Phil Ivey wins $11 Million - Casino refuses to pay

[OzExorcist]

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.

*le sigh*

Did you read the articles or the rest of the thread? Yes Ivey won, but there's a massive question mark over just how "fair and square" the win was.

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.

FWIW this won't always be the case - I've been in poker games where the dealer has forgotten to drop the rake from a hand, for example, or has obviously under-calculated it, and they've never taken the difference out of the following hand. The game just continues on, they lost their opportunity to take that money.

I'd be genuinely surprised if a punter got tracked down an hour later to rectify a minor overpayment too. A big one, sure. But a small one I don't see happening.

And again, none of this is particularly relevant to this case because you're talking about genuine human error, as opposed to the deliberate cheating and freerolling that seems to have taken place in the Ivey case.

 

[TheVeryBlessed]

I hope this isn't true

 

[OzExorcist]

LOL - which bit? The bit about a casino not paying someone, or the bit about Phil Ivey maybe not always playing above board?

 

[stopdropfreeroll]

They should pay the man. He was smart enough to take advantage of an angle that the casino neglected. Touche

 

[Ranny]

Guess this is an easy thread for upping post count?

 

[Spiffhalibut]

seriously

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.

 

[thwizzofoz]

This is about as much of an update as I could find.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/phil-ivey-sues-crockfords_n_3229892.html

 

[blackplanet]

Phil Ivey and Tiger Woods have more in common than I thought!!

 

[Michael Paler]

This is about as much of an update as I could find.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/phil-ivey-sues-crockfords_n_3229892.html

Now that its in the courts, it could be years before an outcome.

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....

There is this video on YouTube, which claims he was cheating and got caught. However, it really depends on the rules; Ivey made a call, yet afterwards he covered up his cards with some red chips and his left hand. This made Matusow think he had folded, as he could not see his cards. That being said, you should be able to keep track of who has called and who has folded at your table, right? So, I doubt this counts as cheating, yet I do not know the rules concerning covering your hand. If there is no rule against it, then it is not cheating. He simply took advantage of the Mouth not paying attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=D8A5XDYEbH8

 

[Michael Paler]

I think he hadnt been cheating

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.

 

[bongswat]

phil cheating>

makes you leary of playing at casinos .i've heard of similar stories but can.t make a decision if he was guilty or not.

 

[Bev]

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
As far as I can see - Crockfords has ruined their reputation and literally ruined any chance of getting the high rollers that they want because of this
The only other explanation is information that was not made public, and we are left hanging as to the real storey

 

[Michael Paler]

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
As far as I can see - Crockfords has ruined their reputation and literally ruined any chance of getting the high rollers that they want because of this
The only other explanation is information that was not made public, and we are left hanging as to the real storey

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.

 

[sk8_o01]

i think phill ivey is not cheating!, he is a great player that's all I know!

 

[Chemist]

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
As far as I can see - Crockfords has ruined their reputation and literally ruined any chance of getting the high rollers that they want because of this
The only other explanation is information that was not made public, and we are left hanging as to the real storey

I guess you missed this earlier post just one page back in this thread then.

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.

 

[Aramis_Arg]

OMG this i cant belive...poor Ivey.

Need evidence of that, if cheating or not. I think he is not cheating player.

 

[LeeCallaghan]

that is bad economy for USA! screw that, Phil Ivey WON THAT!

 

[Poker Orifice]

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!

You do realize that he was playing punto banco, a game of chance with no skill or strategy involved?

 

[stevenright]

i learned to play baccarat because of this thread, thanks phil ivey cheating or not

 

[Michael Paler]

You do realize that he was playing punto banco, a game of chance with no skill or strategy involved?

Yes, but it's Phil Ivey. I'm sure even when he "get's lucky" there is skill involved, lol.

Still, he knows what 50-50 odds are. Maybe that was why he wanted to up the stakes? They should not have let him do that. He can afford it.

 

[OldschoolSteinhausen]

I have no doubt that he was not cheating. The casino made a mistake, and the public relations blowback is going to hurt them much worse than what they'd have to pay Ivey. Bad move all around.

 

[stevenright]

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?

 

[kisago21]

What's interesting --to me anyway-- is that casinos have won in these types of lawsuits in the past! Basically, you the player can have all of your winnings withheld because the casino is incompetent.

 

[blackplanet]

nobody got my tiger woods reference.... cheating.... ahahahahahahaha crazy funny!! wtf !

 

[dragic1]

Pay the man his money! That's not even a significant hit for them.