Ivey's character is irrelevant in this whole ordeal. They undoubtedly have several camera angles of every second he was in the casino and they should have the deck of cards in question. They have all of the hard evidence they need to determine if he did anything illegal.

The question is - Is spotting a flaw in the cards (if this is indeed what they are alledging) which gave him information he wouldn't otherwise have enough of a reason to withhold his winnings?

And while we're tossing "character" on the rubbish heap, we can put the whole "the casino wouldn't give back the money if he'd loss" point right beside it. Completely irrelevant and speculative to boot.

Since I was back in the office today I looked into this a little more.

The following is based on the assumptions that:

a) there was a geometric flaw in the cards
b) Ivey knowingly took advantage of that flaw
c) the terms and conditions of Crockford's effectively mirrors that of other UK casinos in respect of gaming, and would prohibit using "unfair methods" or similar (see Midasplayer.com v Watkins)

If any of the above assumptions aren't actually the case then my view changes.

-------

This is a breach of contract claim, it really has little or nothing to do with gambling. The Gambling Act is not really relevant at all; it may be cited by the defence but only insofar as they try to discredit Ivey imo.

Ivey needs to show that a contract existed, that the result of that contract was that Crockford's owe him £7.3m, that by failing to pay the money they have breached the contract, and that the contract has not been repudiated in such a way that absolves them from doing this. If he can show this he is entitled to the remedy of the money, plus interest accruing from the date it was owed, plus costs.

Clearly a contract exists and prima facie he is owed £7.3m or whatever he won.

Crockford's need to show that Ivey materially breached the contract he had with them. In this scenario it will be by failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract.

I could also see Crockford's having a counterclaim in respect of remedy (can't really see how they have a stand-alone counterclaim due to no loss) by arguing that through taking advantage of a mistake (and thereby breaching the terms and conditions) this is an unlawful interference with the business.

If the t&c's are as I expect, and he has knowingly taken advantage of the flaw, I don't expect Ivey to be successful here. It would not be hard to argue that this was an "unfair method", and that that was a material breach.

I thought about Ivey's statement of "they gave me a slip for the money" in the sense of this being a separate contract, completely devoid of the previous contract, but I don't think this argument has any legs. There would be an equitable remedy for the casino in any event.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that this is an arguable case, in the true sense of the word - i.e. that the better lawyer will greatly increase their client's chance of winning (this is not always the case), and Richard Spearman QC seems to be a bit of a legend so Crockford's will need to instruct a suitable opponent.

I also think that any judgment will be £0 or £7.3m+interest, i.e. a polarised judgment. Again this is not always the case, often you are arguing purely on quantum and the swing is not so severe. (e.g. one side says £100k, another says £250k)

As a result each party has a massive incentive to settle - not only to reduce their variance, so to speak, but also because, whatever the judgment, it is absolutely certain to be appealed (has to be on a point of law but again a good lawyer can find one no matter how well reasoned the judgment, and the money makes it worth it), and an arguable case that is appealed is really frightening for the winning side. If you settle it's game over, no more risk.

Whether they reach settlement will likely be influenced by whether Crockford's indemnity cover is in effect. If it is then it's just a risk calculation and they'll probably get there eventually. If it's not then it can be a lot trickier.

Basically I think the casino wins most of the time on the above facts and I think both sides would agree a settlement of ~35% of the amount claimed now.

Lawyers etc who have access and are interested, these are the cases I considered outside standard contract cases:

-Midasplayer.com Ltd v Watkins [2006] EWHC 1551 (Ch)
-Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v Al-Bader [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 271
-Eminence Property Developments Limited -v- Kevin Christopher Heaney [2010] EWCA Civ.1168
-Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v National Bank of Abu Dhabi [2008] EWHC 511 (Comm)
-AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1601

I think Midasplayer is the most useful.

Very interesting writeup. Thank you.

Couple of questions:
- Do you feel the casino must prove the cards were defective AND that Ivey used the defect to his advantage? Would knowing about the defect in advance be a part of something Crockfords would have to prove?
- Does the casino's granting a change of procedure in gameplay hurt their position at all?

Ivey uses skill to win in a non-skill game. That's how boss he is...

maybe defective is the wrong description for the cards, in the sense that if a slot machine or car is defective you can query the computer and show it to be so.

Since the cards have no moving parts and a printing error or mechanical damage (rip, tear, foreign substance) would make them unfit for play from a management standpoint but most people would never notice and the cards would work as designed for 99.9% of the population.

Therefore it is managements decision whether or not to cull the cards, not the customers. Every training program for dealers has this component included to catch
'bad' decks.

To be considered cheating the player would have to change the cards in some manner, marking, bending, staining, etc. which PI simply didn't do. Or have some kind of mechanical device (ie: shiner) to give an advantage.

The other point being whales operate under a different set of rules than the run of the mill tourist, casino management puts these relaxed rules into place voluntarily to give themselves a chance at the money, and that chance doesn't always come through. So they need to suck it up and pay him.

Mason and ireland on Espn 710 in LA talking about Ivey and "rain man Asian lady" LOL
They are discussing case now

They are tweeting out Is Phil Ivey guilty?? And they will tell report the response. I am curious to what the public at large and not poker world thinks

What special skills does rain man asian lady have?

Bringing in a banned player is what brought about the heat.

Crockfords Gives Details of How Phil Ivey Allegedly Cheated
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...heated-588362/

FYI, for those still not understanding what Ivey and his partner where doing, here is a good breakdown of edge-sorting.

http://jacobsongaming.com/Turn_of_the_Cards.pdf

On espn 710 announcers very pro Ivey they are yelling "pay that man his Maney" in true rounders fashion . It was pretty entertaining

I know one way Ivey and the casino could settle this. If Ivey agrees to take a lie detector test with questions based on the allegations against him, if he passes he keeps the money if he doesn't pass then its only fair he gets nothing.

Very few people think he didn't exploit this error. The majority of Ivey backers are just saying he saw an edge, he beat the game , tough luck.

you're wrong because it is not a 'clear cut' case of cheating. Not illegal? Since when is a 'clear cut' case of cheating not illegal? Which casinos do you play in where cheating is allowed and not illegal?

A clear cut case of cheating is putting a device in a slot machine and making it pay out when it wasn't supposed to.

A clear cut case is switching cards with a partner at a BJ table.

A clear cut case is colluding with the dealer not to shuffle properly so the order of cards is known.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012...entenced-thre/

or past posting at craps or roulette

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...ed-las-vegas-/

The case at hand is no where near a 'clear cut case of cheating' not in anyone's mind except maybe yours.

Here is how casinos in Las Vegas deal with clear cases of cheating. First 20 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsp5qBp2Ffg

Security comes out, beats the crap out of you puts you in handcuffs and turns you over to police. Maybe it's different in Britian.

In grey areas of unknown facts and unclear details, they just refuse to honor their slip at the cashier.

Can anyone come up with a case of someone being convicted of cheating by reading factory imperfections on the back of casino provided cards?

If so, I'll be in Vegas for 3A of the WSOP on 5/30, I'll buy you dinner.

and the location for poster Franxic is spot on

he/she must be a casino employee

Standard of proof is only balance of probabilities so they don't really have to prove anything, in the literal sense. Also the burden of proof is on Ivey's team in the first instance.

Showing the cards were defective is easy, it'd be fairly ludicrous to invent this, and I think it likely the manufacturer will be able to demonstrate it. Also Ivey would be ill-advised to challenge whether there was a defect, strategy-wise imo, since if he objects, and they rule against him, it really hurts the credibility of other equity-based arguments he might use that have better prospects.

Using the defect to his advantage is key to establishing a material breach of contract - knowing about it in advance helps create the picture but doesn't make any difference to whether there was a breach or not.

Change of procedure could be key but a) this is likely to be dealt with in the terms of the contract (e.g. an employee of Us breaching these terms does not create new terms etc) and b) it is a very 'fact-sensitive' point, so to comment you'd really need to know exactly what happened.

ever heard of lance armstrong?

The casino will fight and appeal this for a long time.

This could be a long list. Tons of baseball and track/field athletes over the years.

To say that some people who strive to be the best aren't open to the idea of "anything necessary" is naive.

Probably so. I wish I had someone to back me up on the idea that the casino allowed the game to continue even with the odd requests therefor allowing the game to continue under a lawful understanding.

I could be totally wrong.

I agree too, its not like Ivey marked the card himself or did something against the rules of the game. They approved his requests and started the game. At the end of the day, its the casino's responsibility to police their own games and protect themselves.

Without an admission from Ivey or the woman, it's basically what the casino says vs what Ivey says.

It sounds like the casino will not be able to prove anything. It's all accusation and speculation. I have no idea about the law or what the outcome will be but the casino should have eaten the loss and learned from it. They should have been smart enough to stop the game.

If this casino gets protected in this case, it would be a scary precedent of power. It appears Ivey did what they are accusing him of but what if he really didn't? Are we convicting people by association now?

Guess what the outcome would be of me accusing the casino's shuffling machine of being faulty after a malfunction and trying to sue for my losses? This should work both ways.

why would any high roller want to risk over a milli in a casino where they have a reputation of getting out of debts over technicalities?

Vote with your feet and go play some where else, that would be the ultimate punishment for the casino. They go busto over bad decisions.

any speculation on why he was initially losing?

1) Was this done to try and deceive the casino by making it look less obvious (a fake cooler before the heater) to try to persuade the casino into bumping up the bets from 125k to 250k?

or

2) Was the initial losing not on purpose, but just because his edge wasn't that huge, and he needed a bigger sample to get way ahead? (and there was still some luck/gamble involved) Wouldn't his edge have only been something comparable to counting cards at BJ?


In other words: Was he printing money or was he just way +EV

Rather then a defective slot machine, it is more analogous to a slot machine with a program that allowed for exploitation. Nobody is suggesting that there was some sort of unique defect with the deck Ivey played with, rather that this is a feature that these decks carry. It's simply absurd for the casino to argue that Ivey did something wrong based on the decks that they chose to carry.