Poker star Phil Ivey loses casino case in Britain

Comment #26

Get paid — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:38:23 GMT

The casino probably selected a judge who they have a personal relation with,to handle the case.

Comment #25

Skibunnylk — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:05:04 GMT

So true! I witnessed a teenager who spent over $200 on a slot machine before finally winning over six thousand dollars. The casino refused to pay her the winnings and kept all the money she lost.

Comment #24

Skibunnylk — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:01:15 GMT

Poker players look for any tells or clue to give themselves an advantage. Phil Ivey did just that. He spotted a weakness and pounced on it so now the casino thinks he cheated. The house already has the advantage so this is the casino crying after the facts.

Comment #23

RJOh — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:24:28 GMT

By the way, couldn't the rocket scientists that run the Casino figure something was up well before he won $12.4????

Maybe they did but being gamblers too couldn't pass up the chance to try and take his money. They probably also knew that they could make a winnable case for not paying him if he won. Edge sorting and cards with that type of design and cut being identifiable wasn't news to them.

Casinos pull a similar scam when they notice underage people playing their slots. If they lose t... [ More ]

Comment #22

helpmewin — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:40:35 GMT

Comment #21

OldSchoolPa — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:46:33 GMT

I hope people stop frequenting that casino and that it goes out of business. Pay Ivey his money

Comment #20

RJOh — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:22:45 GMT

I would be more tempted to think poorly of a casino who thinks if any of its customers win then they must be cheating even if they play by the rules it makes.

Comment #19

Stack47 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:07:49 GMT

Or they knew the judge would rule in their favor

Comment #18

Stack47 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:06:45 GMT

How is that not cheating?

The deck was not defective and the game is dealt using several decks. Ivey never touched the cards so basically you're accusing him of cheating because the casino was dumb enough to grant him requests that gave him a distinct advantage?

The judge said going forward in the future a casino in the U.K. can be ignorant and should a player come in and win money off them using a new method, the casino doesn't have to be accountable for their ignorance at all, Jacobson... [ More ]

Comment #17

Stack47 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:35:34 GMT

He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes, Judge John Mitting said, as Bloomberg reported. This is in my view cheating.

Another judge could see it different by faulting the casino because they allowed the requests. Gaming laws are different in the U.K. and so are the courts.

The advantage was asking for a Chinese dealer who spoke Mandarian and translated player requests to the supervisors. The dealer told them Cheung Yin Sun wanted the discards placed a certain way because she... [ More ]

Comment #16

ogivens15 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 20:16:43 GMT

It is a shame that you are not smart enough to see that the casino allowed this to happen by thinking they would win at the table in the end.They allowed him to play.

Comment #15

dpoly1 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:30:24 GMT

The Casino purchased the cards.

Phil just played with the cards that the Casino provided.

He should get his money.

By the way, couldn't the rocket scientists that run the Casino figure something was up well before he won $12.4

Comment #14

veganlife125 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:21:51 GMT

It's so obvious ain't it dr65. It's been along time in any area of life where the majority will stick up for whats right. At least Judge Judy sets them straight

Comment #13

shadowlady — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:54:40 GMT

Yesterday I read an article about him, and his friend from NewJersey. If they wanted it to go on, they should have played it, and won, less often, like once a month. But they were so carried away with winning (admittedly his NewJersey friend was a gambling addict), they won too often, and got the casino on their case.

Comment #12

dr65 — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 03:58:11 GMT

I'm happy he lost. How is that not cheating? Tag cheater on his name, he deserves it. He had an

advantage and used it w/o letting someone know about the defective deck....he knew better.

Tag whatever name fits on him, it's his own fault if people think poorly of him now.

Comment #11

Coin Toss — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:43:47 GMT

Exactly, Edessa.

The rule that covers anything not mentioned by the rules is this, if it's to the advantage of the house, it can be done. Otherwise it can't.

Comment #10

eddessaknight — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 23:51:59 GMT

The basic casino management mentality is that if you are playing with any advantage then that is no longer gambling - and that is totally unacceptable even if you had a halo around your head!

Fores Fortuna Juvat

Eddessa_Knight

Comment #9

Coin Toss — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 23:30:44 GMT

Basically, yes.

Comment #8

RJOh — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:52:10 GMT

I wonder since the court decided the game was a scam if the casino was forced to return the money he put up in advance to play, if not then the court partnered up with the casino to scam him out of his deposit and the courts are as big of crooks as the casinos.

Comment #7

maringoman — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:33:42 GMT

RJOH

I would hope people would unite and boycott that casino. But small people are too divided so the casino will still thrive.

Comment #6

LottoMetro — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:05:12 GMT

+1

To my knowledge, the dealer can't grant special requests without authorization from the pit boss. They are specifically trained to protect the house at all costs. As you said, they just saw another high roller for the taking and mistakenly assumed he would be as gullible as all the others.

The fact that an anti-AP/pro-casino expert is supporting Ivey here speaks lengths about the ridiculousness of this verdict.

Comment #5

L273 — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:02:11 GMT

Comment #4

noise-gate — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:49:14 GMT

Ivey has a point you tag on cheater to his name and you change the perception of the person.

What did the casino expect him to do, tell them that they were dealing with a faulty deck

Comment #3

Tialuvslotto — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:24:18 GMT

I agree, RJ!

The house granted all his special requests, thereby participating (unwittingly) in his scheme. What did they think he was up to? Aren't these people trained to detect possible scams?

They just saw a rich asian and assumed that his superstitions would aid them in taking his money.

Comment #2

RJOh — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:09:54 GMT

A scheme to win becomes a scam when the house loses, too bad a house scheme that that gives it the advantage isn't considered a scam too.

Comment #1

RedStang — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:12:45 GMT

Grandpa taught him well.

Poker star Phil Ivey loses casino case in Britain

Lottery Post — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:02:09 GMT

Includes video report

Imagine you go to a casino to play blackjack. You find a table, sit down and buy some chips. Gambling has few barriers to entry.

After awhile, you notice: For some reason, all of the cards higher than 9 are marked. Because of some slight imperfection in the deck, you can tell whether a card is an ace, king, queen, jack or ten before it's turned over. Because of a manufacturer's mistake, you have a huge advantage over the house. And the dealer doesn't notice.

You de... [ More ]