Only Ivey would sue a Casino

So....if he'd LOST a few million, they'd have given it back....right? C'mon, they're in the same biz he is, GAMBLING! They LOST! Pay that man his money. Oh, and by the way, I'm not a fan of him, Howard or any of the FT boys.

I just can't believe no one has put up Teddy yet.

no point of discussion. if they can prove he violated the rules of the casino - he's guilty. however, I'm certain they won't.. maybe I'm biased

I don't know the gametype "puto banco", but translated it would be equal to "the damn bank" (el puto banco)
puto standing for a male prostitute but also for a cursing word.

so if he would have known he would have had an indicator for what is now happening to his money haha

FFS, it's punto banco, not puto. You'd figure a damn doctor would have more brains than that...

If you go to the casino and notice that a roulette wheel is out of calibration and figure out it will hit Black 65% of the time, are you stealing by betting Black? Do you have a duty to report the equipment problem to the Casino?

If you're playing craps and realize the dice are flawed and know you have an edge to make your point, are you stealing every time you toss the dice?

If a BJ dealer has a tell or flashes his down card, are you stealing when you adjust your play?

This is a player exploiting an equipment flaw. Not the same as cheating, but borderline.

^yes

Also there's a difference if someone's betting millions instead or a little. If he's guilty, I guess he can even be happy the casino can't sue him (or maybe they can, or public prosecution can indite for fraud).

on the playground they'd be given a black eye for being sore losers...this is ridiculous, if anyone honestly believes they'd given the money back had he lost...okay, fine, then there's a discussion to be had here. If they aren't of that sort of mine then they should suck it up as a cost of doing business. I mean, c'mon, they allowed it 'cause they thought they were gonna screw him. cut blank, short and simple

Sounds like from the evidence presented so far, your analogies aren't correct. It sounds like they asked the dealer to turn cards around, thereby manipulating the deck, similar to creating the flaw in the dice, or peaking your head down to actively try and see the dealers hole card. Less borderline IMO.

not at all; he should have said no; or his boss should've corrected it; or one of the guys watching on camera what almost for sure was the highest thing going should've fixed it...don't kid yourselves, they wouldn't have allowed it if they didn't think they would benefit. Once again, if THEY'D won a couple of million would they have returned it; if the honest answer is yes, then by all means withold his money. Ya got to remember, they took the wager while in total control...I've asked for up to 18 strokes on the golf course before and been told "no" and been told "I'll give you 12." I was a solid 25 handicap (lol) and the "no" came from the club Pro w/ a 2 handicap whom I was paying for lessons and the twelve came from an 18 handicap. They honored the request and took the wager and lost...pay that man his money.

If the casino had won, they'd won under the rules both agreed upon.
Blaming the casino is blaming the victim.
(Assuming, for argument's sake, Ivey is guilty.)

So, since they lost, they lost under the rules both agreed upon.
Blaming the victim is blaming the casino.
(Assuming, for argument's sake, Ivey is innocent.)

???????

No, I mean the rules agreed upon (unspoken) say the cards are unmarked in any way. Is my point.
Blaming the victim speaks for itself, I think. I felt a lot of people are doing that: just because you can exploit the casino in some way, it is fair game to do so. I feel people also do this because they think a casino some faceless thing with unlimited means.

Ah, okay...I see your point now, didn't really follow what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying. I still think they almost for sure knew what they were doing (or rather, thought they did.) I personally don't look at a casino as a faceless thing per se, but as a business; and, quite frankly if they made a bad business decision or failed to train/monitor their employees (which I find rather hard to believe) then they made a bad "business" decision and need to pay off...really, I just believe they made a bad business decision on accepting the wagers. But accept them they did, and they should "man up" and accept the consequences of their decision. I'm not a fan of any Full Tilt crony, however, let's face it here...they actually were in full control of what was going on and obviously allowed it to continue for quite some time. My question is why did they. In gambling there's lots of talk of "variance." But when one is actually the house, if variance goes against them its automatically said to be cheating. This seems simply a strong armed version of sour grapes and eff you cause we can. They could have and should have ended it fairly quickly. To think they weren't aware what was going on in every detail (especially at those stakes) is naive imho.

None of my own equally naive opinions are really directed at any one else's either btw...just my opinion.

The Casino could have done everything that Ivey and co asked, and still not given up any edge if the had put a turn in the shuffle.

None of the analogies posted here are even relevant to this situation. It's absurd to compare this to leaving a gun out in the open for someone else to pick up and murder someone with or leaving you store unlocked and getting robbed.

Here's my analogy and I think its much accurate than the ones I've read so far.
You are at cash game, a new player sits down to your right. Everytime he looks at his whole cards he lifts them up high enough for you to see what they are. I am not going to ask what would you do if this happened to you, that's irrelevant. A few hours later you both are deep and get in a hand HU. OTR he shoves his whole stack in and you have top set on a str and flush board. However, you saw his hole cards and knows that he only has 2 pair so you call and win the monster pot.

Just as the player to your right should be protecting his hole cards, the casino should of protected themselves by following protocol and changing decks. Being observant is not a cheating method, it is a skill to be used to your own advantage.

Would you be morally wrong by not telling that opponent to your right that you can see his cards everytime he picked them up? Was Ivey morally wrong in not telling the casino that the cards were somehow marked? Those issues can be debated, but the bottom line is that in neither instances was there cheating at play.

i dont think Phil Ivey really NEEDS any more money . . . if its just out of principal then i highly doubt he "cheated". and like fatNsweaty said... being more observant then the average gambler (or casino for that matter) can hardly be considered cheating! at least IMO.

It's Punto Banco, and just what they call Baccarat in part of Europe

Also it's played on a smaller table and players can't touch the cards.

That's how I see it. I recently played a tournament where a guy told the player on his left that he saw his cards several times. Nice thing to do? Yes. Morally right thing to do? Depends on your point of view.

Was the player cheating because he didn't say something the first time he saw his opponent's cards? Absolutely not.

This happens every day.

A poker player who studies the math is rewarded with money. A blackjack player who studies the math is kicked out of the casino.

This was very refreshing to read.
Thank you.

I hope Phil Ivey gets his money. Those scumbags deserve to lose

A suitable analogy for this situation after reading the cigar affic piece, it's like a financial trader using an arbitrage strategy.

If the information that allows the trader to make money comes from an insider; then it would be considered an insider trading penalty. If the information would come from an data spider than monitored Twitter for references to a particular stock that could forecast a stock sentiment then it's perfectly legal.

In this instance, it appears that Ivey noticed or was told of a deficiency on the cards that gave him an edge. The house gambled that by agreeing to his rules they would profit greatly and even though they saw him starting to make absurd amount of money; they let him play anyway. After the massacre, they panicked and created this mess.

I hope that Ivey is entitled to collect legal fees and punitive damages as well.