Phil Ivey wins $11 Million - Casino refuses to pay

[IntenseHeat]

I guess because 99.9% of punters are too stupid to either notice, or to be able to use the information to their advantage even if they did. Note that we're talking about Phil Ivey, a pretty bloody smart guy, and even he could only pull this off with the help of a specialist.

Plus the casino obviously figured it's got the "you were cheating, we won't pay you" position to fall back on, like it did in this case.

Keep in mind we're likely not just talking about one deck of cards here, but likely thousands and thousands of decks of cards that came in the same batch from the same manufacturer that they'd have to bin and start fresh with. Yes, I expect the manufacturer probably got a bollocking over this but in the meantime you've got all these cards, you need cards to run a casino and most people aren't going to notice the defect. Consider all that and you can see how something like this happens...

I hear what you're saying. But what is the value of their entire card stock compared to the $11 million that Ivey won. For that matter what is it compared to their regular take. I would think that they could afford to replace them. In fact, I would think the value of the card stock would be irrelevant as it seems that the casino would be able to have the manufacturer replace the "defective" product. But that's all conjecture, as I have no idea what kind of agreement exists between the casino and the card manufacturer.

The bottom line to me is that the casino let him play and he won. If it was due to a flaw in the deck that the casino was aware of did nothing about, and neither Ivey nor his companion altered the cards themselves, then that's on the casino. If it is true that Ivey was taking advantage of this flaw in the cards to sway the odds in his favor, then I liken it to card counting. It's not illegal, but the casino doesn't like you to do it, because it sways the odds in your favor. They can stop you from playing, ask you to leave, and even ban you from the casino for doing it, as it is their right (here in the States anyway) to deny service to anyone for any reason at their own discretion. But what they can not do is deny you the winnings that you've already accumulated.

 

[dgiharris]

For the sake of argument, lets say that there was a "flaw" in the cards.

That is not Phil Ivey's fault. That onus is on the Casino.

If Phil Ivey lost $11 million and then said, "Hey, there was a flaw in the cards therefore it voids my loss so give me my money back"

would the casino have given him his money back?

Hell no.

 

[OzExorcist]

Here's the thing - all the stuff people are saying ITT is all well and good, and for the most part it's based on the plain and simple concepts of logic and fair dealing.

As pretty much anyone who's ever worked in the industry will tell you though, logic and fair dealing don't necessarily apply to all the things that go on within the walls of a casino. Keep that in mind and this case doesn't get much more fair, but the events do start to make a little more sense...

 

[madethegrade]

No highrollers would play here from now on, unless they know phil and the casino came to some form of agreement.

 

[robert_wrath]

Seems the house is trying to Stiff a Player Payout. Somewhat ridiculous is you ask me. Needless to say the outlook portrayed on this casino provides a bleak outlook for would be gamblers.

 

[italiano]

It is a complete injustice what they do to phil Ivey, if he had lost that amount the casino had not said anything, but since they have to pay now if it hurts! Scam

 

[OzExorcist]

No highrollers would play here from now on, unless they know phil and the casino came to some form of agreement.

One thing you can bank on is that the casino's other regular whales will have been comped an expensive dinner, over which they'll have been assured by a casino host that this was an isolated incident which only occured because the Nasty Mr Ivey was trying to cheat, and such a thing would never happen to the whale in question.

Whether the above process was even necessary though is another question because degenerates gonna degen and keep playing regardless. Want proof? Ultimate Bet was still one of the biggest online poker sites until the day it closed, even after the cheating scandal.

Long story short I'd be surprised if the casino lost much business as a result of this story.

 

[NewbieOfPoker]

Oh, bad story bro, but i think that after this history casino lose more money than 11million,,,bad, very bad...

 

[99TERRANCE99]

Whats the status of this has he got his money yet?? not paying him is pure bs ,he won it and deserves his payment ,casinos are watching every move he made for hours ,he better get his money or this place should be shut down!

 

[aircasar9876]

It's his money. Who cares how he spends it.
The story is that he isn't being paid, not that he gambled
1 million. Casinos don't care to bankrupt a player
But when they take a big hit then its cheating lol

 

[Abedin120]

He has not very luck for withdrawal money, first it was "Black Friday", and when he get his money from FullTilt, now this happened. Really sick.

 

[dgiharris]

If the casino honestly suspected him of cheating, then they would not have returned ANY of his money.

And in fact, they should be suing for the $1M that sent back to him as well right???

Also, couldn't you make the argument that the casinos PURPOSEFULLY used cards that they could claim were defective so that if anyone ever did have a big win they could then say, "Oh, you won because you spotted the defect in the cards and now we don't have to pay you."

In fact, if the cards were defective shouldn't the casino reimburse the money that all their customers have lost using that defective deck???

 

[mamutmamut]

I´m really curious how this will end! Hope Ivey gets his money....and apology from casino. haha

 

[pierceisgod]

I dont believe that Phil Ivey would cheat in this stage of his career but if he really did that would seem so meaningless for someone like Phil Ivey.

 

[IM deusXmachina]

If the casino honestly suspected him of cheating, then they would not have returned ANY of his money.

And in fact, they should be suing for the $1M that sent back to him as well right???

Also, couldn't you make the argument that the casinos PURPOSEFULLY used cards that they could claim were defective so that if anyone ever did have a big win they could then say, "Oh, you won because you spotted the defect in the cards and now we don't have to pay you."

In fact, if the cards were defective shouldn't the casino reimburse the money that all their customers have lost using that defective deck???

This is an interesting point, but wouldn't the players then have to prove that someone had the advantage over them, and thusly lost their money infairly? I like where you are going with this though...

 

[_FISHFEET81_]

I heard about this and some lady that he was with that has been with someone else who got caught cheating before. What they have said so far means ivey should get paid out the full funds. But I don't know and no one knows the full story but ivey. They will probably give him some money, havnt heard anything of the situation in some time actually. But I heard he was with an Asian lady that was seen with him and she has been with someone else who was accused of cheating at the same casino before.

 

[FLOnaldoRO]

If we think about this ... 11 M $ it's a lot of money .
But for a man like him , probably it's just some pay money .
However ... it's not just and after this decision ( not pay ) , that casino maybe will lose a lot of players and money to ...

 

[stevenright]

Probably Mayfair Cassino suspended him cause he wins all their money everytime lol

 

[Chemist]

I hope we get some news on the outcome of this to wrap up this thread soon.

 

[murrdog]

i read they used the same deck each night and ivey, for luck, ask the cards be dealt at an angle

 

[idan170]

BRITAIN'S oldest casino is investigating a £7.3 million ($11.5 million) win by the world’s top poker player – and is refusing to pay him a penny.

Crockfords, an exclusive gaming club in London's Mayfair, has informed the authorities that it is withholding Phil Ivey’s payout. A source with close knowledge of the dispute described the situation as unprecedented.
Accompanied by a "beautiful Oriental woman", Mr Ivey, a 35-year-old Californian, was playing Punto Banco, which is a skill-free variant of baccarat, when he struck a remarkable winning streak.
The 184-year-old casino initially agreed to transfer the winnings to his bank account, but six weeks on it has returned only his £1 million stake.
Instead it began an exhaustive inquiry. Staff, including the female croupier, were interviewed at length amid fears there may have been some form of collusion. This is thought to have been ruled out.
While it is unclear what, if anything, Mr Ivey has been accused of, lawyers for both sides are said to be engaged in an increasingly tense stand-off. It is not thought that police have been alerted.
Sources said Mr Ivey played for two nights over the August bank holiday for about seven hours in all. Suspicions over the win intensified when it was discovered that his companion’s membership of another Mayfair casino had previously been suspended. The reason for this has not been revealed.
Crockfords, the oldest private gaming club in the world, is owned by Genting, the Malaysian gaming corporation.
Genting investigators flew to London from Kuala Lumpur to speak to everyone who was working on the two nights in question and to examine hours of film from surveillance cameras. The cards used and the shoe they were dealt from were also scrutinised.
"No imperfections, or marks, that would have given Ivey an advantage were found. In any case, Ivey at no time touched the cards," said a source. "The shoe was also thoroughly inspected; once again the investigators drew a blank."
Mr Ivey, who once picked up £10 million in a poker tournament in Las Vegas, was playing in a small private room on the ground floor of Crockfords.
He sat next to his companion. The only other people in the room were the croupier and an inspector. All the action was recorded on ten cameras. Mr Ivey was initially gambling £50,000 per hand, which can be over in less than a minute. He was later given permission by the management to increase his stake to £150,000.
Punto Banco is the favoured game of high-rollers. The result is determined as soon as the cards are dealt – it offers marginally better odds than games such as roulette.
At first, Mr Ivey’s losses were heading towards £500,000 but he recovered, and at the end of the first night was £2.3 million up. His winning form continued on the second night and by the time that he signalled he was ready to quit he had amassed £7.3 million.
He told the management he wanted the money transferred into his bank account.
The casino allegedly told him it couldn’t be done straight away because of the bank holiday, but assured him that it would be done on Tuesday, August 28.
Mr Ivey left the club and the casino began an immediate investigation.
Because of the difficulties involved, instances of Punto Banco cheating are rare.
Twelve years ago a Triad gang used covert surveillance footage to read cards being dealt and relay a signal to a receiver outside the casino. The information was then transmitted to the player using a hidden earpiece. There is no suggestion that Mr Ivey is accused of using any of these methods.
Although he is a respected figure in the poker world, casinos regard him as a "hit and run" gambler, with a tendency to "quit after just a few hands if he wins big". On this occasion, Mr Ivey, a divorcé, assured Crockfords bosses that he would play for a serious amount of time, and transferred £1 million into the casino’s bank.
Mr Ivey declined to comment when approached by a Daily Mail reporter at a tournament in Cannes last week.
"Please don’t talk to me. I am concentrating on my tournament," he said.
His mother, Pamela Ivey, who lives in Las Vegas, said: "He never mentioned it. It can’t have been very important to him, or I think he’d have mentioned it."
Last night a spokesman for Crockfords said: "As a private club we put great store on the confidentiality of the relationship between ourselves and our client and we therefore have no comment to make."
The story is here: http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...ut/story-e6frfmqi-1226490125827#ixzz28bGVZlWW​

if they can't prove the crime, they should pay him+ more for public humiliation

 

[stevenright]

i read they used the same deck each night and ivey, for luck, ask the cards be dealt at an angle

what's the source?

 

[OzExorcist]

if they can't prove the crime, they should pay him+ more for public humiliation

I think they'd need proof that it wasn't Ivey or his camp that leaked the story to the press in the first place before they paid him any extra for "public humiliation". I'm not sure the casino would be guilty of defaming him in an case. He's been called a cheat in the media but not by the casino directly (AFAIK) and in any case, don't forget that the truth is an absolute defence in defamation cases.

what's the source?

Various media outlets at the time the lawsuit was made public reported that Ivey and his companion during the two sessions were "edge sorting", turning certain cards in the deck 180 degrees so they could identify them when they were next dealt, and using gambler's superstition as the excuse for the request.

I don't know that either party has come out and actually confirmed it was happening but Ivey hasn't exactly denied it either and whatever was going on in that room there'll be video footage of it... so draw your own conclusions based on that

 

[Airburn]

Those cheap douche bags should except the fact he won that fair and square and pay him his money, Hate those casinos who just love to take your money but then trying to find reasons not to give whats urs, Douches.

 

[profviru]

You gotta love it. Casinos have the advantages both ways.
Example:
If you're playing at a table game, (3cardpoker, baccarrat, etc.)
Let's say minimum bet is $25
You accidentally put $20, dealer does not realize, and you lose, they will ask you put the additional $5. If you win, they only pay you for the $20.
How fair is that ?
Also, have seen where if a dealer pays you more by accident, and camera spots this, they will make you pay this additional money back, even if it is 1 hour later. This is stupid. Not my mistake.