Finally, 33 pages(with my settings) and someone at last suggests it is racism! FWIW we have come a long way if it took this long for the racism card to be brought up.

GP. I always liked Ivey too but he has showed that his character is not as honorable as mosmanyonce believed. You have to remember the guy owed/owes damn near 20 million in markers in Vegas. Who knows what else Crockfords might know.

Honestly though I dont even care. I kind of like the new Ivey. Just a regular guy who made it big, being himself, trying to live large.

you are mistaken

Link please????

Set the Juice loose!

I wanna see the asian girl

Yup, my mistake.

Its not a case of "proving" #3. You cited only 2 options and I pointed out that there is a third. One example of #3 might be that his companion turned out to be a person with a history of cheating. Another would be that they used electronic equipment (such as mobile phones) excessively or strangely.

?

Look, just to be crystal clear, I haven't suggested Ivey cheated. Saying the casino are investigating an irregularity doesn't automatically mean I think Ivey cheated. I have played poker with him several times and both like and respect him.

Cool gimmick IMO...

ebonics fo ftw! oh and Imz blak 2, so it aint no racist! u feelz me?!

yo yo yo... thats all I got

FFS, it is. In order to give your argument any validity whatsoever you have to come up with a concrete example and you can't. When arguing you can't just grasp at straws to make a point. And that is what you are doing.

I cited 2 options because there are only 2 options. This is a binary problem. Either Phil Ivey Cheated or he didn't. The reason this is a binary problem is because the only way you can legally withhold Phil Ivey's money is if he cheated.

No you didn't. You have 100% failed to point out a logical third possibility that encompasses the known facts. GIven the ten cameras, given the casino procedures, given that Phil Ivey didn't even touch the cards, given that there were floor managers, security, dealers, pit bosses, and 2 days worth of play....

You can not come up with a 3rd option that passes simple and basic logic

Nope, this is not legal grounds to deny payment. Doesn't matter if his companion is an ax murderer. If the companion did not aid him in cheating in this specific instance (as recorded by the ten video cameras) then its not sufficient grounds to deny payment. See, this "excuse" is just that, an excuse, a feeble one, grasping at straws...

Nope, there is no way they could get away with this with 10 video cameras and security and the floor and the pit and the dealers all watching them. Plus, casinos monitor electronic signals. And lastly, this makes my point because this is an example of cheating. So again, you come back to my binary problem and solution set.

Your so called 3rd reason is just a variation of my #1 reason which is Phil Ivey cheated.

Either he cheated or he didn't. Period. As far as the law is concerned, if Phil Ivey didn't cheat, then the casino must honor his wagers and wins while they consent to take his action. Period. Doesn't matter if his companion is an ax murdering serial killer transvestite pedophile super cheater. If they have no proof of wrong doing on Phil Ivey's part during his play in this specific circumstance (and the burden of proof is on them to prove it), then they have to pay him.

So, try again.

I'm amazed at how you can't see how wrong you are and how you just aren't making any sense. You are grasping at straws and your straws are nothing more than variations of my #1 which is Phil Ivey cheated. If you can't prove #1, then you have to proceed to #2 which is they have to pay Phil Ivey.

Dgi, I have stopped arguing in the thread - what you are saying is pretty much obviously true. Either the casino has evidence he cheated, in which case they are legitimately withholding money, or they do not have evidence he cheated, in which case they are entirely in the wrong. There isn't too much more to the argument than that, but we don't have the whole story so can't really say. A punter simply winning a lot of money is not a valid reason.

It is the 35 year old woman who is suspected of cheating, not Phil.

You better clarify every word, anything you say can and will be held against you in this court of law.
You are correct it's not sure the casino games made a loss, but profits were 11M below average.

According to the article more London casino's were hit, though they mention only two.
So I googled a bit on casino 2009 profits. This was one of the first hits:

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...noprofits.html

"A new report shows Nevada's major casinos posted a net loss of $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2009, more than a 1000 percent plunge from the $721 million earned in the prior year."
Here can all the abstracts be found.

Of course it is impossible to tell how much of this can be attributed to Baccarat games.
Possibly a lot or may be not.

I gave 2 examples. My point was that giving possible examples is not the same as proving something.

I don't know why you repeat multiple times in your post that "he either cheated or he didn't". That is obvious and doesn't need stating even once. You've changed your ground here. You didn't say originally that the 2 options are "he cheated or he didn't", you said he cheated or the casino just doesn't want to pay. I pointed out a third possibility: that something has made the casino suspicious enough to withold payment even if Ivey didn't actually cheat.

I guess we will just have to differ on that one.

Quote:

As far as the law is concerned, if Phil Ivey didn't cheat, then the casino must honor his wagers and wins

yeah, I pointed this out ages ago. Its one of the reasons I said that the casino wouldn't withold payment without some cause. There would be no point if they know they will have to pay up in the end (after a load of bad publicity and other negative consequences).

Do you often have this experience?

You've changed your #1 and #2 again.

Genuinely curious, as I've only been looking in on this thread once in a while and may have missed some posts, - when did this thread go from LOL Daily Mail to an automatic assumption that everything happened exactly as stated? And if it did happen, how can we assume Ivey hasn't got his money by now? "Ivey got paid his 7.3 million, that is all" isn't quite the sexy story the the original one was.

Lehman Bros or baccarat hmmmm

Do you know all their staff and overhead costs?

The people mentioning racism are barking up the wrong tree as well wouldnt surprise me if whites were well in the minority of customers in the high roller casinos of London.

What laws are you quoting?

Do you know all the rules and regulations the UK gambling commission will look at in a case such as this?

For example while it is clearly Ivey's money, if the barred person was placing the bets for him ie moving the chips is it still within the regulations?

People are jumping to all sorts of illogical conclusions from a story from one crappy paper picked up by a bunch of others rereporting the 'facts'.

Heres part of the gambling legislation that impacts the case. Now you could argue that by entering the casino the barred person entered into deception so theres a cause there for starters or if she gave a wrong name or who knows whatever else might have happened over the course of those two days.

Theres another 300+ sections plus a load of schedules and no doubt some case law if anyone wants to go more indepth and find out about barring regulations.


Cheating(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)cheats at gambling, or
(b)does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats—
(a)improves his chances of winning anything, or
(b)wins anything.
(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—
(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

That isn't a regulation. Its a law. I would think that as a regulated business, if they suspected an offence , they would be obligated to report the matter to the police.

Regulations where required are set out by the Secretary of State in Statutory Instruments. If there is a Statutory Instrument about who can "move chips in punto banco" I'll eat my computer.

The Gambling Commission sets out codes of practice, but these are aimed at licensed entities/individuals not customers.

Here is something interesting from the Gambling commissions rules on punto banco

6.13 The maximum and minimum wagers permitted shall be shown on a notice prominently displayed at the table. Display of the maximum wager is recommended but is otherwise at the discretion of the licence holder. Partnerships with a view to exceeding the maximum stake shall not be permitted.

So if Iveys companion was betting with his money, to exceed the maximum......

They person you call banned was not banned from the casino they where playing in.

We don't even know that for sure, they might be banned from another casino in the group and that group might have banned in one blacklisted in all policy, there might be a clause in their membership that says if banned elsewhere cant join or enter the premises.

But all of it is conjecture cos we dont have a real clue what the issue is behind the withholding.

Not sure about point above re the law and police involvement, the gambling commission I thought was there to monitor the laws and requirements set out in the gambling act but aint no expert so dont know, not sure what the basis would be for Ivey suing the casino again would it not have to be on this law? Not sure where case law vs criminal law comes in UK law proceedings.

I'll let you off with eating some chips rather than whole computer.

Have to agree slightly with 'thetruthyes' as there is a problem with latent racism on this site.

And secondly, as I take clients to Crockfords on a regular basis, considering there 'usual' clientele and the general history of the casino(well over 100years old, catered to MP's in the past etc etc, I would argue that there is also a case for some form of racism from the Casino itself here too.

I mean a random black dude rolling up in tracksuit bottoms, taking them for over 6 milli?? Yea, they are just not having it looool. I know of clients walking outta there +£5m and not being 'investigated' etc; The difference is this was a Saudi Prince, not a black guy from NJ!!

Don't get me wrong, there may be no racism on the Casino's part, and it may really just be a case of they know they not gonna see Ivey for a looooong time/never again, whereas, they know the Saudi's will be back, next week, next year, and for the coming twenty years and more until they die. They feel they can let the Saudi roll out, as they know(think/hope!!) they will get it all back plus some in the course of their lifetime.
Which tbh, is probably true, as the Saudi's are creatures of habit, and very rarely change the places that they reside/eat/drink/gamble etc; and on top of that, it is not easy to get a membership to Crockfords and is seen as 'High Class' within the Saudi circle and also goes a way to show who are the top dog Princes etc;
For example, I had one Saudi client and he had is late fathers membership given to him, and the number on the card was something like ' MEMBER NO: 175 '.
Considering how old the joint is, that is old skool right there and just shows that some of these Casinos in London are truly an insidious part of so many High Rollers lives around the world.

Meh, bit of a ramble/opinion....Woteva!!

QFT. Still NVG >>> Daily Mail as far as journalism goes. (Was 4 >'s but then I read this thread)