You don't really know what this is about do you?

Correct, and he only used information they provided to him.

Ivey will win.

not followed it really tbh just saw the thread about the upcoming doc and had a quick look here. as far as I knew it was about what I said about him edge sorting (faulty cards). one casino suing for money back, ivey suing one for money saying he won fairly. what else is it about?

will not be easy for ivey

LOL @ the linked headline "Woman 'helped Tiger Woods of poker to cheat London casino out of £7.7million"

someone reads NVG!

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29476942

90% Crockfords to win vs Ivey
65% Ivey to win vs Borgata

Are you kidding me? What did Ivey DO to create the exploit? He made a REQUEST to the casino. A request that could have been denied, but they didn't. The casino agreed to the request. How can you see this any other way? Since when is making a request illegal? The casino doesn't get to take a whale's action, even at a slight underdog, and then claim the game was unfair because they ended up losing, this is BS.

He could have requested they transfer all of the companies money into his bank account. If they AGREE to it, doesn't mean he robbed their bank!

Its the level of deceit not who physically turned the card that makes it a con, invalidating the contract...or not...the judge will decide.

if the UK is corrupt as the movies make it seem then ivey has no chance

much research went into this conclusion

?

Do you have a vested interest in this

No. How could I?

I have a personal preference for getting the UKGC to prosecute poker cheats but whether Genting's take a £7m hit or not makes no odds to me.

I do have a charity bet on the outcome but the only difference is whether the Red Cross or DEC get the money and whether I make the donation or someone else. Just a fun prop bet for the sweat.

quote from Ivey - (BBC article) seems pretty reasonable

I'm really not seeing the 'cheating' angle still - putting on some facade/pretending to have superstitions in itself doesn't affect anything directly - it's simply the request to play the game a certain way that did - that request was made/considered by management and agreed upon... I don't think he's obliged to reveal his 'edge' or reasoning for requesting it nor do I see how it is deceitful.

Two financial institutions negotiating a structured product might want particular features etc.. they don't have to declare that one of them has a significant edge because them - the deal itself is transparent and if one side isn't sophisticated enough to spot where they're giving up a large edge then they lose out.

The photo in that bbc article is perfect for photoshop with that huge smile.. Somebody?

I'm sorry but i don't see how he is cheating! he seen something in the cards and used it to win,

I use to work in casino, and the one thing we did before the doors opened was to check the cards once we open a new deck, and then the pit boss would check them as well,

for a game like this the cards should have been check & check and then check for a 3rd time before being put in the game, if they was not then they only have them self's to blame, not only that they should not break there own rules for 1 player, rules are in place to stop things like this.....

if the courts side with the casino, whats stopping the casinos taking the next big winner to court so they dont have to pay out, and use a deck just like the ones in this game, (and saying well he must have cheated!?)

Ivey has to win, to stop the flood gates opening.

If we accept (as it seems obvious) that Ivey was visiting casinos with this older Asian woman (a known cheat) for the sole purpose of engaging in this activity and if it were shown that there was a connection between this woman and someone inside the manufacturer of the cards or to casino staff involved in the games that Ivey played, would the defenders in this thread then conclude that he was cheating and should not be paid?

For the umpteenth time. The issue isn't the cards. The issue is that Ivey persuaded the dealer to arrange the cards, by claiming that he was superstitious, so that he could see if the first card to be dealt was a good card. It is this manipulation that is the key point.

That article and Ivey's response is spot on, he was engaged in a contest with the casino and he beat them by exploiting them legally. He made requests and the casino granted them. Period. They could have said no, but they didn't.

Basically, as I see it Phil Ivey legally tricked the casino and beat them. Notice I keep saying LEGALLY.

Is it against the law to ask for a specific dealer? No.
Is it against the law to speak to a dealer in another language?? No.
Is it against the law to ask a dealer to turn a card a certain way? No.
Is it against the law to vary your bets? No.
Is it against the law to ask a casino to change, ignore, or amend a rule or policy.? No.
Is it against the law for the casino to grant your request to change a rule or policy? No.

Let's say I'm a big time roulette player who gives millions in action. Let's say that I go to Crocksford and insist that they only use left handed spinners and they agree. I also insist they only use a certain wheel made by a certain manufacturer and they agree. I insist they only use the big ball and they agree. As they spin the wheel I also insist that they slow the wheel down to a point way slower than they normally spin it and they agree. I then pull out my cell phone camera and record the wheel action real time which is definitely against their rules but I ask them to make an exception and they agree to allow me to do it. I bring a chinese woman as my partner, she has been "accused" of cheating and banned in several casinos. The casino knows her name and has agreed to let her help me with my bets.

As they spin I look at my camera and call out my bets and she places them for me, all with the approval of the staff and pitbosses watching.

I proceed to win $7M.

Did I cheat?

yeah def casinos fault

Manipulation and trickery is fair game, all is fair in love and war.

Why is it "okay" for a casino to give you free drinks with the expressed purpose of intoxicating you, lowering your inhibitions, and impairing your judgement but it is not okay for us to use trickery to obtain an edge? It's a game, a contest of wills . Think of this beyond the actual game and think about the meta-game aspect.

If we can beat a casino at their own game then all is fair in love and war.

Anyone know how long the case is listed for?

This is illegal. In fact, you can't even serve someone another drink of you can see that they're already drunk.

You need to go back in this thread and read the legal statutes that apply in this case. Someone posted them very early on. They were quite compelling in Crockford's favor.

(Did you cheat? According to English law what you did is illegal. Is that cheating? I don't know, but it's irrelevant. Cheating is a subjective term that isn't defined legally and this case is about the law.)

Yeah, they really enforce this one in LV. I was so drunk at the Horseshoe one time at a BJ table that they offered to have security wheel me to my room in a wheel chair. I declined but wished I hadn't when I had to work my way down the hall w/ my hands against the wall.