S3mper
Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
I missed it!!
I was thinking that this was on the 10th for some reason... I even went looking for it last night so I could record it but couldn't find it.. Now I know why
Gahhhhhhhhh!!!
Guess I'll be looking for it on Youtube...
horizon12
Legend
Silver Level
Yesterday was exactly a year as the casino does not give money Phil Ivey , so many posts in this thread 
And the most important question, , the casino gave the money or not ??, because rarely watch the news and read all the posts also do not want
And the most important question, , the casino gave the money or not ??, because rarely watch the news and read all the posts also do not want
curtinsea
Rock Star
Silver Level
And the most important question, , the casino gave the money or not ??, because rarely watch the news and read all the posts also do not want
Nope
Judge ruled in favor of the casino. Ivey gets nothing.
http://www.bluff.com/news/phil-ivey-loses-judgment-in-12-2m-cheating-case-61241/
V
V6mitg6rewh6re
Enthusiast
Silver Level
whowantwhat
Rock Star
Silver Level
This annoys me.
He was playing with the cards the casino provided
This is the casino's problem not his
You bet your butt that if this was the other way around and a card defect cost Phil Ivey $11 mil they wouldn't be giving him a refund
punctual
Legend
Silver Level
In my book he wasn't cheating......I don't care what the courts say.
If they want to void the winnings for technical malfunction of the cards, that's a different story.....just like they do with slot machines "machine malfunction will void all payouts"
But to be deemed a cheater by the court is libelous. he might even be able to sue the judge.
I don't know why i'm taking this so personally....i guess i just cringe when big casinos succeed in screwing over the little guy....and in this case Phil is definitely being screwed over......void the prize if necessary due to card malfunction.....but don't deem this guy a cheater....just seems so WRONG!!!
If they want to void the winnings for technical malfunction of the cards, that's a different story.....just like they do with slot machines "machine malfunction will void all payouts"
But to be deemed a cheater by the court is libelous. he might even be able to sue the judge.
I don't know why i'm taking this so personally....i guess i just cringe when big casinos succeed in screwing over the little guy....and in this case Phil is definitely being screwed over......void the prize if necessary due to card malfunction.....but don't deem this guy a cheater....just seems so WRONG!!!
B
Bleached
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Suppose he did use this edge sorting technique. Is that cheating? and what about counting cards, is that cheating? It should depend on what you think cheating is, but the other question is why the heck it took the casino's this long to work it out, shouldn't they have changed decks anyway? I'm in Phil's corner, they should pay him.
Keith_MM
Legend
Silver Level
thats the whole point of the court case and the judge said that what Ivey did by getting the dealer to turn the cards was gaining an unfair advantage and therefore was cheating under UK civil law.
ANd to reply to punctual thats effectively whats happened , the winnings were voided and he got his original stake money back.
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
Womp. The little guy gets screwed again. Casino's are a joke, they blatantly steal from people and do whatever they can to keep from paying a big win. Or they just manipulate you into giving them a chance to win their money back with comps.. I agree Ivey should sue the judge, being that he is a proffesional gambler calling him a cheater could potentially have consequences to Ivey as a professional.
S3mper
Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Sooo... Crockford and Borgata boycott?
=o
Yeah, this is utterly stupid... The judge probably knows nothing about the gambling world but is put in a position to decide the legality or fairness of it that ended up costing Phil Ivey 11-12 mil...
They let Phil Ivey play intill he was done because they knew 1.) he will end up losing, 2.) we will just withhold his winnings...
I thought this was absurd when I first heard about it and thought there is no way that the Casinos are in the right... Now the Judge agreed with the Casinos...
=o
Yeah, this is utterly stupid... The judge probably knows nothing about the gambling world but is put in a position to decide the legality or fairness of it that ended up costing Phil Ivey 11-12 mil...
They let Phil Ivey play intill he was done because they knew 1.) he will end up losing, 2.) we will just withhold his winnings...
I thought this was absurd when I first heard about it and thought there is no way that the Casinos are in the right... Now the Judge agreed with the Casinos...
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Ivey is hardly a "little guy". If he were, none of this would ever of happened, because the casino would never have made the kind of concessions (specific cards, specific shuffling methods, indulging is "superstitions", etc). This was all allowed to happens specifically because he's not a little guy. He's a whale.
I
IvanShovski
Visionary
Silver Level
The following article, which appeared in The Guardian newspaper, gives a little more insight into the court's judgment in this case:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...il-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...il-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings
rasheek77
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Bad court rulling
I think this is just so unjust, he won the money fair and square. So what if he has an awesome photographic memory :adore: It was up to the casino to adjust to somebody like phil, for example changing the deck every 30 minutes or so blah blah blah.But saying this is this day and age you see it so much online with all areas of gambling, horse racing bookmakers are banning punter that win regularly. So what is the gambling industry turning in to? as with phil managing to find fault with the edge or marks on the card, it is his advantage simple. I bet the casino do give the money back to a person that has had their money stolen :creep: or the father that used his bill money etc. seems they like to take but don't like to give
I think this is just so unjust, he won the money fair and square. So what if he has an awesome photographic memory :adore: It was up to the casino to adjust to somebody like phil, for example changing the deck every 30 minutes or so blah blah blah.But saying this is this day and age you see it so much online with all areas of gambling, horse racing bookmakers are banning punter that win regularly. So what is the gambling industry turning in to? as with phil managing to find fault with the edge or marks on the card, it is his advantage simple. I bet the casino do give the money back to a person that has had their money stolen :creep: or the father that used his bill money etc. seems they like to take but don't like to give
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
Your absolutely right about that, they were taking care of him because he's a high roller but in the scheme of things now I'd consider him the little guy(in comparison to crock-of-shit-fords and the royal courts). I'm not totally surprised on the ruling because for one he's American and for two the courts are probably protecting their financial interests in the casino..
S3mper
Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
The New Jersey Borgota ruling will be very interesting now.. I wonder if his loss in London will affect the New Jerseys ruling or if cheating is ruled differently in the US then London.. Or if the Judge view is simply different then the London's Judge view.
It will also be interesting if he does win in NJ what it would mean if anything to the London appeal and a view on their ruling.
Edit: I personally don't think it should be up to a judge and should be up to jurors - Not that Jurors always get it right but leaving it to 1 man seems dumb.. He could be corrupt, misinformed, or just plain wrong..?
It will also be interesting if he does win in NJ what it would mean if anything to the London appeal and a view on their ruling.
Edit: I personally don't think it should be up to a judge and should be up to jurors - Not that Jurors always get it right but leaving it to 1 man seems dumb.. He could be corrupt, misinformed, or just plain wrong..?
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
I wouldn't doubt that the U.S. courts would try to use this to support their case. I think that it's truly irrelevant given that it's a court case in a different country with different legal procedures. However, governments protect money and this is especially true in the U.S. I think too that a trial by jury would be more fair because jurors have no vested interest in the case and are less likely corrupted than a single judge.. It's funny to me how things work. Your a cheater if you can gain any edge in a table game and will win nothing. Meanwhile the house has an edge and everyone knows is but if you gamble away your life's savings or child's college fund away it's too bad.. I love casino's but I think that if you can gain an edge by counting cards or edge sorting you should be free to do so and the casino's should consider it leakage.. Greedy bastards..
S3mper
Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
I don't mind if Casinos barr Advantage players from their Casino but if you let them play if you know they are an advantage player or not they should be allowed to keep the money.
You shouldn't be able to go "Oh we will wire you you're winnings" - Oh sorry nope...
You shouldn't be able to go "Oh we will wire you you're winnings" - Oh sorry nope...
or3o1990
Legend
Silver Level
Why should casino's be able to bar advantage players? And if so, then from a neutral perspective shouldn't they then in theory not be allowed to operate considering they only play to their advantage? I totally agree with the later, it's quite ridiculous what they've done and how they've done it.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
*great big 'obviously I'm not a lawyer' disclaimer on the following*
As or3 mentions, they're two different countries with two different legal systems, so I don't think there's any chance this sets any kind of binding precedent for the Borgata case.
I'm sure it'll be referenced during the proceedings, but there's no reason it should be binding, or that the judge in the Borgata case should have to take it into consideration.
I'm of pretty much the same opinion - your house, your rules. If you don't want to give advantage players action then don't. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too, letting them play and keeping their money if they lose, but not paying them if they win.
As I've said time and time again, it seems to me that's exactly what Crockfords was trying to do to Ivey in this case, since they denied his payment immediately (and at the time he did it, game security teams should have been well aware of edge sorting as an advantage play method).
I know where you're coming from, but I think there's a couple of things wrong with that. First, it's kind of like saying that you shouldn't have the right to sit out or leave a poker table when a known shark joins the game.
Second, if they didn't have the right to ban advantage players then before long there simply wouldn't be any more casinos - DUCY?
As or3 mentions, they're two different countries with two different legal systems, so I don't think there's any chance this sets any kind of binding precedent for the Borgata case.
I'm sure it'll be referenced during the proceedings, but there's no reason it should be binding, or that the judge in the Borgata case should have to take it into consideration.
I'm of pretty much the same opinion - your house, your rules. If you don't want to give advantage players action then don't. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too, letting them play and keeping their money if they lose, but not paying them if they win.
As I've said time and time again, it seems to me that's exactly what Crockfords was trying to do to Ivey in this case, since they denied his payment immediately (and at the time he did it, game security teams should have been well aware of edge sorting as an advantage play method).
I know where you're coming from, but I think there's a couple of things wrong with that. First, it's kind of like saying that you shouldn't have the right to sit out or leave a poker table when a known shark joins the game.
Second, if they didn't have the right to ban advantage players then before long there simply wouldn't be any more casinos - DUCY?