Won't get paid millions won playing baccarat... I suspected this would happen. https://vegasinc.lasvegassun.com/bu...68.2082944694.1508871228-687006381.1501868301
so what, hell recoup it, if anything, he can start a famous DI school, afterall, he will be able to charge any afterglow fees he wants. tough break for him, it only hurts when you get caught. don't know what its like to lose that kind of dough in a court case, cant imagine.
I don't have access to UK court decisions and haven't read the opinion. However, if I had been the judge presiding over this trial, the verdict might have been for Ivey based upon a theory the casino was complicit in providing the mechanism (e.g., specific type of playing cards supplied, manner in which they were dealt & exposed, etc.) that allowed the "AP" (e.g., edge sorting & viewing). Therefore, perhaps the casino should have been estopped from asserting Ivey cheated. That being said, I can fully appreciate the court arrived at its decision because it didn't want to approve (encourage) the type of behavior Ivey engaged in and open that potential Pandora's box.
I guess it was cheaper to pay his partner, who's name is conveniently missing. What would the casino do if they lost this decision, appeal, etc, the case is already 5years old, why 5years to get a decision, on a fairly simple matter. There had to be some greed on the casinos part, to go along with the preconditions, then they welsh on the payoff. They probably spent 20 million on lawyer fees, to beat Phil out of the 10 million..
It takes a supreme court to ascertain that edge sorting is cheating? Hell, I could have told them that (for a modest consultation fee).
RR makes some good points...he apparently requested a certain type of card and how they were dealt. They should have just said "nope...this is what we use and this is our standard deal". I would say the same thing for a craps player who requested a certain dice to be used instead of the standard. "Nope....this is what we use. Take it or leave it." The only good that can come out of this is that the casinos stick to what they know and don't entertain requests that deviate from what they know.
Unless they think they can "score" big on somebody with deep pockets. Who did the casino think they were trying to hustle? This is a welsh plain and simple, I mean would the casino have made a case if they had won? I don't think so. The court ruling stands, but it is not the first time, the courts have been WRONG! .
this sets a dangerous precedent, or maybe its been set before. the casino supposedly has a lot of eyes on players, then you have big money players, and the casino has a lot more skilled eyes on them, then you have a guy like this one, and the casino not only has their best eyes on him, they probably have research and data from other casinos on him, so they know what to expect, and yet, he sits and wins and wins, and the casino never stops the play or advises the dealer not to listen to him and tells him, not we don't do what players request, whatever the case was. so the casino loses, and now its a lawsuit and they win. like mentioned, if he lost 3 million, would the casino be going after him in court? ofcourse not. this is just bad for big time gamblers......the casino can accuse one of anything. judge made an error. casinos have to know better, especially when they have big time whales at their tables. shame on that judge and that casino.
I doubt if any of the decisions belonged to the dealer, you can bet they had their top guy, on the shoe. This was upper management, thinking they had this guy "out of his element", and they were dead wrong. Any American, would be up against it, in any European court, they just love to hate us. The casino had to welsh the bet, so in a way, it was Phils victory, he didn't need the money anyway. This was all about knocking their dicks in the dirt, and he sure as hell, did that. Bad ruling. .
I think he should have won the case. Sounds like he asked for certain things and they agreed and he won. If i ask that the dealer turn their cards face up every hand so i could see both of their cardd at bj and they said ok and i won is that cheating.
As a public service.... Ivy (Appellant) v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent) (2017) UKSC 67 UK Supreme Court's main page for this case https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0213.html Press Summary for this case https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-press-summary.pdf UK Supreme Court's decision https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf Happy reading, perhaps while enjoying fish & chips and a pint of Bass? Ivey is also a party to an ongoing lawsuit filed by Borgata for alleged conduct similar to that which led to the above legal proceeding and decision by the UK Supreme Court. Aside from a different venue (US courts vs. UK courts), Ivey already has the "winnings" from Borgata. That casino is trying to force Ivey to repay the amount he and his partner had "won" from the casino. In the UK case, Ivey filed suit because Crockfords had refused to pay Ivey the "winnings".
Exactly, what is "edge sorting" and how would you apply the gained knowledge, to the game of baccarat?
Thank you for the links. In the U.S. That refusing to pay thing is called "WELSHING". In the U.K it's called, "justice" for the yankee, that's a little bit smarter than us. .
I think Ivey made a mistake, admitting to edge sorting. Seems like this would be a very difficult thing for the casino to prove otherwise. As for cheating, that's a pretty tough call. The casino provided the cards, and accommodated, any requested changes, to the norm. My guess is the casino was able to pressure the partner somehow, to admit edge sorting. I don't see how, observing an existing condition, would actually constitute cheating per say. It sounds to me like the casino is saying, " we didn't know that MR Ivey was smart, we thought he was as stupid as the usual chumps we fleece. It's no fair if he doesn't play as stupid as an average moron, so we shouldn't have to pay". . I wonder what kind of comps, this place affords, to VIP Judges?.
I don't know squat about baccarat, or edge sorting. But I do know that Ivey is on helluva poker player. He missed the main event of the WSOP this year, presumably because he was preoccupied with this. He was just inducted into the poker hall of fame. I'd love to play some of the big name players - Doyle, Helmuth, Danny, Jesus. . . But Ivey, no way. He's a freaking ice cube.
There are some great players, where there is (unlike with craps) more to the game than "luck". Ivey is great, but I think Daniel Negreanu is the best of the best.
If the markings on the back of the cards don't match exactly when one card is turned 180 degrees from another you can possibly use that information to identify certain cards. If you know the first card out of the shoe on the next hand is going to be an 8 or 9 it would make a smidgen of difference on how you bet. Either Phil or his partner must have excellent eyesight.
This is why I say, who in the hell does did this casino think they were messing with. Said they tricked the dealer, MY ASS. They had to be playing for at least 25k per hand, at that level the dealer wouldn't do shit without approval from some honcho. The casino thought they had a fish, and found out who the fish really was. It was the casino's greed that allowed them to accommodate the special requests, and they got their ass kicked. Then they welshed on the bet. The patronage of this casino, should boycott, until the house makes good. How could they possibly think they had a fool with deep pockets. WELSH! Plain and simple. . And the court, let them get away with it, but the gamblers don't have to. BOYCOTT! This joint.
