Phil Ivey allegedly cheated to win £7.8mln - Page 3

On May 26 2013 19:48 chris wrote: Show nested quote + On May 26 2013 05:50 ThereBePoker wrote: If someone opens a business and you find a way to legally exploit their business model to make a profit that's their fault, not yours. All that remains to be seen is if this is actually true and if so is it actually legal... If you realize the cameras in the convenience store dont cover certain areas, do you steal?

he said legally exploit. it is not legal to to steal from a convenience store. It is legal to exploit businesses in other ways though.
Anyway, just think that appealing to authority(legality) is never a good moral starting point.
it's kind of like saying god(authority) says it's ok to steal from people, or to be kind to people. if the authority(state, international law, god, ect) being moral is a given starting point, every moral question that comes after that will be an aberration. The moral answer may be right sometimes, but the way that it was achieved will always be wrong, and this way will always lead to many wrong answers.

On May 23 2013 18:02 Naib wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2013 00:16 Spitfiree wrote: Either way I dont see how did he cheat even if he did that. Its the casino's mistake Ivey just used the opportunity. Next time fix your shit before letting highrollers play Except that he (she / they) "allegedly" told the dealer to rotate some cards on purpose because of "superstition". Come on, really?

This only helps Ivey's case, a casino's official did that willingly, gamblers exploited it. Could've easily avoided everything by replying " sorry sir/madam I cannot do that" instead he made a huge mistake. Not sure but dealers should be forbidden to do stuff like that too.

i feel like this is going to generate some publicity and both sides will eventually settle out of court, with neither admitting fault

i think ivey is great, but at the same time, i think its incredibly scummy for him to cheat. it is a shame when the guy in the poker community who is famous enough to be recognized by anyone, is involved in a cheating scandal where it is very likely he did cheat.

and to be clear - it is cheating, whether he personally marked the cards or not (below is a lawsuit of similar situation that happened in casino in atlantic city)

http://www.komonews.com/news/national...eadache-for-AC-casinos-166850046.html

(taken from the article)

"But in a lawsuit filed against the 14 gamblers in July, that is exactly what the casino seeks, citing state gambling regulations requiring all casino games to offer fair odds — to both sides. The casino's lawsuit asserts the gamblers and the casino both began the game believing it was legal and proper — until the players kept winning over and over again. "

From Wikipedia's article on Cheating :

"Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation. Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means."


However, it does note that:


In the world of gambling, knowing a secret which is not priced into the odds gives a significant advantage, which may give rise to a perception of cheating. However, legal systems do not regard secretly making use of knowledge in this way as criminal deception in itself. This is in contrast to the financial world, where people with certain categories of relationship to a company are restricted from transacting, which would constitute the crime of insider trading. This may be because of a stronger presumption of equality between investors, or it may be because a company employee who also trades in the company's stock has a conflict of interest, and has thus misrepresented himself the company. An advantage player typically uses mental, observational or technical skills to choose when and how much to bet, and neither interferes with the instruments of the game nor breaks any of its rules. Representatives of the casino industry have claimed that all advantage play is cheating, but this point of view is reflected neither among societies in general nor in legislation. As of 2010, the only example anywhere of a type of advantage play being unlawful is for an advantage player to use an auxiliary device in the U.S. State of Nevada, whose legislation is uniquely influenced by large casino corporations. Nonetheless it remains a widely held principle that the law should not impose any restraint over the method by which a player arrives at a playing or betting decision from information held by him lawfully and which he is not debarred from under the rules of the game.


So bottom line - Ivey cheated. He followed the rules and was an advantage player. While the legislation in the US, at least, does not make that a criminal offense, it is still cheating. The casino will likely argue that the game was never valid in the first place and all winnings null because of the issue with the deck. For the winnings to be valid, the game would have had to be fair.

If I notice the same thing With a deck in a Casino when I play, does it make me a cheater if I dont tell ?

if i use a marked deck against you, does it make me a cheater?

On May 29 2013 15:54 chris wrote: if i use a marked deck against you, does it make me a cheater?

If you use a marked deck against me intentionally, that certainly makes you a cheater. Your claim though is that if you use a marked deck unintentionally against me, somehow that makes me a cheater.

no, its called gambling in good faith. both parties participate without unfair advantage in a game of chance.

this did not happen, therefore rules of the game were violated.


if we play HU and i am able to discern what you are holding based on pattern on the back, do i have an ethical and moral responsibility to change decks? (if the answer is no, then i think its really really scummy)

but whatever. obviously there is different moral standings among people here. i guess since ivey cheats its okay.

Also what's interesting here is that Ivey has two different "defense" options (not quite defense since he's the one suing). He has the "I gained an advantage but it's you're fault for using marked cards" defense or the "I have no idea what you're talking about" defense. It looks like he's using the latter. So basically he's forcing the casino to prove:

1. That he intentionally gained an advantage
2. That he did so in an illegal way

But if he plays innocent on 1 then and the casino goes ahead and proves 1, then it might look bad in the eyes of the court, as if he were attempting to deceive them. So basically he and his lawyers still have some gambling to do.

On May 29 2013 16:32 chris wrote: if we play HU and i am able to discern what you are holding based on pattern on the back, do i have an ethical and moral responsibility to change decks? (if the answer is no, then i think its really really scummy)

Kind of a tricky one but I would say no. Likewise if you were holding your cards in a way in which I could see them I don't have an ethical obligation to tell you. But certainly not telling you wouldn't be cheating.

If some drunk accidentally flashes his cards all the time does that make the rest of the table cheaters? No.

i wonder if card manufacturing company will have any liability in whatever settlement or judgement is reached. it was their faulty/marked/miscut cards that allowed the unfair advantage.

i am also curious what role the woman plays in this. its not like the table game staff make a ton of money - i wonder if its possible that she/they could have bribed the individuals operating the games to use the marked deck.

there was mention of the marked deck and that ivey insisted they use only the one (or ones?) they had been playing with. i havent seen anything about a wider recall or inspection of decks or the discovery of other marked decks.

to McNasty - it isnt quite the same thing but i see where you are coming from. there is a difference between flashing cards, being drunk and careless, giving an advantage to the other player. but if, through no fault of my own or your own, i am able to see the deck is marked, the game is no longer fair. personally, i would tell you right away. i would hope you would show the same courtesy to me.

On May 29 2013 16:34 chris wrote: i guess since ivey cheats its okay.

no idea why you keep saying this because it's really off-point, obviously the majority of the people taking ivey's side would also do so if the player were some no-name hobo.

On May 29 2013 10:55 chris wrote: So bottom line - Ivey cheated. He followed the rules and was an advantage player. While the legislation in the US, at least, does not make that a criminal offense, it is still cheating. The casino will likely argue that the game was never valid in the first place and all winnings null because of the issue with the deck. For the winnings to be valid, the game would have had to be fair.

You are pretty goofy lol. The real issue here lies with the casino. If they allowed Ivey to play and he utilized tricks in order to gain an advantage that is not cheating. The casino has the responsibility to follow their rules and guild lines for the game. First of all they shouldn't have unfair cards because then by your argument they are not playing a straight up game in the first place. Secondly the shouldn't make exceptions for high rollers just because they are high rollers and not change the deck between sessions or rotate cards or increase the limit they have set. They were winning a decent amount against Ivey and if he continued to loose they wouldnt give his money back right? Even though your arguments make their gambling null. So then once Ivey increases his bet size at the casinos ok he starts to win the casinos want to call cheating. Seems like some serious BS to me. They should stick by their own rules or take the consequences of deviating from them. They can't cherry pick the good situations.

On May 29 2013 16:40 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On May 29 2013 16:32 chris wrote: if we play HU and i am able to discern what you are holding based on pattern on the back, do i have an ethical and moral responsibility to change decks? (if the answer is no, then i think its really really scummy) Kind of a tricky one but I would say no. Likewise if you were holding your cards in a way in which I could see them I don't have an ethical obligation to tell you. But certainly not telling you wouldn't be cheating. If some drunk accidentally flashes his cards all the time does that make the rest of the table cheaters? No.

interesting. I think it is highly immoral not to tell someone about an unfair advantage you have on them(if it's not part of the rules). Gotta agree with chris here.

The casino case is a bit more complicated than this scenario though i think.

Dont really think u should involve real poker within the discussion. All of the other casino games are projected so that the casino has an edge for sure. Gaining an edge as the casino itself makes a huge mistake is not immoral nor scumbaggy. Playing a NLHE table and noticing a mark on some of the cards is a whole other situation tbh. However i dont see anything moral about having all games in profit of the casino by design so i would have no moral dilemma in the other scenario.

i have 0 moral obligations towards leeching establishments like Casino's and such.

On May 30 2013 11:46 Spitfiree wrote: Dont really think u should involve real poker within the discussion. All of the other casino games are projected so that the casino has an edge for sure. Gaining an edge as the casino itself makes a huge mistake is not immoral nor scumbaggy. Playing a NLHE table and noticing a mark on some of the cards is a whole other situation tbh. However i dont see anything moral about having all games in profit of the casino by design so i would have no moral dilemma in the other scenario.

What he said.

I want to see this movie, Don Cheadle and Lucy Liu could be the cast.

All the plot of how they steal the manufacturing plant, etc.

to basement - the casino is sticking by its rules - standard gambling policy is to ensure that all games are fair. This game was obviously not fair, because there was an "advantage player."

popcorn time to see what happens