Why would Phil even risk doing something like that even if it isnt officialy cheating... hes just digging a bigger hole for himself..

But then again like a phrase my ex-girlfriend uses against me... "Once a cheater, always a cheater".

£, not €.

The UK has yet to adopt the deutschma... I mean... euro.

they probably were hoping Ivey would lose track of all his winnings and forget about the pocket change..

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/.../157/122/f.gif

ivey for the win

phil will eventually get this money. they will pay

I'm about 65% sure Ivey wins. Depends on the judge's interpretation of cheating.

I guess I will be in the minority over here with this opinion and I have to admit I was a big admirer of Phil Ivey- but after what happened in Crockfords I have lost pretty much, if not all, respect for him as a human being. Despite all the logical, and to some degree legitimate arguments posed by this article

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/blogs/show/id/17076

I cannot understand why that should be enough to gain traction for his support. Here is a guy who is setting up his own poker platform www.iveypoker.com- and believes that gaining an advantage over your opponent and obtaining whatever edges you can get is perfectly fine, including the exploitation of cut cards and still demanding a payout and suing Crockfords for not doing so, and expects the entire to poker community to gain their trust to play on his site? After all what you did, seriously!?!

Of course people will come here and say, well the casino has all kinds of edges against the people that decide to part with their money, whether it may be playing the slot machines, roulette, baccarat, craps- you name it- the house always wins. There are those that are coming and saying: "Well, Phil Ivey is taking from the house what they are taking from us all the time, so fair play to him". There is however, a big flaw in this argument. The difference is, the moment you put a coin into a slot machine or betting on black or red, you are knowingly agreeing that you are a mathematical underdog- but willing to take that risk to win some money and hope to get lucky. The moment you put that coin in that slot machine you are saying: "I have agreed with the odds and my chances of winning, no matter how remote and will play regardless". This is not the case at Crockfords- what Phil Ivey did was cheating- period. The casino never knowingly let Phil Ivey exploit the situation of the cut cards obviously. Had they known, Phil Ivey would have never been able to play and his 12 million would never have been "won" at PuntoBanco- and Phil Ivey knew that, so therefore decided not to tell.

I find that sort of behaviour very distasteful. Its amazing how he has hardly lost any respect for what he did- I think it says a lot about our society and maybe more so, the poker community- that people just don't give a damn about each other. Just take the money, whatever way possible. As if its not bad enough we are taking chips off other people, we have to use all kinds of unethical tactics to get there. And for a man who has won so much money, to stoop that low is really despicable. I hope Crockford wins this case and won't pay him. I really was that naive to believe that Ivey wins all his money on pure poker skill- I guess I was wrong

it's casinos fault that he was able to cheat. that's the same as playing with faces up always and then deciding not to pay, because the winner was able to see the cards.

Of course people will come here and say, well the casino has all kinds of edges against the people that decide to part with their money, whether it may be playing the slot machines, roulette, baccarat, craps- you name it- the house always wins. There are those that are coming and saying: "Well, Phil Ivey is taking from the house what they are taking from us all the time, so fair play to him". There is however, a big flaw in this argument. The difference is, the moment you put a coin into a slot machine or betting on black or red, you are knowingly agreeing that you are a mathematical underdog- but willing to take that risk to win some money and hope to get lucky. The moment you put that coin in that slot machine you are saying: "I have agreed with the odds and my chances of winning, no matter how remote and will play regardless". This is not the case at Crockfords- what Phil Ivey did was cheating- period. The casino never knowingly let Phil Ivey exploit the situation of the cut cards obviously. Had they known, Phil Ivey would have never been able to play and his 12 million would never have been "won" at PuntoBanco- and Phil Ivey knew that, so therefore decided not to tell.

I find that sort of behaviour very distasteful. Its amazing how he has hardly lost any respect for what he did- I think it says a lot about our society and maybe more so, the poker community- that people just don't give a damn about each other. Just take the money, whatever way possible. As if its not bad enough we are taking chips off other people, we have to use all kinds of unethical tactics to get there. And for a man who has won so much money, to stoop that low is really despicable. I hope Crockford wins this case and won't pay him. I really was that naive to believe that Ivey wins all his money on pure poker skill- I guess I was wrong[/QUOTE]


i agree with this except most recreational gamblers probably dont realize the edges casinos have in various games, there is no notice or sign pinpointing the exact edge for a particular casino game or machine

Just because it was, in part, negligence on the casino's behalf to allow Ivey to play with the same deck of cards without discarding them, doesn't exclude him from any responsibility. This argument, is again, flawed! To use an analogy, it is like saying I gave you a gun- and it is my fault that you shot somebody in the head- because I gave you a gun, I ALLOWED you to murder somebody.

The casino didn't ALLOW him to cheat- that is clear- because if they did they would have paid him his 12 million dollars. Another ridiculous argument I keep hearing all the time from blinded, Phil Ivey fanboys who can't see the light of the truth because of their almost godlike worshipping of the man! Those people protecting him, are exactly those that would do the same! Says a lot about the poker community, if so many defend him! Unbelievable...... I can't fathom how people have just dusted this matter off like it was no big deal.

Quote from the article posted on CigarAficionado,

"she requested that croupiers swivel around the cards—"for luck," was the rationale—and then asked that the same cards be in use for multiple days"

The management let THIS happen in a high stakes game, and were burned. It was a terrible decision by management, and yes, it is the casino's job to protect their game. They left a huge hole in one of them, and if Ivey did take advantage, he did. That's all their is to it. It's not the same thing as cheating, even if it borders on the edge. It'd be like if I asked a Pit Boss if my dealer can burn 3 out of 6 decks face up before I play.

The Pit Boss, in this case, would have to be dumb to say yes, but if they did, then any edge I gained because I saw the downcard is management's fault. I understand what you're saying about IveyPoker, and how this scandal makes him appear trustorthy to you, but I don't think it's exactly the same. I obviously have no idea if Ivey's a trustworthy person because I don't know him, but trying to gain an edge over a table game isn't going to be the reason I don't use his site if it ever becomes a real money site.

The idea that you are entering in to some sort of 'agreement' when playing a slot machine or other -EV game is ridiculous.

Casinos are in business for the same reason as every other business... to make money. Just as any other business must make sure their "products" are making, not losing them money, the casino must do the same with their "products".

If someone finds a way to exploit any kind of business, it's the businesses fault for leaving that loop hole open.

This is especially true in this case when it should have been completely obvious something weird was going on.

They should pay Phil and thank him for uncovering the flaw in their game before they lose a lot more money.

I'd also like to add that I've seen plenty of cases where someone (usually a parent) left their gun unlocked or accessible and were criminally charged when someone killed/shot someone with it. In these situations of course depending on the persons age that used the gun they may or may not be charged... I don't really think it's a good analogy for this situation.

If a business forgets to lock the door when they close up at night, and a couple of guys notice and clean the store out, they're stealing. Regardless of the owner being absent minded/dumb enough to not lock the door.

They don't get to claim it's the store owner's fault for leaving the door open, and keep the goods. They still stole.


--klez

Thanks klezmaniac! That pretty much sums it up as well, actually even better than the previous one. But according to Cigar Aficianado that would be: "Taking advantage of a good situation"- lol. Not only would it be the store owner's fault for leaving the door open, the thieves, in this analogy, would be congratulated by his fellow colleagues and by society for actually identifying this opportunity.

Phil Ivey is not only exonerated from blame, he is actually being applauded by some for "recognizing a good situation". I mean this whole debate, the more I read people's opinions and comments on this matter, the more sickening it gets. It gets from bad to worse, I am not sure why the rationale of a so many people are so skewed in this case, either it must be because:

A) People have the same standard of ethics as him (which would give me very little hope for humanity) or
B) Because it's Phil Ivey- and fanboys unconditionally love him, no matter what he does.

Had it been an average Joe poker player at the bottom end of the food chain who had done that, then I am sure many people's opinion would have changed and people wouldn't be saying: "PAY THAT MAN HIS MONEY"- because average Joe poker players do not have the veneration and adulation Phil Ivey has.

Those people, although gullible and stupid, because they cannot think independently and cannot see the hypocrisy in their own thought process because of their almost mythical admiration of the man, are a danger to society. They will use his actions as a yardstick on how to conduct yourself in everyday life. And those people, honestly I wouldn't want any kind of association with, they usually can't form any strong opinions and do not have any principles of their own- they submit and follow other people's lead very easily and thinking independently may be difficult for them.

I get the feeling some poker players would sell their granny for a few bucks in order to sit at the poker play and win some money. It is really sad to see people are living with such impoverished morals and actually have the audacity of coming here and saying that what he did was right. Oh sorry I forgot, you guys are Phil Ivey fanboys of course

Come on now, Phil has always been the worst kind of angleshooter around. And I don't mean 'worst' in a bad way, for me atleast, it's how he is. I'm not at all surprised.

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy, since they are actually stealing and that's not what has happened here.

I think a better analogy would be something along the lines of: A store owner accidentally underprices his stock on the shelves. Everybody comes in and buys cases of beer for £0.01 Then the owner, at the end of the day, upon realising all his stock is gone and the cash registers are bare, processes all the credit cards used to buy stuff for the full price, instead of the £0.01 the customers had thought they'd paid.

Yeh that's a crap analogy becoz they are trespassing on the property,the beer ones a lot better and big food chain have had items that ring thru the till at the wrong price and ppl have been goin in and mass buyin them until its recified and if ud rather tell the massive chain of stores then take advantage of that ur some sort of douche

There is too much focus on the analogy being used on what Phil Ivey did at Crockford's. Personally I think what he did was cheating- there is no doubt about that in my mind!

In any case, lets not try and paint the picture rosier than what it actually is- cheating, stealing (a derivative or rehashed version of it anyway), you name it- it falls amongst these shades of categories. And if you think it is ok to conduct yourself like this as a human being and you embrace these concepts as important pillars of life, then that's your prerogative! The dark side welcomes you with open arms in any case!

I am not saying that the casinos are saints- far from it- they are taking money from the customers all the time, and I have heard stories how the casino's have kicked out customers unfairly when they have won lots of money and told them they aren't welcome on their property (which is also wrong- if it was indeed won innocently). Just because they can conduct themselves awfully, doesn't mean Phil Ivey should. Two wrongs don't make a right!

But the point I am trying to make, when you play roulette, baccarat and craps, you have agreed to get lucky and play those games. Crockford's never agreed that he could have this unfair advantage, therefore his win is not legitimate. It really is as simple as that- whether it is management's fault, pit boss's fault it doesn't matter its irrelevant- but we will see if Phil Ivey get's his money and what the High Court decides.

Good luck at the tables folks

The issue which defines this dichotomous issue is whether Ivey actually knowingly violated a casino rule in order to gain an advantage. If they cannot prove Ivey violated an established casino rule or regulation, then he was not cheating.

In general, it's going to be on Crockfords to prove that through some action of Ivey's he altered the outcome of the cards being dealt, or that he somehow managed to deface the cards in order to mark them.

While casinos may not like card counters and advantage gamblers (and have the right to refuse known players the right to play), the winnings from previous wagers which they accepted are legally bound to be paid in full. Which is why if you are caught card counting in blackjack(even in the UK) you are allowed to keep your winnings up until the time you are caught.

You can invent an imaginary set of morals which define who is right or wrong in this scenario, but that doesn't change the concrete de facto legal definition of cheating which would be prosecutable in court.

While unscrupulous, I applaud Ivey's win and hope he receives the monies which he fairly deserves. The casino accepted his wagers, and is entitled to pay out depending upon the outcome of the cards. A gambling contract like anything else is a legal business agreement. You can't back out on your obligations just because you didn't win.

Yeah I'm sure they would have paid him back if he lost that much.

You are assuming is 100% guilty of cheating when it hasn't even been proven yet. Even if he was gaining an edge, part of it may have just been him "running hot". No way to really judge the situation until all facts are known.

@IShove2much

Let's reevaluate the situation and get to the bottom of my concern. My issue isn't about the legality of Ivey's actions, i.e whether he violated a casino rule or not. He may have indeed, not done so- therefore in the laws of the land and within the framework of these rules in society, if he hasn't violated any rules or breached any civilian laws, then his act of gaining advantage in this particular case, may technically be still moral. I am with you on that argument!

However, for me it is not a question of legality. It is a simple matter of whether his conduct was right or wrong. Which is why my argument was an opinion and not a statement of fact. Angle-shooting in poker, for instance is legal, and therefore according to the laws of the casino, has to be tolerated by other players. So when you make a big bet on the river- and I call with two pair and you announce: "STRAIGHT" without showing- I muck my hand and then you show to me that you in fact, HAD NOTHING- you still get to win the chips, even though I had the better hand.

Do I have to think, just because you hadn't violated any rules by acting the way you did, that it's an acceptable way of behaving? No, of course not. You have exploited another person's trust in saying you had a "straight", when you didn't have one. If people support and endorse this sort of behaviour, the long term consequences are obvious: It creates an environment of mistrust and suspicion of others. Do we really want to advocate this in society, and suffer from these consequences as a result of conducts like these, even if this is well within your right to exercise?

For me, its about handling yourself with the highest possible integrity and respect towards your fellow competitors that wins my admiration for you- these values become more symbiotic and harmonious for society as well. Thats not too hard to understand now is it? Now I did say that I hope that Crockford's DO NOT pay him his money, but that was more from my personal ethical standpoint than a question of whether what he did was within the rules. So I stand by it, from my perception of the difference between right and wrong, he should not get paid. We will find out in high court, whether he broke any laws- so we will see the legality of his conduct soon anyway. In any case, it is not going to alter my opinion on the subject whatsoever, no matter what the verdict will end up being, coz its plain and simply wrong in my eyes. So my respect for Phil Ivey, bottom line has completely deteriorated- not that he cares, and I don't care that he doesn't care either- just saying it as it is.

Good luck at the tables AA

pay him and fire everybody that messed up.

like KGB would say... "pay that man his money"

Heads are gonna roll at that Casino!