Phil Ivey getting sued - By Borgata
07-23-2015
, 09:25 PM
07-24-2015
, 04:55 AM
What kind of fair play is that??
I say, good for Ivey for countersuing - and I hope that he wins.
Lee
07-24-2015
, 08:52 AM
from the ruling (which was released b/c Borgata thought it could use it against Ivey)
Quote:
There are difficulties with the current English statutory definition. It appears to define deception and interference as cheating, but there is no attempt to define the overall concept of cheating as the explanatory notes make clear. [...] I have already noted that as far as the civil law is concerned, there is no general agreement as to what one might term the industry standard of cheating or not cheating. It is ultimately for the court to decide, as it must in the case of the standard of honesty to be expected in dealing of businessmen and trustees, whether or not conduct amounts to cheating. [...] The fact that the claimant is genuinely convinced that he is not a cheat and even thatthat opinion commands considerable support from others, – see for example, Dr. Jacobson, – is not determinative of the question. It is necessary to analyse what the consequences are of what he did in relation to the game that he was playing. They were threefold.
(1) He gave himself an advantage, throughout the play of the sixth and subsequent shoes, which the game precludes – knowing, or having a good idea, whether the first card was or was not a 7, 8 or 9. That is quite different from the advantage which may accrue to a punter as a result of counting the cards, so that very near to the end of the shoe he may obtain a legitimate advantage by doing so.
(2) He did so by using the croupier as his innocent agent or tool by turning the 7s, 8s and 9s differentially. He was not simply taking advantage of an error on the part of the croupier or an anomaly produced by a practice of the casino for which he was not responsible.
(3) He was doing so in circumstances in which he knew that she and her superiors did not realise the consequence of what she had done at his instigation. Accordingly, he converted a game in which the knowledge of both sides as to the likelihood that player or banker will win – in principle nil, – was equal into a game in which his knowledge is greater than that of the croupier and greater than that which she would reasonably have expected it to be.
This in my view is cheating for the purposes of civil law.
(1) He gave himself an advantage, throughout the play of the sixth and subsequent shoes, which the game precludes – knowing, or having a good idea, whether the first card was or was not a 7, 8 or 9. That is quite different from the advantage which may accrue to a punter as a result of counting the cards, so that very near to the end of the shoe he may obtain a legitimate advantage by doing so.
(2) He did so by using the croupier as his innocent agent or tool by turning the 7s, 8s and 9s differentially. He was not simply taking advantage of an error on the part of the croupier or an anomaly produced by a practice of the casino for which he was not responsible.
(3) He was doing so in circumstances in which he knew that she and her superiors did not realise the consequence of what she had done at his instigation. Accordingly, he converted a game in which the knowledge of both sides as to the likelihood that player or banker will win – in principle nil, – was equal into a game in which his knowledge is greater than that of the croupier and greater than that which she would reasonably have expected it to be.
This in my view is cheating for the purposes of civil law.
obv there's no black-white here, but saying Ivey couldn't have won is BS ... e.g. (3) shows, that the judge surprisingly believed the fairy tale, that the casino never heard of edge sorting
the Borgata judge seems to be more realistic and recently said : "the begged and largely ignored question inherent in [Borgata's] allegations of why the casino – especially its own card dealer – took so long to figure out the defendants’ alleged scheme"
Source: http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...ata-dismissed/
07-24-2015
, 10:50 AM
07-24-2015
, 12:37 PM
07-24-2015
, 04:25 PM
07-25-2015
, 09:17 AM
Quote:
Why shouldn't he be entitled to the money? Borgata is taking a stance where Ivey, or any other player, can't possibly win. Borgata wants to be able to have it that the casino either wins at the table, or - if the player wins at the table - that the casino gets the money back in court.
What kind of fair play is that??
I say, good for Ivey for countersuing - and I hope that he wins.
Lee
What kind of fair play is that??
I say, good for Ivey for countersuing - and I hope that he wins.
Lee
08-28-2015
, 12:46 PM
08-28-2015
, 01:14 PM
08-29-2015
, 07:35 AM
Quote:
"the most curvaceous and voluptuous females in the industry"...is his lawyer Don King?
via Imgflip Meme Maker[/IMG]
08-30-2015
, 08:51 AM
08-30-2015
, 12:32 PM
Quote:
[IMG]via Imgflip Meme Maker[/IMG]
via Imgflip Meme Maker[/IMG]
Perfect!! LOL