Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
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.
I read this thread in the beginning and jumped to last page. This type of hit means nothing to Genting. Racism, come on, Phil Ivey is well known to Genting (and every other casino in the world) as a high roller and racism has nothing to do with this issue. So much comment and speculation here from the likes of dgiharris here. raidalot is closest to what probably may have happened.
To be clear I am not accusing anybody of anything as it will hinge around what rules were agreed between the players and casino at time of play and I am not an expert on UK gaming legislation. This is where I believe the grey area exists and nothing finite has happened (or may ever happen).
Interesting there are no comments from land based casino operators here (guess they don't find their way onto 2+2) as there are ways to manipulate games like punto banco or for casinos to lose their edge if they are not paying attention. I recall being told of a similar incident occuring in both an Asian and European casino over 30 years ago by an old pit boss with exactly the same scenario, cards not being touched during the main punto banco session, cameras everywhere, no manipulation or marking of cards (electronic surveillance tech did not exist in those days for a potential cheater). How was the house edge beaten?
Relatively simple, the player and casino agreed to use the same shoe (same decks of underlying cards for the session), the same shoe was used briefly previously for standard session with player handling cards. Player hadn't marked the cards, only slightly squeezed certain cards bending them ever so slightly. For the main session, player didn't touch cards but was not required to bet on player/banker until after the cards were dealt, he then decided what to bet. As the same cards were being used time and time again (as opposed to new cards being used), the player had certain points when he knew the value of cards (as he had squeezed certain cards in certain way) and a very narrow house edge went the other way. It usually required a relatively long session for this to be effective. There were several variations of this, even when the player had never touched the cards that could be exploited if the same card decks were used throughout and the player was not required to bet until after cards were dealt (go and speak to an experienced real casino pit boss if you doubt what I am relating here). In the modern day where auto shufflers or constant changing of decks are standard, this would not be possible, but who knows what may have happened recently.
Having been around this industry a long time, you should not assume that maths/probability are the only factors here. Just_a_guy is correct that bacarrat house edge cannot be beaten in normal circumstances (without either casino error or manipulation), whereas BJ can be beaten in certain circumstances.