I have written before about this case, here and here.
I should actually update the title since (due to the weakening of the RM) the amount has increased to more than RM 40 million. A nice and tidy amount, although only a fraction of what the Genting boss earns per year.
There is a new article on the DailyMail website, with the rather long title:
'I read the cards but I'm no cheat': U.S. poker ace suing Britain's oldest casino after being denied £8million win admits using controversial 'edge sorting' technique
From what I understand, Phil Ivey knew how to get the odds on his side, in a strictly legal way. When he bet, he wasn't sure he would win, he was only somewhat more likely to win than to lose. I therefore see no reason at all why the casino would not pay his winnings.
Put it differently, despite Ivey having the odds in his favour, he could still have lost. Would the casino then have returned the money to Ivey? I don't think so. The casino is used to have the odds on their side, but sometimes the tables are turned.
The casino has to convince me that Ivey actually has cheated, for instance that Ivey marked the cards himself. As far as I can see, there is not a single indication in that direction. I would also have been rather surprised if that had happened, he has a rather good reputation.
If the casino can not strengthen it's case, then I guess this is just a case of being a sour loser.