By asking the dealers to rotate certain cards a certain way is considered cheating, even though the physical action is done by casino employees.

in your opinion

You are assuming facts not in evidence. I am stating the casino's position.

IF this ever got to court (which I doubt it will), then being cross-examined by a top QC hired by Crockford's would be absolute suicide if he decided to play dumb.

This has out of court settlement all over it. Don't expect to ever find out on what terms, though. It'll be kept secret.

More on the Judge's ruling (including the answer to the costs question):

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...llion-winnings

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.”

“What Mr Ivey and Ms Sun did was to persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines, and in circumstances where she did not realise she had done so – and, if she had, would have immediately stopped play.

“The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating.

“Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

“It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino for which he was not responsible.

“He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation.”

The judge concluded: “This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”

Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.

WEll it did get to court....... And the court found financially in favour of the casino, however after reading reports from the case the hero leaves the court with his reputation intact. THe judge commented on how he found mr ivey to be a credible and truthful witness, surely more important than the seven million they don't have to pay him. What he's scammed already from other casinos subtract large fee for mr richard stearman qc equals still a BALLA!

The important bit is the mandarin speaking "friend" and mandarin speaking dealer. Sneaky bugger.

From ESPN.com, article with the title "Why Phil Ivey Got a Raw Deal:


http://espn.go.com/espn/chalk/story/...-play-cheating

I like how the casino is perfectly willing to accommodate various requests that players believe will give them an edge.......just as long as those players are superstitious idiots who will lose their shirts. That's why I have no sympathy for them. They accommodate special requests all the time, with the understanding that doing so will encourage some whale to bet huge sums as a significant dog under the false security that he has an edge. So along comes Ivey, and the greedy casinos are happy to watch another superstitious degenerate part with his money.........only, surprise surprise, Phil Ivey is the one guy out of a hundred whose requests ACTUALLY DO provide him with an edge. And now we're supposed to give the casinos a do-over? "Wait wait wait, we thought we were helping this moron con himself out of millions by accommodating his requests......"

Both parties are taking a gamble when these special requests are granted- the player is gambling that those requests will help him, and the casino is gambling that the player is a superstitious flake. This was the rare occasion that the casino lost that gamble. And considering the player in question was PHIL FREAKIN IVEY I have zero sympathy for the greedy buggers. They gambled that a clearly bright young man was a superstitious noob at heart......lol them!

+1

As far as I'm concerned, you perfectly summed up the issue. Ivey didn't cheat, the casino agreed to his requests and got played. The casino saw a sucker, Ivey saw EV.

I am glad Phil phucking Ivey lost this case. Hope this will teach him a lesson

I know that I'm just a nothing gambler to a casino like Crockford, but if my fortunes should change and I have the kind of money that gets the casino to really notice you. I won't be visiting Crockford!

Obv your still mad at Ivey from something completely irrelevant to this case.

Agreed. Basically, Ivey asked the casino for an edge, and they gave it to him.

A casino is not a person. You can't ask it something. Crockfords is a publicly traded corporation which means it's owned by pension funds and people's 401ks. None of the owners did anything wrong where they deserved to have money virtually stolen from them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genting_Group

Phil Ivey created an impression that he makes his living as a professional poker player. Instead he's more like a conman who rips people off. If he'd told the truth about who he was he'd never have been allowed to play.

Corporations, are required to have their investor's best wishes at heart. And their investors don't want people stealing money from them.

If you owned a family business that had millions stolen by a conman you'd feel differently about this issue. Conman get in trouble with the law all the time even through their victims agreed to do business with them. It's because the "agreement" was based on lies and misrepresentation.

LOL I gotta say when the argument for the casino side is put on paper it really makes me laugh. If I didn't know any better I would think casino's were born yesterday into the cotton candy selling business.

These two statements contradict eachother. A corporation is legally a person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

You can most certainly ask it something by speaking to a representative of said corporation (in this case: the pit boss). If the pit boss allows Ivey an edge, that means the corporation allows Ivey an edge.

To be honest- I am mad at myself for being so stupid, naive and gullible to believe he wins all his money on pure poker skill when in fact he wins a lot of it through cheating- AS THE BRITISH HIGH COURT has termed his behaviour- which I obviously 100% fully agree and stand by

It doesn't contradict it all. A corporation's "personhood" doesn't have anything do with whether a pit-boss is a representative or whether it has people working there. What nonsense!? I assume that when you walk through the check-out line you say: "Have a good Best Buy".

The corporation didn't make any agreement in this case.

This is out-and-out stealing from the owners/shareholders of the corporation by someone who (it appears) masquerades as a winning poker player.

This is precisely equivalent to you losing money in a poker game with a marked deck and the guilty party saying: I didn't mark the cards.

Just because some casino employee voluntarily changed the rules is irrelevant. The absence of using a force (having a gun) doesn't allow you to take someone else's money.

What about if you went into Crockfords casino, played Black Jack and put £100 on your first hand.

If you win, sweet, a nice tidy profit.

If you lose, then casually admit to them that you were card counting and that because you were trying to cheat, the game and your bet are null and void and they need to return your stake.

Except when you sat down you gave him authorization to mark some cards, but thought you could beat him anyway. Turns out you couldn't, so now you want your money back.

and the "guilty" party saying: I know I marked the cards, you authorized me to do so.

Unless Phil Ivey marked the cards himself, or swapped it out, or used Xray glasses, then he did NOT cheat. He used a flaw to his advantage, but even with the flaw, he wasnt 100% guranteed to win, he still could have lost money. The casino agreed to all his requests mutually, so they have no right to say he cheated when they allowed his requests. They are essentially freerolling him. If Ivey lost money while using the flaw, they would not return his losses and cancel his bets.

I don't understand that argument. Suppose you host a weekly high-stakes cash home game. Suppose a player marks the cards one week (say the four aces) and tells a buddy about the marked cards who then plays in the game the next week. That week you break out new cards that aren't marked. The guy who knows about the marked cards suggests using another deck (his favorite color). You agree and then he goes on to win all the money with his knowledge of where the four aces are.

Your argument would suggest that this guy did not cheat whereas I would guess that everyone would say that he did cheat.

Except that it was standard practice to let players mess with the cards in that game, something about superstitious Asians wanting to do something to the cards for good luck.

Basically Ivey asked for an edge, they said OK, and he ran with it.

Yes, if you would lose and admitted that you were card counting then you should have your money returned and never be allowed in the casino again. Thats how it SHOULD be. Just because thats not how it is, doesn't mean Phil Ivey was right in breaking the implied contract- being that the game itself is a game of uneven chance and should not be manipulated in your favour. It is like playing a game of "memory" and beating your opponent because you notice 60% of the cards are flawed in its production- it has nothing to do with the game anymore (memory) and I would label that as cheating. This same principle should be applied to any game. God you guys are such brainwashed, Phil Ivey lovers I am surprised you guys haven't setup a date with him yet