so if your black and you win the green your will be seeing red cause they dont pay.

black man dont care

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...pened-in-court

here is a lead.

To be fair, the article said "gambling and other debts" not "gambling". Phil Ivey is also a business man and carrying some debt in your businesses is not unheard of.

But for the sake of argument, lets say Phil Ivey has $15M in markers in Vegas...

I don't see how that justifies Crocksfords not paying him?

I still go back to what I've been saying all along. Either he cheated or he didn't. But i'm not rehashing that, I've done that enough.

daniel neg mentioned ln twitter they were discussing whether he will get paid in the aria game. so perhaps ivey had confirmed the story to one of them?

wow, how has this thread gotten so big.

Pay the degen his money already

If you listen to everything DN says you will have a lot of bull**** coming out of your ears !

Link.

If true its so lol. Tweeting about someone else's finances? Wtf?!

don't they need to be able to prove cheating to do this, not just suspect it? this whole thing is bull****... ivey deserves money + legal costs + interest IMO, interest to serve as a precedent to the casino to not try this shady bull****.

I like your posts dgiharris and you are not talking to me. However, I have already posted a hypothetical #3 several times itt. There could be a legal injunction against PI assets from numerous sources (other casino's, ex-Mrs. Ivey, the DOJ etc.) In this scenario I suspect they would kick it to the commission to decide whether the court(s) had authority over the asset etc.

Did you miss my posts because bubble's theories about some Rainman type play are too tilting?

It isn't my theory or anything and fact is Rainman scenario's are possible.
So why not consider them as well?

May be there is something in the smallprint of the casino that deals with such cases. The only thing we know almost sure is the casino refuses to pay, but we don't know the actual reason for that.
The longer this takes the more doubtful it seems it is because they suspect him/her of cheating.
IMO there could be a whole list of reasons for it, most we probably have no clue of.

I was rude to you before, so I will try to be nice re your Rainman theories-

I do not believe Bac vig can be beat by counting or anything involving human agency within the rules. I can't play blackjack at many casinos. I can play bac anywhere. Anecdotal aside, I believe in probability theory. Do you?


Standing offer to all: My 3k, your 1k, escrow. PI will not be found to have cheated or used Rainman powers by the commission within 6 months. QTB.

you do not believe the subsets of the deck mentioned are occurring often enough to beat the game by counting, or what is your reasoning? the fact there are +ev-bets in some subsets seems inarguable, or is it?

<speculation>
ivey's female companion might be barred from other properties because she counts the deck. if they did count and detected a "hot" deck, would they not ask for higher bets? and would they not leave when the deck got "cold" again or the hot shoe was empty?
</speculation>

not gonna bet, just genuinely curious.

PLZ.

I read this thread in the beginning and jumped to last page. This type of hit means nothing to Genting. Racism, come on, Phil Ivey is well known to Genting (and every other casino in the world) as a high roller and racism has nothing to do with this issue. So much comment and speculation here from the likes of dgiharris here. raidalot is closest to what probably may have happened.

To be clear I am not accusing anybody of anything as it will hinge around what rules were agreed between the players and casino at time of play and I am not an expert on UK gaming legislation. This is where I believe the grey area exists and nothing finite has happened (or may ever happen).

Interesting there are no comments from land based casino operators here (guess they don't find their way onto 2+2) as there are ways to manipulate games like punto banco or for casinos to lose their edge if they are not paying attention. I recall being told of a similar incident occuring in both an Asian and European casino over 30 years ago by an old pit boss with exactly the same scenario, cards not being touched during the main punto banco session, cameras everywhere, no manipulation or marking of cards (electronic surveillance tech did not exist in those days for a potential cheater). How was the house edge beaten?

Relatively simple, the player and casino agreed to use the same shoe (same decks of underlying cards for the session), the same shoe was used briefly previously for standard session with player handling cards. Player hadn't marked the cards, only slightly squeezed certain cards bending them ever so slightly. For the main session, player didn't touch cards but was not required to bet on player/banker until after the cards were dealt, he then decided what to bet. As the same cards were being used time and time again (as opposed to new cards being used), the player had certain points when he knew the value of cards (as he had squeezed certain cards in certain way) and a very narrow house edge went the other way. It usually required a relatively long session for this to be effective. There were several variations of this, even when the player had never touched the cards that could be exploited if the same card decks were used throughout and the player was not required to bet until after cards were dealt (go and speak to an experienced real casino pit boss if you doubt what I am relating here). In the modern day where auto shufflers or constant changing of decks are standard, this would not be possible, but who knows what may have happened recently.

Having been around this industry a long time, you should not assume that maths/probability are the only factors here. Just_a_guy is correct that bacarrat house edge cannot be beaten in normal circumstances (without either casino error or manipulation), whereas BJ can be beaten in certain circumstances.

I just know I'm never playing there.

I have heard of agencies snatching winnings of gamblers before. I'm also curious about all the silence from PI.

Fair question. Baccarat is uncountable because even with a perfect count (i.e. knowing which cards have come out,) the relative expectation of player/banker/tie does not change enough to overcome the vig. The only +EV spots come every 500 hands or so and even then your EV is about a dollar for every $100k wagered. Very, very small subset indeed.

More:

http://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/

With blackjack you can only bet on the player but there are a lot of +EV spots. This is why even tourists can get barred from a casino for varying their bet size too much at bj. The AP blackjack players lifeblood is how large a spread they can get down before being barred (team play, subterfuge etc.) There are no such concerns about AP's at bac.


Town Hall-

You sound like you have some B&M pit experience. Could the "other factor," be a claim on the asset? Do you have something else in mind? Owes money to a friend of Crawford's so they decide to put him through the ringer? Private casino does not care about the bad pub?

^^ great link, thank you sir!

Yeah!

This doesn't pass the logic test.

If these things occurred then it would have PREVENTED Phil Ivey from wiring 1 million pounds to Crockfords right?

conversely, it would have prevented Crockfords from returning Phil Ivey's 1 million pounds right?

This argument is reminding me of conspiracy theories. In order for a conspiracy theory to work, you have to ignore all the simple probable explanations in favor of a string of statistically improbable occurrences..

Same thing here. All the "possible" explanations just don't fit the facts.


and regards to being Rainman.

if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is possible. ~ mr. spock, vulcan

Re crawfords and legal issue, good point on the wire back. Still an injunction could have come later (after win, before commission referral, after initial press etc.) Surely Preet would not have liked to see this story flashing at him (the first stories came out before the commission referral.) Silence is interesting in this respect as we would expect anyone with clean hands to come out swinging. Also note that Stars/FTP is signing people and the biggest name is strangely absent. At min, I would think you would have to admit there is a plausible #3.

Re Rainman. Now you? I need to stop debating this or I will pull my hair out. Rainman is fictional. Even if he was real he would not play Punto because Bac can't be beat without cheating or viewing cards b4 delt. Thorpe covered this almost 50 years ago! This is NOT possible. Please stop suggesting it is. Please!

---

For all of you that are still on about this Rainman crap use this odds calculator to reflect whatever twisted hot/cold patterns you can possibly imagine and show me how it could be done. I will give you a $500 freeroll. $500 on stars or to a big bank to the first poster that can show me a shoe composition that provides an EV edge sufficient to be even remotely relevant to his win. Whoever the mod of this thread is can judge your entry.

http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/casi...alculator.html

---

The most likely explanation here is we simply have a twitchy/shady casino acting against interest. This is followed by the legal issues. Next, I suppose it is remotely conceivable the hot Asian was peeking the next card delt while PI was past-posting his bets. Not on the list: Rainman

In threory there is no doubt that it's possible to get an edge if the as long as you get good penatration with card counting. In practice it's probobly not worht doing as the edges don't come up that much.

I wasn't arguing for a Rainman scenario. I was arguing that even if you "allowed" for a Rainman scenario, it still doesn't pass the logic test.

My whole point is about passing the logic test based on facts we know.

All the statistically implausible theories that can fit the facts are so twisted and convoluted that they remind me of conspiracy theories.

-How could Phil Ivey wire 1 million pounds if his finances are pending unresolved serious legal action?
-How could Phil Ivey ACCEPT a wire of 1 million pounds if his finances are pending unresolved serious legal action?
-How could Phil Ivey be blindsided by something serious enough to demand that the government put a hold on his finances? We aren't talking a $20 bounced checked we are talking millions of pounds?
-How could he or his partner (an attractive Asian girl) cheat for him in such a way that it eludes 10 security cameras, pit bosses, floor managers, the dealer, and established procedures designed specifically to eliminate cheating???
-How could they cheat all of the above for 2 days straight?
-How could they do all of the above without touching the cards?
-How could they do all of the above using multiple dealers spread out over 2 days?
-If there was definitive proof of him cheating why did Crockfords wire him his initial deposit back?
-Phil Ivey has a history of high stakes degen gambling so this is not even an anomaly for him.

Again, the problem in this thread is that whatever excuse people come up with for Crockfords not paying just can't make it through all those facts or deductions without some serious mental contortion. Kinda like the Kennedy Magic Bullet theory...

Not saying you are arguing it, just sayin.

In life, we are never going to have 100% of all the facts for ANY situation. But what will happen, is we will get enough facts to be 99% sure of the proper course of action or what has occurred. And based on basic and simple logic and the facts we do know about, Crockfords has no case.

If they had a case, they would have kept his 1 million pounds.