Originally Posted by FastOne
Read the article and if this is true and the cards had a flaw and he noticed it, how can that be reason to withheld the money he won? I mean, he didn't brought the cards to the Casino to play with them, the Casino provided these cards, so that's not cheating, that's just a the mistake of the Casino (they should have checked the cards). In any case the Casino could sue the cards manufactures to try to make them pay for Ivey's win.
Blackjack card counters aren't technically "cheating" but they still get kicked out and banned from casinos around the world. People have to remember that casinos have different ideas about rules and natural justice to the rest of the civilised world.
the story is accurate then Ivey's "offence" falls into much the same category. And (again) if
the story is accurate then the fact that he brought someone with him who was experienced in this kind of advantage play (and had been banned from other casinos for it) suggests that this was probably premeditated.
FWIW I find it pretty difficult to believe that Ivey would have used this method over the space of two long sessions without the casino noticing what was going on. If it was just an hour, maybe. But these were supposed to be long sessions. And if the Daily Mail can find out about this method then casino security, whose job
it is to know about this stuff and look out for it, should have been able to spot it.
The whole thing is weird if you ask me.