World’s No 1 poker player wins $15 m in two nights - but casino REFUSES 2 pay him

[Jimzz]

^^


Hahaha yea I saw that to.

"No fair, he walks away after taking our money."



But yea pay him. The house should sue the card maker, if their contract was well written of course.

 

[tynopik]

So during the course of play, not one other single card ever gets turned 180? I find it very hard to believe the cards can be dealt, played with, and loaded back into the shoe all exactly the same way every time.

High-end casino, high-end dealer, they're machines. Same way, every time.

 

[child of wonder]

No sympathy for the Casino, just like the slot machine guy recently.

Casinos make billions of dollars per year by creating games of chance for people to play that are rigged in their favor.

It is their responsibility as a business to make sure those games are rigged in their favor. They are engaging in a battle of wits to make a profit.. that is their choice.

This individual won that battle because they bought cheap cards. They lost.

If I lose $10k on blackjack because I'm sloppy drunk, do I get my money back? After all in this game of wits they took advantage of my altered state. (of course not)

No sympathy at all . . pay the man. Sad to see the crooked U.S. gaming commission shut him down last time.

Couldn't agree more.

Since casinos are so quick to scream "malfunction" and deny people winnings, how many trillions of dollars have they made from slot machine "malfunctions?" If the machine can accidentally pay out too much, it's just as likely there are times when a machine doesn't pay out as much as it should.

Has any casino ever discovered such a glitch and offered to recoup customers who lost money?

FUCK NO.

They can't have things both ways. Malfunctions either go in the customer's favor by paying out or the casinos must actively monitor for glitches that go against a customer's favor and proactively pay back their losses.

 

[Reasonable Doubt]

Update: British court rules against Phil Ivey

Ten-time World Series of Poker winner Phil Ivey has lost his case against a British casino he accused of improperly withholding his winnings.

Britain's High Court ruled Wednesday that Genting Casinos UK does not have to pay him the 7.7 million pounds ($12.4 million) he was seeking. The casino's lawyers convinced the court that Ivey's use of "edge sorting'' tactics was not legitimate and that the casino did not have to pay.
The casino said he essentially kept track of card values by watching for design imperfections on the backs of the cards.

The 38-year-old Ivey said he was disappointed with the ruling.

"As I said in court, it's not in my nature to cheat -- and I would never do anything to risk my reputation," he said in a statement. "I am pleased that the judge acknowledged in court that I was a truthful witness by saying that, 'I am entirely convinced that Mr. Ivey did not consider that what he was doing was cheating.'

"I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy -- we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords' failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability -- clearly today, the judge did not agree."

Ivey claims he won the money during two days of playing baccarat at Crockfords, a Mayfair casino that is part of the Genting group, in August 2012.
"Crockfords is pleased with the judgment of the High Court today supporting its defense of a claim by Mr. Ivey," the casino said in a statement. "It is our policy not to discuss our clients' affairs in public and we very much regret that proceedings were brought against us. We attach the greatest importance to our exemplary reputation for fair, honest and professional conduct and today's ruling vindicates the steps we have taken in this matter."

The ruling also could pose trouble for Ivey in his legal battle with the Borgata Casino in New Jersey.

Borgata is suing Ivey for the $9.6 million he won using the same controversial edge-sorting technique while playing mini-baccarat in 2012. The two sides are scheduled to have a telephone status update Nov. 10, with depositions expected to continue until July 2015.

Edge-sorting is a technique in which players use flaws in the designs on backs of cards to identify them in advance. At Crockfords and Borgata, Ivey requested a specific brand of cards, purple Gemaco, be used. He had a companion -- a woman identified in court documents as Cheng Yin Sun -- instruct the dealer to rotate specific cards in certain directions, effectively sorting the deck to make the design flaws stand out. He played for anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 per hand, court documents show.

 

[Ns1]

Edge-sorting is a technique in which players use flaws in the designs on backs of cards to identify them in advance. At Crockfords and Borgata, Ivey requested a specific brand of cards, purple Gemaco, be used. He had a companion -- a woman identified in court documents as Cheng Yin Sun -- instruct the dealer to rotate specific cards in certain directions, effectively sorting the deck to make the design flaws stand out. He played for anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 per hand, court documents show.

that's pretty damning.

 

[rommelrommel]

that's pretty damning.

He clearly admits that he was edge sorting. He is arguing that it isn't cheating, just a strategy.

 

[Zodiark1593]

He clearly admits that he was edge sorting. He is arguing that it isn't cheating, just a strategy.

What defines cheating exactly?using a tool or hidden cardsbis obvious cheating, but what about using naught but intellect and senses? If that too is defined as cheating, perhaps casinos should implement a rule where you must play drunk.

 

[norseamd]

Question: You recognize a slot machine is paying out more than it should. Is it cheating to continue playing on the broken machine?

You are forgetting that the casinos play by stacked rules and ideology.

 

[Phoenix86]

What defines cheating exactly?using a tool or hidden cardsbis obvious cheating, but what about using naught but intellect and senses? If that too is defined as cheating, perhaps casinos should implement a rule where you must play drunk.

I'd say anything that allows you to ID the cards in a deck when face down, whatever the method, is cheating.

Would you play a game for money with someone who knows what the cards are? No, so, why should the casinos.

I'd almost say pay him, then black list him. I kind of think once the bet is taken it should be honored. If you think someone's cheating, stop taking their bets and boot them. If you know someone is cheating, have them arrested.

 

[rommelrommel]

What defines cheating exactly?using a tool or hidden cardsbis obvious cheating, but what about using naught but intellect and senses? If that too is defined as cheating, perhaps casinos should implement a rule where you must play drunk.

He asked for the cards, he asked to have the cards turned, and he asked for them to reuse the cards. The casino didn't have to play by these rules, and he didn't play with this set of rules in secret or by conspiracy.

I say pay him, but that's partially out of disgust towards the gaming industry. I think I liked it better when the mob ran it.

 

[xaeniac]

pay phil, casinos suck and cry unless they are stealing the gambler's money.

 

[Attic]

He cheated. Obviously.


He doesn't think he cheated, .... doubt it.

Gaming the system,... is cheating, that's not skill. Map hackers are not skillful, they are cheaters. That's all Ivey did here, he setup, prepared, injected what was needed and exploited the map, aka cheating.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Since beating a slot machine was brought up. Here is a good read from a video poker bug.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

 

[zinfamous]

I find it hard to believe so few people read that article.

1 year later, and I still haven't read the article!

pay the guy!

 

[Jeraden]

Seems to me the fault is on the casino. They weren't forced to rotate the cards, so it's all on them really. You'd think there would be procedures in place to tell the dealers NOT to do that.

 

[SP33Demon]

This isn't Ocean's Eleven, there is no easy way to make money in a casino against the house unless it's against other people (e.g. Poker). Everyone knows this going in, and statistically the house should have won over 3 full nights, nobody is that lucky.

Ivey thought he was clever when he's actually just good at exploiting Gemaco's flawed decks. lmao, stick to Poker Ivey.

 

[Rakehellion]

Per the article:

"When these cards appeared, his companion asked for them to be rotated 180 degrees, pretending that Mr Ivey was superstitious. As this appeared to give him no advantage, the dealer acquiesced. The rotated cards were returned to the shoe and were easily recognised by the player as different when they were eventually re-dealt, giving him a strong edge. At first, his losses were heading towards £500,000 but he recovered, and at the end of the first night was £2.3 million up. He is also thought to have persuaded the casino not to destroy the cards at the end of each session, which is normal practice."

If that's true, he definitely cheated. I mean maybe hey good for him, but it was cheating. Maybe he should have stopped at one night and he'd have gotten away with it. Kind of greedy.

It's the casino's fault for having defective cards. Pay the man.

 

[Rakehellion]

This strikes me as the equivalent of card counting. Casinos are not allowed to withhold the winnings of a counter, so they should be able to withhold these winnings.

Card counting is a strategy. This takes advantage of defective equipment.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Card counting is a strategy. This takes advantage of defective equipment.

Personally, where I draw the line between cheating and strategy is active manipulation vs passive observation. Spotting flaws in the cards I call mere observation, and can be put in the same realm as card counting. I think the player crossed the line by having the dealer turn the card as it constitutes active manipulation for an advantage.

 

[massmedia]

So during the course of play, not one other single card ever gets turned 180? I find it very hard to believe the cards can be dealt, played with, and loaded back into the shoe all exactly the same way every time.

very easy to prove or disprove this with a high resolution video of the table played bacl in slomo that the casino should have no reason not to upload to youtube.

 

[Phoenix86]

Personally, where I draw the line between cheating and strategy is active manipulation vs passive observation. Spotting flaws in the cards I call mere observation, and can be put in the same realm as card counting. I think the player crossed the line by having the dealer turn the card as it constitutes active manipulation for an advantage.

Or requesting a deck with a known flaw.
Or bringing in a ringer who can spot said flaw.

 

[smackababy]

I can't say I am against Ivey in this case. He knew about a specific flaw in a certain deck, and used that to his advantage. I don't consider it cheating as much as exploiting an unknown. The casinos are just upset they didn't know about this and the large advantage they had was taken away. This is similar to counting cards. It isn't illegal. Casinos figured out a way to beat it though: use 6 decks and only use half the shoot; nobody can get an accurate count high enough to tip the advantage in their favor.

 

[Phoenix86]

I can't say I am against Ivey in this case. He knew about a specific flaw in a certain deck, and used that to his advantage. I don't consider it cheating as much as exploiting an unknown. The casinos are just upset they didn't know about this and the large advantage they had was taken away. This is similar to counting cards. It isn't illegal. Casinos figured out a way to beat it though: use 6 decks and only use half the shoot; nobody can get an accurate count high enough to tip the advantage in their favor.

I'm surprised at the method used to make the cards would allow for this flaw. Time to use solid colored cards?

 

[smackababy]

I'm surprised at the method used to make the cards would allow for this flaw. Time to use solid colored cards?

Well, considering, it took a person winning like $30 million to figure it out, and it only exists in a single deck known, I don't know much will change. That specific deck will be banned from casinos and they will continue. The entire idea of the background is to break up any kind of way to determine the card. A solid could get a visible flaw during the course of the game.

 

[gorcorps]

I wonder how many people knew of these flaws and were exploiting them before Ivey got greedy and tipped everyone off. I'll bet they're pissed. It's just like when a store has a price mistake, and orders seem to be going through fine one at a time until somebody decides to buy 25 of them at once...