This is pokers O.J. trial.

None of us here knows the full truth, so anything we say is primarily speculation. But I agree that there must be something that Crockfords is clinging to as a reason to not pay the man. They wouldn't simply welch on a payment. As to whether or not their reasoning is valid is another issue and will be up to the court to decide. Hopefully someone will share the juicy details with the public.

One comment from the Daily Mail article that caught my eye is:
If he pulled a hit-and-run, and it appears they were worried he would do just that, then maybe they felt he violated a time commitment to them (or X number of hands). Unless it was in writing, though, that shouldn't hold up in court, but I could see how they would be disappointed that he didn't give the house a chance to win their money back.

On a side note, when did Ivey win £10 million in a Vegas tournament as mentioned in the article? Are they mistakenly referring to the Corporation's win against Beal as a tournament win?

Resurrect original thread and merged.

They don't use Euros in GB

so i guess he's guilty then.

Anyone know who makes or where to buy that tee shirt ? the white one with the ace.

Wearing Phil Ivey's clothes will not make you Phil Ivey. I tried it.

Glad to hear that he sues. He need to win

The casino didn't just refuse to pay because it felt like it.

Crockfords' review of the tapes found evidence that Ivey used a clever method to create an edge. His companion also had "form". The casino discussed the evidence with the Gambling Commission which supported the witholding of payment. Crockfords believes it won't have to pay Ivey.

sounds like they were happy to cater to his superstitions as long as he kept losing...once he won, these superstitions have turned into a "clever" method of cheating

looking forward to the results of the court case

Haven't really followed this, but when I heard about it my first thought was well he likely cheated. I just always think the worst of these guys anymore.

Originally Posted by Leif
Ivey asked for the same deck to be used over and over again 'for luck' even though he was originally losing. They agreed.

He then persuaded the casino to deal out the first two Player and Banker cards BEFORE he placed his bets. They agreed.

Whats the problem?

I doubt they would agree to deal some of the cards before the bets where made.

Whether or not they were right to withhold Iveys winnings, by refusing to publicly state their specific reasons for doing so, Crockfords have damaged their own reputation. I'm sure rival casinos, VIP hosts & concierges have seen it as their duty to inform whale clients of this incident.

Withholding winnings because Ivey may or may not have been counting cards when the game itself is rigged? My hatred for casinos grows...

Card counting in theory can get an edge in Baccarat, but in practice in not worth the effort. Even if he was counting it's not cheating, and not grounds to not pay out.

This seems like a pretty absurd request, even more absurd that it was allowed. How could casino staff if they are not colluding allow it? If he doesnt get paid then whoever authorized these changes in protocol should be arrested.

Made it into today's evening standard. Someone in their team must love 2p2....

You have to be kidding me......If you can see the first 4 cards dealt out of a baccarat hand, whoever is ahead after the first 4 cards will win between 65 % and 80 % of the hands, depending on the shoe.....basically you will bankrupt the casino in a few hours.

However allowed this, which I'm sure is just a rumor, should be fired.

This can't be right. Source?

What it might have happened is he asked that the first couple hands get dealt out before he starts betting in s standard fashion in subsequent hands.

Subbing for results.

I am sure the cards were face down and the whole issue is cards were either marked or defective so you could tell what they were when looking at them in front of you.

Just asking to have first four dealt and to reuse cards after shoe ends seems so shady I think casino has a legit argument. I hope Ivey can prove he has asked for this accommodation before in casinos worldwide. Then maybe he has a chance.

Very illogical. Casino agrees to do something and if you win they are legally allowed not to pay you? Sounds like an easy freeroll for the casino.

The only way I see them being able to legally not pay is they can prove there was some sort of collusion between him and the person who authorized his request, although I really doubt it. I think this casino just made a foolish mistake, didn't realize the obvious game protection flaw that could result from this error (assuming this is what happened), and got punished for it. To call this cheating is to call counting cards cheating.

The most illogical aspects of this entire episode is Iveys requests.


To your first point I stated a few posts ago ITT that IF gaming were to deny Ivey payment of his winnings the casino should have to legally prove collusion by casino staff and get a conviction of the parties involved. To your second point if Ivey could see the card values of the first four cards dealt prior to betting this is very very different then simple card counting.

The request to use the same cards is EXTREMELY unusual. I have never heard of this, many of the cards are usually damaged in baccarat during their initial use. I do not have a dog in this fight, a FTP owner vs a casino is not a battle I care all that much about. It will be interesting to follow though.

Anyone who follows Phil Ivey's career and his stories of huge generosity, gambling just for the hell of it, and even paying off Chip Reese's estate after Reese died knows Ivey didn't actually cheat. Furthermore who would be that stupid to cheat when it's the case that when you walk into a casino the highest level of staff is all over you, watching you, catering to you etc. Ivey is a whale and his action could make or break a casino's night (or maybe even month)- they are all watching him. He knows that and he's going to try to cheat? It doesn't make sense.

They should have to pay him and then sue him to get it back if they really feel he cheated. The burden of proof should be on them. It's their casino, their rules, their security...they should have to pay and sue to get it back if they really think they have a claim. It's backward thinking to have to have Ivey prove a negative, that he didn't cheat. That's not how justice works.