dno if this link has been posted yet, but simple breakdown here. Really intrigued as to what happened.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pper-hand.html

Settlement will already have been entertained - they have to follow pre-action protocol before issuing proceedings, which is essentially each party laying out their case to each other. Offers are always made at this point on a commercial basis but given that liability is disputed in its entirety, and the value being so high, they will be a long way apart. So I expect it to go to hearing until such time as one party massively changes their position.

Wrt costs, costs go to the winning side, but there is guidance on how much will be awarded. Courts will generally only award up to £317 an hour for the firm Ivey has instructed (it's done by location), and you generally only get about 60-70% of the hours if you win.

The QC will have a daily rate of around £3000-£4000 but likely be used sparingly until it reaches court.

It's interesting about the possible changes to normal protocol in dealing cards - the casino will clearly be underwritten for cheating but if that's the angle they're going for, and they didn't follow normal procedure, then their coverage may have been declined, meaning they have a lot more to lose.

Slightly different rules over here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...encenews.crime

Cheating at roulette apparently using a mobile phone would be a jail sentence in Nevada but didn't actually constitute a criminal offence over here.

I can't see how Ivey is at fault if there isn't any collusion, he's not touched the cards and the casino apparently agreed to his request. Its up to them what cards they use and they've agreed to a slight change in the game... he's beaten them fairly at the game they've agreed to offer.

Unless there is more to it then it seems like a bad idea on the part of Crockfords to withhold the money... Its not going to look good when he sues them for the full amount + costs + interest at 8% and they end up with further bad publicity over how they tried to withhold payment on a large win.

He's worth over 100m...

Why shouldn't he be paid he NOTHING to do with the running of FTP if nike went broke you expect other sports stars to return their sponsorships???

That would be my position also but my point was is why examine the shoe, question the dealers and all of the rest if they'd actually done the ridiculous things mentioned? There's no point in going beyond that if they think they've been cheated, it's obvious that that's how it would be done and I simply can't imagine that any casino would comply w/ those sorts of requests.

This old Guardian piece is from 2004. The 2005 Gambling Act makes cheating at any gambling a criminal offence in the UK, max penalty 2 years in gaol. In the UK you don't even have to make any money, all you have to do is try to cheat.

Gambling Act does not cover taking advantage of a casino's mistake, i.e. would not cover the current presumed scenario of the cards being manufactured improperly.

In any event, in the minutely likely circumstance of the police showing any interest whatsoever, Ivey just decides not to come to the UK anymore, I'm sure he'll survive. It's really not worthy of any consideration itt.

Oh it covers this, no doubt. There is a lack of case law as so few have been prosecuted but the law is very broad, just as the casinos asked for. It is so broad that deliberately bowling a no ball in cricket has led to gaol time.

The police would likely ignore this most of the time but once it starts getting in the Mail it becomes high profile. The casino will no doubt be reporting it as a crime for multi millions so they pretty much have to investigate.

Ultimately it would be down to a jury to decide if it is cheating, with this as the law:

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

Many jockeys and other racehorse connections (including a well known soccer player) have been disciplined by the BHA for laying horses that they knew wouldn't win on betting exchanges and none of them have had any criminal action taken.

if a player insists on a certain deck AND requests to have certain (good) cards be turned 180° wouldn't be the first thought of any semi-competent croupier/floor to check the deck?

one would think advantage play wouldn't be that easily done. i can hardly imagine myself watching this for longer than 15 minutes without getting it, let alone someone who is even remotely qualified to supervise a high stakes game.

also, if ivey flew to london to meet with an advantage player to play at crockford's, how big is the chance he knew about the decks being screwed? if story is true, then it seems more than likely that ivey specifically targeted crockford's for a reason.

Yep. This is a quote from a letter from the Gambling Commission to me which was as you will see about online cheating at poker but also explained their attitude to this offence:

Now once it is in the Mail, just as when the no ball was on the front page of the NoW it becomes a major case.

You are right though that IMHO the UKGC makes far too little use of its powers under Section 42. IMHO that trainer with his doped horses should be prosecuted not banned from racing for 8 years and similarly those disciplined by the BHA should face the courts too. Unfortunately the UKGC is a bit too hands off and needs pushing to act.

In this case, the publicity, high profile and the complaint by the casino might just lead to action.

In the defence of the UKGC such prosecutions are expensive and they are not really resourced to prosecute/investigate them all, where the sporting authorities have already dished out punishments they tend to let it slide - it is still an offence though. Essentially the UKGC are deciding that it is not in the public interest to prosecute when a punishment has already been dished out. Now Ivey has already had his stake back, he has faced no sanction by any sporting body so there is less justification to ignore a potential criminal offence.

http://apheat.net/2013/05/11/phil-iv...rat/#more-3139

Most casinos in the United States are protected by laws barring players doing anything to affect the natural odds of a game. When he was playing with a girl barred from other casinos that was the clue it wasn't a win on the square.

Richas is the self appointed authority on the gaming act. To bad his wild interpretations have such little correlation to case history.

Not a big fan of Ivey but, how does alledgedly using a flaw/fault made by the casino qualify as non payment?
This is so absurd, like house edge isn't big enough. There is no honour amongst thieves so I really don't feel bad for him, but he will be paid. No doubt.

If the allegations are true, he won't be paid. It's like that glitch that some guys discovered in a video poker machine and now they're being prosecuted for fraud. "It's not our fault that the machine was paying out too much money after we pressed some buttons on it!" You really think the "Hey it's not my fault that the casino used faulty cards that I took advantage of it" defense will work? I mean maybe he could get off on some technicality with a good lawyer and bad defense but I'm sure the anti-fraud/cheating law there covers this.

It's only cheating when you interfere with the outcome of the game. Ivey did not. What Ivey did is somewhat comparable to hole-carding, which is when the dealer inadvertently exposes a card to you and you take advantage of that information. This has been tested in US courts in numerous states, and it has been found completely legal. In the UK you have the famous roulette case, where a group of players used a laser to measure the speed of the ball and predict where the ball would fall. The players won the the case and walked with the money, 7 figures.

I would be very suprised if the casino isn't forced to pay.

Yes, I do.

The thing is that since this law hasn't appeared in court (much? at all?) who knows how the court will rule. It could be a long drawn out case.

At the time of the laser measuring in England there were no laws making that illegal. There are now. As far as edge sorting in the United States it is still a gray area neither legal or illegal. If and when it goes before a court it will be decided. At present it is easy for a casinos security department to counter it. Hole carding and even frontloading signals from behind to a confederate on the table in play has been ruled legal. With edge sorting you are making a physical effort to change the inherent edge on a game. There is a big difference between that and making use of the information a weak dealer makes available to you during the course of a game. Watching an automatic shuffling machine put marks on cards and then making use of that information is not illegal. Marking the cards yourself is. Courts almost always rule in favor of casinos because it is a source of income from taxes. That is what usually governs their decisions, not facts.

And I doubt Ivey gets a cent and will end up barred from all English casinos.

Holy ****balls this is a new kind of stupignorance.

If you had a clue what you were talking about in the first place (which you don't) you could remind yourself of the separation of powers and how the judiciary are independent of the legislature and executive - taxes have no bearing whatsoever on court decisions, civil or criminal. There isn't even anecdotal evidence of this happening nor is there any incentive for judges to do so.

Ivey didn't touch the cards so could not have sorted them.

No and no.
There will not be a jury.
There will be 3 high court judges defining "cheating" and setting presedence from that. I am certain they will rule in favour of Ivey. This is a very clear case based on what details known and them being correct.

How did Ivey "mark the cards himself"? Please don't use an obscure use of the word "mark", as in "I marked him as an honest man". ...................b

it's no deception when ivey requests something because he "is superstitious" when in reality the sole purpose of the request was to allow him making advantage plays?

i guess you having good cards turned to be able to recognize them would qualify as "you interfer[ing] with the outcome of the game", no?

I am amazed how many people think this is a slam dunk for Ivey, legally and ethically. I really think he is a pretty significant long shot here. I don't really have a dog in this fight, a casino VS a FTP boss is not exactly a fight i care all that much about in respect to who wins . I am anxious to see how it plays out though .