Phil Ivey allegedly cheated to win £7.8mln - Page 4

do you think if Ivey lost while using marked cards, he would be able to sue saying that the game wasn't fair and he knew that because he was using the marked cards, but he ran bad and still lost, he would win the case and get his losses back?

On May 31 2013 01:51 player999 wrote: do you think if Ivey lost while using marked cards, he would be able to sue saying that the game wasn't fair and he knew that because he was using the marked cards, but he ran bad and still lost, he would win the case and get his losses back?

This is a very similar argument to what i proposed. Chris just seems to overlook it haha. Doesn't want to comment because there is no good rebuttal to it. Obviously you can't sue when you loose and the game was not fair to begin with.

the problem with that argument is ivey would have lost, while knowingly having an advantage, or in other words,losing when cheating, then trying to come back to sue saying game wasnt fair. if there was something in the game that caused the house to gain greater advantage in an unfair way (breaching the agreement of good faith in the gambling) then ivey would be able to sue and very likely win if he had a liability or debt to the casino.

however, the casino lost, investigated the session as is standard, and found ivey cheated.

easiest, and most ethical solution would have been for ivey not to use the marked cards. when ivey noticed, he should have asked for a new deck and informed casino cards were marked. since almost no one would notice, and almost no human being would be morally sound enough to be honest about it, you take the risk of having winnings nullified by cheating, and of course, winning big if you can get away with it.

i seriously doubt the casino would intentionally use marked cards, as it gives the house no advantage and only opens the door for litigation.

and keep in mind, what ivey did, if it was outside of a casino and something in securities, he would be going to prison, like martha stewart did. seems like some of you think "oh its not a big deal, pay ivey, he won didnt he? so there were marked cards, its the casino's fault"

while some of that is valid, its also true that just about every person involved would not notice, or even know to look, for the discrepancies in the cards. it took highly paid security experts to analyze every detail to find.

it just seems so weird that so many professional gamblers are okay with cheating - while i hope none of you are ever cheated, i cannot imagine you laughing it off or paying someone who beat you by cheating and not think its a big deal

and no, i did not overlook that argument, it is just that it is so silly its really - like you said basement - you cannot cheat, then sue when you lose. if you cheat, you risk winning nothing / losing everything, or getting away with it.

also basement, its not cherry picking. the security team analyzed the sessions after the fact, which is standard practice in casinos, especially for games of significant stakes. ivey's "good luck" was inexplicable because its so mathematically improbable, and upon review it was discovered he was cheating.

also, if you have a high roller who is spending 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars, and he wants to use the same deck for superstition, you let him. there are way fewer rules for high rollers in casinos than for everyone else, just like in the real world. your argument about cherry picking and treating high rollers / whales like everyone else (minnows, goldfish) is beyond retarded. i suggest you go to a club and use that same argument to keep people from skipping lines, or getting in when others dont, or getting free drinks or VIP when others dont.

and to re-iterate: the house gains ZERO ADVANTAGE from marked decks, the player gains HUGE ADVANTAGE.

and in private tables you can increase or decrease stakes with management permission, which has been done in a few games i have played in (they were obv not high stakes, but mid stakes in smaller casinos).

in a game where there is supposed to be essentially no skill involved and the odds should not favor either party (the house has the $$$ advantage) it is incredibly suspect for the swing ivey took.

if you flipped a coin for $1 per flip and whoever you flipped against started off down $25, but then asked to make it $5 per flip, you agree, and he wins thousands off of you, and you find out he was cheating.....you are okay with it?

Ivey is the world's poker, and gambling, hero. he is synonymous with poker. he escaped the full tilt fiasco with very limited damage to reputation and the extent of his involvement is unknown, which seemed to be a blessing. Talented Tom already speculated ivey was cheating.

now he is caught red handed in a casino.

this is essentially the equivalent of michael jordan fixing games in the NBA (obviously he didnt).

I still dont see why this would be cheating, their deck their problem imo.

Besides they steal money from other people all year, so i wouldnt feel bad at all for taking some back. Poker is the only fair casino game

On May 31 2013 14:22 chris wrote: also basement, its not cherry picking. the security team analyzed the sessions after the fact, which is standard practice in casinos, especially for games of significant stakes. ivey's "good luck" was inexplicable because its so mathematically improbable, and upon review it was discovered he was cheating. also, if you have a high roller who is spending 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars, and he wants to use the same deck for superstition, you let him. there are way fewer rules for high rollers in casinos than for everyone else, just like in the real world. your argument about cherry picking and treating high rollers / whales like everyone else (minnows, goldfish) is beyond retarded. i suggest you go to a club and use that same argument to keep people from skipping lines, or getting in when others dont, or getting free drinks or VIP when others dont. and to re-iterate: the house gains ZERO ADVANTAGE from marked decks, the player gains HUGE ADVANTAGE. and in private tables you can increase or decrease stakes with management permission, which has been done in a few games i have played in (they were obv not high stakes, but mid stakes in smaller casinos). in a game where there is supposed to be essentially no skill involved and the odds should not favor either party (the house has the $$$ advantage) it is incredibly suspect for the swing ivey took. if you flipped a coin for $1 per flip and whoever you flipped against started off down $25, but then asked to make it $5 per flip, you agree, and he wins thousands off of you, and you find out he was cheating.....you are okay with it? Ivey is the world's poker, and gambling, hero. he is synonymous with poker. he escaped the full tilt fiasco with very limited damage to reputation and the extent of his involvement is unknown, which seemed to be a blessing. Talented Tom already speculated ivey was cheating. now he is caught red handed in a casino. this is essentially the equivalent of michael jordan fixing games in the NBA (obviously he didnt).

you are one weird cat. There is a huge reason to use marked cards that you already identified. If for some reason a guy takes them for huge bucks it would be very easy to go ahead and claim the cards were marked. Insurance policy. As others pointed out in the two plus two thread there is no way they didn't know about the marked card trick. That is the casino's liability. IT IS NOT CHEATING.

I think more than 90% here think that this isn't cheating and would take advantage of it if they could. Its almost like you have a moral responsibility not to squander such a good deal. They fuck people year round and it would be like sitting on a winning lottery ticket and not cashing it in.

I would be much more worried about all the other institutions out there fucking over people daily that are cheating and stealing from people than Phil Ivey haha. Why the hell do you care if he beat the house? Doesn't affect you.

Also yes if you want to be "playing fair" as you say then you can't be the house. You can't also be like banks and just cherry pick the rules. Ignore ones like general REQUIRED gaming procedures about shuffling and switching decks. I don't care what general practices you think are ok for high rollers it shouldn't justify bending or breaking the rules and then getting mad when you get burned for it.

It's funny how so many of you judge this situation based on your feelings, rather than good ol' common sense. "I hate casinos so I'm glad Ivey robbed them". Climb back on those trees, primate.

Im cuious how they will prove:

1. That Phil Ivey took his decisions based on something about the Cards/deck
2. How this makes Phil Ivey a cheater when he didnt even touch the cards

On May 31 2013 14:22 chris wrote: this is essentially the equivalent of michael jordan fixing games in the NBA (obviously he didnt).

This isn't even close to an appropriate analogy and it's a monstrously stupid thing to say. Supposing that Ivey did, in fact, exploit a flaw in the deck, then it's much more like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar dominating NCAA basketball by dunking over everyone. He did that, which was an exploit of how tall he was and the fact that there was no rule or system in place to prevent him from doing so, and then they changed the rules so that the game would be more fair (source). In the case of Kareem, he wasn't stripped of his statistics or banned from basketball or even really blamed for doing anything wrong - and this was completely reasonable and fair treatment. Furthermore, it was never Kareem's responsibility, in any sense of the word, to inform the NCAA upfront that his intended strategy would be unfair and that they should change the rules before he started playing. In Ivey's case, the casino is like the NCAA and they need to change the rules/system - that is, start using decks without exploitable flaws and prevent any apparent exploits before losing a large sum of money - and let Ivey be on his way. It was never Ivey's responsibility to inform the casino about the flaws in its own rules and equipment.

You can debate morality all day long or whatever it is that you're doing here, but the fact is that if the casino's claim is true, Ivey and his friend intentionally manipulated the deck in a way that is considered cheating. They knew it was considered cheating because his friend was busted for it before and her winnings were withheld.

On June 01 2013 13:19 SleepyHead wrote: You can debate morality all day long or whatever it is that you're doing here, but the fact is that if the casino's claim is true, Ivey and his friend intentionally manipulated the deck in a way that is considered cheating. They knew it was considered cheating because his friend was busted for it before and her winnings were withheld.

I thought Phil Ivey never touched the deck

playing against the croupier over three nights

playing against the croupier over three nights

playing against the croupier over three nights

On June 01 2013 12:11 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + On May 31 2013 14:22 chris wrote: this is essentially the equivalent of michael jordan fixing games in the NBA (obviously he didnt). This isn't even close to an appropriate analogy and it's a monstrously stupid thing to say. Supposing that Ivey did, in fact, exploit a flaw in the deck, then it's much more like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar dominating NCAA basketball by dunking over everyone. He did that, which was an exploit of how tall he was and the fact that there was no rule or system in place to prevent him from doing so, and then they changed the rules so that the game would be more fair (source). In the case of Kareem, he wasn't stripped of his statistics or banned from basketball or even really blamed for doing anything wrong - and this was completely reasonable and fair treatment. Furthermore, it was never Kareem's responsibility, in any sense of the word, to inform the NCAA upfront that his intended strategy would be unfair and that they should change the rules before he started playing. In Ivey's case, the casino is like the NCAA and they need to change the rules/system - that is, start using decks without exploitable flaws and prevent any apparent exploits before losing a large sum of money - and let Ivey be on his way. It was never Ivey's responsibility to inform the casino about the flaws in its own rules and equipment.

Very good analogy and explanation.

On June 01 2013 20:11 MysticJoey wrote: playing against the croupier over three nights playing against the croupier over three nights playing against the croupier over three nights

Would playing for only 3 hours make a difference ?

On June 02 2013 02:35 basementkid wrote: Show nested quote + On June 01 2013 12:11 [vital]Myth wrote:   On May 31 2013 14:22 chris wrote: this is essentially the equivalent of michael jordan fixing games in the NBA (obviously he didnt). This isn't even close to an appropriate analogy and it's a monstrously stupid thing to say. Supposing that Ivey did, in fact, exploit a flaw in the deck, then it's much more like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar dominating NCAA basketball by dunking over everyone. He did that, which was an exploit of how tall he was and the fact that there was no rule or system in place to prevent him from doing so, and then they changed the rules so that the game would be more fair (source). In the case of Kareem, he wasn't stripped of his statistics or banned from basketball or even really blamed for doing anything wrong - and this was completely reasonable and fair treatment. Furthermore, it was never Kareem's responsibility, in any sense of the word, to inform the NCAA upfront that his intended strategy would be unfair and that they should change the rules before he started playing. In Ivey's case, the casino is like the NCAA and they need to change the rules/system - that is, start using decks without exploitable flaws and prevent any apparent exploits before losing a large sum of money - and let Ivey be on his way. It was never Ivey's responsibility to inform the casino about the flaws in its own rules and equipment. Very good analogy and explanation.

Yes, thank you, a good read.

Its the casinos fault, its not like Ivey brought a rigged deck or something, they gotta pay up

On June 05 2013 05:59 Baalim wrote: Its the casinos fault, its not like Ivey brought a rigged deck or something, they gotta pay up

Yeah this, they need to take responsibility for their carelessness, its not Iveys fault he found a leak and exploited it.. that's how you make money in the world.

On June 05 2013 15:58 TalentedTom wrote: Show nested quote + On June 05 2013 05:59 Baalim wrote: Its the casinos fault, its not like Ivey brought a rigged deck or something, they gotta pay up Yeah this, they need to take responsibility for their carelessness, its not Iveys fault he found a leak and exploited it.. that's how you make money in the world.

If Phil Ivey would have lost money with that deck would they have given him his money back?

On June 05 2013 19:54 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 05 2013 15:58 TalentedTom wrote:   On June 05 2013 05:59 Baalim wrote: Its the casinos fault, its not like Ivey brought a rigged deck or something, they gotta pay up Yeah this, they need to take responsibility for their carelessness, its not Iveys fault he found a leak and exploited it.. that's how you make money in the world. If Phil Ivey would have lost money with that deck would they have given him his money back?

Yes.