Yep. That is why I say "mildly optimistic" and not anything stronger.

I like that at the appeal court (the 2nd of the three stages) the verdict was two judges to one. So again some hope.

I think 5 judges get to hear the case at the Supreme Court but I'm not sure - glad if anyone could clear this up for sure.

Going to go out on a limb and guess that one or more of the judges has played in casinos and is thinking the same thing lots of ppl on here are and wants to take a really close look.

Usually 5 but it can vary. The recent case about the UK leaving the European Union was the first time that all 11 heard the case rather than just some of them.

Actually it can be decided by one supreme judge

The scenes if Ivey wins. RaiseOnce will be back in the streets.

Ben86 must be really rooting for a win here

The court took it because Section 42 of the Gambling Act (cheating) is hugely broad and vague - deliberately so by the politicians. They take the case not as a favour to Phil or coz he might win but because it is in the public interest to clarify the law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42

We have had Pakistani cricketers spot fixing convicted, a poker player in a casino, sevral playing 3CP and a few croupiers but the convictions are few and most involve a guilty plea. This case can clarify what is needed to convict. IF it was only rellvant as a one off payment dispute the court would likely have decided it was not in the public interest to spend their time on it.

Phil Ivey hearing today:

https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...ng-cheat-case/

Watching it live now.

Where? I can't seem to find a live stream that actually works.

I couldn't get it to work on my laptop but seems fine on my phone. On the UK supreme court website, court 2. Started at 10:30.

If you're expecting courtroom drama prepare to be disappointed. This is more an excuse for the lawyers and judges to debate the fine points of the laws and regulations by way of Ivey's case. This area needs clarification and this is a good a case as they've ever had to do so.

Unsurprisingly, I enjoy that sort of technical argument.

I actually enjoy that sort of thing too. Unfortunately I can't get the stream to work on any device. Sigh.

They're on a lunch break at the moment so they might have taken the stream down. I've also gone for lunch so haven't got it up to check.

I'm struggling to agree with the argument of the chap defending the casino at the moment.

He is saying that as Ivey wanted to make money at the casinos expense and he also changed the odds of the game as to attain that goal, he has broken the contract and should not be paid.

I would argue that a card counter does both of the above. They are asked to cash out their chips, leave and are banned? It doesn't seem to strong an argument to me.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure the following comments will more than affirm that statement.

The issue as I understand it seems to be whether or not "dishonesty" is a requirement to call what he did cheating under the law.

To your point about card counters: the game is rigged in favor of the house. Advantage players know this and use their wits to turn that advantage to their side for periods of time or a certain subset of hands.

The casino of course contends that "dishonesty" is NOT a requirement for there to be cheating. In other words, by altering the conditions of play in such a way that the odds favor the player is in and of itself cheating.

Phil's contention is that "dishonesty" IS a requirement and that what he did was simply to ask for things to be done a certain way, and the casino agreed to it. They willfully took his action and did everything he requested.

I tend to agree with Phil's side of things. I still don't like his chances though.

I also agree with Phil's side. If the casino willingly agrees to the requests because they want as much action as their perceived whale will give, then they should accept the consequences of their actions. Just because he asked for it, it doesn't mean they had to give it to him.

The problem I have with the casino is that this was the ultimate freeroll.
Edge sorting is not a guaranteed way to make money. He could of gone bust before setting the cards, he couldn't of run bad despite the edge and gone broke.

Had he lost, would they of given him his money back? I don't think so. They assumed that the law would protect them no matter what. He did not supply the cards, he did not touch the cards, he didn't do anything sneaky. No foul I say.

Besides if the casino is going to cheap out on borderless cards, they deserve to pay the penalty. Edge sorting has been known about for years in one form or another.

When will they announce the decision for a single day hearing? Do they do them all on Wednesday mornings?

I believe I read somewhere it'll likely be several weeks until the decision is announced.

We've previously discussed this at length. I have shown that Ivey's edge-sorting scheme would have won millions 99.9% of the time and he would have lost his initial bankroll 0.1% of the time.

There are many good arguments in favor of Ivey's position but the casino having a huge negative freeroll is not one of them.

This was discussed partially on the ESPN WSOP coverage. Let's say your playing the WSOP and all the decks from the playing card company have a marking on the back on the back of the cards that only you notice. It is so imperceptible that due to your perfect eyesight you spot. It is not necessarily a defect but you were the one that spotted it. Every other player has the same ability to notice it that you do but they don't. Is it considered cheating if you exploit it and know your opponents cards.

Is it right that Phil is dealt a baccarat game that another gambler doesn't have the same chance to exploit. As a casino shouldn't every player be afforded the same odds. Not necessarily the same perks as a high roller but the same odds. Not talking about card counting. Every player can count cards if they choose to learn. Phil on the other hand is dealt a game that another player might know about but the casino won't grant that player the same conditions. Even if that said player is willing to put up the same amount of money.

I may be oversimplifying, but to me there are two separate worlds colliding in the scenarios above:

1) What's legal?
2) What's moral/right?

In your first scenario, I'd venture a guess that many would say doing that would be immoral. But is it illegal? I think Caesars, even if they found out that was the case, would have a tough time prosecuting anyone for essentially being more observant than anyone else and using it to their advantage. In my opinion this isn't cheating. That's a slippery slope - what if you get a tell on someone no one else has...is using that cheating? Just because it's an observation about the equipment (the cards) versus an observation about an opponent doesn't make a difference to me. By the way, to my own detriment, I'd feel guilty forever if I won a bunch of money because of a scenario like this, so I'd inevitably say something about a defect or mark to the floor.

Your second scenario depends on gaming laws. Not sure what the laws are in London, but whether it's "right" or not I'm not sure. Does the other guy willing to put up the same money ask for the same things? If he doesn't and therefore doesn't have the same advantage Phil did, then it might not be "right" but maybe it's legal? To me the impetus in this situation is more on the casino - is it "right" for them to be willing to offer a different game to one guy and not the same game to the other? Again, though same answer - can they lawfully do that or not? If they can, then it becomes a moral question.