Phil Ivey allegedly cheated to win £7.8mln

Remember the case where Phil Ivey won £7.8mln in casino in London, and they refused to pay out? Well, it obviously ended in court and casino is claiming Ivey used the flaw in the cards they had to cheat his way to the victory.

Gambler won £7.8m by 'reading' the back of cards: How tiny flaw in deck design could have given poker star the upper hand

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...er-star-upper-hand.html#ixzz2T5zjXNEJ

Source is obviously as trustworthy as s@*%@, but it looks like it's official lane that casino is using to defend themselves in court from not paying out.

So they used "marked" cards and the sue him?
what the duck

this is retarded

don't casinos make this much money in an hour anyways?

yea its not his fault they fucked up. it sounds like a way to negative freeroll high rollers. if house wins they keep it. if high roller wins they refuse to pay claiming marked cards

Well if everything they allege is true about turning the cards then he did intentionally set up the deck so he knew where certain cards were and that is cheating. The video should clearly prove whether or not he was cheating.

On May 12 2013 11:39 The72o wrote: So they used "marked" cards and the sue him? what the duck

The cards weren't marked, he allegedly marked them in a way.





Certain cards came out of the deck upside down so he could tell what they are. Of course it's more subtle with a diamond pattern.

... its their cards and their dealers

On May 12 2013 11:51 SugoGosu wrote: don't casinos make this much money in an hour anyways?

some casinos lose money

dat runbad

even if cards are marked, dont u just bet on banker or player before the cards are even out ?

Well this adds a bit more details to the story than the first reports of it. If that chinese gurl is truly banned from casinos in the US then there must be something going on here, right?

I'll help phil by enrolling in leggopoker.

Casino allowed it to happen- casino's mistake.

On May 12 2013 12:07 SleepyHead wrote: Well if everything they allege is true about turning the cards then he did intentionally set up the deck so he knew where certain cards were and that is cheating.

He never actually touched the cards though and the dealer's turning them was in full open view. I think you would have to be manipulating something subversively for it to be considered full on cheating.

resolved only be lawyery stuff, it's the casino's cards afterall even when he intentionally abused the fact that it can be read that way

now the lawyer costs are the rake

On May 12 2013 17:58 chris wrote: now the lawyer costs are the rake

This

On May 12 2013 17:58 chris wrote: now the lawyer costs are the rake

For once a rake that the casino also has to pay!

But wait, aren't the cards shuffled or something before going back in the shoe? wouldn't that negate turning them upside down?

the article says the told the dealer they were very supersticious

"the cards were flawed because of a mistake during the cutting process at an overseas manufacturing plant.

Crucially, it meant their geometric pattern was not symmetrical, though this would not have been noticeable to the untrained eye"



I don't know punto banco game, but just being not symmetrical doesn't let you know what the card is, it wont help you win at Hold'em for example.
It helps you for things like locating a card but for this all the deck must be facing one way except the card you are looking for.

so, i dont understand how ivey could have cheated just with a not symmetrical deck

lol @ lawyer rake

On May 15 2013 21:46 Jelle wrote: the article says the told the dealer they were very supersticious

Phil has seemed pretty superstitious from the cash games I've watched of him, so it's not that unbelievable

So the fact that he won that money with someone who's allegedly a cheater does not make anyone suspicious just a little bit ?

On May 21 2013 17:15 Ad wrote: So the fact that he won that money with someone who's allegedly a cheater does not make anyone suspicious just a little bit ?

Isn't Phil Ivey then an alleged cheater because he won that money with smeone who is allegedly a cheater?

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works -

(I know this is not literally an example of circular logic but come on...)

On May 22 2013 14:20 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 21 2013 17:15 Ad wrote: So the fact that he won that money with someone who's allegedly a cheater does not make anyone suspicious just a little bit ? Isn't Phil Ivey then an alleged cheater because he won that money with smeone who is allegedly a cheater? Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works - (I know this is not literally an example of circular logic but come on...)

There is nothing circular about that logic what are you smoking

I don't know why this hasn't been said, or said to greater effect.
If he cheated, it's fucking awesome that Ivey could get away with it (seems like he will), and I wouldn't be surprised if I was somehow making more money on the side finding ways to beat table games than poker.

On May 22 2013 14:20 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 21 2013 17:15 Ad wrote: So the fact that he won that money with someone who's allegedly a cheater does not make anyone suspicious just a little bit ? Isn't Phil Ivey then an alleged cheater because he won that money with smeone who is allegedly a cheater?

No. He is innocent until proven guilty.However I just wonder after all that has happened, why does the poker community put so much trust in these tv poker celebrities.

If it was your job at that casino to make sure would you not investigate because "OMG he's Phil Ivy" ?

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

and how they gonna prove that deck was flawed they got super camera tapes where u can see card flaws? i doubt that.

On May 22 2013 17:32 KoeBawlt wrote: There is nothing circular about that logic what are you smoking

Someone is an alleged cheater for perhaps winning something with an alleged cheater
and then someone is "suspicious" (and alleged for cheating) for winning something with the alleged cheater, who was alleged of cheating for winning something with someone who was an alleged cheater....

This can go on forever until someone says "Wait why the hell is that suspect enough to call someone a cheater?"

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?

so cheating is terrible, but if its phil ivey, its okay, because he's phil ivey.

seems like the casino withheld payment and was content to keep everything private, but now both sides are going to sling mud at each other while paying their lawyers.

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...

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?

no one wants to be cheated

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...

+ Show Spoiler +

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

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.

On June 07 2013 11:47 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On June 05 2013 19:54 Baalim wrote:   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.

you dont really believe that do you

On June 07 2013 12:50 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On June 07 2013 11:47 devon06atX wrote:   On June 05 2013 19:54 Baalim wrote:   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. you dont really believe that do you

trollface im sure

On June 07 2013 12:50 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On June 07 2013 11:47 devon06atX wrote:   On June 05 2013 19:54 Baalim wrote:   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. you dont really believe that do you

Nah man, clearly not. Thought I'd answer an obvious silly ass question with an equally obvious silly ass answer.

edit - my take on the whole situation? If I could get an edge on an institution that makes it's money by literally swindling it's customers, I'd take it too.

it wasnt a silly question, it was a rethoric question... facepalm

On June 09 2013 06:59 Baalim wrote: it wasnt a silly question, it was a rethoric question... facepalm

I know, I was extremely hung over when I made the 'Yes' comment. So much for being witty eh haha

On June 09 2013 09:56 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2013 06:59 Baalim wrote: it wasnt a silly question, it was a rethoric question... facepalm I know, I was extremely hung over when I made the 'Yes' comment. So much for being witty eh haha

blaiming plain stupidity for being hungover is so common, please halp dolan? gooby? anyone? (

i blame all my hangovers on my stupidity

http://www.findcasinobonus.com/blog/2...ey-admits-edge-sorting-at-crockfords/

How come we don't start a thread - "Casinos cheat players to win billions"

because Tom, it's like saying "Oceans are made of salt-water."

I just watched the PAD episode where he is like "I have my rainman moments in baccarat." Anyway I don't see why it's on him, you wouldn't sue the players if your roulette wheel was biased.

He lost the case.

On October 08 2014 14:19 Oly wrote: He lost the case.

retarded legal system, std

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/femal...d-boy-walks-free-20141009-113hlz.html

Judges and prosecutors vary so much, now imagine if Phil Ivey was a woman. Would he have had a better chance at winning his case?

that article seems irrelevant? a teacher in australia wanted to have sex with (didn't abuse) her 10 year old student and she ends up on the sex offender registry. so if an american professional gambler was actually a woman heshe would have had more credibility in suing a UK casino?

This was probably addressed, but why did he admit to edge sorting? Would the casino be able to prove it in court?

On October 09 2014 09:49 tomson wrote: This was probably addressed, but why did he admit to edge sorting? Would the casino be able to prove it in court?

because not admitting it would be kind of admitting that edge sorting is cheating and I dont think it would be hard at all to prove with video cameras that he was doing it

And justice for all....

i don't know if you people use other sites than LP because i don't so i wouldn't know about this but if you do already sry this is ivey's spot on 60 minutes sports with interview

http://www.pokertube.com/videos/60-mi...on-cheating-at-borgata-and-crockfords

Thanks for the link