Phil ivey case alive
Crockfords case now going to English supreme court. Highest court in the land
Phils last stand there
This time it seems the challenge is about gambling rules clarity. In essence if ivey didnt cheat as judges ruled how can he be denied winnings
Quote: WizardWill anyone give me even money that he loses again?
Before taking bets research what the gambling law being questioned in england is
Im not sure completely but from what i recall there is some statute that wagers must be honored unless cheating is involved hence the confusion being taken up by their supreme court
If ivey did not cheat as stated clearly by lower court judges and no charges being pressed well then the statute says he should be paid
If an NFL team lost 3 times in a row to another team, would you ask for even money on if they lost again? I'd think the "NO" here would most certainly have to give odds away.Quote: WizardWill anyone give me even money that he loses again?
Quote: darkozIf ivey did not cheat as stated clearly by lower court judges and no charges being pressed well then the statute says he should be paid
My window is open. Prove me wrong.
Quote: WizardMy window is open. Prove me wrong.
Here is an article on the Basic issues concerning cheat definitions
I dont know how this will go but i hope he wins. Not willing to wager on it. I do believe he has some chance
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gamblinginsider.com/news/mobile/2600/uk-laws-on-cheating-in-casinos-require-clarification-as-ivey-loses-appeal
That's why the US Supreme Court reverses or vacates about 2/3 of the cases it hears. It takes cases that it is more likely to change the outcome in.
I don't really know the UK practice but I imagine its inherent to a discretionary appeal. Ivy has better odds than you might think, but its still 50/50 on his best day.
Quote: darkozBefore taking bets research what the gambling law being questioned in england is...
Exactly so, darkoz!
Now, where are all our WoV members from UK hiding? Is this story getting any press -- I mean, serious press, don'cher know? -- on the East side of the Pond? Seems some publications -- law journals? gaming newsletters? national magazines? etc. -- would have kicked this story around some. Who knows the star-dot-co-dot-UK internet links that present an "informed" perspective of this matter? C'mon, c'mon. We can hear all of you UK members in there keeping quiet.
Quote: WizardWill anyone give me even money that he loses again?
I'll go 20 that he wins vs. your 30 that he doesn't. Betting on the SCOTUK decision, not on whether he ever sees a dime from it.
Quote: LuckyPhowExactly so, darkoz!
Now, where are all our WoV members from UK hiding? Is this story getting any press -- I mean, serious press, don'cher know? -- on the East side of the Pond? Seems some publications -- law journals? gaming newsletters? national magazines? etc. -- would have kicked this story around some. Who knows the star-dot-co-dot-UK internet links that present an "informed" perspective of this matter? C'mon, c'mon. We can hear all of you UK members in there keeping quiet.
There is actually decent media coverage including article in Telegraph and also articles in every at least half decent gambling related news website - just google "phil ivey against casino"..
At a guess [Section 42 of the Gambling Act] someone commits an offence if they are the person who actually "cheats" or ... interferes with the process (regardless of whether they profit from it). It doesn't really say what happens if you didn't interfere or cheat, but took advantage of a situation. It also doesn't define "cheat".
I'm also guessing that there are casino rules - which is the only reason the casino can say they're not paying - and they say something like if you cheat we don't payout.
So perhaps the reason this is being heard is to enable clarification of what "cheating" actually means.
Quote: darkozBefore taking bets research what the gambling law being questioned in england is
Im not sure completely but from what i recall there is some statute that wagers must be honored unless cheating is involved hence the confusion being taken up by their supreme court
If ivey did not cheat as stated clearly by lower court judges and no charges being pressed well then the statute says he should be paid
How is British law controlling on US casinos?
Quote: gordonm888How is British law controlling on US casinos?
It's not controlling, its persuasive. The analysis given in a similar situation by a British judge is very relevant. American states will look at sister state court rulings, even though they are in no way controlling.
Quote: gordonm888How is British law controlling on US casinos?
It's not. He pulled this BS move off twice. Once in England and once in the US.
Edit: Given bbvk's response, there could be some influence from the first decision. This would be good for Ivey imo as I want to say British law is more vague on this act. I think both were ruled correctly already, but New Jersey was an easier decision based on their fraud and swindling laws.
The case with Borgata was a total sham. Look at what the judge said about a casino and essentially their right to have an advantage otherwise it's unfair for the casino. (IE: All advantage play.) Oh, and he somehow "broke the rules" but didn't "cheat".....the court forgot about the part where the CASINO was the one breaking the rules (look up NJ regulations on dealing baccarat). Not to mention the court's complete misunderstanding of how edge-sorting works, what a sorted deck is, and a marked deck. A deck of cards with uneven backs is inherently "marked" by the court's definition, even without introducing a turn during play. By the court's definition, the casino introduced an inherently marked deck into play and permitted it to be used....and if they ever still or did use that type of card-back in the past, they were using "marked cards" back then or now, too (given their definition of "marked cards/deck").
the outcome. I wouldn't if I were them.
Quote: EvenBobThey'll never pay him no matter what
the outcome. I wouldn't if I were them.
There are lots of people who can avoid paying someone but usually not casinos. There are legal channels i imagine even in UK to collect from major corporations if ivey pulls out a win
Quote: darkozThere are legal channels i imagine even in UK to collect from major corporations if ivey pulls out a win
There are also ways of getting around it.
I would make Ivey sue me and present
the case in front of a jury. Even with
the high court ruling, if I prove he cheated,
he won't get the money.
Quote: EvenBobThere are also ways of getting around it.
I would make Ivey sue me and present
the case in front of a jury. Even with
the high court ruling, if I prove he cheated,
he won't get the money.
From what i understand both sides agree on a jury or trial by judge in a civil matter although it may be different in UK. So if thats the case u dont get to refuse paymenf now for a jury to decide.
Legal systems are particularly biased against time wasting and what u suggest would more likely result in fines and contempt charges
Quote: RSA deck of cards with uneven backs is inherently "marked" by the court's definition, even without introducing a turn during play. By the court's definition, the casino introduced an inherently marked deck into play and permitted it to be used....and if they ever still or did use that type of card-back in the past, they were using "marked cards" back then or now, too (given their definition of "marked cards/deck").
I think that actually hurts his case because NJ will argue that if the cards were marked the game should be null and void. Participants should be made whole as if the game didn't happen.
Quote: DRichI think that actually hurts his case because NJ will argue that if the cards were marked the game should be null and void. Participants should be made whole as if the game didn't happen.
No the argument is the cards in normal operations are always marked because they are the same cards with the same printed defects from the manufacturer
Unless borgata wants to argue all gambling over the last decade was needs to be made whole with all their customers
Thats following if u could make such argument in US courts
Yeah right, wishful thinking, but that would be the moral and ethical way. Same way with the lotto rigging case where the employee rigged the drawing, and was never able to claim the jackpot. Of course he gets prosecution, then when the next jackpot winner sues for the extra money never awarded rightfully when reset by illegal activity, the lottery claims everything is as it should be and no extra money is due.Quote: darkozNo the argument is the cards in normal operations are always marked because they are the same cards with the same printed defects from the manufacturer
Unless borgata wants to argue all gambling over the last decade was needs to be made whole with all their customers
Thats following if u could make such argument in US courts
Casinos and lotteries only go backwards when it's in their favor.
Quote: onenickelmiracleYeah right, wishful thinking, but that would be the moral and ethical way. Same way with the lotto rigging case where the employee rigged the drawing, and was never able to claim the jackpot. Of course he gets prosecution, then when the next jackpot winner sues for the extra money never awarded rightfully when reset by illegal activity, the lottery claims everything is as it should be and no extra money is due.
Casinos and lotteries only go backwards when it's in their favor.
I totally agree. It wont happen but it should
Quote: beachbumbabsI'll go 20 that he wins vs. your 30 that he doesn't. Betting on the SCOTUK decision, not on whether he ever sees a dime from it.
Sorry, I'm still holding out for even money.
I confuse the details between the London and AC cases, but which was the one where he judge said edge sorting effectively marked the cards? I think criminal charges were not pursued because the standard of proof to demonstrate is different between a civil and criminal case.
Quote: WizardSorry, I'm still holding out for even money.
I confuse the details between the London and AC cases, but which was the one where he judge said edge sorting effectively marked the cards? I think criminal charges were not pursued because the standard of proof to demonstrate is different between a civil and criminal case.
The marked cards decision was ac
