Phil Ivey Loses Crockfords Casino Lawsuit!

[Chemist]

I just read about a similar case taking advantage of a fault in slot machines.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

What do you think about the way the law treated these guys?
(If you can be bothered to read the full story).

 

[pretty1984]

just reading about Phil's lawsuit what to say hmmmm better luck next time

 

[Gorak]

I just read about a similar case taking advantage of a fault in slot machines.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

Very interesting story. It is almost like reading a mini book.

I think those guys killed the goose that laid the golden eggs when they took too much from one casino. Maybe Ivey did the same by winning too much on one session.

 

[love that omaha]

I hope Crockford's loses all their big money customers. Such bad PR for a casino to not pay off its losses. My guess is that English law interprets gambling standards differently than in the United States. Says a lot about the casino industry though, behind all those bright lights and smiling faces designed to get your money are some serious douchebags.

 

[Makwa]

I dont understand how Phil Ivey lost this case.

The Judge is either corrupt or incompetent.

yess...

 

[PlayedYou73]

Trying to argue any kind of gambling related case in front of a judge, who tend to be more on the conservative side of life to begin with, is a losing bet to begin with.

 

[bigjay2007]

Its sort of like when Mark Mcguire was taking supplements that were not banned at the time but he knew it was giving him an unfair advantage. I have lost a lot of respect for Ivey, it seems he's a real swindler looking to make millions more on the backs of any scheme.

p.s i realize the casinos are making hundreds of millions but Ivey is one shady character.

Bigjay

 

[OzExorcist]

I hope Crockford's loses all their big money customers. Such bad PR for a casino to not pay off its losses. My guess is that English law interprets gambling standards differently than in the United States. Says a lot about the casino industry though, behind all those bright lights and smiling faces designed to get your money are some serious douchebags.

As Chemist points out, this was most likely decided as a matter of contract law, not gaming law.

And I think I said this years ago when the story first broke, but it's highly unlikely that Crockfords loses much business over this. Because degens gonna degen, and you can bet all their whales have been comped an expensive meal, over which their host no doubt explained to them that the Nasty Mister Ivey was trying to cheat the casino but your money, Nice Mister Whale, is perfectly safe because of course you'd never try to cheat us LOL.

 

[pfb8888]

Its sort of like when Mark Mcguire was taking supplements that were not banned at the time but he knew it was giving him an unfair advantage. I have lost a lot of respect for Ivey, it seems he's a real swindler looking to make millions more on the backs of any scheme.

p.s i realize the casinos are making hundreds of millions but Ivey is one shady character.

Bigjay

never trust a poker player

 

[Zin]

Ivey telling or instructing the dealer to turn cards a certain way was his mistake, imho he new deep down inside he was cheating.

 

[Keith_MM]

the judgement

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: "If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is."

What Mr Ivey and Ms Sun did was to persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines, and in circumstances where she did not realise she had done so - and, if she had, would have immediately stopped play.

The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating.

Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino for which he was not responsible.

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.

He concluded: "This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law."

the law [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42]

42Cheating

(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)cheats at gambling, or
(b)does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats—
(a)improves his chances of winning anything, or
(b)wins anything.
(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—
(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(5)In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.
(6)Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c. 109) (winning by cheating) shall cease to have effect.

bolded part in the judgement show how he fell foul of the bolded part of the Law. As such ,under civil law he was cheating (lower burden of proof than criminal) . Once the full written judgement comes in no doubt there will be plenty of precedent and case law to back up the judge's reasoning that manipulating the deck via the croupier broke 3a.

 

[hrld8]

it´s like playing blackjack, casinos dont have any good reason to forbid people to play with strategy but if they feel losing they just kick people out and ban them, at the end is a business they strongly care,

and in the Ivey`s case same things happened, if he had lost there were no news but because he managed to win taking advantage of all fair variables and info then they made up a case about cheating however

entertaining story as are all regarding casinos

I absolutely agree with you, casinos never loose

 

[ScottieDuncan]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

 

[OzExorcist]

Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino for which he was not responsible.

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.

Very interesting - and this is the bit I have the hardest time understanding. I find it very, VERY difficult to believe that the casino didn't recognise what he was doing. The croupier may or may not have just been innocently following instructions from her supervisor and/or the player, but there's no way the supervisors shouldn't have known what was happening.

By pretty much all accounts, edge sorting was an advantage play method that was known to the game security industry at the time Ivey attempted it. If the casino is claiming not to have known about it, then they're basically saying that their game security team was grossly incompetent...

 

[gacore]

The casino always wins, ivey detected an error and try to use it.
was the error of the amounts won xd!!

 

[Poker Orifice]

. The croupier may or may not have just been innocently following instructions from her supervisor and/or the player, but there's no way the supervisors shouldn't have known what was happening.

were the supervisors getting paid off?

 

[trekmaster]

Perhaps casinos should examine their procedures on the playability of the cards they use and insure there are no defects.I dont see where Ivey was in the wrong for something their neglect caused.

 

[IvanShovski]

Very interesting - and this is the bit I have the hardest time understanding. I find it very, VERY difficult to believe that the casino didn't recognise what he was doing. The croupier may or may not have just been innocently following instructions from her supervisor and/or the player, but there's no way the supervisors shouldn't have known what was happening.

By pretty much all accounts, edge sorting was an advantage play method that was known to the game security industry at the time Ivey attempted it. If the casino is claiming not to have known about it, then they're basically saying that their game security team was grossly incompetent...

Ivey could have avoided this problem altogether by telling the croupier and the supervisors that he wanted the croupier to turn the cards for him because he wanted the edges sorted not because he was superstitious . Why didn't he do this?

 

[ckickenking]

Ivey could have avoided this problem altogether by telling the croupier and the supervisors that he wanted the croupier to turn the cards for him because he wanted the edges sorted not because he was superstitious . Why didn't he do this?

Why would he? It's not his problem that the cards are mark and it's not his fault he found an edge

 

[IvanShovski]

The cards were not marked in the traditional sense. The defect, if it can truly be considered a defect, affected every card in the deck in exactly the same way so that the back of each card was inherently indistinguishable from the others.

Almost any deck of cards with a pattern on the back can be used for edge sorting. It is almost impossible to manufacture a deck of cards where the pattern on the back is symmetric edge-to-edge. It will always be off by a couple of millimetres.

The key to edge sorting is that the cooperation of the croupier is required. I think this is what distinguishes it from other types of legitimate advantage play such as card counting in blackjack. When the croupier rotates select cards and places them back in the deck, it is possible to detect that the card has been rotated (and that, therefore, it is one of the select cards) by observing that the pattern at the edge of the card is slightly different from all the other cards which were not rotated.

 

[supermoto]

Then in order that they leave it to play if they know that this one doing trap I bet that if it was not winning it could not demand to the casino it is something illogical I was a judge and I say to him to the casino take control of his players

 

[Daniel72]

Ist the Crapcards Casino own fault, when they use such cards..

 

[OzExorcist]

Ivey could have avoided this problem altogether by telling the croupier and the supervisors that he wanted the croupier to turn the cards for him because he wanted the edges sorted not because he was superstitious . Why didn't he do this?

Probably because they wouldn't have obliged him

Almost any deck of cards with a pattern on the back can be used for edge sorting. It is almost impossible to manufacture a deck of cards where the pattern on the back is symmetric edge-to-edge.

Neither of those things is true.

It's actually VERY easy to avoid this problem: you just use cards that have a plain border at the edges, rather than ones that have the patter go all the way to the edges. Very easy to print a symmetrical design that way, and it's what a lot of casinos do. I've got a deck of Copags sitting right in front of me that are printed like this.

And even if you somehow do find yourself with a warehouse full of defective cards that you'd rather use rather than throw out, it's very easy to negate the edge sorter's advantage: you just incorporate a turn into the shuffle procedure. The cards only stay edge sorted for as long as you allow them to be.

 

[IvanShovski]

Probably because they wouldn't have obliged him


Neither of those things is true.

It's actually VERY easy to avoid this problem: you just use cards that have a plain border at the edges, rather than ones that have the patter go all the way to the edges. Very easy to print a symmetrical design that way, and it's what a lot of casinos do. I've got a deck of Copags sitting right in front of me that are printed like this.

Yes, I was referring to the decks where the pattern goes all the way to the edges. I agree that the cards with the plain border are better, but I don't think that they're perfect either. It is very difficult to center the pattern on the card and I think you may find that the plain borders won't be exactly the same width all the way around the edge of the card. I have a pack of Copags that I won on pokerstars (haha...sick brag), for example, with a solid edge but the image on the back is shifted ever so slightly to the left and, upon close scrutiny, I can tell when the card has been rotated. Again, I agree that the plain border does make it much more difficult for the human eye to perceive the deviation and will usually be good enough to thwart edge sorters.

And even if you somehow do find yourself with a warehouse full of defective cards that you'd rather use rather than throw out, it's very easy to negate the edge sorter's advantage: you just incorporate a turn into the shuffle procedure. The cards only stay edge sorted for as long as you allow them to be.

Yes, it is easy to negate the edge sorter's advantage, and I think the casinos are just trying to cover themselves when they lay blame on the card manufacturers. My understanding is that Borgata chose the diamond pattern that was used on the back of their cards. I doubt that the spec for the cards required that they be perfectly symmetric edge-to-edge or that the card manufacturer ever warranted that the cards would be edge sort proof.

 

[OzExorcist]

I agree that the cards with the plain border are better, but I don't think that they're perfect either. It is very difficult to center the pattern on the card and I think you may find that the plain borders won't be exactly the same width all the way around the edge of the card.

True, but we're talking about tiny, tiny differences here and you're talking about a deck of cards that you can pick up and give "close scrutiny".

In the real world, even with the defective cards, Ivey still had to bring in an expert to be able to read the cards for him. If you're trying to reliably pick whether the leading edge of one card in a shoe is or isn't less than a millimeter wider than another, in the very short time you have to decide whether you want that card or not, I'm suggesting your results won't be much different to ordinary blind luck.

As far as the card manufacturer's liability goes, the law is a weird and wonderful thing and I'm definitely not a lawyer. But I did mention in the other thread that if they're cards with the casino's logo on them (and they almost certainly will be) then there's almost no chance they got printed without someone at the casino first signing off on a "proof" of the design. It's just the standard thing in the print industry - before you do any kind of volume printing you get the client to sign off that they're happy with the colour / size / layout / etc of whatever you're going to do for them.

Assuming the casino did sign off on a proof, I don't see how they've got a leg to stand on...