The power that Ivey's celebrity wields over the fanboys is amazing.

Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court of Great Britain, have ruled that what Ivey did was wrong.

The judges who lead these courts are learned people, experts in jurisprudence, well studied in concepts like rules, justice and morality, who were appointed or elected by we the people to to adjudicate matters under the rules and laws that govern general societal conduct, and to apply legal obligations, consequences, and penalties when those rules and laws are violated.

While they may not be experts in the weird twisted logic that permeates the gambling world, wherein it seems okay somehow to shaft your fellow man if it leads to a few spare dollars finding their way to your pocket, nonetheless they are well versed in what is right and what is wrong, and in the case of Great Britain's Supreme Court, they are the final arbitrators on the subject. They found that Ivey was wrong.

And yet there remains those stalwart defenders of Ivey that insist that he has done no wrong. Not wrong when he repeatedly tried to stiff Barry Greenstein on thousand dollar prop bets on Poker After Dark, how cute is Ivey, he keeps trying to stiff Barry! LOL! and not wrong when he took as much as 20 or 30 million out of the Full Tilt scam, oh, Ivey wasn't really involved, he just took his dividends, it wasn't his fault; and not wrong when court after court has said that he scammed the Casinos and that what he did was the opposite of fair. All those Courts are fools the Casino's freerolled Ivey. Okay, whatever. Give it up.

Unless Ivey has hard assets like real estate/stocks he's going to declare bankruptcy and never play another tourney where his win is documented and will have to stick to cash games w/ his money held by someone he trusts 100%. GL w/ that.

Good luck with that. It might work for a $10k judgment. It won't work at the Ivey's level. If he goes completely off grid, he's going to have tax enforcement issues unless he's playing 100% in basements.

And like every intelligent person with assets, he probably has diverse holdings (remember the story about him getting a dispensary license) that are on the books, valuable, and reachable with the right pursuit.

Please provide proof of the "glitch" that occurred in this case.

I'll wait.

Dealer error? Don't know anything other than the judges have decided. He tried to run a grift and got caught. Boo ****ing hoo.

Nevada, home to the WSOP, provides a means for pre-judgement attachment of a defendant's property. It would not be a great stretch to guess that litigation in a Nevada action to enforce a NJ judgment could attach prospective winnings payable from a Nevada gaming licensee.

(Just a guess for discussion, not legal advice or opinion)

I DID mention assets and those can be gone after, ofc. But Ivey might be in a really bad spot: He had to split the win (doubtful he gets the woman to pay anything) and he might not have the money to pay. Maybe he can move to Macau and play live, cut the triads in for a piece and get protection for his money.

I mention that only bec this is NVG and the wilder the speculation the better.

they can also chip rack you whenever you have money on the table. then good luck saying it is someone elses that is staking you. and they have done that before.

So in this particular "freeroll", the casino paid out several times, waited a couple of years, went to court (committing perjury by claiming they only discovered what ivey did after the event), and now have to chase ivey for the money. Have I got the way the "freeroll" worked correct?

I say let's sue the casinos for having an "edge" in all their games too! Ivey got screwed, plain and simple. He outsmarted them at their game and they didn't like it. He got a hometown decision in Great Britain and suffered the same fate in New Jersey. I'm sure the Atlantic City casinos pay a large part of the state budget that pays the salary of these judges. They know which side their bread is buttered on! I'd like to see this one hit the U.S. Supreme Court, where the judges are not beholden to anyone (Of course Trump would like to change all that).

What Ivey did is no different than a card counter who outsmarts the casino playing by their rules. They can ask him to quit but they should not be able to take back any money he has won! Talk about bad losers. This is the epitome of that. I have no sympathy for the casinos who make losing money seem like a great way to have fun. All those Ads on TV touting responsible gambling by casino executives are all BS too! You think they care if someone is drunk and blowing money in their casino? NO they don't! I guarantee you they won't ask a losing player to leave until they have all his/her money first! Take a look around sometime at the senior citizens on fixed incomes (social security checks) and the other poor people who are hooked on the slots cashing their welfare checks in the casino. Do you think the casino cares what happens to them when they leave broke? Nada!

And that's how it really works kids.

Have I missed something or why on earth would he have to go bankrupt over losing the court case? It's not like it has been decided that he owes the casinos some huge debt, the court case has decided that the casino doesn't owe him the winnings. His networth should be equal to his net worth without the relevant gambling ever taking place, minus court costs. Which may be high but not bankrupt Ivey high.

He has to return the money. Borgata already paid it to him. He could declare bankruptcy if he already spent the 10 million.

This is so intellectually dishonest is insane.

You know exactly what the guy meant.

MGM owns Borgata and Aria is owned by MGM. The High Limit Poker Room is still named Ivey's Room. Sure Ivey gets paid for use of his name. All of this makes sense, right? What am I missing here that his name is still on the wall?

The hypocrisy of big casino companies?

Apparently some people think that every poker player reads this forum. It's more likely that 2% of poker players knows anything about this or the other case.

BarryG said these days Ivey won't talk around phones. He thinks he's being recorded. He will make you leave your phone out of the room. MGM must have really spooked Ivey in some way.

What?

I know what a freeroll is, and it requires prior knowledge that you can't lose. Why did the borgota pay out ivey and wait three years to sue, if they were freerolling?

I can see (but don't agree) why people might assert that gentings freerolled him, as they never paid out, but it is completely bizarre to suggest that the borgota freerolled him.

2% very good estimate and what I've noticed at tables as well.

If they talk more about BBV, they go on my target list.

if they know who WCGRider is, try to avoid playing hands with them.




Here's a guess and I dont know timing of Borgata vs UK lawsuit was, but if UK was first...

I'd suspect Borgata simply did not know and couldn't figure it out from camera while playing or tapes afterwards. Given the amount being wagered they would have had a few eyes on table during play and review afterward. Once they saw UK lawsuit they connected the dots. But also Ivey was regular nosebleed table games player at Borgata, so might have caught less attention due to their familiarity with him

Suggesting they knew what was going on and chose to ignore it because they figured they were freerolling is preposterous in a regulated live casino.

Why are you telling me that? I know exactly what happened. Quote the "ivey was freerolled" dimwits if you want to state the blatantly obvious.

Given the end result, how could borgata ever lose money in this situation?

If Ivey loses, they win immediately and Ivey has literally zero recourse. If Ivey wins, they sue and end up winning all the money back. Again Ivey can't win. This, literally, defines free roll, as in you're in a spot where you can not win only lose.

But you knew all that, and are just being absurd.


Seeing as we agree, given reality, that borgata could literally never lose money, how was Ivey not freerolled?

In before you make some bs up and continue to play dumb, while insulting people stating the obvious.

a) if they had lost the case (that they only decided to file three years after the event) they would have lost the money (and even now ivey could appeal and win).

b) they still have to get the money which ivey probably doesn't have.

So it is completely ******ed to state that they were freerolling.

It wasn't a given that they would sue if Ivey won. (Or that they would win the lawsuit.)

This is by far the STUPIDEST argument ever put forth in this case.

There are plenty of reasons why someone could argue that Ivey should be allowed to keep the money. But arguing that the casino was freerolling Ivey is not one of them.

This has been discussed in this thread and the other thread ad nauseum.

sorry, that last sentence was general comment to thread not directed at you.
I should have made that more clear.

The dimwits can carry on about how Table Games Director, Pit boss, and likely the GM of Casino all sat in a room and illegally conspired to freeroll Ivey putting at risk each of their Personal Gaming Licenses and a nice little fine for Borgata.