They usually destroy the cards after a session like this. I wonder what happened to the cards after this session was completely over. If they don't have the cards then they are going to have a difficult time proving Ivey took advantage of flawed cards. The cameras will very likely not pick up any flaws so I am thinking the casino better have kept those cards for any chance at all in winning this.

Without the weapon it is a tough case to prosecute.

I don't think not having the actual cards would be a total disaster - you often need to establish facts without physical evidence.

If for any reason they don't have the cards they should be able to the get a manufacturer report, witness testimony etc to present a decent enough picture.

They only need to prove it on the balance of probabilities and it would be an outrageously audacious ploy for them to just invent it, so if I'm the judge I'm probably accepting that the flaw exists even in the absence of the cards (if that is indeed the argument).

Wrong. Gambling is different for everyone. Some want to maximize variance, Some want to minimize variance, some want to play some supersticious strategy that has no mathmatical logic, such as betting on red since there have been 4 blacks in a row and red is due to come, etc.

there are a ton of reason for why people gamble, I can assure simply to gain an edge or making optimal play/bet is simply not how they are or even a large majority think about it.

fair point... if he'd brought along his own deck, claimed it was his 'lucky' deck and they'd been naive enough to let him play using it then the 'deception' argument would seem more reasonable.

Noticing a flaw in the casino's deck and taking advantage of it is basically just a form of advantage play... I don't see how spotting and then taking advantage of a +ev situation that the casino has presented would necessarily constitute deception... I don't see how its much different to them having a faulty roulette wheel or being naive to card counters on their blackjack tables.

I really hope, purely on principle, that he is able to get his winnings.

I would be shocked if they don't have the cards. Ivey booked that huge win after asking to keep the same cards overnight for the next session. If they didn't keep the cards that would be one important point for Ivey.

everyone who thinks ivey did nothing wrong, what if he pulled the same stunt somehow at your homegame?


he came to crockford's in company of an expert to "play the turn"

he requested the cards be dealt prior to betting using deception because he wanted to "play the turn"

he requested good cards be turned using deception to be able to "play the turn"

he requested the shoe be kept using deception to be able to continue "playing the turn" the following day

if that is no cheating for you, then you have either screwed ethics, a lack of common sense or an absolute vacuum where your brain should be. arguments like "they agreed" or "ivey did not touch the cards" are completely irrelevant.

destroying evidence in a $8 million cheating case? That smells.

To be fair, I think that some people who play on "Superstitious strategies" believe they are gaining an edge on the game, even though it usually makes no sense whatsoever.

If you want to say Ivey was cheating than you need to look at a few things here. Did HE bring the cards? If no (which we know he didn't), does he know the dealer who selected the cards for that day and the day after? Was he allowed to look at the cards before play began? Did he discuss this method of play with anyone prior to playing (showing intent to cheat BEFORE the game began)?

Those are just a few questions that would need to be asked. It is the casinos' responsibility to make sure that no deck of cards have any sort of mistake on them that a player can use to "mark".

Also, based on your logic, counting cards is cheating, when it is in fact NOT cheating but gaining the mathematical edge over the game.

Would you carry on a game of poker if you noticed the Ace's were marked somehow for example??

In this example it would have to be three card poker against the house and the house controls the cards, it's not a valid analogy otherwise.

Hey guys is it possible to squeeze playing cards hard enough to make noticeable on the re-deal ie edge read I think they call it?


Life of Ivey 2:50
Phil claims he squeezes the cards in Bacaraat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iv8Qf5yEow

Is Phil really a over the top, superstitious weirdo or does he use this as a cover?
I've never seen him act superstitious in poker, just craps and Bacaraat.


I personally think his innocent superstitions may indeed seem odd enough for the casino to get a legal ruling. No way he cheated but he may get screwed anyways imo.

This article may be informative if the casino made some type of mistake in re-using or not shuffling the cards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fle-cards.html

No, because other players may have noticed the marks as well, and if I end up with one of the marked cards, it may be obvious to people. I would and do advise the dealer if I see a marked card in a poker game.

OTOH, if I'm playing blackjack and I notice a marked card, I'm not saying a word to anybody.

.

Sounds like the casino caught what was going on after the first night with all these weird demands etc and decided "Hey lets see what happens, if we are wrong he will lose it back, if he keeps on winning we claim cheating."

Nice little freeroll ..

This was going to be my response as well. I probably shouldn't have used poker in my analogy. It doesn't really belong with games against the house.

"Ivey started his betting at £50,000 (about $77,000) per hand, and later raised that, with the casino's blessing, to £150,000 (about $230,000) per hand."

If this is true it proves that the casino evaluated the game with both Ivey and his accomplice in it at £50,000 per hand and decided that it was +EV to bump it up to £150,000. Not to mention that they let him fire that game up 3 nights in a row. They made a conscious decision to gamble against Phil Ivey for millions of dollars at their own game and they lost. You lose. Pay up.

Could be both, but he has always been a degenerate gambler, and they can be very superstitious.

The answer to your questions are simple - don't let him alter the game. All of the things you have listed are requests by him which the casino granted. If I asked you to turn over one of your cards in the middle of a poker game and then repeatedly stacked you when you agreed, would that constitute cheating?

You seem incapable of discussing something which doesn't involve you at all without resorting to name calling and other unpleasantries‎. Not sure why you're getting your jimmies all rustled, but welcome to my ignore list.

The casino granted nothing. staff working for them agreed to do things against their rules for someone (likely) dropping thousands into the staff tip pool.

Staff are agents and representatives of the casino, it is the casino's problem if they acted against the rules not Ivey's.

Again, you don't know this. Stop presenting conjecture as fact.

You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Getting a little more into just playing word games, aren't we? I say "the casino" because at the very least, it was the agents the casino hired to manage their games that approved the changes. I hardly think a single pit boss is permitted to allow the max bet with a big player to increase 3x without approval from somewhere further up the food chain.

Any action a Casino takes happens because of what the Casino staff do, so your post is LOL.