This is a discussion on What would you do if you were Phil Ivey? within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; With Phil getting his winnings taken right off the table due to US legal trouble, should he pay up, leave the country, quit the pro
With Phil getting his winnings taken right off the table due to US legal trouble, should he pay up, leave the country, quit the pro poker circuit, or something else? If I were him, I'd pay up, but Phil has always been a bit shady so I'm guessing he takes another route.
I think at this point, he seems committed to seeing the litigation through in the appeal process. Having already taken a loss in the UK and sticking to his guns in Borgata v Ivey, the appeal is an opportunity to overturn the decision at best or delay reparations which could be valuable too.
I suppose its really a matter of setting a precident on how much power the casino industry can control the edge players have against them and how far a player can utilise it, without being considered a cheat.
I don't think Ivey is being shady by exploring valid options within the legalsystem, before handing over big $$.
Ivey is a cheater that was demonstrated in the investigation, now another thing is in poker that is a machine, but he must pay for his trap in the casinos
I disagree. He found a way to improve his odds. The guys who were counting cards at blackjack- they were just trying to find a strategy to improve their odds. There is no law that prevents you from improving your odds at any casino game. When you walk into a casino you are expected to loose money. Just because you are smart enough to find a way to improve your odds, in games where the odds are against you ( still , there is no guarantee you win, you can still loose), doesn't mean it's illegal. It just means you are smarter that the 99.99% that go in there and loose their money.