Can someone give cliffs on why this is the case? Maths are hard

For some reason he thinks a casino would deal the cards face up and then let Ivey decide how much he wanted to bet.

Yeah the implication is obviously that the cards were dealt face down, and that Ivey is cheating by knowing what the cards were before betting (ie marking).

Hi everyone, poker dealer, part time poker player and maths graduate here. Just registered cos this story has really got me interested. Also, the gambling probability analysis on this thread is on the whole terrible.

Feeble Gimmick pretty much nailed it with his post on page 25:

If youre analysis as to Iveys probability of winning £7.3m is fundamentally different (i.e. not based on the number of hands and the binomial theorem) then please, go away and learn some probability theorem.


The key thing to Iveys % probability of winning that much is that it varies quite heavily depending on how many hands he played. As someone else pointed out, if he played 420 hands total (1 a minute) instead of 840 (2 a minute), he probability of winning over £7.3m goes down from 2.7% to 0.6%.

If he played 2000 hands - thats 1024 wins, 976 losses - his probability of winning goes up to 6.9% (I am using Feeble Gimmick's binomial calculator here).

Ultimately we don't know how many hands he played. 30s a hand sounds quite possible to me. I would guess he played somewhere between 420 and 840 hands.

Either way, the probability of this huge win is obviously small, but not suspiciously insignificant . Sounds like the casino are just being whiny little bitches. I don't see really how he could have cheated. (Note: the smaller period of playing £50k/hand won't effect the odds much)

Ultimately though, our calculations are based on little information and alot of speculation. We don't know how many hands he played. We don't know what his stakes were for each hand. We don't know wether he backed 'banco' every time of did some of the other bets available on punto banco.

I have heard that you can also 'count' on punto banco to gain a small edge, the same way you can count on shoe blackjack . Is it possible Ivey did this? Suppose he did. Card counting is not against the law, it is just against house rules. Would Crockfords have to pay him if they could prove it?

My gut feeling is just that Ivey hit a sick run and Crockfords are being little bitches. And hopefully, will lose alot of custom for behaving like this.

/rant!

^^^^^^

Song,

No one doubts the statistically possibility of a whale like Ivey winning a large sum of money with a hot streak. Even if the likelihood was FAR less then 1% that would be no reason to seize Iveys winnings. Things happen in casinos every hour of every day that are statistically unlikely both in favor of and against the house. There are many questions as to what happened here that make the win suspicious, none of them have to do with the statistical probability of Iveys final result.

1. Ivey asked to reuse the cards from the shoe "for luck" even though he was losing and in baccarat they always throw away the cards and introduce new ones.

Has he ever done that before?
Has it ever been approved before?
If so who approved it?

2. In the FIRST shoe did he ask for the first four cards to be dealt out ( face down of course!) before he made his wagers like he requested in the subsequent shoes?

If not why the request after the first shoe?
Has a casino ever done this before for him anywhere else in his life playing baccarat?
If so where and when?

3. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT....In the original shoe did the player, Ivey in this case get to handle his own cards which is customary in baccarat?

If so the casino could have fears that he marked them and thats why he wanted the first four dealt out on table after the first shoe. In baccarat a player handles 50% of the cards dealt in the entire shoe. If he has an ability to mark them he has an absolutely insurmountable edge the next time the same cards are used.

There are lots of questions that need to be answered here, this is not about just some lucky streak.

^^they reviewed the cards.

also, even if ivey himself physically turned his cards face up (which i highly doubt), he still would have had to mark them after that. Seems like the only way this could have happened would be ivey also mucking the cards, which i doubt even more.

there is zero evidence so far that this "is not about just some lucky streak".

Franxic with all due respect you must not play baccarat. It is highly unlikely Ivey DIDNT turn his cards face up. The way Bac is played is the person betting the most at the table does handle his cards, and yes does turn them face up after he looks at them. This applies to either wager, player of banker.

Ivey lost at first and then asked for the cards to be reused "for luck" even though he was losing. I am not saying he or anyone else did anything shady, but the cards could have been marked after the first use. Then the cheating and HUGE edge begins during the second round the shoe is utilized.

You say they reviewed the cards, where is the documentation of this? Also if someone could answer any of the questions ITT about the events that night we would have a much better chance of figuring out what actually took place. Me personally, I hope he gets the money. I do believe there is more to the story then the casino trying not to pay "just some lucky streak". Only time will tell.

In an attempt at clarification, I offer the following :

1. There are 2 types of baccarat games ( which use the same rules ) "Big Bac" also known as "Macau Style" where the betters can handle and "squeeze" out the cards during each hand. After the shoe is completed ( usually a shoe has 8 decks ), all the cards are thrown out for obvious reasons ( marking cards with invisible ink or lasers etc etc ) Minimum bet is usually $ 100 a hand.

The other type of baccarat is "Mini Baccarat " where the minimum bet is anywhere from $ 10 to $ 25. In Mini Bac, there are two shoes of cards, each shoe has 8 decks and when one shoe is being played, the other shoe is being shuffled in an auto shuffler machine. Usually the cards are thrown out after about 24 hours of play.

2. A little confusion as to what was meant by seeing the first 4 cards being played....initially it seemed he was seeing the first 4 cards for each hand, which is absurd, because whoever is ahead ( banker or player ) after the first 4 cards are dealt for each hand will win the hand between 65 % and 80 % of the time, and no casino will allow this.

3. Usually the casino will burn the first cards out of a shoe ( the top card is dealt and if its a 5, then 5 cards are burned etc etc, usually face up so the betters can see them, but the better is not allowed to touch the cards.

As far as what actually happen with PI, it's all speculation since none of us were there.

^^^^^^^

Tom I agree with your post. As you know bac is usually higher stakes and mini bac is usually lower. Seems impossible he was playing mini bac for these stakes, the limits are lower in mini. Also reports are he was playing Bac, not mini bac.

From article linked in op...

I think he was playing Punto Banco, which is baccarat played on a smaller table, and with only the dealer handling the cards.

So if he wins his lawsuit will Phil pay back all the FTP players that he SCAMMED when he was a PRINCIPAL in FTP?

Or do we have to listen to the Ivey nuthuggers from now on?

not gonna lie, it would be a pretty cool story if he was with some asian babe who was like the best card cheater in the universe

(2/2) and she was like, responsible for all of his poker winnings ever...

What is the version of baccarat that involves skill?

can confirm the bolded part.

i use to read the op and content of linked articles before i bother commenting. also, lots of smart and experienced gamblers commented itt, learnt a lot while following the thread.

glad i could help.

Franxic

If you google baccarat punto banco comes up in the same definition, it is a variation of baccarat. JUST LIKE IN TRADITIONAL BACCARAT THE PLAYERS HANDLE THE CARDS IN PUNTO BANCO IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. I have copied part of the definition

wikipedia punto banco.....

The full-scale version of punto banco baccarat is played at a large rounded table, similar to chemin de fer. The table is staffed by a croupier, who directs the play of the game, and two dealers who calculate tax and collect and pay bets. Six or eight decks of cards are used, normally shuffled only by the croupier and dealers. The shoe is held by one of the players, who deals the cards on the instructions of the croupier according to the tableau. On a Player win, the shoe moves either to the highest winning bettor, or to the next person in clockwise order around the table, depending on the casino's conventions. The shoe may be refused or the croupier may be requested to deal. In smaller and lower-stakes games, the cards are often handled exclusively by casino staff.


As far as the particulars in the article being 100% accurate. LOL ITS THE DAILYMAIL Read # 4

I would have never known semen is good for women and it helps fight depression if I didnt read the dailymail LOL

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-w...tory-internet/

Like I said from the outset until we know the answers to the questions I posted there is no way to know what happened.

Glad I could help

^^no reason to yell at me sir.

i have no reason to doubt the quote in question.

you obviously have, that's fine.

still no way ivey marked the cards with cameras, floor/staff watching, given he would be required to look at the card, mark it and turn it face up, all in one short, as natural as possible looking and hopefully unrecognized movement.

if you bother to read the whole (at least for me partially highly interesting) thread, you will see that a lot of (if not all) the people with great gambling knowledge think the same.

not starting a debate though, whatever floats your boat!

Franxic

Not yelling at you, and I have seen you post before you seem like a good guy. I personally doubt Ivey marked cards, highly doubt it just like most ITT. I do not even think he cheated, I do not see a guy with that much to lose doing something so crazy. However I will tell you when players have the cards in Punto Banco or Baccarat they have the cards for as long as they like. Some guys take 30 seconds to flip EACH card, it is painful to watch LOL. There is plenty time to mark a card. Also the house is not concerned with cards being marked because casinos do not reuse cards in Baccarat or Punto Banco. Cards are discarded after a single use, this is the first time I ever heard of cards being reused.

The story is just strange, reusing cards, putting the first four cards out face down before placing a bet, these actions are just really really strange.

The one in which the casino doesn't steal your money as quickly.

There is no evidence that happened. One poster who could be a complete fantasist claimed it did.

@james

it's perfectly possible that you are 100% correct, and i absolutely believe what you say about players handling the cards. i never played or watched any form of baccarat, and have not much of a clue about game protection let alone at high stakes.

i think the quote is most likely accurate though, because the article as a whole seems to be accurate. also, if they were spicing up facts, instead of "nothing to see here folks" it would probably read like "according to insider sources the beautyful oriental woman did wear no panties and is rumoured to have an infrared device planted in her eyeball to recognise the value of face down cards".

i wouldn't bet much that ivey didn't cheat, though it's not very likely in my eyes. most likely explanation to me is ivey having a lucky streak given the information we have and the discussion itt.

Headline should read: "Poker player sues casino and he's black and so is Tiger Woods"

IF Ivey cheated he would be ill advised to take this to court and have the casino produce evidence of it. IF they can show he cheated then that is a criminal offence in the UK - a high profile civil case which he lost would likely mean the authorities felt obliged to prosecute him.

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