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.
Showing posts with label Phil Ivey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phil Ivey. Show all posts
Friday, 10 October 2014
Tuesday, 17 September 2013
Poker star Phil Ivey sues a Genting owned casino for RM 36 million (3)
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.
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.
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Poker star Phil Ivey sues a Genting owned casino for RM 36 million (2)
I blogged before about the court case between poker star Phil Ivey and the Crockfords casino in London, owned by Genting.
The DailyMail published an article what might have happened at the playing tables, see below.
The main question is: did Ivey do anything illegal? If not, should he not be entitled to his winnings? Is it not the responsibility of the casino to check the quality of its cards and the way its procedures are executed?
One of the world’s top gamblers won £7.8 million in a game of chance by ‘reading’ the backs of the cards, claim the owners of Britain’s oldest casino, who are refusing to pay out.
Phil Ivey, dubbed ‘the Tiger Woods of poker’, is understood to have exploited tiny flaws in the card design during a game of punto banco, a type of baccarat based purely on luck.
He insists he did nothing illegal, however, and is suing Mayfair club Crockfords in the High Court in what is expected to be the biggest legal battle in casino history.
The Mail on Sunday, which revealed last October that Mr Ivey’s winnings had been withheld, understands 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.
Cards should look exactly the same if turned 180 degrees. If they do not, it allows so-called advantage players to use a system known as ‘playing the turn’.
The DailyMail published an article what might have happened at the playing tables, see below.
The main question is: did Ivey do anything illegal? If not, should he not be entitled to his winnings? Is it not the responsibility of the casino to check the quality of its cards and the way its procedures are executed?
One of the world’s top gamblers won £7.8 million in a game of chance by ‘reading’ the backs of the cards, claim the owners of Britain’s oldest casino, who are refusing to pay out.
Phil Ivey, dubbed ‘the Tiger Woods of poker’, is understood to have exploited tiny flaws in the card design during a game of punto banco, a type of baccarat based purely on luck.
He insists he did nothing illegal, however, and is suing Mayfair club Crockfords in the High Court in what is expected to be the biggest legal battle in casino history.
The Mail on Sunday, which revealed last October that Mr Ivey’s winnings had been withheld, understands 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.
Cards should look exactly the same if turned 180 degrees. If they do not, it allows so-called advantage players to use a system known as ‘playing the turn’.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Poker star Phil Ivey sues a Genting owned casino for RM 36 million
Poker champion Phil Ivey is going all-in to get back his disputed winnings at Crockfords casino in London.
Ivey is suing the casino for $12.1 million, the amount he won playing Punto Banco at the exclusive gambling club in August 2012.
Ivey's legal team filed Tuesday at the High Court in London, according to a press release from his representatives. Ivey said in the release that he was given a receipt for his winnings, but that they were never delivered. “I am deeply saddened that Crockfords has left me no alternative but to proceed with legal action," he said.
The matter drew much attention last summer when the high-rolling Ivey began playing Punto Banco, a baccarat variation that relies on luck, and fell $800,000 in the hole at Crockfords, which is owned by Malaysia-based Genting Group. But he and a female companion launched an impressive run over the next two nights to build their profit to a then-reported $11.7 million, apparently arousing the suspicions of the casino management. Investigators reportedly interviewed employees who worked during the run and examined surveillance video and the cards.
But the casino has never publicly accused Ivey of any impropriety, telling the press it wants to keep the matter private.
Ivey, 36, has won nine World Series of Poker Championship bracelets.
UPDATE: Crockfords released the following statement to The Huffington Post through a spokeswoman:
In line with our customer privacy policy we do not comment on matters involving individual members. However in this rare instance we are able to confirm that our position, which is supported by strong legal advice, has been made very clear to Mr Ivey’s solicitors from the start. We shall be filing our defence shortly and defending this claim vigorously.
The above article is from Huffington Post. The amount involved is quite substantial, even for a large organisation as Genting. Phil Ivey is a well respected poker player and if Crockfords had any indication there was cheating involved surely they would have notified the police. It will be interesting to follow the developments, in the court case both sides have to reveal what exactly was going on.
Ivey is suing the casino for $12.1 million, the amount he won playing Punto Banco at the exclusive gambling club in August 2012.
Ivey's legal team filed Tuesday at the High Court in London, according to a press release from his representatives. Ivey said in the release that he was given a receipt for his winnings, but that they were never delivered. “I am deeply saddened that Crockfords has left me no alternative but to proceed with legal action," he said.
The matter drew much attention last summer when the high-rolling Ivey began playing Punto Banco, a baccarat variation that relies on luck, and fell $800,000 in the hole at Crockfords, which is owned by Malaysia-based Genting Group. But he and a female companion launched an impressive run over the next two nights to build their profit to a then-reported $11.7 million, apparently arousing the suspicions of the casino management. Investigators reportedly interviewed employees who worked during the run and examined surveillance video and the cards.
But the casino has never publicly accused Ivey of any impropriety, telling the press it wants to keep the matter private.
Ivey, 36, has won nine World Series of Poker Championship bracelets.
UPDATE: Crockfords released the following statement to The Huffington Post through a spokeswoman:
In line with our customer privacy policy we do not comment on matters involving individual members. However in this rare instance we are able to confirm that our position, which is supported by strong legal advice, has been made very clear to Mr Ivey’s solicitors from the start. We shall be filing our defence shortly and defending this claim vigorously.
The above article is from Huffington Post. The amount involved is quite substantial, even for a large organisation as Genting. Phil Ivey is a well respected poker player and if Crockfords had any indication there was cheating involved surely they would have notified the police. It will be interesting to follow the developments, in the court case both sides have to reveal what exactly was going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)