Legal or Illegal

[phynqster]

Just wanted to hear other like minded opinions on the Phil Ivey case, or anyone else in that situation. Long story short; There was a flaw in the pattern on the back of the cards in a B$M casino and he was able to know what the cards were and used this to his benefit and won 12 million, but when he went to collect the casino would not pay. The casino said since he "Knew" the outcome before the hand was played, (he was playing a form of baccarat where the cards are dealt out face down before you bet)he was not gambling, and they did not have to pay.
My thoughts are the casino should have stopped his play sooner if they knew the cards were "marked" but they should stay pay, and than sue the card maker for the loss.
Would love to hear from all of you on how you feel. Please refrain from the Casino is always wrong and the player is always right comments

 

[rockycatt]

if he actually knew the cards from there marking on the back of the deck , then its cheating / [ did he say he knew the cards ere marked and he could read them from the back ?? if so then off to jail with him

 

[dunover]

All depends - if he knew in advance by design or plot then it's criminal cheating. If he spotted this fact after he started playing and kept his mouth shut, then he's guilty of nothing apart from using his savvy.

 

[Konstantinos]

Just wanted to hear other like minded opinions on the Phil Ivey case, or anyone else in that situation. Long story short; There was a flaw in the pattern on the back of the cards in a B$M casino and he was able to know what the cards were and used this to his benefit and won 12 million, but when he went to collect the casino would not pay. The casino said since he "Knew" the outcome before the hand was played, (he was playing a form of baccarat where the cards are dealt out face down before you bet)he was not gambling, and they did not have to pay.
My thoughts are the casino should have stopped his play sooner if they knew the cards were "marked" but they should stay pay, and than sue the card maker for the loss.
Would love to hear from all of you on how you feel. Please refrain from the Casino is always wrong and the player is always right comments

Online or landline is an obligation to everyone in this industry to give players the chances to win

If someone is commiting any kind of fraud online must be faced during his withdrawals, because the anti-fraud departments have the responsibility to see his whole game history. When this dosnt happen correctly then the player despite his fraud is paid...

When this happen in landbased casinos, then it must be faced before he proceeds in a withdrawal. Especially if is suspected of this kind of "oceans 11" kind of fraud. And especially if is a VIP player who bets these amounts....

Regarding the player himself if he noticed the marks on the cards and nobody else from the stuff of the casino noticed it, then the stuff must go for...vacation

Thats an entirely personal opinion ofcourse

 

[nisosbar]

I'm not Phil Ivey's biggest fan, but in my opinion, he should be paid in full. The casino provided the game and cards, not Ivey. The casino set the rules, Ivey obeyed.

The exception would be if, as in an action film, he had somehow found a way to interfere in the casino's endeavors to lay any of the groundwork upon which the casino relied in order to provide a fair game.

I see it in a way similar to, for example, when a player plays less than perfect blackjack; the casino is under no obligation to inform players that they are making mistakes costing them money. By the same token, players are under no obligation to inform casinos that there is a flaw in the game to the player's advantage.

Just my opinion, and open to counter-arguments.

 

[Nifty29]

I would be extremely surprised if the casino didn't take legal advice on this, hence their refusal to pay.

Laws pertaining to casinos usually have clauses that allow refusal of payment under certain circumstances, and obviously the casino believes this situation qualifies. It may be that they're wrong, but Ivey might have to wait years ans spend a heap of dough to prove it and get his winnings.

As always, the only winners in this dispute will be the lawyers.

Personally, I think it has to cut both ways. If players expect to be reimbursed or compensated when a game or machine is not paying out correctly I.e. not enough, then the casino shpuld be able to recoup losses when it is the other way around.

I think what Ivey did was cheating. If the dealer was cheating and he was swindled, he would be pounding the table wanting his money back, so he should accept that he got caught. If he hadn't been so greedy, and pulled out earlier before the pitboss noticed, he could have walked away with a nice stack of cash without a worry. Instead, he allowed it to go on so long that it was obvious his streak was more than just good luck.

Really, for a smart guy, he played this one all wrong.

I also think its interesting that he plays high stakes games like baccarat. Even though they're high RTP, they're not like poker as there are no "tells" and other factors that provide pros with a huge edge over their opponents. I've read articles and books by pro poker guys and they often state they don't consider themselves gamblers, and see casino games as only for suckers. Interesting....maybe pro poker ain't the easy ride it used to be?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would be extremely surprised if the casino didn't take legal advice on this, hence their refusal to pay.

Laws pertaining to casinos usually have clauses that allow refusal of payment under certain circumstances, and obviously the casino believes this situation qualifies. It may be that they're wrong, but Ivey might have to wait years ans spend a heap of dough to prove it and get his winnings.

As always, the only winners in this dispute will be the lawyers.

Personally, I think it has to cut both ways. If players expect to be reimbursed or compensated when a game or machine is not paying out correctly I.e. not enough, then the casino shpuld be able to recoup losses when it is the other way around.

I think what Ivey did was cheating. If the dealer was cheating and he was swindled, he would be pounding the table wanting his money back, so he should accept that he got caught. If he hadn't been so greedy, and pulled out earlier before the pitboss noticed, he could have walked away with a nice stack of cash without a worry. Instead, he allowed it to go on so long that it was obvious his streak was more than just good luck.

Really, for a smart guy, he played this one all wrong.

I also think its interesting that he plays high stakes games like baccarat. Even though they're high RTP, they're not like poker as there are no "tells" and other factors that provide pros with a huge edge over their opponents. I've read articles and books by pro poker guys and they often state they don't consider themselves gamblers, and see casino games as only for suckers. Interesting....maybe pro poker ain't the easy ride it used to be?

..... unless the cards are marked.

The detail seems to suggest that the casino believes he didn't just stumble upon this by chance, but that it was a pre planned sting, and that the dealer was manipulated into assisting by moving the cards so that the markings could be seen more clearly. It is this level of premeditation and manipulation of casino staff that could swing the case in the casino's favour.

If this is not proven, then they could be in for a shock.

A previous case was at Roulette, where a small team went in with a laser measuring device and small computer in a shoe. They used this kit to measure the ball as it hit the wheel, and the computer told the player which quadrant to cover. This made the game +EV. The casino sued, and the casino LOST. The case hinged on whether the game had actually been interfered with, and it was ruled that using this kit merely to observe and advise did not interfere with the outcomes, and hence the player should keep the money.

Noticing a pattern on the backs of cards is also merely observing something about the game, however, tricking casino staff into making it easier could be seen as interference, in which case the casino stands a chance of winning. I bet this is the advice that made them take the risk of refusing to pay out.

What lead to this however was a batch of flawed cards. The casino dropped the ball on this, and these cards should have failed quality control and never been used on the gaming floor.

 

[The Dude]

I believe it depends on who "marked" the cards. If the player is marking them with smudges, bending, whatever, then he's SOL. But if it's from a manufacturing flaw, then tough titty for the casino. They need to use better cards. Eliot Jacobson showed me how savvy players can spot nuances in card decks at the Wynn last year. It was fascinating. Perhaps he can chime in here. It's not cheating if you are observing whatever information your senses naturally detect.

 

[phynqster]

In this particular case, it was stated that the player (Ivey) never touched the cards, saying he was superstitious and always had the dealers handle the cards and move them so he could see both ends of the backs of the cards. He also asked the casino not to change in new cards for the 3 days he played, which should have sent up red flag to the casino, but high rollers get special deals.

My thoughts on this are online (rogue) casinos could use this case depending on how it is decided, to refuse paying a players when they send out crazy promotions that have negative EV for the house. Player got 200% cashable bonus 10X playthrough on slots that pay 97%. The player would always be ahead if he quit playing right at 10X. So if player cashes out following rules to a T, casino refuses to pay saying there was never a chance for player to lose so we are not paying.

 

[vinylweatherman]

In this particular case, it was stated that the player (Ivey) never touched the cards, saying he was superstitious and always had the dealers handle the cards and move them so he could see both ends of the backs of the cards. He also asked the casino not to change in new cards for the 3 days he played, which should have sent up red flag to the casino, but high rollers get special deals.

My thoughts on this are online (rouge) casinos could use this case depending on how it is decided, to refuse paying a players when they send out crazy promotions that have negative EV for the house. Player got 200% cashable bonus 10X playthrough on slots that pay 97%. The player would always be ahead if he quit playing right at 10X. So if player cashes out following rules to a T, casino refuses to pay saying there was never a chance for player to lose so we are not paying.

They do that anyway, they don't need this case to justify it.

The casino seems certain enough of their case to stick their neck out and have their day in court. Losing this case would be a PR disaster, so they have to have been pretty damn sure to stand their ground to this point.

It does seem that the player didn't interfere with the cards at all, but DID use some clever psychology to persuade casino staff to give him the optimum conditions needed to maximise his return. The problem however is that if this use of clever psychology is argued to be cheating, then most, if not all, casinos are also cheating because of the clever tricks they have been employing for YEARS to persuade players to play on rather than leave. They could face lawsuits from losing players, quoting this case, that the casino used trickery to induce them to play on and lose more.

If the casino stick to the fact of the flawed cards alone, they then face the argument that it is not cheating, merely smart play. If it is merely smart play, then the casino only has the right to kick the player out, but they have to pay what has been won up to that point as they accepted the bets.

The casinos may actually have been caught out by one of their own psychological tricks, that being pandering to the whims of their VIP players, no matter how odd they seem, in the expectation that they will stick around and drop huge amounts of cash. An ordinary player insisting that the same cards be kept for three days and the dealer pander to their superstitions would have been shown the door, so even if they had noticed, they could not have profited much from these flawed cards.

 

[IanO]

I believe it depends on who "marked" the cards. If the player is marking them with smudges, bending, whatever, then he's SOL. But if it's from a manufacturing flaw, then tough titty for the casino. They need to use better cards. Eliot Jacobson showed me how savvy players can spot nuances in card decks at the Wynn last year. It was fascinating. Perhaps he can chime in here. It's not cheating if you are observing whatever information your senses naturally detect.

According to what I read: ''The cards were flawed because of a mistake during the cutting process at an overseas manufacturing plant. Crucially, it meant their geometric pattern was not symmetrical, though this would not have been noticeable to the untrained eye. '' Ivy would never have been allowed to touch the cards, and they were only rotated (by the dealer) at the request of one of Ivy's companions... her reason being 'superstition'.

Considering he started with 50K in losses my guess is he (or his lady companion) spotted the flaw during play and took advantage.

 

[mikke47]

According to what I read: ''The cards were flawed because of a mistake during the cutting process at an overseas manufacturing plant. Crucially, it meant their geometric pattern was not symmetrical, though this would not have been noticeable to the untrained eye. '' Ivy would never have been allowed to touch the cards, and they were only rotated (by the dealer) at the request of one of Ivy's companions... her reason being 'superstition'.

Considering he started with 50K in losses my guess is he (or his lady companion) spotted the flaw during play and took advantage.

I think that the casino owners just wanted to find a reason to not pay him, even if it was their mistake or the manufacturer's mistake. The man already lost a lot so he had to do something to get his money back.