Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-14-2017, 11:20 AM   #3276
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert_utk View Post
Did not Ivey have to repay his winnings in the USA in a similar case? Or was that a figment of my imajination?
Yes. Some details here. https://www.pokernews.com/news/2016/...gata-26638.htm

Also note that they paid him his winnings and took him to court afterwards.

This begs the question that the UK court ruling may have set a precedent whereby any UK casino can refuse to pay out based purely on suspicion or based on nothing other than a player won, when the player may well have won through pure blind luck.

Naturally, most players would not have the wherewithal or stomach to take the casino to court and especially if the sum involved was lower than or a high percentage of the legal costs involved.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 11:20 AM   #3277
davmcg
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,083
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

@Sage Donkey pretty sure that advantage play blackjack counting was fully understood by the judges from the transcripts of the various court proceedings.

Also there was nothing earth shattering about refusing to pay out. They still have to justify it in court.
davmcg is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 11:30 AM   #3278
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by davmcg View Post
@Sage Donkey pretty sure that advantage play blackjack counting was fully understood by the judges from the transcripts of the various court proceedings.
Okay. I haven't read the transcripts.

Part of the case should have been about the lure of a casino being the physical nature of games (i.e. results are not determined by a digital RNG).

Therefore players are attracted by their belief that they can either detect outcomes (e.g. watching the roulette ball), can feel something will happen (gut feel), or bet according to previous results.

Indeed the casino encourage this by displaying the marquee and offering cards and pencils to record previous roulette and baccarat results.

This goes to the core of how they attract players like Phil Ivey.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 01:20 PM   #3279
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 541
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812 View Post

Let's say Ivey realizes that a prior player introduced marked cards into the game and could read the marks to obtain his edge and he knows no one else is aware of the markings. He had absolutely nothing to do with the prior player. If he uses the marks to play and win, was he cheating?
If the person playing the game had absolutely nothing to do with the marking of the cards and no connection whatsoever with whomever had marked the cards originally and picks up the marks purely on their own while playing or observing the game then this conduct would NOT be cheating. This would present a situation where it would be the responsibility of the Casino to protect itself.

This is not much different from roulette bias, wherein some gamblers have been known to track roulette wheels looking for wheels that may be balanced incorrectly and yield predictable, non-random results. This is also not cheating.
1938ford is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 01:32 PM   #3280
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
If the person playing the game had absolutely nothing to do with the marking of the cards and no connection whatsoever with whomever had marked the cards originally and picks up the marks purely on their own while playing or observing the game then this conduct would NOT be cheating. This would present a situation where it would be the responsibility of the Casino to protect itself.

This is not much different from roulette bias, wherein some gamblers have been known to track roulette wheels looking for wheels that may be balanced incorrectly and yield predictable, non-random results. This is also not cheating.
I believe that Phil Ivey had ~25% equity in the case (an award of ~1.8M + costs). He/his lawyers miscalculated in trying to go for 100%.

Had they proven the casino/casinos generally (pure conjecture by me) have monetary risk/game control procedures to limit stakes, ban players, pay out winnings but send the player on their way, when observing a player using physical skills (roulette ball tracking/card counting/skillful craps dice throwing) to gain a profit, then this would demonstrate that they applied different standards of treatment to Phil Ivey so should be held partly culpable/partly liable for their own losses.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 01:36 PM   #3281
whosnext
Pooh-Bah
 
whosnext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,983
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
If the person playing the game had absolutely nothing to do with the marking of the cards and no connection whatsoever with whomever had marked the cards originally and picks up the marks purely on their own while playing or observing the game then this conduct would NOT be cheating. This would present a situation where it would be the responsibility of the Casino to protect itself.
Ah, so Ivey and Sun should have employed a "Strangers on a Train" scheme.
whosnext is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:08 PM   #3282
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 541
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext View Post
Ah, so Ivey and Sun should have employed a "Strangers on a Train" scheme.
No, Ivey should have played the game straight up like everybody is expected to do. My answer to the question above is predicated upon the fact that the player legitimately had zero knowledge of the circumstances surrounding how the cards had been previously marked and that his advantage gained came solely from his own observations of the game. This would not be the case if the player knew of the marked cards from some other source, such as the person that had actually marked the cards in the first place.
1938ford is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:29 PM   #3283
whosnext
Pooh-Bah
 
whosnext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,983
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext View Post
Ah, so Ivey and Sun should have employed a "Strangers on a Train" scheme.
It was a joke, a bad feeble joke.

Trying to lighten the mood of this thread after a certain poster (DoOrDoNot) has carpet-bombed the thread with endless and tiresome posts espousing his views against casinos, judges, court rulings, and other posters and in unwavering support of Ivey's edge-sorting scheme.
whosnext is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:38 PM   #3284
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 541
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext View Post
It was a joke, a bad feeble joke.

Trying to lighten the mood of this thread after a certain poster (DoOrDoNot) has carpet-bombed the thread with endless and tiresome posts espousing his views against casinos, judges, court rulings, and other posters and in unwavering support of Ivey's edge-sorting scheme.
I got that....but wasn't sure "some" of the others reading ITT would! But, I'm sure the Strangers on a Train reference would be lost on them anyway. I don't think they get out much.
1938ford is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:54 PM   #3285
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext View Post
It was a joke, a bad feeble joke.

Trying to lighten the mood of this thread after a certain poster (DoOrDoNot) has carpet-bombed the thread with endless and tiresome posts espousing his views against casinos, judges, court rulings, and other posters and in unwavering support of Ivey's edge-sorting scheme.
The US/UK rulings give Casinos immunity from their operational error losses. In both cases I believe Phil Ivey was due partial payment and was hard done by, being besmirched.

Other gaming parallels where the courts don't afford the operator a Get Out Of Jail Free Card are customers arbitraging slightly wrong (2% to 5%) spread betting sports prices, and peer-to-peer betting platforms seeding their own markets, again with slightly incorrect prices.

Casinos offer a physical gaming experience allowing the player to render some of the expected probabilities imperfect so should take some of the resultant losses on the chin.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 03:04 PM   #3286
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 541
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey View Post
The US/UK rulings give Casinos immunity from their operational error losses. In both cases I believe Phil Ivey was due partial payment and was hard done by, being besmirched.

Other gaming parallels where the courts don't afford the operator a Get Out Of Jail Free Card are customers arbitraging slightly wrong (2% to 5%) spread betting sports prices, and peer-to-peer betting platforms seeding their own markets, again with slightly incorrect prices.

Casinos offer a physical gaming experience allowing the player to render some of the expected probabilities imperfect so should take some of the resultant losses on the chin.
and Whosnext it seems I might have been correct. Sigh......
1938ford is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 03:27 PM   #3287
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
and Whosnext it seems I might have been correct. Sigh......
I predict that if a mis-manufactured deck that contained natural markings that required no request from a player to be rotated, resulted in a player spotting the markings and going on a huge winning run, that the casino would go crying to the courts again and the courts would find in the casino's favour.

My reasoning is that the courts have a seemingly dogmatic view that physical casino games have absolute pre-defined probabilities unaffected by human involvement and that the live casino business is not reliant on players thinking/hoping/believing that they can in some way predict or affect the outcomes.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 04:11 PM   #3288
falldown
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,708
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
I got that....but wasn't sure "some" of the others reading ITT would! But, I'm sure the Strangers on a Train reference would be lost on them anyway. I don't think they get out much.
I think people staying in and, in 2017, knowing a premise from a movie from 1951 would be fairly strongly correlated.
falldown is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 04:19 PM   #3289
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 541
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey View Post
I predict that if a mis-manufactured deck that contained natural markings that required no request from a player to be rotated, resulted in a player spotting the markings and going on a huge winning run, that the casino would go crying to the courts again and the courts would find in the casino's favour.

My reasoning is that the courts have a seemingly dogmatic view that physical casino games have absolute pre-defined probabilities unaffected by human involvement and that the live casino business is not reliant on players thinking/hoping/believing that they can in some way predict or affect the outcomes.
And I predict you would be wrong. In your example the casino would have no cause for action against the player. They may have recourse against the card manufacturer, but the player would be in the clear.

Casino games are all based on mathematical probabilities and are all designed to provide the casinos with a mathematical advantage. Some games have a bigger edge for the casino than others. There are some games, blackjack for one, where a player may be able to reduce the casinos advantage by employing mathematics, observational skills and betting strategies. This is all understood by the casino and is an inherent part of the game as offered. The casino employs techniques to mitigate a player's ability to reduce the odds by activities, such as card counting in blackjack, by shuffling the deck more often, cutting the deck deeper after shuffle and using shoes with multiple decks. In Nevada, casinos are allowed to deny card counters the opportunity to play in their games based upon a Nevada state law.

Casinos are selling patrons entertainment in the form of gambling and they do so with the expectation of making a profit, as any merchant selling anything might reasonably expect. Nobody is in business to lose money. The object of running a casino is to make money for its owners and investors. A casino however, offers patrons the opportunity to win money with the product it sells. People that play casino games accept the fact they are supposed to lose, or at least someone is supposed to lose. They just hope its not them. Casinos expect they will have winners and losers, the games would not survive if nobody ever won, but they also know that the math guarantees them a profit over the long term, consequently they have an inherent self interest in protecting those mathematical advantages and employ an entire security division within each operation to do so. Sometimes however, the cheaters are better than the watchers. Crockford's was lucky. They caught on before they paid out any money to Ivey, the Borgata was not so fortunate.
1938ford is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 04:37 PM   #3290
1938ford
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 541
Smile Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by falldown View Post
I think people staying in and, in 2017, knowing a premise from a movie from 1951 would be fairly strongly correlated.
I get what you're saying. You think it might have been more topical had whosnext's reference been to employing the "Throw Momma from the Train" defense? Nah....doesn't work for me.

The original movie is a Hitchcock classic and should be watched, even by young people. The book was very good as well.
1938ford is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:03 PM   #3291
Richas
veteran
 
Richas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the learning curve
Posts: 3,429
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
The possibility to lose, absolutely. If you gain an advantage that guarantees you win, then I would say that is cheating. If you gain a 6% edge, I wouldn't necessarily call that cheating.

You are seriously delusional if you actually believe that and are worthy of no further effort to try to explain the LAW as it applies in this case..
In the UK it matters not a jot if you win or lose when you cheat. this is the law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42

Quote:
42 Cheating

(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)cheats at gambling, or
(b)does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats—
(a)improves his chances of winning anything, or
(b)wins anything.

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—
(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(5)In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.
(6)Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c. 109) (winning by cheating) shall cease to have effect.
Richas is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:11 PM   #3292
Richas
veteran
 
Richas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the learning curve
Posts: 3,429
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey View Post
I don't agree with all of DoOrDoNot's points, however if advantage playing was presented and explained to the court as a concept it could have carried a lot of weight. BlackJack card counting is an example, whereby the house's edge can be negated or overtaken by an inherent "defect" in the game.

Similarly, skillful watching of a roulette ball's starting position, path and speed can potentially gain the player a small probability advantage.

Educating the judges that house edges are not guaranteed and there was a pre-existing range of advantage playing skills for casino games may have swayed the judgement.
You haven't read the judgement have you? They dealt with "advantage play" with a full understanding of the concept.
Richas is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:16 PM   #3293
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1938ford View Post
And I predict you would be wrong. In your example the casino would have no cause for action against the player. They may have recourse against the card manufacturer, but the player would be in the clear.

If the card manufacturer is heavily in business debt or only has a small ne worth + assets my belief is that they will go after the player and I feel they would anyway.

Casino games are all based on mathematical probabilities and are all designed to provide the casinos with a mathematical advantage.
Some games have a bigger edge for the casino than others. There are some games, blackjack for one, where a player may be able to reduce the casinos advantage by employing mathematics, observational skills and betting strategies. This is all understood by the casino and is an inherent part of the game as offered. The casino employs techniques to mitigate a player's ability to reduce the odds by activities, such as card counting in blackjack, by shuffling the deck more often, cutting the deck deeper after shuffle and using shoes with multiple decks. In Nevada, casinos are allowed to deny card counters the opportunity to play in their games based upon a Nevada state law.

Casinos are selling patrons entertainment in the form of gambling and they do so with the expectation of making a profit, as any merchant selling anything might reasonably expect. Nobody is in business to lose money. The object of running a casino is to make money for its owners and investors. A casino however, offers patrons the opportunity to win money with the product it sells. People that play casino games accept the fact they are supposed to lose, or at least someone is supposed to lose. They just hope its not them. Casinos expect they will have winners and losers, the games would not survive if nobody ever won, but they also know that the math guarantees them a profit over the long term, consequently they have an inherent self interest in protecting those mathematical advantages and employ an entire security division within each operation to do so. Sometimes however, the cheaters are better than the watchers. Crockford's was lucky. They caught on before they paid out any money to Ivey, the Borgata was not so fortunate.
The second section of your piece that I've bolded contradicts the first section I've bolded and proves the casino are fully aware that in physical casino games a player can distort the probabilities. It's therefore a known factor and business risk that they live with and accept.

And you haven't covered ball tracking or people who practice rolling dice on their private craps tables.

I also predict that if the card manufacturer has a net worth and assets well below the losses incurred that the casino would go after the player, and would likely go after the player anyway.

Last edited by SageDonkey; 11-14-2017 at 05:31 PM.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:28 PM   #3294
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richas View Post
You haven't read the judgement have you? They dealt with "advantage play" with a full understanding of the concept.
I had better read the full judgement when I get time. To get a total understanding of the case and any possible deficiencies or mistakes in Phil Ivey's legal team's strategy or the points they made, one would also need to see every shred of detail of the presentations that were made to the court by both sides.

It is one thing for the judges to understand the concept of advantage playing, but another thing to persuade them that it is an integral part of why many people arrive to play in the casino in the first place.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:53 PM   #3295
Rich Checkmaker
old hand
 
Rich Checkmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,452
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

strangers ona train. a hitcock movie where two strangers meet on a train and discuss how they want to murder their wives but know theyd be caught so they agree to kill each others spouses. never seen the movie im 31 and get the reference for some context people aren't all as dumb as you'd expect.
Rich Checkmaker is offline  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:16 AM   #3296
Howard Beale
Formerly red
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Doing what my dog wants
Posts: 20,159
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey View Post
I predict that if a mis-manufactured deck that contained natural markings that required no request from a player to be rotated, resulted in a player spotting the markings and going on a huge winning run, that the casino would go crying to the courts again and the courts would find in the casino's favour.


The casino would have to prove that a player spotted the markings which I think is impossible absent an admission.
Howard Beale is offline  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:30 AM   #3297
SageDonkey
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,076
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
The casino would have to prove that a player spotted the markings which I think is impossible absent an admission.
Possible proof could be the circumstantial evidence of if the player achieved positive results well outside of expected probabilities over a decent sample size + if any significant alteration of stake sizes happening coincides with a >50% win rate in the corresponding hands + if abnormal eye movement paying attention to the shoe/the table is detected on camera footage.
SageDonkey is offline  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:46 AM   #3298
Howard Beale
Formerly red
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Doing what my dog wants
Posts: 20,159
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey View Post
Possible proof could be the circumstantial evidence of if the player achieved positive results well outside of expected probabilities over a decent sample size + if any significant alteration of stake sizes happening coincides with a >50% win rate in the corresponding hands + if abnormal eye movement paying attention to the shoe/the table is detected on camera footage.
That's a stretch. What's the court to say about a player who is just making bets and whose eye wobbles? NM the math, the whole idea of gambling on the player's side is to get lucky. Even those dumb-ass UK judges have got to get that right.
Howard Beale is offline  
Old 11-15-2017, 01:14 AM   #3299
DoOrDoNot
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,230
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
The people, through the system of creating laws determine what kinds of conduct are acceptable. The courts enforce those laws.

I mean I know there are people on earth who actually believe that the law=ethical behavior in totality but just lol.


Quote:
Do they? Quoting the judgement: "it would be bad to define cheating (sic)."
The court says this because cheating comes in many different shapes and sizes and is difficult to neatly package into a single box.
In other words, it gives them carte blanche to define it however they want and get the best judgement possible for their casino cronies.

Quote:
Thus, the very broad definition I gave you. BTW, it was you that wanted the definition not the court. They had more than enough evidence in front of them to determine that Ivey cheated.
How can you determine someone cheated without a definition of what cheating is? Your posts are getting more and more incoherent.





Quote:
Ivey marked the deck of cards by causing them to be manipulated.
Nope. Sorting and marking are two different things, and he did neither. The casino sorted the totally legal and agreed upon cards at his request.

Quote:
That is the LEGAL conclusion and opinion of every judge that has heard this case. That is the level of deceitful conduct that rises to cheating. Your examples are an inherent part of the games offered and do not rise to the level of cheating. This is not a difficult concept to come to terms with.
Sorting and shuffling the cards is an inherent part of any card game, and Iveys companion asked to sort the cards based on how she wanted them sorted, and the casino agreed to it. This means they are partially liable for the result.



Quote:
It may be of continuing importance to you, but the courts all heard that argument and rejected it.
Guess that makes it ok in your mind. No one is arguing that this is what happened. What we are arguing is if it should have happened.

Quote:
They found that Ivey's manipulation of the employee was no different than had used a tool of his own to mark the cards.
Ok, well that's ****ing retarded.

Quote:
You are going to have to get over your one track thought process here and deal with the LEGAL concept the courts used to make this determination.
If anyone has a narrow mind here it's you. You obviously don't have the capacity to glean the forest from the trees of what happened in the legal sense from one judges pretty weird opinion and what actually happened in reality, as well as the fact that just because something is written in law means that it corresponds to reality. Anyone who believes this is a very credulous and naive person.


Quote:
You are seriously delusional if you actually believe that and are worthy of no further effort to try to explain the LAW as it applies in this case.
I don't particularly give a **** what the law says. If it comports with my morality, or I'm forced by threat of violence, I follow it. If it doesn't, I don't. That goes for pretty much every reasonable person on earth as well.


Quote:
The whole case did not hinge on any such thing, or any single thing, but you are correct, the court heard the EVIDENCE associated with Ivey's scheme and rejected his contention that his conduct was somehow excused by the conduct of the casino and its employees. You can continue to shout from the mountain top, but that has ship sailed.
You're just on a completely different level than the discussions taking place in this thread. I have no ability whatsoever to change the law, or change the decision, and neither does anyone else in this thread. We are discussing it from a philosophical perspective.




Quote:
Dude, I don't even know what to say about this sentence,
but it is becoming obvious that drugs are part of your problem, I'm just not sure if it's too many or not enough.
I don't take drugs very often; it was just an example. Nice try at shaming and ad hominem though...everyone can see how petty and defensive you are now.



Quote:
Ahhh, but then there's the rub. The judges that heard this case are experts in law. Maybe you should give it a rest and let the adults play now?
Yet another snide comment from a credulous nitwit.



Quote:
Now you get it. The laws do change. WE, the people have the power to change them.
Ehhh, no we don't.

Quote:
If enough people believe that Ivey's conduct should have been legal then those people can get to work on changing the law.
Lol. By electing non casino dick sucking representatives I suppose? Good lord you are naive.
DoOrDoNot is offline  
Old 11-15-2017, 01:19 AM   #3300
DoOrDoNot
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,230
Re: Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. L

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812 View Post
So, if I mark the aces in a deck of cards, use the marking to determine the opposing player has 2 aces, play the game and lose because he hits a four card flush, i am not cheating? Or he has one ace, which i know because of the marking, but hits a straight with his kicker, I am not cheating? Ludicrous!

Let's say Ivey realizes that a prior player introduced marked cards into the game and could read the marks to obtain his edge and he knows no one else is aware of the markings. He had absolutely nothing to do with the prior player. If he uses the marks to play and win, was he cheating?
Like I said, gaining a player edge doesn't necessarily mean he is cheating. In your example with blatant, one-sided marking I would say that is cheating. I know it's hard to read whole sentences and the words contained within them that are caveats, but try at least.
DoOrDoNot is offline  

Closed Thread
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online