You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
Mr Ivey brought the case against Genting Casinos after he won the money during a round of the card game Punto Blanco - a version of Baccarat - in August 2012.
Not heard of that Punto Blanco game, must be new.
So was this deemed to be cheating or was it simply a "not in the spirit of the game" type thing?
In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.”
“What Mr Ivey and Ms Sun did was to persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines, and in circumstances where she did not realise she had done so – and, if she had, would have immediately stopped play.
“The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating.
“Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.
“It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino for which he was not responsible.
“He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation.”
The judge concluded: “This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”
Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.
So was this deemed to be cheating or was it simply a "not in the spirit of the game" type thing?
IMO I thought he'd win. The Casino were complicit in allowing it to happen and to state that the dealer didn't know what was happening is unbelievable at an establishment like that.
Hope he does better with Borgata lawsuit.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
"After four sessions he was told that his £7.7m winnings would be wired to him, but when he got back to the United States he found he had only had his original stake money of £1m returned."Did he get his deposit returned or winnings + deposit confiscated?
Hope he does better with Borgata lawsuit.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
The problem here is that defining words like "cheating" is incredibly hard to do without finding exceptions.
It might seem like something strange to say but I know it through philosophy.
I have heard of philosophers who have asked questions like; what is courage.
It may seem like an easy thing to do but if you try, you are probably looking at many years of work. You'll probably give up after awhile unless it's important.
I'm pretty sure this is the problem; the word "cheat" is not defined.
Lawyers would probably know this well, as they use it to their advantage.
so if you dont mark any cards yourself, why is it still cheating?
its the casino's fault, it didnt change decks after a certain anount of hands.
just like counting cards i think its bull sh!t its not allowed.
if you win due to extremely effective usage of your own brains, eyes and ears,
you shouldn't be able to get 'robbed' like this.
was something discribed in the casino's T&C's?
if the casino would have won 7 million from a person because of a discrepancy,
would they even consider on paying the victim (s) back?
if a company calls back a batch of cards or dice, or slots or whatever,
would the casino's that won because of the error, pay their customers back their money?
as a customer you can hardly proof anything, and the personal opinion of a judge and the ignorant actions of some dumb ass punto banco dealer, cost someone >7 million pounds???
did the dealer give back the tip of a thousand pounds to ivey??? i doubt it
Had the croupier not been tricked into rotating cards, and instead Phil had relied on some defect of the pattern alone, he would most likely have won. It seems that merely observing and taking advantage of an error is not cheating, but once you have to start manipulating the staff or the game apparatus, it IS cheating, even where the success is down to naivety on the part of casino staff.
excellent explanation I think.
I was initially on Ivey's side, but there are some other factors in the case that weren't reported within the links from OP...
"He asked for a specific brand of playing cards, a shuffling machine, an Asian dealer and that the same card decks be used." Old / Expired Link
"The High Court heard how Ivey kept asking the dealer to change the packs until he and Sun found one with the flawed pattern, then announced that he wanted to stick with his ‘lucky’ pack. Then Ivey persuaded the dealer to rotate each of the ‘good’ baccarat cards (specifically sixes, sevens, eights and nines) as they were dealt. It was just a silly little superstition of his, he explained. It wasn’t. If a dealer had shuffled the cards by hand, it would have ruined the ruse. But a shuffling machine — which Ivey had demanded — doesn’t do that. It flips the shuffled cards 180 degrees, which meant that Ivey and Sun were able to recognise them quickly: the non-symmetrical pattern had gone to the other side. And of course he got the casino to use the same lucky pack night after night."You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
IF he hadn't requested a specific brand (and deck) of cards (that he clearly knew had their printing off-set), and IF he hadn't requested a specific shuffling machine (that he knew arranged shuffled cards in a specific manner). IF he hadn't insisted the casino continue to use the pre-dealt cards they would typically scrap, and IF (as others have said) he hadn't influenced the dealer by telling them how to present the cards, then yeah, I'd still be crying foul by the casino. But not any more.
Chances are if he had 'only' limited his winnings to a smaller £ value, then he may have gotten away with it. But sorry Phil, you got greedy & in doing so, you allowed the casino to put the puzzle pieces together. Could it be called cheating? Perhaps not in the terms that some professional gamblers would define it, but there's absolutely no doubt the phrase 'advantage player' (i.e. the more polite version of the 'c' word) absolutely fits.