Ivey in Court

Sir-Gary

Certainly an interesting debate, my own opinion is Phil Ivey was wrong, but like a lot of people dissappointed he lost. The point is quite clear I think, he used something or somebody that is outside of the actual game to gain an unfair advantage. If you were to go to a friends house to play cards and say can I sit in this seat and you sit opposite me as it is my lucky seat. And you did that in the full knowledge that the real reason you did it was the mirror would then be behind them allowing you an unfair advantage in that you now knew their cards and was able to take their money. I think this is clear cheating, and comments that they did not have to agree to sit there or it was their mirror etc. are no excuse.

I have little sympathy with the casino however, they bent over backwards to assist Ivey in his requests and the motivation behind this was pure greed, Phil had lots of money and they wanted it. Now I know they are running a business but they do like to gain an edge wherever possible. A blatant example is Black Jack, if you keep track of the cards in your head and calculate from that the probabilities in order to play better they then ban you for lets face it playing too good and taking their money. On the other side you do not see them saying to players thats the second time I have seen you split 5's that is really terrible play and you will lose all your money to us quickly like that, therefore we ban you from playing.

As an aside the Casino would not have gave ivey his money back had he lost, a distinct possibility as he only improved his odds to give himself an edge. It makes me wander at what point did the owners know what Phil was doing? Did they know before he started (he has done this before), knowing they could keep his money if he lost and not pay him out if he won. And before anyone says otherwise this is not right either.

oynutter

 The casino would normally have an edge amounting to less than 2% in this game--- Ivey turned that into around 7% in his favour--- no way could he lose---- in fact, he deliberately lost a portion of his winnings at the end of each session

rancid

Casinos hold a massive edge over punters, if you find something that turns the tide then good luck to you. Is it cheating, yeah probs but hey not like the casinos are cheating anyone is it lol

Also it smells of greed that the casino would agree to Ives demands of playing with a set of cards, surely it smells fishy. Obvs he gambling big money so yeah no problem just say yeah and take his money. Idiots deserve it.

TeddyBloat

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

Certainly an interesting debate, my own opinion is Phil Ivey was wrong, but like a lot of people dissappointed he lost. The point is quite clear I think, he used something or somebody that is outside of the actual game to gain an unfair advantage. If you were to go to a friends house to play cards and say can I sit in this seat and you sit opposite me as it is my lucky seat. And you did that in the full knowledge that the real reason you did it was the mirror would then be behind them allowing you an unfair advantage in that you now knew their cards and was able to take their money. I think this is clear cheating, and comments that they did not have to agree to sit there or it was their mirror etc. are no excuse. I have little sympathy with the casino however, they bent over backwards to assist Ivey in his requests and the motivation behind this was pure greed, Phil had lots of money and they wanted it. Now I know they are running a business but they do like to gain an edge wherever possible. A blatant example is Black Jack, if you keep track of the cards in your head and calculate from that the probabilities in order to play better they then ban you for lets face it playing too good and taking their money. On the other side you do not see them saying to players thats the second time I have seen you split 5's that is really terrible play and you will lose all your money to us quickly like that, therefore we ban you from playing. As an aside the Casino would not have gave ivey his money back had he lost, a distinct possibility as he only improved his odds to give himself an edge. It makes me wander at what point did the owners know what Phil was doing? Did they know before he started (he has done this before), knowing they could keep his money if he lost and not pay him out if he won. And before anyone says otherwise this is not right either.
Posted by Sir-Gary

If they knew what he was doing then they would have known he had a substantial edge meaning he was extremely likely to take them for millions.  They would then have to test a point of law to retrieve those millions. Casinos only offer games where there is solid edge, that doesnt sound like the sort of senario they would want to engineer.

With regard to ivey being freeerollled... diddums, frankly.

Lets put this into poker context.

You play a session of high stakes dym and find out 2 players are in contact over skype and sharing hole cards / soft playing in a number of your games. They lose a couple but win most of their games.

Would you decline a refund from the poker site or think it wrong that their winnings are confiscated on the principle of them being freerolled?  Had they lost they would not have been refunded.

Being freerolled if caught is a risk cheaters run.

oynutter

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

Casinos hold a massive edge over punters, if you find something that turns the tide then good luck to you. Is it cheating, yeah probs but hey not like the casinos are cheating anyone is it lol Also it smells of greed that the casino would agree to Ives demands of playing with a set of cards, surely it smells fishy. Obvs he gambling big money so yeah no problem just say yeah and take his money. Idiots deserve it.
Posted by rancid

 Stupid peoples money is freely available to anyone that wants it---- innit?

TeddyBloat

You dont need to be stupid. Gambling is fun, casinos offer low edge games where people are sure fire to slowly lose over the long term, but have some chance of winning big short-term.

People are willing to give up 2% edge in return for a night out, a laugh with their mates and a chance to win occasionally. 

I dont think that counts as being stupid.

oynutter

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

You dont need to be stupid. Gambling is fun, casinos offer low edge games where people are sure fire to slowly lose over the long term, but have some chance of winning big short-term. People are willing to give up 2% edge in return for a night out, a laugh with their mates and a chance to win occasionally.  I dont think that counts as being stupid.
Posted by TeddyBloat

 I was'nt implying that people who visit casinos are stupid Teddy, I was making the point that the mistake made by the casino does not excuse Ivey from his dishonesty---- Rancid inspired some sarcasm there

Lambert180

I aint pitched in here yet but fwiw, I think the casino should just take it on the chin, and payout, it was their error imo.

Vicky Coren sums it up better than me

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/12/poker-casino-phil-ivey-gambling?CMP=twt_gu

cenachav

If you were told that, due to a flaw in the system, cash machines were programmed to give out £200 if you punched in a 16 digit code without putting your card in the machine and you used it would you be supprised that the banks wanted their money back and the police wanted a word with you for theft?

What would be the differance between you exploiting a flaw in the system and Phil Ivey doing the same?  Afterall, it's only casinos/banks losing money.  They can afford it and no one really likes them

oynutter

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

I aint pitched in here yet but fwiw, I think the casino should just take it on the chin, and payout, it was their error imo. Vicky Coren sums it up better than me http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/12/poker-casino-phil-ivey-gambling?CMP=twt_gu
Posted by Lambert180

LOL@ Vicky Corens view ---- In the romantic wild west they would have shot him for flops sake! ---- have you seen the way she looks at Devilfish for the same reasons? ----- This is about 10's of millions of pounds man.

TeddyBloat

Usually a fan of corens, but shes either genuinely naive or being willfully ignorant in that piece

Phantom66

I think the luckiest person in this tale is the floor manager.

In the world of "good governance" we use the term "red flag" to indicate an unusual action that should raise questions - the floor manager missed a few here...

High roller, world renowned poker player and professional gambler walks into your casino - happy days!

They sit down and start playing a casino game with an edge for the house. happy days - or is it?

That should be a "red flag" right there.

They start making unusual demands. Specific deck - specific type of dealer - should be massive red flags raised.

The pro's companion then starts asking the dealer to rearrange the cards - huge red flag!

Now I have heard tales of professional poker players with huge gambling demons who can go on massive tilt after a big poker loss or win and gamble away millions. I have never heard that said of Phil Ivey.

The Floor Manager should have been watching Mr Ivey like a hawk - expecting him to be edge hunting and querying every request in his own mind and certainly working out what was going on as it played out.

They are lucky because the courts have saved their job.

I agree Phil was cheating - effectively playing a marked deck that only he knew about at the time. 

oynutter

Lol--n1---- I'm guessing-----Ex floor manager

cenachav

Much as I like Vicky, she is wrong in her blog post.

"He didn’t smuggle in a set of loaded dice or x-ray specs; he didn’t mark the cards with his fingernails or bribe the staff. He just spotted something about the deck they didn’t spot. He exploited their readiness to give him special treatment because they anticipated fat losses. I believe the casino should have ground its teeth, tipped its hat, paid £7.7m for the lesson and stopped using asymmetrical cards."

Ivey didn't spot the cards were asymmetrical, he asked for that percific deck to be used.

Would poker players still side with Ivey if he would of won and the casino would of said, ok.  to recover the losses we will have to increase rake at poker by 10%?

1267

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

Much as I like Vicky, she is wrong in her blog post. "He didn’t smuggle in a set of loaded dice or x-ray specs; he didn’t mark the cards with his fingernails or bribe the staff. He just spotted something about the deck they didn’t spot. He exploited their readiness to give him special treatment because they anticipated fat losses. I believe the casino should have ground its teeth, tipped its hat, paid £7.7m for the lesson and stopped using asymmetrical cards." Ivey didn't spot the cards were asymmetrical, he asked for that percific deck to be used. Would poker players still side with Ivey if he would of won and the casino would of said, ok.  to recover the losses we will have to increase rake at poker by 10%?
Posted by cenachav

You can't really be that stupid ?

GELDY

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

Usually a fan of corens, but shes either genuinely naive or being willfully ignorant in that piece
Posted by TeddyBloat

+1

what gets me in so many of these comments is the concept that it is the player vs the casino. 

NO IT ISN´T!!!!!! 

it´s the player vs madame luck. stating the casino is playing is like claiming Sky´s RNG is looking for river cards.

the casino isn´t playing the game - the punter is, and it´s his skill vs madame luck in a game of cards. the casino is just facilitating the game, and paying out when the player is on the right side of variance. and making a return to pay for the business in the long term (otherwise, surprise, surprise, no casinos will exist). when i play a poker mtt i know my reg fee is going to the casino for facilitating the game, but i´m not expecting them to pop up at the tables to make their money against us poker players.

the casino only starts to be involved when someone starts to cheat, because you cannot defraud a pack of cards, but you can steal from a business, and that is what has happened here.

i guess it wouldn´t be good business for a casino to sue a high-roller, but that is exactly what should have happened to Ivey. under cover of playing a game of cards, he did his best to steal money from the casino. disgusting.

and if this was allowed to occur then higher rake is exactly what it would mean. the business will only exist if it can make it´s return on capital targets. the more it has to pay out on fraud, the more it will have to charge others. and if it can´t then it goes out of business.

FCHD

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

Now I have heard tales of professional poker players with huge gambling demons who can go on massive tilt after a big poker loss or win and gamble away millions. I have never heard that said of Phil Ivey
Posted by Phantom66

Are you sure? Ivey is well known to be a compulsive craps gambler, some of his losses with the dice are phenomenal

cenachav

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : You can't really be that stupid ?
Posted by 1267

Why would I be stupid?  If the casino doesn't make a profit then they go bust.  In their eyes a poker pro would of swindled them so it would make sense to get their money back from poker players

VespaPX

He's just like a greedy shoplifter who's found a flaw in the security system and tried to take as much as he could.

I wonder how many casinos will ban him, or is it too much kudos for them to say Iveys in the House?

TeddyBloat

poker players / communities tend to be very laisse faire with regards to integrity.

rheems of stories of established names ripping each other and the community off with little consequence or payback.

casinos offer games and their edge is the 'fee' you pay to play them. if you dont like the edge then dont play. what you cant do is cheat your way out of paying that fee.

VespaPX

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

poker players / communities tend to be very laisse faire with regards to integrity. rheems of stories of established names ripping each other and the community off with little consequence or payback. casinos offer games and their edge is the 'fee' you pay to play them. if you dont like the edge then dont play. what you cant do is cheat your way out of paying that fee.
Posted by TeddyBloat

Is that like a blonde dog?

Glenelg

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Is that like a blonde dog?
Posted by VespaPX

NO! I'm guessing  that would be a Fair Lassie? 

I knew a fair lassie once....or was it twice...

rancid

yeah yeah it's blatant that which ever way you look at it - Ivey cheated -

the instresting thing is - will all the casinos in the world ban him cause he cheated

I would say no, I bet the casino he got caught at wouldn't even ban him

rancid

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : +1 what gets me in so many of these comments is the concept that it is the player vs the casino.  NO IT ISN´T!!!!!!  it´s the player vs madame luck. stating the casino is playing is like claiming Sky´s RNG is looking for river cards. the casino isn´t playing the game - the punter is, and it´s his skill vs madame luck in a game of cards. the casino is just facilitating the game, and paying out when the player is on the right side of variance. and making a return to pay for the business in the long term (otherwise, surprise, surprise, no casinos will exist). when i play a poker mtt i know my reg fee is going to the casino for facilitating the game, but i´m not expecting them to pop up at the tables to make their money against us poker players. the casino only starts to be involved when someone starts to cheat, because you cannot defraud a pack of cards, but you can steal from a business, and that is what has happened here. i guess it wouldn´t be good business for a casino to sue a high-roller, but that is exactly what should have happened to Ivey. under cover of playing a game of cards, he did his best to steal money from the casino. disgusting. and if this was allowed to occur then higher rake is exactly what it would mean. the business will only exist if it can make it´s return on capital targets. the more it has to pay out on fraud, the more it will have to charge others. and if it can´t then it goes out of business.
Posted by GELDY

cmon Casinos run on the whole negative expectation games, yes not cheating but same same

GELDY

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : cmon Casinos run on the whole negative expectation games, yes not cheating but same same
Posted by rancid

it'd be a stupid business model to offer +ev games

and not same same

Phantom66

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court : Are you sure? Ivey is well known to be a compulsive craps gambler, some of his losses with the dice are phenomenal
Posted by FCHD

I had heard of insane prop bets with his own circle - not running up big losses on house edge casino games.

Assuming you are right it doesn't change the fact that the floor manager is lucky that the lawyers and the judge saved the casino the money that it should have been their job to protect.

Maybe hindsight is a wonderful thing here - but too many issues were not spotted

Clyde420

 Fair enough that they get their money back, he cheated.

 I see it as a bigger problem that the defected cards are getting used in a casino at all. 

 Just makes me think "Have these cards used in games I've played? Are there other defected cards used in casinos?"

 I think they need better checks for defected cards, and this should not be acceptable in a casino.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Ivey in Court:

 Fair enough that they get their money back, he cheated.  I see it as a bigger problem that the defected cards are getting used in a casino at all.   Just makes me think "Have these cards used in games I've played? Are there other defected cards used in casinos?"  I think they need better checks for defected cards, and this should not be acceptable in a casino.
Posted by Clyde420

Hi Clyde,

The cards were not, per se, "defective", they were asymmetrical.

So, turned one way, some of them are slightly different in appearance.
 
Mr Ivey's accomplice specifically requested that the cards be presented a certain way round, rather than "random", so that they could spot the difference & wager accordingly.