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.
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:
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)
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.
