I consider poker to be a subset of advantage gambling.

I guess the casinos were just too damn greedy to look at Ivey as anything but a whale and see what was right under their nose that any disinterested party with half a brain could have seen easily?

Milk it???? Geez he bled it dry winning a minimum $20 million from just Crockfords and Borgata!

so you think what he did was criminal? asking someone to turn a card is criminal?

Your answers, in order:

1. I do!

2. In the specific case with the specific circumstances involving Ivey, yes.

i don't want to argue about the rulings in general, but the freeroll term is imo 100% correct. in the original london case (not the revision) as well as the borgata case, the casinos claimed they didn't know anything about edge sorting.

especially in the london ruling (again, the original case, not the revision) this was crucial, b/c ivey had to lie AND the casino employees had to not know it. when asked, how they got suspicious, they brought up a story about some employee remembering a card trick from his grandfather

so bottom line is, you can found arguments that Ivey is a cheat and you can find arguments, that he is just a skilled player, but arguing that the casinos didn't know what edge sorting is (and hence trying to freeroll him), is imo just naive

So your theory is that the Borgota knew about edge sorting, knew that it provided huge EV+ so that with decent bankroll management it was virtually impossible for Ivey to lose, then let him walk away with his winnings with the plan to sue him at a future date?

Yes, everyone should play by the rules. Nobody should cheat. I agree with you on these points. My issue with this is that Phil Ivey and the casino AGREED on a set of rules. Admittedly, these rules favored Phil Ivey. For whatever reason, the casino agreed to them. By all accounts, Phil Ivey followed those rules. So I don't see how he can rationally be accused of cheating. If Borgata didn't like the rules as Phil Ivey stipulated, all that they had to do was say "No" to one or more of them.

It seems that Mr. Ivey was smarter than the Borgata in this instance. How is that fundamentally different than if he was card counting?

Maybe he has done this there, but either hasn't been caught, lost anyway, or settled quietly with the casino and it never made the news. I don't know, but any of these scenarios seems possible. To me at least.


Then isn't the Borgata just as guilty? After all, they are the ones who introduced the marked cards. And, they agreed to the sorting - it was there dealer(s) who did the sorting.

I agree that this seems like a stretch, but haven't we all seen cases where someone does something at least seemingly stupid - if not outright stupid - in pursuit of big bucks? I agree that your scenario doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the reality.

This, +1. All the Borgata had to do is deny him on one or more points. This was all under their control, and done with their agreement and cooperation.

LOLNVG

Carry on....

First, players may "cut to the ace". So that's "manipulation", no?

Secondly, to my knowledge no edge sorting case has been brought in Nevada. Which as far as I know is one of the best places for players. British casinos are right up there with Native American casinos for how they and their regulators treat players.

As far as I know a player is much more likely to get a favorable ruling in Nevada than just about any other jurisdiction.

Yep, its called gamesmanship.

Just a theory, but I think there is good reason he played in London which is known for not paying. There was a rumor that Cosmo and others got hit for big numbers way before Ivey came along. They were looking for places that hadn't been burned.

May even have been the same crew and they brought Ivey in knowing he could get action more easily.

11 mil? That's pretty high up before you're not risking your job at the least. Mr. Boyd, maybe?

Yeah those pesky Brit casinos where the appalling double zero in roulette does not exist, where blackjack rules and payouts are standardised and for decades had rules to protect the dim against many -ev options.

I've never pretended UK regulation is perfect but every UK slot has to declare the RTP, roulette odds are better than in the US and some "casino" games like those wheel things with terrible odds are illegal because they are so bad for punters.

He means 'limit wins to something reasonable, lose on purpose occasionally, and keep it up for the rest of his life.'

-------------------

Btw, assuming Ivey paid taxes on his win, can he ask for a refund if he has to pay the money back?

Just telling you they have a reputation for not paying APs. The point is they don't have a very high bar to withhold money.

Some will say "Who cares if they don't pay APs." The problem is a large part of the time they don't even know if the person is an AP or not.

I don't buy into the freeroll theory in the sense that they knew beforehand, but it seems perfectly plausible to me they freerolled him.

In the England case at least it seems likely to me they will let whales play under suspicious circumstances and then if they win determine if they want to pay or not.

Don't suppose you have any evidence to post?

Also if the casino knew what was going on with Ivey they could have waited for him to "mark" the deck and then change the dealer who "accidentally" shuffles the cards. Then the shuffle machine breaks down when he gets the deck sorted the second time. Or they could get a skilled mechanic to manipulate the cards when Ivey and his companion were distracted. They could have just kept him playing EV- until he realised it was never going to happen. This is a far more plausible "evil casino" conspiracy theory than the ones put forward in this thread.

I'm not saying they knew at all. I'm saying some casinos may take suspicious action because they know they can always not pay.

I don't think its the case in NJ, but think its entirely possible in a jurisdiction known for not paying card counters.

You don't need to know the play to know you should follow protocol. My point is the more favorable regulators are toward the casinos the less they will scrutinize their big players because they know they can always just not pay.

Yes I think there is. It's part of their standard procedure, as mentioned in the original UK case.

No need to scare off the 'mark' by doing that. Ivey would leave.
So therefore, your plan would not work.
You are missing how easy it is for them to freeroll potential cheaters. They don't even need to bother doing what you said.

From the Judgement:
If there is any large win, Crockfords give the punter a receipt and tell them they will 'wire the money later'.
They then go away and decide if they will actually wire the money or not.

Hadn't read that, but that certainly sounds like a freeroll to me.

The only real incentive they have to turn away action is lawyers fees.

The money Ivey wagered, that they kept, I think would cover that easily.

The judgement doesn't say that. You just made it up.

29 in full

Crockfords' practice when any large win by a punter occurs is to conduct an ex post facto investigation to work out how it happened. That was set in train on 22nd August by Michael Hoskins, managing director of security and compliance with Genting UK, formerly a police officer with the Metropolitan Police. He suspected that something was wrong and investigated possible collusion by the staff and the placing of a camera in the sorting machine and was soon satisfied that neither had occurred.

They didn't keep his money. You made that up as well.

No, I quoted precisely the relevant part of point 29.
The bit I wanted to talk about.
The quoted part is in the grey coloured 'quote' box.

The part outside of the quote box, is further explaination that i wrote myself.
The part written outside is not in a grey coloured box.
That part is not a quote.
Isn't this absolutely obvious?

Also see point 28.

By the way, this is not the whole of point 28 in it's entirety.
This is an excerpt from it that I want to draw your attention to.

You made that up.

You can't provide any proof that it is correct.

You have no proof of your elaborate freeroll conspiracy which would involve numerous members of staff. Ivey's defence team produced no proof of an elaborate freeroll conspiracy (perhaps you think they are in on the conspiracy) and in fact their only progress has been that their client has been called a cheat by the appeal court judges.

By the way, this is not the whole of point 28 in it's entirety.
This is an excerpt from it that I want to draw your attention to.

I already wrote this before you posted.
Go read it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are permitted to allow people they suspect of cheating and/or advantage play to play and then decide whether or not to pay after the fact.

That's called a freeroll. If Ivey loses, which I believe is entirely possible, they just keep his losses.

There is a pretty big distinction between paying and then recouping via the court system and having a policy where you withhold winnings.