again, the vital thing everyone needs to understand is the edge sorting technique that was used. It is a very simple technique of turning cards 180 degrees after you see their value, then, as long as there is no turn used in the shuffle, eventually every card in the deck would be identifiable as one of two values (say 0-5 & 6-9 sort for baccarat). in baccarat, I think equates to something like a 20-30% advantage to the sorter.

It would take a little while to get all the 8's and 9's turned for starters (assuming that was the strategy). And then there would be plenty of hands with no 8's or 9's, so there would be no edge in those cases. And even with knowing the locations of the 8's and 9's, there's still the randomness of the other cards. So to answer your question, it was +EV but it's not clear how much. Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if someone crunched the numbers.

It's still hard to feel bad for a gaming parlor that made the rules, oversaw the game, allowed the requests, etc. Had PI lost this sum the casino wouldn't be rushing to give his money back.

I think the speculation would be that it took a while to get all the cards set up where he could read them. You have to play to see the cards and have them turned so this involves some losing while setting the deck. He might have even needed to talk to his partner over night about the card set up and best method.

Ultimately I think they have to pay him. If all he was doing was "advantage" stuff then that's not illegal. As stated, they gave him all these concessions thinking he would end up losing a bunch of money. But when he was able to win suddenly all the casinos mistakes get put on Ivey as if he was cheating. If the casino hadn't allowed him to turn some of the cards in the deck and then retain the deck over night (2 things pretty much never done unless they think they can get a few hundred thousand out of you) he wouldn't have won. It's their mistake, now they learn and don't let it happen again.

Casinos are set up so you have no chance of winning long term and they even go as far as to heavily exploit people they know are addicted gamblers who have large bank accounts. Essentially they con people into giving up money as if there is a real chance to win so I really don't feel sorry for them that they got outsmarted. Who knows what the court will decide, could go either way.

It's true. If he'd lost they would have been laughing to themselves that none of PI tricks worked. But since they lost they are crying to the court system to bail them out of their mistake. Pretty much sounds like what the banks did to the world and they got bailed out of their mistake so the same may happen with this casino.

The story is HUGE. My dad who is 58 years old and doesn't know anything about poker whatsoever called me to ask if I had heard about this and what my opinion was. (for the record I personally believe casinos that are dumb enough to allow a known professional gambler to keep playing and run them up until they have lost several million dollars deserves to be cheated. After he won the first million or two they should have stopped the game, checked the deck, or just plain kicked him out because they suspected something. If they let him play without stopping the game they have to pay him imo.)

If the cards weren't marked, how would PI know he was playing with the same deck the next day?

IMO it's the casino's fault... it should be their number one concern they have the house advantage.. if a player found out some way to exploit the game and they allowed it to keep going on until he won millions then it's their fault..

I really don't see how PI can lose this case. He gets the casino to show all of the surveillance video. TEN! cameras have been mentioned. After many hours of play nobody spots a thing. Nobody pauses the game to check the cards and w/e else. AFTER he wins they claim cheating. He never does a thing that the casino doesn't agree to. At some point they have to own it since they allowed the game to go on. So PI's lawyer continues to ask 'have you spotted anything yet?' over and over and the answer obv will be 'no.' Ten cameras worth of 'no' not to mention the dealers and supervisors. IMR, the casino is going to look very foolish.

Sort of like Ocean's Eleven? Okay, I can see your point.

I assume though you'd feel differently if it were a poker game against opponents rather than just against the house?

source? you keep repeating this over and over, it's literally the only reasoning you make but it's wrong imo. show me where you have to touch anything or use a device to be convicted of cheating. please make it simple, i am an idiot you know. consider a dealer giving you too much money without you even knowing. in your world you can keep the money? gtfo. consider someone who suggests to an old lady that he is her grandchild. she hands him money deliberately. her fault, sure.

yeah, and the casino ****ed up, true. show me one case where a cheating-victim did not make a mistake which was exploited by the cheater. what's the difference here?

ivey decepted the casino to interfere with the natural odds of the game. did he or did he not? please explain how this is fair and straight behaviour.

granted, i am an idiot, but not because i have a certain view on these things, more because i even argue with people like you who keep repeating their drivel without any reasoning whatsoever.

the more reasoning you get the more you spout non-sensical arguments.

Cite me just one case where someone has been convicted, not accused, of cheating because they simply LOOKED AT THE BACK OF THE CARDS!

And the question that solves it all, which you or no one else seems to be able to answer: If PI decepted the casino, as you insist, why wasn't he arrested and put in jail?

And yes I have been overpaid at the cage and tables and have given the money back to the employee. Way different than winning a bet using house rules.

this post is kind of embarrassing tbh

not sure how its relevant in the least to the subject matter ITT

cool story almost

Good and sad analogy. #banks

The argument that the casino did not have Phil Ivey arrested has no merit whatsoever. When a case of cheating or potential cheating involves such subtly and nuance the casino is not going to fly off the handle and arrest anyone. Never mind a high profile person like Ivey with resources to defend himself AND access to the media to make the casino look really bad. Getting a CRIMINAL conviction is infinitely harder then winning a civil case. The casino lawyers are aware of this and losing a criminal case would potentially open them up to major legal liabilities. The casino feels he cheated or angled the house and that they have enough evidence to prove it. That is why they are willing to take the current bad press. The press will not be as bad if they win, it of course will get worse if they lose.
Most people think Ivey wins this case, I do not think he does. Casinos have so many rules and conditions with wide ranging interpretations in place to thwart not only cheating but all the gray areas we poker players call angle shots. I believe one of these regulations will come into play and Ivey will lose the case.

FWIW if Annie duke, Greg Pierson, or Russ Hamilton did exactly what Ivey did 80% of the Ivey supporters ITT would be backing the casino. Most of these people would also be trying to send the casino info about Duke, Pierson, or Hamilton, in order to help the casinos case. I also think the shots franxic is taking ITT are unwarranted. He has stated his opinion in a very clear and intelligent manner. When another poster makes a definitive statement about gaming laws or regulations he just asks for a source, which is never provided. The truth is none of us KNOW whats going to happen. None of us even KNOW what either side was really up to. We may never know, but we will find out who wins the court battle.

We're most likely not talking about a bad batch of cards here (i.e. defective cards), we're talking about poorly designed cards. Cards that were just like all the other cards used at the casino. It's not that uncommon for casinos to have cards that look slightly different depending on the orientation.

1- He is not being "convicted of cheating". The casino is denying payment of his "winnings" at this point.

2- He did not "simply look at the back of the cards". He and his companion did a lot more than that.

If it is so easy to do, why did he need the Asian Lady for help?

Just regarding your first statements...

I don't believe for one second a casino is going to give back the accused cheater his initial mil and refuse to pay the winnings based on the idea that they believe he was cheating. I don't care who it is that is being accused. Cheating in casinos is never taken lightly, so yes, the idea that they did not arrest him or have him arrested right then and there, holds water. It's ****ing odd IMO.

Your posts are interesting and my opinion is that Ivey will have difficulty prevailing, but that a settlement will be reached. However, the casino does seem to have an issue with edge sorting.

1- Are the casino personnel aware of this technique.
2- Did they allow it to continue when discovered?

If the answer is yes to both, then they may have "ammended" the "contract" that exists between the casino and the player and Ivey should prevail. The technique seems to be well known to security personnel, so they have a problem with #1. There were enough eyes on Ivey that it strains credibility for the casino to claim that they were unaware of what he was doing and would have stopped him. If yes on 1 and 2, Ivey's position could be that, "Yes, I was edge counting and they knew it and allowed it because they thought they could bust me anyway". The casino has a problem.

Also, the companion had to be in the UK version of The Griffin Black Book. All the evidence that is being referenced against Ivey (card rotation, bet after shoe, saving deck for next day, companion) is supporting evidence that the casino knew damn well what he was doing. Heck, they even had an evening (and a change of shifts/personnel) to consider it and discuss it. If they did, their case would seem to fall apart. They knew what he was doing, discussed it, and allowed it to continue on the belief that they still had the edge.

This harkens back to the early days of Thorpe and card counting on BJ. Casinos rolled out the red carpet for "card counters" in the early days, because there were a lot of bad ones and the casino made $. Card counters were not a problem. Good ones were! And there were methods to thwart good card counters and maintain the house edge- shuffling after a few hands, changing rules in game on doubling down, splitting, etc

Such a long thread but it seems obvious to me the casino has no case here. They make a living off cheating people and it should be their #1 priority to make sure their cards are not in any way readable. Ivey using that edge is not what I would call cheating if the casino willingly used the cards.

The fact that he was making all of the odd requests and then requested stipulations be maintained overnight should have been MORE than enough for the casino to evaluate what was going on and then still allowed the game to continue the next day. Allowing him to start playing with all the stipulations seems they were complicit in altering the contract IMO.

That's the thing tho, they didn't. They unknowingly used cards that gave Ivey an edge they were unaware of. There is 0% a big casino would willingly put themselves in a situation that can give them this bad publicity unless they think they have a case. The losses from publicity this bad could potentially be worth a lot more than 7.3m and I think it's pretty likely Ivey did something scummy here based on that.

Regardless of what you think of it, casinos make money from letting people play -EV games against them. It's a choice and they don't force anyone to do it. This exploit however forces the casino the play an -EV game against the player without them knowing about it and I think a good solution would be to return Ivey's stake and void all his profits.

I think people are blinded by all this because the alleged cheater is the king of poker

"You snooze you lose" is not a valid legal argument here. There's a law on the books in England specifically governing what happened here. It's broad and was put on the books just for situations like this.

OK, like what?