common theme in all of them is that the vast majority side with Ivey, either because he is deemed to be a sort of "poker hero", or because people tend to support the underdog versus the big bad Casino. (You can delete "Casino" & insert "poker site", "sports betting site" or whatever). 

    Ivey now faces a near identical lawsuit from the Borgota, in Atlantic City. It seems he has been flying the same kite at several venues. 

    Really interesting topic, & it's easy to see both sides of the debate, but to my mind, it is clear that he was cheating, & that was what the Court emphatically confirmed.

    Mr Ivey is definitely a "sharp", & I don't think I'd want to be the other side of a bet with him!         
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GELDYGELDY
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Great post Trev. A really fascinating topic, this. There are threads about it on every poker forum. On the Forum elsewhere I frequent most regularly, the thread runs to over 500 posts. The common theme in all of them is that the vast majority side with Ivey, either because he is deemed to be a sort of "poker hero", or because people tend to support the underdog versus the big bad Casino. (You can delete "Casino" & insert "poker site", "sports betting site" or whatever).  Ivey now faces a near identical lawsuit from the Borgota, in Atlantic City. It seems he has been flying the same kite at several venues.  Really interesting topic, & it's easy to see both sides of the debate, but to my mind, it is clear that he was cheating, & that was what the Court emphatically confirmed. Mr Ivey is definitely a "sharp", & I don't think I'd want to be the other side of a bet with him!      
    Posted by Tikay10
    hmmm, and i used to think he was one of the nice guys. you don't seem to be able to trust anyone these days. it's thanks to these casinos running poker tables that he has much of his fortune, and that's how he repays them :-(

    and i guess there's a lot of poker players of the same ilk, based on your comments above #sigh

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    This is my take on it......... In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating. Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not ( Asymmetric -  definition, not identical on both sides of a central line) For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........ Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)   After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique. This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table. 
    Posted by POKERTREV
    I often play live poker with a guy, every time he bluffs he scratches his nose.  This gives me an unfair advanatage ? 
    Am i a cheat?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : I often play live poker with a guy, every time he bluffs he scratches his nose.  This gives me an unfair advanatage ?  Am i a cheat?
    Posted by 1267
    Reading "players tells" is one thing....deliberately rotating cards to give you an idea of what card is coming out next is another.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GELDYGELDY
    edited October 2014
    And this wasn't poker which is a person vs person game.  It was punto banco which is just playing a card game with the smallest of margins for the house. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • The1stOfUsThe1stOfUs
    edited October 2014
    Where I think he went wrong is in the amount he was trying to walk out of the casino with. Let's say he kept his winnings to £1m, not over £7m. He's doubled up, he could of cashed out without any problems. It's maybe even a good story for that casino's history. 'The night Ivey played here and won a million.' However what he did is akin to the bank robber down in the vault who keeps stuffing money into the bags way past when it was time to get out of there, and then they get caught on the way out.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 12671267
    edited October 2014
    If anything, the Casino is the cheat.  As a company which will/should be looking out for cases where the players can gain an edge. Card counting and what not.
    With the law and court deciding the result they did.  The Casino can basically freeroll Ivey with no risk.  Ivey wins and they take him to court and get the money back.
    Ivey loses 6 million, walks away (knowing he had an edge in the long run, good gambling spot) and they keep his money. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TeddyBloatTeddyBloat
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    If anything, the Casino is the cheat.  As a company which will/should be looking out for cases where the players can gain an edge. Card counting and what not. With the law and court deciding the result they did.  The Casino can basically freeroll Ivey with no risk.  Ivey wins and they take him to court and get the money back. Ivey loses 6 million, walks away (knowing he had an edge in the long run, good gambling spot) and they keep his money. 
    Posted by 1267

    When you cheat,  you risk being freerolled.

    Its the same for any cheat, be it match fixer, card marker, or someone colluding in dyms.

    If they lose, they lose. If they win and are caught they get their winnings confiscated and are freerolled.

    He took a calculated risk and got caught.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GELDYGELDY
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    If anything, the Casino is the cheat.  As a company which will/should be looking out for cases where the players can gain an edge. Card counting and what not. With the law and court deciding the result they did.  The Casino can basically freeroll Ivey with no risk.  Ivey wins and they take him to court and get the money back. Ivey loses 6 million, walks away (knowing he had an edge in the long run, good gambling spot) and they keep his money. 
    Posted by 1267

    Ivey is lucky they didn't take him to court for fraud. reckon it would be 5050 that he'd get lockedup for 3 to 5 years.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CHILLIECHILLIE
    edited October 2014
    Very interesting debate,ivey finds an edge and exploits it to his gain,hmmmmm is this wrong or right i soppose it could be deemed as wrong but on the other hand is the casino to blame for not knowing this.The casinos are happy to have edges over mugs that roll up with money and lose every penny but as time as seen they aint to happy about customers finding an edge ie card counting among other things.i dont blame ivey i blame the casino for not being aware of the cards being marked in a certain way,all casinos and online sites know they have an edge over customers but do they reley that information to them do they hell as like if casinos and online sites run a level par 50/50 game they would not be in the business for long,so the question really is who are the cheats u decide.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FlyingDaggFlyingDagg
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    This is my take on it......... In my opinion, if a player does anything to gain an "Unfair Advantage" then this is cheating. Certain card decks have printed patterns on the back of them which is not ( Asymmetric -  definition, not identical on both sides of a central line) For instance the printed pattern on the back of the cards may have full circles printed down the right hand side & half circles printed down the left hand side. Now......knowing this information & the fact that a card shuffling machine cannot turn the cards we can proceed as follows........ Every time we get dealt 7's 8's or 9's we turn the card around, so that the larger circle are on the left. (This can be done much more quickly with the help of another person at the table)   After that all we have to do is look at the next card which is ready to come out of the shuffling machine to predict whether it could be a 7, 8 or 9 depending on the symmetry of the printed pattern down the edge of the card. It's not as easy as that in practice but that is the simple explanation of the technique. This imo is cheating, as you are deliberately gaining an unfair advantage over the house/dealer & the rest of the players at the table. 
    Posted by POKERTREV
    At last someone explained it properly how it worked. The British press certainly couldn't!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • stuarty117stuarty117
    edited October 2014
    Why did the casino agree to using this type of deck, surely they knew bout this type of thing.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FCHDFCHD
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    Why did the casino agree to using this type of deck, surely they knew bout this type of thing.
    Posted by stuarty117

    Casinos will bend over backwards and accommodate all sorts of requests to attract the very high rollers.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • JockBMWJockBMW
    edited October 2014
    Not been able to follow this too closely....   Can someone tell which of the casino rules/laws Mr Ivey actually broke?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • stuarty117stuarty117
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Casinos will bend over backwards and accommodate all sorts of requests to attract the very high rollers.
    Posted by FCHD
    Yea that's wat I mean if they said that deck was ok then wats the problem. Its there own fault for agreeing to the deck he wanted.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited October 2014
    In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:
    Not been able to follow this too closely....   Can someone tell which of the casino rules/laws Mr Ivey actually broke?
    Posted by JockBMW
    The casino rule he broke was "Cheating" or "Deception"

    He used an innocent croupier as a "device" or "tool" (a stratagem; an artifice)

    He used this tool/device in a scheme to trick or deceive the casino.

    devices: using any device which helps to forecast the odds or aid in a legitimate strategy is regarded as cheating


    Extract from The Verdict
    "Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool. He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation. This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LARSON7LARSON7
    edited October 2014

    Surprised he lost the case and that there is such strong opinions on this as being cheating.

    He has just exploited a weakness in the Casino - it was them who agreed to his requests.

    The fact they didn't know what he was doing is their fault imo.








    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • oynutteroynutter
    edited October 2014
     If you read the actual law suit issued by Borgata ( suing Ivey and Sun for exactly the same thing ), it is plain to see they were cheating the casino ----- they were also using a wire transfer to send the money to Mexico, allegedly violating money laundering legislation in the USA

     google----

    Borgata Lawsuit Against Poker Pro Phil Ivey

     

     The geezer don't need to do what he did, he's a cheat and a fraud !---- and a flopwit greedy one at that!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • VespaPXVespaPX
    edited October 2014
    Wonder what fellow pro's are thinking about this?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • oynutteroynutter
    edited October 2014
    https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/77o8zi4rsw3op3d4/images/50-569783e5d0.jpg

    it should have been spotted by the manufacturer of the cards--- Borgata casino is also suing them---- look at the top right--- the circles are cut much smaller there and are very easy to distinguish from a card turned the other way
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.