FINE LINE between cheating and an edge

So I read an article recently about Phil Ivey suing a casino for not paying him millions of dollars he won at bacarat. Ivey admits that the back of the cards he was dealt were worn in such a way that he could tell when to bet and when not to bet. So using this information, he pulled many million dollars out of that game.... Ivey never touched the cards himself and so he did not "wear" the cards on his own....he just noticed something that gave him an edge in the game and used that information to his advantage...

Who thinks this is wrong? I personally do not. As a professional gambler, you try to use any edge you can get. If the casino is not careful about the cards it uses for million dollar pot games it offers, is that the gambler's fault? On the flip side, if a gambler happens to be drunk and losing a lot of money making bad drunk decisions, will the casino then reimburse the gambler? In that case, is not the casino using edge against the gambler?

So i think the court should award Ivey the money he is owed. If they can't be meticulous about how they offer a game of such high stakes, then the casino deserves to lose their money. In the same sense, if you are a drunk and as a result lose all your money in the casino, you shouldnt' have the right to get your money back because you were drunk.

At least that's how I see it...

ivey's definitely not in the wrong, it's the casino's own fault for not having the cards checked, if i found myself in iveys shoes i'm keeping quiet, i'm certainly not going to tell them there card designs are flawed, well at least until i've won my money, he should definitely recieve the money imo.

Is IVEY really a cheater? Borgata Sues him too now...

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-new...l-ivey-for-9-6-million-says-poker-pro-cheated

Did I mention how much i DESPISE cheaters? If Phil Ivey is a cheater then he has lost all my respect...

EDIT: I hadn't read the article before posting...its the same "edge sorting" accusation that the other casino has made...

Not sure if that article changed your mind or what but I saw nothing in the article that would contradict what you're saying in your initial post - which I agree with.

I think Ivey is in the right here! The casino is the one who made the mistake here. As a professional gambler you look closely at everything in the game and this is no exception! I know most casinos switch out decks after so many hands or hours... not sure what this casino was doing but ivey definitely isn't a cheater on this one! Hopefully he gets the money he rightfully deserves and maybe this will teach something to all casinos... this isn't really something new but most of the time it doesn't involve pro's when it does happen!!!

I think if you like .. sack advantage of what he knows to do is find any track you can do to make money. I do not think this outlaw. since it is the fault of the casino

Gaining an edge is not cheating. Once had a blackjack dealer who had a "tell" every time his under card was a ten. That has a bearing on the decisions you make. I don't call that cheating.

Unless the casinos can prove Ivey had something to do with the imperfect cards being in play - and I've seen nothing to indicate they can - his use of their failure to check their card backs to win money from them isn't even close to cheating.

This reminds me of the way that casinos conveniently and self-servingly define counting cards at BJ to be cheating.

The Casino is in the wrong here pay the Pro his cash he did nothing wrong

Let's say you are playing a home cash game with friends, and at the end of the session one friend is the clear cut winner with tons of money while everyone else is a big loser. Before he leaves, he reveals that he noticed small defects that allowed him to identify certain cards. How would you feel? I doubt you'll chalk it up as "just gaining an edge."

That being said, why wouldn't Ivey just say he had no idea what they were talking about and that he was just playing the game? Admitting that he noticed the defects is pretty stupid if you ask me...

Mr Sandbag said:

Let's say you are playing a home cash game with friends, and at the end of the session one friend is the clear cut winner with tons of money while everyone else is a big loser. Before he leaves, he reveals that he noticed small defects that allowed him to identify certain cards. How would you feel? I doubt you'll chalk it up as "just gaining an edge."

That being said, why wouldn't Ivey just say he had no idea what they were talking about and that he was just playing the game? Admitting that he noticed the defects is pretty stupid if you ask me...

Click to expand...

First thing that comes to mind is "cash game with friends." Friends don't cheat other friends or even take advantage of an "edge." Do it and you soon may not have any friends.

MediaBLITZ said:

Not sure if that article changed your mind or what but I saw nothing in the article that would contradict what you're saying in your initial post - which I agree with.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I posted this article and then after posting read it. the borgata is not jumping on the "sue phil ivey cause we can't beat him any other way" bandwagon....

i SO hope the courts throw out any lawsuits against Ivey pertaining to "edge sorting"

Mr Sandbag said:

Let's say you are playing a home cash game with friends, and at the end of the session one friend is the clear cut winner with tons of money while everyone else is a big loser. Before he leaves, he reveals that he noticed small defects that allowed him to identify certain cards. How would you feel? I doubt you'll chalk it up as "just gaining an edge."

That being said, why wouldn't Ivey just say he had no idea what they were talking about and that he was just playing the game? Admitting that he noticed the defects is pretty stupid if you ask me...

Click to expand...

Because you were more perceptive than everyone else you should be penalized? Difference is, of course, that in a game amongst friends every player touches the cards.

I think that even in the home game you mention, suppose cards were not touched by any players.....even then every one sees the same cards...its not like one player has x-ray vision allowing him to see things other players can not....this is to say every player has access to the same information

So anyone who would complain after losing their money because they were not as perceptive as other players is just a DONKEY in my eyes. After all, what separates DONKS from SOLIDS is perception: one "sees" what the other one does not despite the fact that both are provided with the same exact information.

Game_Gran said:

First thing that comes to mind is "cash game with friends." Friends don't cheat other friends or even take advantage of an "edge." Do it and you soon may not have any friends.

Click to expand...

So let us distinguish then between playing poker for fun and playing poker for money....if you are playing for money, you are looking for any edge possible...if you are looking to make friends well then, might as well give up every pot and leave every game with no money

BadB420 said:

I think Ivey is in the right here! The casino is the one who made the mistake here. As a professional gambler you look closely at everything in the game and this is no exception! I know most casinos switch out decks after so many hands or hours... not sure what this casino was doing but ivey definitely isn't a cheater on this one! Hopefully he gets the money he rightfully deserves and maybe this will teach something to all casinos... this isn't really something new but most of the time it doesn't involve pro's when it does happen!!!

Click to expand...

I agree 100 %. It doesn't matter how you feel about Ivey, it's the casino's slip up for not preforming basic quality control.

punctual said:

Who thinks this is wrong? I personally do not. As a professional gambler, you try to use any edge you can get. If the casino is not careful about the cards it uses for million dollar pot games it offers, is that the gambler's fault?

On the flip side, if a gambler happens to be drunk and losing a lot of money making bad drunk decisions, will the casino then reimburse the gambler? In that case, is not the casino using edge against the gambler?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much ambivalent on the issue of whether edge sorting is cheating or not - I don't think it's cheating per se, but I'm also OK with casinos enforcing their right to deny action to people that they find advantage playing. What I'm not OK with is what seems to have happened in the Ivey/Crockfords case, where they let him keep playing and then denied his payout (obviously hoping that he'd lose despite edge sorting).

I disagree completely about drunk patrons being an allowable "edge" for the casino though. If someone is so drunk that they can't play properly and they're effectively just giving money away, then by law in most places the casino is supposed to cut them off from gambling (and drinking, FWIW), not take advantage of them.

i think it is on the casino itself to watch that kind of stuff ivey is gettin bad publicity over the casinos mistake.I also agree with the comment about casinos dont always cut off drunk gamblers so they more often than not break the rules.

Mr Sandbag said:

Let's say you are playing a home cash game with friends, and at the end of the session one friend is the clear cut winner with tons of money while everyone else is a big loser. Before he leaves, he reveals that he noticed small defects that allowed him to identify certain cards. How would you feel? I doubt you'll chalk it up as "just gaining an edge."

That being said, why wouldn't Ivey just say he had no idea what they were talking about and that he was just playing the game? Admitting that he noticed the defects is pretty stupid if you ask me...

Click to expand...

This is fundamentally different as poker isn't a game against the house, that being said its not cheating if the casino doesn't check it's own cards, if he marked the cards himself then it's cheating. If you noticed that someone didn't shield their hand properly id probably give them a heads up once a then let them deal with it. The super ethical thing to do in your example at a casino would be to call the floor and let them know. In a home game I would also speak up. But if I were playing black jack I wouldn't have any obligation to let them know. House games are virtually unbeatable and they refuse action from those that can beat them.

Ethics is a grey area generally but not disclosig information isn't the same as creating the situation yourself.

The casino is blatantly trying to freeroll Ivey here which is ultra scummy

A few years ago, a friend and I were playing draw on a train. He was on the inside seat and for quite a few hands, I could see his cards being reflected in the train window. We played like that for hours. It was only when he started talking about sponsoring me that I revealed why I would never sponsor him.

Mr Sandbag said:

Let's say you are playing a home cash game with friends, and at the end of the session one friend is the clear cut winner with tons of money while everyone else is a big loser. Before he leaves, he reveals that he noticed small defects that allowed him to identify certain cards. How would you feel? I doubt you'll chalk it up as "just gaining an edge."

That being said, why wouldn't Ivey just say he had no idea what they were talking about and that he was just playing the game? Admitting that he noticed the defects is pretty stupid if you ask me...

Click to expand...

I think he admitted to that because they we interrogating him. He said that he noticed the defect, which is NOT cheating, only to appease them because they knew something was fishy. Too bad Borgata et al Ivey got yo chips. Eat the loss.

I have to agree with everyone else here that it's not Ivey's fault. Millions were at stake there and if they couldn't properly check their cards, the house is to blame and now they don't want to pay the price.

Casinos are very greedy and their games are unbeatable, anyone who does manage to find a way to beat them is a cheater and their methods are made illegal.

Arjonius said:

Unless the casinos can prove Ivey had something to do with the imperfect cards being in play - and I've seen nothing to indicate they can - his use of their failure to check their card backs to win money from them isn't even close to cheating.

This reminds me of the way that casinos conveniently and self-servingly define counting cards at BJ to be cheating.

Click to expand...

I've always had a problem with the counting cards in BJ as cheating too. Where is the logic in this. I mean it's all about odds and what's left in the deck. If I am better at calculating that than anyone else why should I be deemed a cheater?

FWIW, for the most part casinos won't call you a "cheater" per se if you count cards in blackjack - they'll just do their best to disrupt you and restore the house advantage if they detect you though, and they'll ban you from playing if you can consistently beat them.

It's not so much about what label they put on you, but how they address the behaviour.

I'm with Ivey. Seems like the whole thing is the casino's fault. If they can't be responsible enough to keep new decks of cards on the table then they deserve to lose money. Casinos are cash cows and decks of cards are like $1. If you're the casino in this case then just chalk up your losses to your own stupidity and be more attentive in the future.

I'm with Ivey on this one. He won the money by taking advantage of information that was made available to him. He did not create the advantage it was already there and he just took advantage of it. The casino should be made to pay out to him and learn from their own mistake.