OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Oh gawd, this is the thread that just keeps on giving...
There's a huge difference between an everyday low stakes player hit-running and a whale hit-running. When a low stakes player walks into the casino they put their money on the table and they either win or they don't, there's no much more to it.
When a whale walks into a casino though, they usually expect (and get) free suites, expensive dinners bought for them, private salons to play in and all sorts of other perks - limo transfers, helicopter or private plane flights, being allowed to indulge in idiosyncracies (like "turning the cards for luck") that regular gamblers can't, you name it. In other words, win or lose, the casino is giving them something in return for their action.
Don't get me wrong, the casino isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart, it's doing it expecting a return and it's still very much a commercial transaction. But you can see how the whale's environment carries with it very different expectations from both parties, right?
As others have pointed out, in this case Ivey was playing Punto Banco, not poker. So whether or not he'd cheat in poker is largely irrelevant, and whether or not he cheated probably won't make much difference to his image in the poker world. It's not like he's got a multi-million dollar sponsorship with Nike or Wheaties that demands he maintains a clean image or something on the line
But since you asked about the rules here's the relevant bit from Robert's Rules of Poker:
Basically yes, your cards have to stay on the table and they have to be visible to the dealer and other players. Most poker rooms also have rules about the size of card protectors, dictating that they can't be so large that they obscure other players view of your cards (and they definitely can't cover them completely)
LOL - you've managed to get this completely backwards. Crockfords is a casino pretty much exclusively for high rollers. It's the average schmo that they don't want (the casino's owners, the Genting Group, have various other properties for the mouth-breathers to play at). So trust me yes, they want high rollers. It's what they're all about. And those high rollers won't be concerned about whether or not they'll get paid because as far as they're concerned it was Ivey's cheating, not the casino's lack of money, that was the problem here. I'll day it again, degens gonna degen.
Letting him increase the stakes wasn't a mistake per se. Ivey's skill as a poker player has nothing to do with anything because again, he wasn't playing poker and punto banco is a skill-free game (outside of angle shooting). And as far as angle shooting goes, if the story proves true then it was actually his companion who had all the skill in this case - Ivey was just fronting the money and using his name to get them in the door.
My previous responses on some of these issues remain unchanged, but I'll add a few things:
1 - LOL at the idea that other high rollers would go to a casino "just because Ivey plays there". This is a difficult concept for a lot of poker fans to process, given what a huge deal Ivey is in the poker world, but in the world of the whales Ivey isn't actually that big of a deal. Absolutely he's got a lot of money, absolutely casinos want his action. Bt there are plenty of whales with bigger bankrolls than Ivey, and they choose where to play based on what the casinos will give them in return, not on whether some semi-famous poker player also plays there or not.
2 - The outcome of this case is unlikely to have any real impact on Ivey's career in poker since he wasn't playing poker at the time, Crockfords doesn't (AFAIK) host any of the major tournaments he plays in, and pretty much every casino in the world will still want his action at both table games and at poker.
Read back over the rest of the thread and you'll see - basically, the allegation is there was a printing error on the backs of the cards such that, if you turned all the eights and nines around 180 degrees you'd be able to recognise them the next time they were dealt just by looking at the back of the cards.
That's what he and his companion are accused of doing.
so what if a player is a "hit and runner" so am I, if the casino can't pay their debts they should close the doors.
There's a huge difference between an everyday low stakes player hit-running and a whale hit-running. When a low stakes player walks into the casino they put their money on the table and they either win or they don't, there's no much more to it.
When a whale walks into a casino though, they usually expect (and get) free suites, expensive dinners bought for them, private salons to play in and all sorts of other perks - limo transfers, helicopter or private plane flights, being allowed to indulge in idiosyncracies (like "turning the cards for luck") that regular gamblers can't, you name it. In other words, win or lose, the casino is giving them something in return for their action.
Don't get me wrong, the casino isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart, it's doing it expecting a return and it's still very much a commercial transaction. But you can see how the whale's environment carries with it very different expectations from both parties, right?
I will say this; Ivey would have to be STUPID to cheat and then sue, as the cheating, if any, would be exposed and really hurt his image. And I seriously doubt that Ivey is stupid, so....
I am aware of rules that say your highest value chip stacks must be in front of the lesser value ones, but does anyone know if covering your cards in play with chips or your hand (thus "hiding" them) is against the rules?
I do not think it is.
As others have pointed out, in this case Ivey was playing Punto Banco, not poker. So whether or not he'd cheat in poker is largely irrelevant, and whether or not he cheated probably won't make much difference to his image in the poker world. It's not like he's got a multi-million dollar sponsorship with Nike or Wheaties that demands he maintains a clean image or something on the line
But since you asked about the rules here's the relevant bit from Robert's Rules of Poker:
SECTION 1 - PROPER BEHAVIOUR, POKER ETIQUETTE:
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:
Stacking chips in a manner that interferes with dealing or viewing cards.
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:
Stacking chips in a manner that interferes with dealing or viewing cards.
Basically yes, your cards have to stay on the table and they have to be visible to the dealer and other players. Most poker rooms also have rules about the size of card protectors, dictating that they can't be so large that they obscure other players view of your cards (and they definitely can't cover them completely)
Yep, I think you and I see it the mostly the same. However, maybe Crock's does not actually want high rollers? I mean, you are correct - this story and the concern over if you will get paid when you win should keep them away. However, I seriously doubt they would refuse to pay an average schmo who got lucky...that would really kill business. The whole point of a casino is to attract weak players to lose money to the casino. Not to attract high rollers that could bust them for an incredible amount, like Phil Ivey did.
I think they simply screwed up big time by letting him increase the stakes. They love it when people, out to just get "lucky" do so; allowing a skilled card player to do this is just stupid, IMO. Think about it; if you wanted to bet someone that you could out-shoot them (aiming at a target), would you bet the weaker shooter more than the skilled marksman? Of course you would. If Billy the Kid wants to bet more, you think twice about it!
Of course, Billy might not take "no" for an answer, lol.
LOL - you've managed to get this completely backwards. Crockfords is a casino pretty much exclusively for high rollers. It's the average schmo that they don't want (the casino's owners, the Genting Group, have various other properties for the mouth-breathers to play at). So trust me yes, they want high rollers. It's what they're all about. And those high rollers won't be concerned about whether or not they'll get paid because as far as they're concerned it was Ivey's cheating, not the casino's lack of money, that was the problem here. I'll day it again, degens gonna degen.
Letting him increase the stakes wasn't a mistake per se. Ivey's skill as a poker player has nothing to do with anything because again, he wasn't playing poker and punto banco is a skill-free game (outside of angle shooting). And as far as angle shooting goes, if the story proves true then it was actually his companion who had all the skill in this case - Ivey was just fronting the money and using his name to get them in the door.
This thread is just too interesting not to comment
one : Crockfords want the high rollers, they should pay them, then they will get more that will come in "just because Ivey plays there"
two : Ivey would not put his career on the line , he is just that good
My previous responses on some of these issues remain unchanged, but I'll add a few things:
1 - LOL at the idea that other high rollers would go to a casino "just because Ivey plays there". This is a difficult concept for a lot of poker fans to process, given what a huge deal Ivey is in the poker world, but in the world of the whales Ivey isn't actually that big of a deal. Absolutely he's got a lot of money, absolutely casinos want his action. Bt there are plenty of whales with bigger bankrolls than Ivey, and they choose where to play based on what the casinos will give them in return, not on whether some semi-famous poker player also plays there or not.
2 - The outcome of this case is unlikely to have any real impact on Ivey's career in poker since he wasn't playing poker at the time, Crockfords doesn't (AFAIK) host any of the major tournaments he plays in, and pretty much every casino in the world will still want his action at both table games and at poker.
well.. after learning the game, i have no idea how he couldve cheat at it, maybe it was just luck, he is a lucky man, did anyone here saw the documentary living some days with phil ivey?
Read back over the rest of the thread and you'll see - basically, the allegation is there was a printing error on the backs of the cards such that, if you turned all the eights and nines around 180 degrees you'd be able to recognise them the next time they were dealt just by looking at the back of the cards.
That's what he and his companion are accused of doing.