More on the Judge's ruling (including the answer to the costs question):
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...llion-winnings
In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.”
“What Mr Ivey and Ms Sun did was to persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines, and in circumstances where she did not realise she had done so – and, if she had, would have immediately stopped play.
“The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating.
“Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.
“It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino for which he was not responsible.
“He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation.”
The judge concluded: “This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”
Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.