Phil Ivey loses $12,400,000 lawsuit against Crockfords Casino

Well, it didn't take long for the judge to rule on the case: the verdict was expected next week at earlier, and we already know today that Phil Ivey lost the case against Crockfords Casino for £7.7 million($12.4mln).

High Court Judge Mr Justice Mitting ruled against the poker pro, despite calling him a "truthful witness", after he admitted to using a technique called "edge sorting".

Judge explained the reasoning behind his decision: "He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes," Mitting said, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. “This is in my view cheating.”

Ivey commented: "I am pleased that the judge acknowledged in court that I was a truthful witness. I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords' failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability. Clearly today the judge did not agree."

A spokesman for the casino said: "Crockfords is pleased with the judgment of the High Court today supporting its defence of a claim by Mr Ivey. It is our policy not to discuss our clients' affairs in public and we very much regret that proceedings were brought against us."

I think I am the only person on this site that agrees with the judge. Not that I would feel bad for the casino if they lost.

Still think the casino is responsible for how the game is dealt and the cards they use and should never even allow that to happen.

iveys pr guy comment: "I am pleased that the judge acknowledged in court that I was a truthful witness. I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords' failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability. Clearly today the judge did not agree."

iveys comment: + Show Spoiler +

So players arent allowed to have an edge at the casino, got it.

Agreed with the judge. Just because youre Phil Ivey doesnt mean you are allowed to cheat.

On October 08 2014 17:32 asdf2000 wrote: I think I am the only person on this site that agrees with the judge. Not that I would feel bad for the casino if they lost.

Yes you are, and for a reason.

The casino offers a wager and they are the ones responsible to make sure they arent being taken advantage of, if you have a shitty roulette you dont confiscate peoples winnings just because it wasnt as random as you thought it was, thats pretty much their only fucking job, basically you are saying that they can offer any wager and if their games have any wholes they simply can take their losses back for fucks sake.

The house always wins

On October 08 2014 22:53 NewbSaibot wrote: So players arent allowed to have an edge at the casino, got it.

And you're only realising this now? I mean.. c'mon.

Does it also surprise you that government-run lotto's also always have the edge?

edit - didn't mean to sound dickish, just legitimately curious how/why you (or anyone) find this odd.

On October 09 2014 09:02 devon06atX wrote: edit - didn't mean to sound dickish, just legitimately curious how/why you (or anyone) find this odd.

Because you legally are allowed to have an edge at a casino. There have been several court cases brought up that determined that card counting in blackjack is perfectly legal, although the casino also has the right to bar you from playing there (but they don't have the right to withhold winnings).

So IMO, the question becomes "What did Ivey do that is so different than card counting?" The answer given is that he manipulated the deck by deceiving the dealer into thinking that the cards were turned around due to superstition. So basically, Ivey "cheated" without using any sort of cheating device or physically manipulating the cards in any way. He merely made requests that the casino willingly granted. So yeah, given that all his requests are legal in themselves, and given that its not illegal in itself to have an edge on the casino, I'm having trouble finding how Ivey broke the law here. And if he didn't break the law, how is the casino allowed to withhold his funds.

On October 09 2014 09:44 RaSZi wrote: If they rule this people who get thrown out for counting cards in blackjack should be able to sue casinos lol

If they don't get their money back they can.

Edit: at least in the US anyway, admittedly its possible British law works differently.

"He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes,"
preclude: verb (used with object) to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible

clearly it wasn't impossible if ivey pulled it off, so what the fuck does that even mean?

On October 09 2014 01:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On October 08 2014 17:32 asdf2000 wrote: I think I am the only person on this site that agrees with the judge. Not that I would feel bad for the casino if they lost. Yes you are, and for a reason. The casino offers a wager and they are the ones responsible to make sure they arent being taken advantage of, if you have a shitty roulette you dont confiscate peoples winnings just because it wasnt as random as you thought it was, thats pretty much their only fucking job, basically you are saying that they can offer any wager and if their games have any wholes they simply can take their losses back for fucks sake.

Your example is off. Them having a shitty roulette requires no extra actions on your part to win. If you spin and win because their roulette table was off you are still playing within the spirit of the rules.

I think everyone here can agree that Ivey was cheating. At least, I hope so.

You come into a casino knowing you are playing by their rules. So complaining about the casino always having an edge is funny to me. Ivey tried to cheat and got caught. I don't see how anything else in the case matters other than that.

If their games have holes that you have to cheat to win at then yeah, they should be able to get that money back, because you cheated.

On October 09 2014 09:35 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2014 09:02 devon06atX wrote: edit - didn't mean to sound dickish, just legitimately curious how/why you (or anyone) find this odd. Because you legally are allowed to have an edge at a casino. There have been several court cases brought up that determined that card counting in blackjack is perfectly legal, although the casino also has the right to bar you from playing there (but they don't have the right to withhold winnings). So IMO, the question becomes "What did Ivey do that is so different than card counting?" The answer given is that he manipulated the deck by deceiving the dealer into thinking that the cards were turned around due to superstition. So basically, Ivey "cheated" without using any sort of cheating device or physically manipulating the cards in any way. He merely made requests that the casino willingly granted. So yeah, given that all his requests are legal in themselves, and given that its not illegal in itself to have an edge on the casino, I'm having trouble finding how Ivey broke the law here. And if he didn't break the law, how is the casino allowed to withhold his funds.

What Ivey did is go outside of the intended boundaries of the game, imo. Card counting isn't cheating - it's just being really fucking good.

Your argument is a very good one though, and I have trouble disagreeing with it if I was the judge. But I do think that morally Ivey is in the wrong, not the right.

On October 09 2014 10:24 asdf2000 wrote: What Ivey did is go outside of the intended boundaries of the game, imo. Card counting isn't cheating - it's just being really fucking good.

Card-counting isn't within an "intended boundary of the game" either though. Its not like there's a singular person dreaming up games and how they're intended to be played. These are just traditional games casinos offer and governments sign off on. Cheating, in a court of law, at least in my mind, should be very simple. Its when you break the rules. Not imaginary possible rules that might or might not exist under an invisible "honourable contract", but hard rules that are easily identified with written law.

On October 09 2014 10:24 asdf2000 wrote: But I do think that morally Ivey is in the wrong, not the right.

I'm not really going to disagree with you there, but I feel this is different than being legally wrong or in the right. IMO on the legal scale there should be only two levels of cheating:

not cheating
cheating

But on the moral scale there's more like 3 or more levels:

1. perfectly legal moral play
2. angle shooting
3. cheating

I feel like its pretty easy for 1,2, and 3 to be blurred here. IMO Ivey falls into category 2. In 2 you can be playing outside the "spirit" or "contract" of the game but still be playing legally.

All of this ties in well with this thread: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/1116574/civil_asset_forfeiture.html

+1 on the intellect of LP'ers.

I agree with NMcNasty.

yeah I do have to agree with everything he has said. I think that it's really an interesting case.

On October 09 2014 10:21 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2014 01:42 Baalim wrote:   On October 08 2014 17:32 asdf2000 wrote: I think I am the only person on this site that agrees with the judge. Not that I would feel bad for the casino if they lost. Yes you are, and for a reason. The casino offers a wager and they are the ones responsible to make sure they arent being taken advantage of, if you have a shitty roulette you dont confiscate peoples winnings just because it wasnt as random as you thought it was, thats pretty much their only fucking job, basically you are saying that they can offer any wager and if their games have any wholes they simply can take their losses back for fucks sake. Your example is off. Them having a shitty roulette requires no extra actions on your part to win. If you spin and win because their roulette table was off you are still playing within the spirit of the rules. I think everyone here can agree that Ivey was cheating. At least, I hope so. You come into a casino knowing you are playing by their rules. So complaining about the casino always having an edge is funny to me. Ivey tried to cheat and got caught. I don't see how anything else in the case matters other than that. If their games have holes that you have to cheat to win at then yeah, they should be able to get that money back, because you cheated.

what if you had actively tracked the biases of the roulette wheels?

lol now that's a real bad beat story

On October 09 2014 10:24 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2014 09:35 NMcNasty wrote:   On October 09 2014 09:02 devon06atX wrote: edit - didn't mean to sound dickish, just legitimately curious how/why you (or anyone) find this odd. Because you legally are allowed to have an edge at a casino. There have been several court cases brought up that determined that card counting in blackjack is perfectly legal, although the casino also has the right to bar you from playing there (but they don't have the right to withhold winnings). So IMO, the question becomes "What did Ivey do that is so different than card counting?" The answer given is that he manipulated the deck by deceiving the dealer into thinking that the cards were turned around due to superstition. So basically, Ivey "cheated" without using any sort of cheating device or physically manipulating the cards in any way. He merely made requests that the casino willingly granted. So yeah, given that all his requests are legal in themselves, and given that its not illegal in itself to have an edge on the casino, I'm having trouble finding how Ivey broke the law here. And if he didn't break the law, how is the casino allowed to withhold his funds. What Ivey did is go outside of the intended boundaries of the game, imo. Card counting isn't cheating - it's just being really fucking good.

"the game" in this case is two people trying to make money from exploiting one another

On October 09 2014 12:16 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2014 10:21 asdf2000 wrote:   On October 09 2014 01:42 Baalim wrote:   On October 08 2014 17:32 asdf2000 wrote: I think I am the only person on this site that agrees with the judge. Not that I would feel bad for the casino if they lost. Yes you are, and for a reason. The casino offers a wager and they are the ones responsible to make sure they arent being taken advantage of, if you have a shitty roulette you dont confiscate peoples winnings just because it wasnt as random as you thought it was, thats pretty much their only fucking job, basically you are saying that they can offer any wager and if their games have any wholes they simply can take their losses back for fucks sake. Your example is off. Them having a shitty roulette requires no extra actions on your part to win. If you spin and win because their roulette table was off you are still playing within the spirit of the rules. I think everyone here can agree that Ivey was cheating. At least, I hope so. You come into a casino knowing you are playing by their rules. So complaining about the casino always having an edge is funny to me. Ivey tried to cheat and got caught. I don't see how anything else in the case matters other than that. If their games have holes that you have to cheat to win at then yeah, they should be able to get that money back, because you cheated. what if you had actively tracked the biases of the roulette wheels?

yes that is what people do and it obviously isnt illegal nor cheating, why is it ok for the house to have a constant edge and that is immoral but you by outsmarting them you gain an edge and that is immoral and illegal, its retarded

Edge Sorting: Casinos usually regard this technique as cheating; many players say that they are legitimately playing to gain an advantage. A UK High Court judgement ruled that the technique, which requires the player to trick the croupier into rotating cards, is cheating in civil law, and that a casino was justified in refusing payment of winnings; this ruling would not be applicable if the player simply took advantage of an observed error or anomaly for which he was not responsible in, say, the backs of the cards.

I can see why judges see tricking croupiers into doing something that give you an unfair edge as illegal. Its like if in poker i tricked the coupier to distribute the cards in a very specific way which allowed me to see the cards, i don't see how thats legal. Its different from being able to see the cards of someone who hold his cards stupidly.

So, the judge says that Ivey gave himself an advantage, but I'm wondering how he gave himself that advantage if it was something the house was doing that led Ivey to be able to exploit it. Did Ivey give himself the advantage of being very smart?

I agree with Floofy, assuming the casino specifically had a rule against edge sorting. If they didn't, I think it's fair game

--- Nuked ---

It's a decent point.

On October 10 2014 05:15 Nazgul wrote: It's a decent point.

its not, what does the law has to do with what is right and wrong? (if you need more clarification read the civil forfeiture thread lol), if there is a legislation, which seems very unlikely since it hasnt come up on the trial at all then all it means is that he was going to lose his money.

The casino has a constant betting edge and isnt even responsible to maintain it through proper staff and equipment? they can fuck up and if they realize they fucked up ooops seizing your winnings and what if Ivey lost even with that edge, would the casino give the money back? no, so win win bitches, its ridiculous

Ivey requested a specific brand of cards be used
Ivey requested a Chinese dealer so he could trick them in to turning the cards in a specific way

This was done under the guise of superstition. the game was altered in its fundamentals (without their knowledge) by deception.

The contract was clearly invalid since Ivey entered into it knowing that he had an irredeemable edge. The casino were deceived and that is that.

pretty scary to see people side against the business on this one.

On October 10 2014 09:21 byrnesam wrote: Ivey requested a specific brand of cards be used Ivey requested a Chinese dealer so he could trick them in to turning the cards in a specific way This was done under the guise of superstition. the game was altered in its fundamentals (without their knowledge) by deception. Show nested quote + The contract was clearly invalid since Ivey entered into it knowing that he had an irredeemable edge. The casino were deceived and that is that. pretty scary to see people side against the business on this one.

I give zero fuck about Ivey and this story but DUDE WE MISS YOU

--- Nuked ---

On October 10 2014 05:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2014 05:15 Nazgul wrote: It's a decent point. its not, what does the law has to do with what is right and wrong? (if you need more clarification read the civil forfeiture thread lol), if there is a legislation, which seems very unlikely since it hasnt come up on the trial at all then all it means is that he was going to lose his money. The casino has a constant betting edge and isnt even responsible to maintain it through proper staff and equipment? they can fuck up and if they realize they fucked up ooops seizing your winnings and what if Ivey lost even with that edge, would the casino give the money back? no, so win win bitches, its ridiculous

Has nothing to do with the law. It seems your opinion is much more tied into a casino having to pay up because they earn good money than it is about what is within the rules of a game. Any game.