I'm surprised how long this is taking, how long does it take them to view the footage for 2 days of play...

Hope he sues them, recovers the 7.3m + legal costs + interest at 8%

Solid raidalot. Needed to be said. I would also add that this is true of Harvard MBA's.

Now let's take it to the next level. Executives like money. Bad publicity loses money. If they have no evidence of wrongdoing they will lose money and have to pay lawyers, that cost's money. Therefore what other reason(s) could there be that they have not returned winnings?

As a general matter I don't like it when people just bash NVG for being too basil in it's instincts. IMHO we can see new models for business research developing here. Alas, this thread is not supporting that idea.

Cliff:

Good post. Others- Be less stupid.

Don't you think even a 6th grader would understand that?
Personally I give 2+2 more credit and think many things go without saying.
Before you tell us, we also realise if this didn't involve PI we wouldn't be talking about this.

No, it was because of a newspaper article claiming the casino refused to pay. Which makes an interesting discussion, especially considering the details of this case, like the upswing you mention.

There could be many.
Keep in mind Malaysia has a different culture from ours.

Presumably because they're out of touch and living on another continent.

This is a tiny casino that only caters to high rollers... they're massively exposed to variance - no low income degens pumping coins into slot machines to smooth things out cash flow wise - table games, with high limits in what is essentially a large house in the West End of London.

Some middle management type in the UK has probably shat a brick and realised that in just 2 days Ivey has obliterated their PnL - the Asian owners getting updates from the UK likely want to investigate wtf happened....

While 7.3 million might be a drop in the ocean for the parent company, for that venue itself it might well have obliterated their annual profits - these are not big venues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-casinos.html

Its just dumb, publicity wise, for them to be holding off paying him for so long though.

Then why were people calculating the probability of this happening in this single session? That is pretty much irrelevant to this case because of the selection bias. Oh, and I don't give NVG much credit for their mathematical ability, no.

Actually - per unwritten rules of NVG - whenever there is mention of hot Asian chick, a pic should be posted... please take note...

Confirmed requirement for a pic or GTFO.

Finally, someone gets it.

A perfect analogy is when a small insurance company offers awesome flood insurance over a region that hasn't had a flood in 100 years. Then they get hit with a freak of nature storm that destroys 1,000 homes that had the company's flood insurance.

Does the insurance company start printing checks immediately? No. Because that would wipe them out. So, they start an "investigation" which is code for "look for any and every excuse not to pay". They hire a bunch of lawyers to go through ever policy with a fine tooth comb and find loopholes like "well, your house was technically in a flood zone and we don't cover that. This is an act of god and we don't cover that. You were late in your April payment which lapses your insurance for a year, sorry we can't cover that, etc"

Guys, this happens all the time in every type of business. Can't believe so many in this thread just can't see it happening here.

This is why lawyers exist. When a business is obligated to pay big money, they will almost always drag their heels.

Lastly, from a marketing standpoint, "reputation" is overrated. Most people really don't even remember what happened last week let alone last month or last year. And 7.3 million pounds is worth the risk.

You are misunderstanding the nature of casinos and corporate groups imo.

First, the £7.3m loss is a big one but its not a unique event for such a venue. Look at the quote from the owner of Aspinalls (a London casino similar to Crockfords) in the Telegraph article you quoted: Genting is a huge group ($36bn market value) which operates enough gaming businesses that the management won't panic when a punter has a decent win. They know that a high roller venue like Crockfords will see massive variance.

The way many people talk itt doesn't make sense (thats without even including some of the probability posts!). Some basic facts which are routinely being ignored:

- London casinos frequently see hits like this (that shouldn't surprise anyone, they cater to high rollers)
- It is very rare for a casino to refuse to pay
- Casinos are very reluctant to refuse to pay (see the 5 reasons I posted above)
- They can't ultimately keeep the £7m unless they can show Ivey/companion cheated in some way.

The reason is because it just doesn't add up.

Phil Ivey won several weeks ago..... Everything was caught on ten video cameras.... This is a game the casino has run for decades. .... This casino is a high roller's casino.... Casino has a billion procedures in place to ensure fair play...

So it just doesn't add up.

This is more or less a binary solution set here. Either

#1 Ivey cheated
or
#2 The casino doesn't want to pay him

We know that #1 is damn near impossible.

We know that #2 is true regardless of #1, I mean, casinos never want to pay.

Basically, I just don't see that there are a lot of other options here. You keep mentioning logical facts for why the casino doesn't want to take a PR hit...

Well, they have a 7.3 million pound reason to try to welch here. I'm not saying its smart, but they do have motive to try everything in their power not to pay... Hell, maybe they think that they could settle for less like 6 million pounds... And if you throw in the ego and arrogance of people thousands of miles away making the decisions... and this whole thing turns into a cluster f***

Or put this another way. You can't tell me the casino hasn't had enough time to "investigate" this matter. Seriously, ten video cameras, and several weeks later they are still "investigating"????

Yeah, right.

What is more likely is that they have a team of lawyers looking for loopholes and any excuse to not pay so that when they go to court they can settle for less than the 7.3 million pounds. Wouldn't surprise me if the lawyers find some loophole in the Britain's constitution that has some arcane link to the Magna Carta that allows them not to pay

Already answered that one, go away party pooper.

Very interesting article. Two quotes:


"The accounts of another casino — Aspinall’s — show that profits have been hit by an unusually high number of wins by its clients. Last year Aspinall’s Club lost £4.5 million and revenue was down to £20 million – £16 million less than in 2008."

According to Mr. Aspinall; "over a 10-year period Aspinall’s was winning 18 per cent of the money gambled at its tables. years when you do nine per cent and years when you do 24 per cent."


To make a loss of 22.5% over such a large sample with such a big edge is pretty much impossible.
It is unlikely this was the result of cheating, because then revenue would have gone up.

The huge 45% drop in revenue must mean the whales adjusted their game in 2009.
It reminds me of what PA said about PI playing Baccarat:
"He plays very small.....................I couldn't believe how small he starts"

We now know there was an "unusually high number of wins", a pretty significant number.
I am getting convinced there is indeed a Rainman story behind these wins.


WAtR, would you mind if I calculate the probability of the 4.5M loss in that single year?

The probability a particular casino will have a losing year is very small. The probability that a casino somewhere, at some point, will have a losing year is very high - especially if you consider small casinos that cater for high rollers. I mean, come on - the revenue of the casino you mentioned is only £20 million and they supposedly cater for high rollers, so a single Ivey-like session could destroy their yearly profits.

You still don't understand the significance of selection bias, do you? The only reason that casino is being mentioned is because they made a loss - the tens of thousands (?) of casinos across the world making a killing are not mentioned. Lets say we consider ten thousand casinos all of which only have a 0.01% chance of making a loss in a particular year - the chances of them all making money is 0.9999^10000=37%. So most years there will be a losing casino, and that is precisely the same casino that gets mentioned in newspaper articles. If you want statistical evidence of cheating, you would need to look at all ten thousand casinos (or big enough sample of them), look at how many made a loss and compare it to the expectation of how many should make a loss given no cheating, and form a judgement on that. Simply selecting a losing casino (which is likely to exist) and displaying it as evidence of cheating is statistically very dodgy.

There must surely be some revenue/turnover confusion here.

to clarify - I'm pretty sure that this article means their costs were higher than what they won from customers

I would think a reputable casino would have more evidence then simply believing a win in a period of time was likely.

Give Ivey his manies and he will lose it back and then some. Who is going to want to donate their money to a casino who just arbitrarily decides your win rate is too high. If you lose money too fast do they return it?

its possible to go on huge upswing in baccarat i've seen it plenty of times and it is a streaky game. Casino needs to pay up or else what high roller would go to that casino knowing that you might not get paid. Not good for a casino that cater to high-rollers.

I know some of the high end casinos have lost money on whales not paying their tabs.

I think a few of them even went to court and because the casino 'lent' them several million - which they shouldn't do - it was written off. This has no baring on PI, but it might be a reason for Aspinals or Clarmonts having losing years recently

You're comparing the entire PnL for a week, from everyone who played that week at a similar casino with this 7.3 million hit from a single punter. Yes I'm sure their entire take from all customers over an entire week can leave them with swings of + or - a few million and is perfectly standard. A single customer waking away with winnings of 7.3 million after two sessions is less common and does have an impact. The vast majority of the other punters contributing to those swings are not winning/losing that amount.
Obviously it does happen from time to time as per the article but I'd assume that if he were a Saudi Prince, Russian Oligarch, Chinese Businessman etc.. then they'd be less paranoid. It is a small place and for the middle management types in the UK he probably has had a significant impact on their pnl for the year. Yes its just variance and the parent company is huge but presumably someone is paranoid about it and thinks there something fishy about it.

FYI Property and Casualty Insurance companies, particularly small ones, don't want to cover 1,000 homes in a small area for flood damage even if it hasn't flooded there in 100 years. They want to spread the risk among other insurers to protect themselves against a catastrophic event like you described. Doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd just throw that out there. Learn something new everyday.

FYP

It was just an example to make a point to help those in this thread that need help understanding the way the business world works.

Anyone ever hear of Occam's razor?
The simplest explanation is often the correct one.

What is more likely???

#1 Phil Ivey figured out a way to cheat despite 10 cameras looking at him, a deck that is impossible to manipulate, randomly assigned dealers, pit and floor managers surrounding him, using casino mandated procedures, not even touching the cards, and a solid history of degening and losing millions every year.....

or

#2 The casino doesn't want to pay and is grasping at straws and any excuse to not pay

#2 is a billion times more likely than #1, yet so many in this thread feel intent to try to argue #1 or side with the casino over a nebulous "something fishy must be going on"

Well, something fishy is going on, and that is simply the casino doesn't want to pay. Duh.

This is rocket science. Casino has no cause to withhold payment and I hope Phil Ivey takes them to the cleaners in court.

or #3 Ivey didn't cheat but there were some irregularities relating to the actions of Ivey and/or his companion which are big enough to require resolution/explanation before the money is paid.

I never said Ivey cheated but neither do I suspect the casino of just deciding not to pay in order to try to save money (just because the amount is relatively big). I do believe something non-standard happened.

Again, this just doesn't add up. What irregularities existed that would be big enough to deny payment of SEVEN MILLION pounds but be small enough to go unnoticed by the managers, floor, pit bosses, and dealers and ten security cameras?

Can you please come up with any hypothetical explanation that proves your #3.

Seriously, out of the entire universe of possible reasons, can you come up with one concrete reason the casino has to not pay Phil Ivey yet simultaneously accept that Phil Ivey didn't cheated??? And oh, by the way, this reason has to also elude ten security cameras, pit bosses and floor managers and dealers watching Phil Ivey play and his play is spread out over two days.

Out of the entire realm of possibilities there simply does not exist one concrete possibility that meets all of the criteria above.

Give me one. Seriously. Put up or shut up.

ARE RACIST

Racism is about the last thing this situation is about.

Keep your baggage at home.

great post i don't agree tho that a lot of posters on this forum are racist i think you just don't understand humour and probably have a huge chip on ur shoulder


speaking of chips.

Lmfao if anyone think Ivey had anything to do with cheating. However, if he was cheating I could see him doing it outside USA. As if he did get caught cheating in USA he would be in the black book.