Why don't you do some work yourself, look it up and post it here instead of begging?

Here. Took 90 seconds.

42Cheating(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.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(5)In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.
(6)Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c. 109) (winning by cheating) shall cease to have effect.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42

YaHoo Sports article

I guess the spewers, in this case, do not undertsand what it means to give an explanation. Of course, I know how to google a set of statutes. Didn't the mention of "The British Legal System" give you a clue? Do I have to do your work for you? This is regulatory law. That is, I am assuming this sort of case is found in the body of law that determines how Casino gambling can and cannot be operated; including what constitutes fair and unfair gambling practices, both on the part of the Casino and its trade. Now, last try: how do judges and panals tend to rule in these types of cases? Will they treat this as a regulatory matter, and determine whether there has been a violation; or, will they try (who knows why) to elevate this to the importance of a precedent setting case, fully understanding that they will move on to an appellate court in the future? please give it a good try................b

LOL you are dense.

Just curious if the companion of Ivey was found to be banned in casinos, does it help to use that in the casino's withholding argument?




Sent from collusion using 2+2 Forums

The video replays will show the truth. If Ivey did this, there should be betting patterns that are indisputable. Of course, he could have been really clever and purposely messed up the patterns just enough to sow doubt.

But it sounds like everyone here already assumes Ivey did it, and are just arguing about whether or not this was ethical (and he should get paid), unethical (but he should get paid), ethical (but he shouldn't get paid), unethical (and he shouldn't get paid).

My guess it that if this was someone unpopular, the argument would have trended very quickly towards unethical (not get paid) instead of dragging out 1000+ posts.

Can anyone provide some basic cliffs on the known facts + both sides' arguments or should I read the whole thread to make up my mind on this?

Article on front page of yahoo tonight. Don't know if this has been posted.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-tu...032520482.html

Scroll up a few posts.

I like how they found the most random pic of Ivey with such a gaudy chain when ive never seen him with jewelry before.

Even googling Phil Ivey gold chain and i didnt find that pic.

Media always trying to paint people in certain lights

Marc Goodwin was BBC Five Live Breakfast this morning talking about this. Wasn't very insightful for anyone who is aware of the story though.

The general cheating law Section 42 of the 2005 Gambling Act is not a regulatory law. Much of the Act is regulatory Law but Section 42 is a standalone offence that applies to everyone, regulated or not. It is not a civil matter it is a criminal matter.

The cheating law is deliberately hugely broad. it can cover any form of gambling and any form of cheating. it can be cheating by changing the event (ie bowling a no ball) or cheating by breaking the rules of the game (ie paying out a dirty stack at roulette or placing a bet post event).

In this specific case of edge sorting at high stake baccarat there is no case law. Nobody has been prosecuted for inducing a dealer to sort cards so that the best cards are identifiable before a bet is placed. To know for sure if what is alleged is cheating it would need to go to trial and have a jury decide the matter.

So let us look at what is alleged by the casino. This link is clear on the method
http://ggbmagazine.com/issue/vol-12-...-making-a-mark

The tapes will have it all. Now if Ivey plus accomplice induced staff to sort the cards as required (turn 180) and deal the game in a non standard way (first 4 cards for both face down) in contravention of the standard rules of the game in the casino even if the staff made these mistakes unwittingly there is a possible case.

If Ivey was winning by betting bigger when he was ahead - with the cards still face down this will be clear on the tapes and clear to a jury to decide if they consider this cheating or not.

There is a pattern of behaviour here, at least if the allegations are true, that screams out of a pre meditated conspiracy conducted over more than one day. The pattern of behaviour will be clear and can be explained to a jury as a pre planned attempt to cheat. They decide if they consider it cheating but I doubt the prosecutor would be the one losing sleep.

This minute it is on Radio 5 Live a national BBC radio station. It is high profile here and that means that the authorities might feel obliged to enforce the law.

As a side note until September 2008 it was illegal to tip table staff in the UK. Even today it has to go into a tronc system where the tips are collected and shared out - the idea is that a tronc system protects against dealers doing as asked for tips but with Ivey likely dropping thousands in tips into the pool all that happened is that everyone at the casino had a financial reason to do as he asked. The bigger the tipping the easier this root cause for the staff breaking the casino rules for the player is to explain to a jury.

Did Goodwin ever pay Ivey the $450,000 he lost to him playing golf.

The man the myth the legend, and it keeps on growing!!

The collective opinion over here on this is simple. The house always wins. If they picked the deck and agreed to this 180 degree turn then it was their own fault they lost. Yes, it's more than likely Ivey (or his companion) knew the cards from their pattern. However the casino agreed to turn the cards, furthermore they didn't destroy the cards at the end of the game, and they let him re use them not once, but TWICE. Everyone here thinks they should pay the man. They use their edge and would have taken 7.3m from him. Because he used his and they were dumb enough to let him now they cry foul! Pay the man, learn your lessons.

Everyone is a strong statement. Me I'm happy to let the courts decide. Judges for the civil case and jury for any potential criminal case.

Letting the courts do their job is the main benefit of legal regulated gambling as opposed to a scandal ridden unregulated game with no legal recourse or arguing with the mob about symmetrical card backs or why the numbers always seemed to pay out for the fewest people.

hopefully he'll be paid in full + extra money for tarnishing his rep.

i guess we'll never know tho, or does records like this go public? im guessing no

Seems like its the casinos fault so they have to pay, IMHO.
Its not like ivey marked the cards, he just used the cards they had.

Phil Ivey won £7.8m by 'reading' the back of cards: How tiny flaw in deck design could have given poker star the upper hand

Phil Ivey is accused of 'reading' the cards in a game based purely on luck
Mr Ivey’s winnings were withheld by Mayfair casino Crockfords
He insists he did nothing illegal in a game of punto banco

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-cards.html



Cliff Notes:

-Ivey visits Crockfords with Asian female companion to play high stakes Punto Banco
-Lady asks dealer to rotate cards 180 degrees when they are dealt because Phil is superstitious and thinks it is luckier.
-Ivey and his companion never touch the cards.
-At one point during the first night, he is down 500,000 quid
-Ivey increases bets from 50,000 to 150,000 quid per hand
-That night he recovers and wins 2.3M quid
-Ivey asks the casino to preserve the cards from this session (considering them lucky, I suppose) and they agree
-Ivey and companion return the next day and win 5.5M more
-Casino claims cards were marked due to manufacturing error
-Ivey could recognize this by having the cards turned 180 degrees, hence why he wanted the cards preserved for the next day (when they are usually destroyed after each session)
-Casino claims Ivey's companion helped him "read" the cards (she has been banned from a couple casinos in the US)
-Thus, Ivey's winnings are not legitimate


End Cliff Notes.


In my opinion, the only thing they have on Ivey is the bit about preserving the cards. All the other things are things that gamblers do all the time. But since they (Crockfords) agreed to preserve the cards, I'm not sure why this whole thing is an issue. I don't get why Casinos suddenly don't have to pay out if the cards are marked due to no fault or action of the player. Like one commenter on the article said: they sure as heck would expect the player to PAY if they lost with marked cards! So why don't they have to? These casinos are always in the business of taking huge sums, but when they have to pay it's a different story. I'm calling BS on this hypocrisy. Crockfords should pay. You were happy to take Ivey's money when he loses, but then you are slow to pay when he wins! Ban Ivey if you want to, but pay him what you owe him! - SirCameron

Whether Ivey was aware of the flawed cards and able to use it to his advantage or not, it doesn't seem as though he's broken any rules in regards to his rights as a gambler. If the casino isn't checking their cards vigorously enough to prevent this type of thing happening, the onus is on them, not the player. They let Ivey and the Chinese woman play and dictate the terms on which they played - it's casino managements own fault for not sticking to procedure. Pay up.

This does not call into question his whole career at all Fs. It is a accusation not even proven yet!

Now stfu

lol @ Daily Mail journalism

If you play roulette in a casino and notice there are some numbers missing on the roulette, are you cheating the casino if you keep playing (and thus winning)?

lol that's not hypocrisy. They were happy to take his money because they thought they were conducting a legitimate transaction and he was just getting unlucky - why wouldn't they be happy? Obviously they're not going to have any concerns about him cheating at this point, he's losing.. Once he upswings, they gather evidence which (they claim) suggests his winnings were illegitimate and refuse to pay out accordingly - like every single other business in the world would do if they discovered fraud (or whatever specifically Ivey is alleged to have committed).

if they cant prove that Ivey has any connection with card factory
cant see how they can keep the money

or else they should return all the money to people that lost money with those cards too..