I blogged before about this court case.
The result of the case is out, Phil Ivey lost the case, as reported by ITV.
"The casino said Mr Ivey had used a technique called "edge-sorting" to give himself an unfair advantage. They argued that Mr Ivey's conduct defeated the premise of the game and therefore meant there was no contract between Ivey and the casino."
It looks to me like a pretty greyish area, for instance what would have happened if Ivey had lost using his technique (which only gave him an advantage, it was not a sure way to win), would the casino have returned the losses? I don't think so, but that means that the casino could not lose, while they were themselves at fault by using imperfect playing cards.
It would be interesting if Ivey appeals the verdict. On one hand, lawyers are expensive, on the other hand, the stakes are high.
Anyhow, good news for the shareholders of Genting.