NineNatural - Known cheat lover

Lol, please be so good as to state the source of your knowledge.

Go catch some colluders at your site's poker room...

ROFL.

That's your best come back?

Is this even true?

Or you are just saying they will provide you with the payout structures, and thus, if you intelligent and capable enough you can figure out the odds.

I honestly, don't know whether it is true or not, but I would be surprised if the casino would provide a player direct odds of winning a hand or the EV of a given bet if asked.

I was using "rigged" colloquially. I.E, the game being setup in a way that favors a party in the long run.

Yes, I understand the decision that the judge made. Your argument is circular. It is his very judgement that is being questioned itt by some people. I obv disagree with his judgement.

Again, we disagree. I don't think there is any legal reason he needs to give them a motive for his request. The casino can either accept it or deny it. And let's be honest, if the casino wanted to deny it, they would have done it no matter what reason he had given.

Is it illegal to tell another poker player that the reason you decided to go all in on the flop with a big draw was that you just felt like it was coming? When the real reason is that you estimated an overwhelming amount of fold equity, and thus realize it was a +EV move. How can you even prove that is or isn't the case anyway. Correlation doesn't lead to causation. Maybe it's just something about being in a +EV situation that gets your superstitious juices going. What does superstition even mean anyway and how is it provable?

Again, there are nuances in how the word hustle can be used. It can be used for straight out fraud or it can just mean that you are getting someone to gamble when the odds are in your favor.

I obv see a distinction here, and you don't. I understand that.

Sorry, this is not a 1 to 1 parity of the situation by any stretch of the imagination. There are obviously ways to illegally hustle, and there are nuances in every individual situation.

I can agree that the Ivey case is in the grey area.

Hacking and related activities is illegal (in the USA anyway), so your example blatantly breaks local and/or international laws straight away.

I understand your point, but it really is an exagerated example with clear cut illegality from start to finish.

[QUOTE]
No it is not. What "SKILL" did Ivey use to win money. What particular ability did he have and use to tilt the odds of the game in his favor. Was it superior math skills like a card counter might use? Was it his extraordinary athletic ability? What special knowledge did he possess about the game that he used to win? Was he just a better player with a better understanding of the game than his opponent or did he lie to create an opportunity to change the natural order and position of the cards so as to create an advantage for himself? Could he have obtained this advantage in any other way besides lying to the casino and manipulating or causing the cards to be manipulated? I think not!

I completely understand that if Ivey completely spelled out his terms and strategy that they would have disagreed.

I also believe that if the casino blatantly spelled out the fact that a placed bet was explicitly EV-, as well as how EV- it was to all customers, there would be an overwhelmingly significant portion of customers who would choose to quit.

Both Ivey and the casinos deceptions are both legal imo, unlike other forms of deception which are criminally fraudulent. (see below)



Even if I was willing to accept Urban Dictionary quotes as an absolute truth, you keep trying to prove your point with semantics.

Criminal fraud may use deception, but that doesn't mean that all deception is criminal fraud.

Not surprising it's over your head. I'm so glad your side has so much integrity though...

eta - Hint, your side doesn't have any integrity.

what does that even mean? they need him to agree for ihm to look at the back of the cards and use the information available to him and everyone else?

And still you can't quote the source of your knowledge that gives you belief in your convictions.

Goofball, read back.

That casinos make no effort or have no success catching poker room cheats on their own because they are scumbags and/or incompetent scumbags? I verified it myself by thinking about it how's that for you?

Again, congrats on working in an industry where complete incompetence at the one thing you do is no biggie. It's a great gig. You done good kid. Be proud of that, lofl.

Ah, I see. A sore loser with no understanding of the way things work - that's a great foundation for any legal battle - you should be proud for putting that defence together all by yourself, must of taken you hours.

I think this entire argument boils down to how you feel about casinos and gambling.

Casinos/gambling have a "hustle" component. The hustle begins when you step through the door, the lights, the sounds, the carpeting, the lack of clocks, the pretty waitresses, the FREE alcohol... everything is done to entice you, to lower your inhibitions, to get you reaching into your pockets to play -EV games.

The hustle continues, lots of advertisements and misrepresentations about big jackpots with the theme "this could be you" complete with smiley fish holding giant checks for the jackpot and progressives that hit last week, month, year...

So, imo, the casinos are hustlers, but I don't say that in a bad way. Gambling is a hustle.

And in this case, Phil Ivey just out hustled the casino and beat them at their own game. You can quibble all you want about "deception" but I would argue that deception is part of the hustle. And that deception works both ways. Casinos actively deceive all the time. They don't advertise all the people who walk out of their establishments as losers (which are the MAJORITY). No, they advertise people winning-winning-winning do they not? And that is deception right there!

So my disgust in the ruling here is simply that reciprocity has been denied. The casino got beat at their own game and they were able to run to big brother and whine about being duped and big brother protected the casino.

A HUSTLER WHO WHINES ABOUT BEING HUSTLED HAS NO HONOR!!!!! and that is what upsets me here. Crocksford has no honor. Corporate ball-less weenies (or wankers as they would say)

Do you really think the people arguing with you are arguing the law?

Again, your side gets to be legally stupid. Congrats. Tell your Mom how proud she should be of her little boy. The Nazis won the war and you are a Nazi...does your great understanding of the law help you puzzle through that one, genius?

eta - and as I guessed in my first reply to you, because I can think in real time, you are a top tier example of just how stupid your side is allowed to be.

"You can't cheat an honest man." --W.C. Fields

"Wahhhh. We were cheated." --Crockford's

Actually, I would like to think that people on this thread aren't too concerned about the law but rather they can see that what Ivey did was blatant cheating.

You evidently don't agree which puts you in the "cheaters camp" and until you can give me a valid argument as to why Ivey did not cheat you will forever be labelled the same in my eyes.

Good, you have just accepted that he used deception to alter the game. Now that in the UK is the very definition of cheating:

How can you read this LAW an not get that Ivey did it?

It is a legal requirement in the UK for the game rules AND the house edge to be displayed prominently in the casino and for leaflets of the same to be available. These are read every day by people who go on to play. There are FOBTs in every bookies that explain that the RTP is far far worse than punto banco and still about 2m people use them spending £1.5bn a year. They have the RTP on the machine and onscreen.

People play -ev games in certain knowledge that they are -ev, turns out they are fun.

See the LAW quoted above.

Go ask your boss how many cases of poker collusion they've sought out and dealt with on their own, then we'll talk integrity again. Or just keep shifting the goal posts every time you are wrong/say something dumb.

P.S. I don't think that you quite understand the meaning of Nazi else you would not have made such a stupid comment.

Still waiting for some validity - can you provide or not? My guess is "not".

It's an analogy. You work for the side that gets to be legally square so it's no surprise you don't get it. It's in reference to "law says we won" arguments from your end.

And what do you keep babbling about sources and validity? Sources that you are dumb? You work on the dumb side of the table and are at least one step behind at every turn (this thread being a great example). You are in here celebrating the fact that your side is so weak they couldn't figure out a simple method of advantage play being employed in the game they were paying the most attention to until after the fact. You are an idiot who works in an industry of idiots. No sources are necessary though the Ivey case isn't a bad one.

Nice.

I wish SheetWise was still around...

Lol, what does this say to you "You work for the side that gets to be legally square"? Caveat emptor springs to mind. If you don't like it then don't buy it.

And evidently Crockfords did figure out that that Ivey was cheating else they wouldn't have withheld his winnings.

As for being an idiot working in an industry of idiots, well I presume from the fact that you are on this forum that you play poker and so if it wasn't for us (idiots), where would you be?

Again, I ask you for an argument in favour of what Ivey did; non-provision of which invalidates any of your assertions.

Because you are inept are debating?

Since you don't know who Jeff Ma is, this may not mean much to you, but here is his view on Ivey's play. http://espn.go.com/espn/chalk/story/...er_Ma_IveyCase

I'm sure it won't change your mind. Just as seeing that someone can multi-quote on this site won't convince you that it's for you.