Phil Ivey "wins" 7.5 million pounds at Genting-owned Crockfords.
October 13th, 2012 at 4:17:49 AM
permalink
It is much harder than people think to play with a meaningful long-term edge using rebates. The rebate has to be huge or the session very short. Of course, if a player has some means of cutting down the edge, perhaps by counting cards or using another method, it is a different question.
October 13th, 2012 at 4:18:45 AM
permalink
The adjoining Crockfords Club has a 24 hour business center, fine dining, and a lounge but the most the casino can do is assist with a reservation and messages. No one in the casino is permitted to accept a gratuity other than a waitress who may accept up to fifty quid. Chips are only accepted in the casino itself, not in any lounge area or restaurant or business center.
October 13th, 2012 at 5:28:28 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffThe adjoining Crockfords Club has a 24 hour business center, fine dining, and a lounge but the most the casino can do is assist with a reservation and messages. No one in the casino is permitted to accept a gratuity other than a waitress who may accept up to fifty quid. Chips are only accepted in the casino itself, not in any lounge area or restaurant or business center.
Where does this adamant denial come from, Fleastiff? I take you at your word that you know these things, but it seems that maybe you are offended at any suggestion that rules could secretly be bent by those that go whaling?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 13th, 2012 at 5:34:26 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitWhere does this adamant denial come from, Fleastiff? I take you at your word that you know these things, but it seems that maybe you are offended at any suggestion that rules could secretly be bent by those that go whaling?
I think he is just stating the legal position and relevant information about Crockfords. Those of us who are familiar with the London casino scene naturally want to share our knowledge with others about the situation.
October 13th, 2012 at 8:24:34 AM
permalink
I didn't mean to make it sound adamant. Thats the way it is and I wouldn't waste your time looking for major violations of the rules unless you are dealing with a whale from the Ukraine who is accompanied by henchmen or something. Its just different in the UK than it is in the USA where a casino can give gifts as bait for whales.
October 13th, 2012 at 2:19:46 PM
permalink
I just read that Ivey started out at $50k per hand,
but soon moved to $150k. He was playing in a
private room with his female friend, the dealer
and a Crockford suit. With 10 cameras on him.
He never touched the cards.
Some feel there is a big scam going on with
pre shuffled shoes. And the woman friend
of Ivey's being involved in something similar
at another Genting property.
but soon moved to $150k. He was playing in a
private room with his female friend, the dealer
and a Crockford suit. With 10 cameras on him.
He never touched the cards.
Some feel there is a big scam going on with
pre shuffled shoes. And the woman friend
of Ivey's being involved in something similar
at another Genting property.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 13th, 2012 at 4:31:45 PM
permalink
Total of 14 cameras in the room. I have no idea of their focal points.
Never less than one inspector in the room at the time.
Dealer was a trusted, long-term employee.
The raised betting level was with their consent.
I doubt Crockfords would purchase pre-shuffled card decks but do not know for certain.
Never less than one inspector in the room at the time.
Dealer was a trusted, long-term employee.
The raised betting level was with their consent.
I doubt Crockfords would purchase pre-shuffled card decks but do not know for certain.
October 13th, 2012 at 4:39:15 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSome feel there is a big scam going on with
pre shuffled shoes. And the woman friend
of Ivey's being involved in something similar
at another Genting property.
Seems like it would be really dumb to have that woman at the table with him if he was actually pulling some scam, as she is known to the management and has been 86'd from a sister casino.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
October 13th, 2012 at 5:07:04 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiff
I doubt Crockfords would purchase pre-shuffled card decks but do not know for certain.
Somethings going on. Crockfords has been around long
enough that they don't not pay someone without a
good reason. $7mil isn't chump change to them, but
its certainly not an unusually high payout either.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 13th, 2012 at 5:25:05 PM
permalink
I think it was a voluntary suspension of her membership but either way there is no allegation that she touched any of the cards at any time.
October 14th, 2012 at 12:24:18 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffThe adjoining Crockfords Club has a 24 hour business center, fine dining, and a lounge but the most the casino can do is assist with a reservation and messages. No one in the casino is permitted to accept a gratuity other than a waitress who may accept up to fifty quid. Chips are only accepted in the casino itself, not in any lounge area or restaurant or business center.
UK casino staff have been allowed tips for a couple of years or so. I dont know the deal at Crockfords.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 14th, 2012 at 5:00:41 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitUK casino staff have been allowed tips for a couple of years or so. I dont know the deal at Crockfords.
indeed this is true. I dont know how Gentings do it, or if they have carried on with the no tips procedure. And in response to an earlier comment, I would imagine comps may be offered at management discretion. Again, I cant be sure of this, not working for Gentings, but in most other UK casinos this is the case. And by management discretion I mean for someone who spends a shitload of money.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
October 29th, 2012 at 10:26:47 PM
permalink
No updates posted on the payment by Genting. Anyone read anything? A search provides nothing. Was he paid or accused of cheating?
October 30th, 2012 at 12:55:46 AM
permalink
No updates from anyone. It is a matter that will be heard in a Crown Court.
October 30th, 2012 at 7:29:09 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
October 30th, 2012 at 8:08:43 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSomethings going on. Crockfords has been around long enough that they don't not pay someone without a good reason. $7mil isn't chump change to them, but its certainly not an unusually high payout either.
Indeed $7 mil is normal whale territory. From Punting Ace in 2008: "Packer lost big too. He lost $20 million in one sitting at the Bellagio in 2000 and in a 3 week run of Baccarat at Crockfords in London, losses reportedly reached $16.5 million. He would bet up to $200,000 a hand and often have every slot on the table in action."
Crockfords refused to reply to my questions on how many hands were played, quoting "client confidentiality". But we can make some assumptions. If he played £50,000 at the start but soon went up to £150,000 a hand, we can assume that he won about 50 units. We can also surmise that he played around 20 hours over two days and I think that one hand is played each 30 seconds, or each minute if you do not have a separate shuffler. At Crockfords, where I am a member, they usually have a dealer and a shuffler, but I have not played in a game anywhere near this size! So we can hazard a guess that he played around 2400 hands, at £140,000 average, with an expectancy per game of -1% (1.06% is the most commonly used figure I find).
The standard deviation for 2400 hands of Baccarat is very close to SQRT(2400), actually slightly less as the SD of one hand is a whisker below 1, the stake. If it were a coin toss, it would be exactly one, of course. His expected result was therefore -24, and he actually achieved +50, which is about 1.5 standard deviations above expectancy. This will occur by chance around 7% of the time.
My guess is that Gentings have about as much knowledge of probability as they did when taking $16.5 million from Packer in 2000 or so. There does not seem to have been anything suspect about the result here, and I will write to the Gambling Commission requesting that they withdraw Crockfords' license if they cannot give good reason for non-payment. Others should do the same.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:25:43 PM
permalink
Quote: gooonerIndeed $7 mil is normal whale territory. From Punting Ace in 2008: "Packer lost big too. He lost $20 million in one sitting at the Bellagio in 2000 and in a 3 week run of Baccarat at Crockfords in London, losses reportedly reached $16.5 million. He would bet up to $200,000 a hand and often have every slot on the table in action.".
Not to go off topic, but is the "Packer" whom is often referred in various discussions, the father(whom I think passed away) or the son who is still active in the casino business? (or both?) During my time in Las Vegas, Mr. Packer was well known at Caesars also and well know for giving generous tips to reception and everyone else. Thank you.
October 31st, 2012 at 5:48:06 AM
permalink
The father, Kerry Packer, who did indeed die in 2005.Quote: NokTangNot to go off topic, but is the "Packer" whom is often referred in various discussions, the father(whom I think passed away) or the son who is still active in the casino business? (or both?) During my time in Las Vegas, Mr. Packer was well known at Caesars also and well know for giving generous tips to reception and everyone else. Thank you.
November 1st, 2012 at 3:43:19 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffNo updates from anyone. It is a matter that will be heard in a Crown Court.
Not being from the UK/England, can you please clarify what this means? Did he(Mr. Ivey) in fact sue the casino/whomever for the money? or does the matter go there as a rule?Thank you.
November 1st, 2012 at 4:11:20 AM
permalink
The Gambling Commission is the regulator of gaming in the UK now. Before 2005 gambling winnings were "debts of honour", but I think that they are now legally enforceable. But the only way to do that is indeed to sue. That will take a year or so.
November 30th, 2012 at 2:35:53 PM
permalink
any updates on this matter?
November 30th, 2012 at 3:34:47 PM
permalink
None. I expect no statements or press releases. None of any sort. The next items in the papers, if any, will be summaries of matters presented openly at Crown Court. Expect nothing until then. Nothing.Quote: bigpete88any updates on this matter?
May 12th, 2013 at 4:59:58 AM
permalink
There is a story in today's Mail on Sunday. They state that the cards had a non symetrical pattern on the back and by asking for some cards to be turned 180 degrees Phil and\or his companion could identify them in the shoe.
May 12th, 2013 at 5:12:24 AM
permalink
That is known as Edge Sorting.... but if a player turns valuable cards in a certain direction or the house does it... there is a difference. Casino chose the cards and chose to re-use them. Casino allowed players to touch them in the interim or not depending on whether game is Baccarat or Mini-Bacc. In Ivey's case, only the Casino employee ever touched the cards but the Casino now claims that Ivey's "companion" a female Asian banned from several casinos in Las Vegas stated Ivey was superstitious and wanted the cards turned 180 degrees.
Some allegation that it was not the usual pattern but a particular batch of cards that was mis-cut thus leaving a greater edge margin.
It may be that Ivey was a figurehead and that the Asian chick was the cheater, I don't know but it was apparently all done as Ivey being the gambler and Ivey asking for the betting limit increase and as soon as the increase was granted, the non-stop winning streak began.
Query: IF the casino's allegations are accepted by the court, who is responsible for edge sorting? The casino that supplied the cards and whose employee rotated them or the player who exploited the obvious indications of which the casino claims to have been naively unaware.
On-edit: Perhaps there is not all that much difference between the low-limit table at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City populated with non-English speaking immigrant Chinese and the super posh high limit private gambling rooms of Crockford's in Mayfair. When the casino supplies a slug of cards that can clearly be "decoded" by the players, the casino is going to lose money!
Some allegation that it was not the usual pattern but a particular batch of cards that was mis-cut thus leaving a greater edge margin.
It may be that Ivey was a figurehead and that the Asian chick was the cheater, I don't know but it was apparently all done as Ivey being the gambler and Ivey asking for the betting limit increase and as soon as the increase was granted, the non-stop winning streak began.
Query: IF the casino's allegations are accepted by the court, who is responsible for edge sorting? The casino that supplied the cards and whose employee rotated them or the player who exploited the obvious indications of which the casino claims to have been naively unaware.
On-edit: Perhaps there is not all that much difference between the low-limit table at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City populated with non-English speaking immigrant Chinese and the super posh high limit private gambling rooms of Crockford's in Mayfair. When the casino supplies a slug of cards that can clearly be "decoded" by the players, the casino is going to lose money!
May 12th, 2013 at 5:22:56 AM
permalink
Here is the story:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323122/Gambler-won-7-8m-reading-cards-How-tiny-flaw-deck-design-given-poker-star-upper-hand.htm
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323122/Gambler-won-7-8m-reading-cards-How-tiny-flaw-deck-design-given-poker-star-upper-hand.htm
May 12th, 2013 at 7:04:37 AM
permalink
I guess the casino was dealing all four initial cards face-down before they closed betting. Otherwise, I don't see how someone could gain an advantage.
May 12th, 2013 at 7:05:45 AM
permalink
I've heard he was edge sorting months ago, but was sworn to secrecy. I hope Ivey wins.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 12th, 2013 at 7:11:46 AM
permalink
Quote: bbcpjcHere is the story:
Somebody go back over all the posts and see if anyone called it!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 12th, 2013 at 7:12:47 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
May 12th, 2013 at 7:45:02 AM
permalink
Quote: silversonic2006I guess the casino was dealing all four initial cards face-down before they closed betting. Otherwise, I don't see how someone could gain an advantage.
I don't think so. That's where the flipping comes in. By having the dealer flip certain cards, they were sorting them when they returned to the shoe, and they'd have a better idea of what the first card out of the shoe will be. If they dealt all 4 before betting, then the flipping 180 degrees wouldn't be necessary. my guess is just knowing if the first card coming out was an 8 or 9 could tilt the balance to the gambler.
Edit: Okay I see how the flipping would still be necessary, but I don't think it means all of the cards came out before betting.
May 12th, 2013 at 9:19:11 AM
permalink
Ahh....and this explains why some casinos, when they break an 8-deck shoe into two halves when hand-shuffling, flip one stack 180 degrees and not the other.
May 12th, 2013 at 9:31:47 AM
permalink
Yes, exactly.
Edge sorting was one of the technqiues discussed heavily at the Advantage Play defense seminar, and it is one that is very new to some operators for some reason.
On card backings, asymmetircal patterns, and back side patterns that reach all the way to the edge of the cards are particularly vulnerable.
Any player request to:
1. turn some cards for luck, or
2. not to rotate card clumps during a shuffle, or;
3. to bet after dealing/seeing the backs of the cards
are HUGE red flags.
The pratice of a "clump turn" during the shuffle destroys edge sorting, and is routine on single deck pitch deals, but not always on double deck or larger shoes.
Dealers had wondered what was the point of doing this, not knowing the reason.
Edge sorting is being reintroduced both as an AP practice and as a game protection issue.
Edge sorting was one of the technqiues discussed heavily at the Advantage Play defense seminar, and it is one that is very new to some operators for some reason.
On card backings, asymmetircal patterns, and back side patterns that reach all the way to the edge of the cards are particularly vulnerable.
Any player request to:
1. turn some cards for luck, or
2. not to rotate card clumps during a shuffle, or;
3. to bet after dealing/seeing the backs of the cards
are HUGE red flags.
The pratice of a "clump turn" during the shuffle destroys edge sorting, and is routine on single deck pitch deals, but not always on double deck or larger shoes.
Dealers had wondered what was the point of doing this, not knowing the reason.
Edge sorting is being reintroduced both as an AP practice and as a game protection issue.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 12th, 2013 at 9:39:27 AM
permalink
"Edge sorting is being reintroduced as an Ap practice"Quote: PaigowdanYes, exactly.
Edge sorting was one of the technqiues discussed heavily at the Advantage Play defense seminar, and it is one that is very new to some operators for some reason.
On card backings, asymmetircal patterns, and back side patterns that reach all the way to the edge of the cards are particularly vulnerable.
Any player request to:
1. turn some cards for luck, or
2. not to rotate card clumps during a shuffle, or;
3. to bet after dealing/seeing the backs of the cards
are HUGE red flags.
The pratice of a "clump turn" during the shuffle destroys edge sorting, and is routine on single deck pitch deals, but not always on double deck or larger shoes.
Dealers had wondered what was the point of doing this, not knowing the reason.
Edge sorting is being reintroduced both as an AP practice and as a game protection issue.
No dan It`s been going on for years,Casinos and so called game protection specialists are just becoming aware of it.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
May 12th, 2013 at 9:43:03 AM
permalink
Quote: Hunterhill"Edge sorting is being reintroduced as an Ap practice"
No dan It`s been going on for years,Casinos and so called game protection specialists are just becoming aware of it.
I KNOW it is as old as the hills. (That's why I said it was reintroduced instead of introduced.) It is so old that the true reason for the "clump turn" during a shuffle became unknown to many casino dealers and floormen - and so is new to them. It was certainly new to Crockford's in that regard.
It is making a resurgence to some degree because it had fallen so far down below the radar, and catching operators by surprise; in that sense, it is indeed a reintroduction of this technique
Believe me, if edge sorting was up front in the minds of the operators, incidents like Ivey's would not have occurred.
Specific cards were indeed requested to be turned 180* by Ivey's companion ("for luck"), according to the article.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 12th, 2013 at 9:46:53 AM
permalink
It wasn`t upfront in their minds because they were not aware of it. Ivey`s score was perhaps the biggest however there have been 5 figure scores going on for decades with the casinos being oblivious.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
May 12th, 2013 at 9:53:50 AM
permalink
I wonder...
Did Crockford's officially announce the reason for denial of the money, or is the Daily Mail speculating and running with it as the issue?
One would think that Crockford's is obligated to provide an official explanation. If they did, it would be tantamount to calling Ivey a scammer.
The surveillance tapes tell the story. I would like to see clips of that on Youtube or Beating Vegas.
Did Crockford's officially announce the reason for denial of the money, or is the Daily Mail speculating and running with it as the issue?
One would think that Crockford's is obligated to provide an official explanation. If they did, it would be tantamount to calling Ivey a scammer.
The surveillance tapes tell the story. I would like to see clips of that on Youtube or Beating Vegas.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 12th, 2013 at 10:17:14 AM
permalink
I can just hear Ivey thinking to himself, as he placed his bets, "I can't believe these idiots are actually doing it!!!"
A falling knife has no handle.
May 12th, 2013 at 10:22:51 AM
permalink
Quote: MoscaI can just hear Ivey thinking to himself, as he placed his bets, "I can't believe these idiots are actually doing it!!!"
Ha! :) I'm sure he did - and he kept a smile-in-you-face poker face all through it, if that were the case.
But, if it turns out via surveillance tapes that edge sorting was not a factor and the play was clean (what was visible to Ivey is also visible to management on the tapes), then pay him and be done with it.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 12th, 2013 at 10:25:42 AM
permalink
>Did Crockford's officially announce the reason for denial of the money...
No.
>One would think that Crockford's is obligated to provide an official explanation.
No. Its Ivey who must sue Crockfords and Ivey who has the burden of proof.
>The surveillance tapes tell the story.
We probably won't ever see them
No.
>One would think that Crockford's is obligated to provide an official explanation.
No. Its Ivey who must sue Crockfords and Ivey who has the burden of proof.
>The surveillance tapes tell the story.
We probably won't ever see them
May 12th, 2013 at 11:07:27 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiff
>One would think that Crockford's is obligated to provide an official explanation.
No. Its Ivey who must sue Crockfords and Ivey who has the burden of proof.
True. but he has a reciept saying that they owe him the money. This basically puts the burden of proof back on the casino operator to prove that it would be unfair for them to have to honor their debt.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
May 12th, 2013 at 12:05:21 PM
permalink
Quote: bigfoot66This basically puts the burden of proof back on the casino
Except I think British law gives huge latitude to the casinos.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 12th, 2013 at 12:51:06 PM
permalink
The receipt indicates the amount of the dispute but the burden of proof is on Ivey since UK law requires that he sue the casino for payment. English law can be strange at times.
May 12th, 2013 at 6:46:10 PM
permalink
Phil Ivey is living large
Each day is better than the next
May 12th, 2013 at 7:09:28 PM
permalink
Now I wonder if the old couple fans were just part of a scheme. LOL.
Remember them?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5482/philiveysuperfans32754.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/old-couple-cheering-phil-ivey-538534/&h=401&w=600&sz=75&tbnid=KhPKczwMbYKw7M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__3AgG5ACMqATdb9XRwAa6GQPjhI4=&docid=VcM3ykUTYKRGvM&sa=X&ei=lUqQUb2WH4_o0wGz9oA4&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAA&dur=2648
Remember them?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5482/philiveysuperfans32754.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/old-couple-cheering-phil-ivey-538534/&h=401&w=600&sz=75&tbnid=KhPKczwMbYKw7M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__3AgG5ACMqATdb9XRwAa6GQPjhI4=&docid=VcM3ykUTYKRGvM&sa=X&ei=lUqQUb2WH4_o0wGz9oA4&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAA&dur=2648
I am a robot.
May 12th, 2013 at 7:13:03 PM
permalink
Quote: treetopbuddyPhil Ivey is living large
aahigh.com
May 12th, 2013 at 10:27:12 PM
permalink
Ivey started his betting at £50K per hand, and later raised that, with the casino's blessing, to £150K per hand.
He dipped as low as £500K in the red, but eventually won £7,600K. So he won slightly over 50 units at £150K.
Fifty units is not an outrageous amount to win. What was the casino doing letting him bet that big if they couldn't afford to lose 50 units?
He dipped as low as £500K in the red, but eventually won £7,600K. So he won slightly over 50 units at £150K.
Fifty units is not an outrageous amount to win. What was the casino doing letting him bet that big if they couldn't afford to lose 50 units?
May 12th, 2013 at 10:34:25 PM
permalink
I have only played baccarat a few times,isn`t 50 units alot to win? Unlike blackjack there is no splitting ,doubling or 3 to 2 payoffs. How often would a regular player experience a 50 unit win? Lets say in one day of play.Quote: pacomartinIvey started his betting at £50K per hand, and later raised that, with the casino's blessing, to £150K per hand.
He dipped as low as £500K in the red, but eventually won £7,600K. So he won slightly over 50 units at £150K.
Fifty units is not an outrageous amount to win. What was the casino doing letting him bet that big if they couldn't afford to lose 50 units?
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
May 13th, 2013 at 6:29:25 AM
permalink
Quote: HunterhillI have only played baccarat a few times,isn`t 50 units alot to win?
I didn't say it isn't a lot, I said it is "not outrageous".
Furthermore, even if he did observe the cards, he didn't mark anything. You should never be penalized for being observant.
May 13th, 2013 at 6:38:23 AM
permalink
I don't know how the bet sizes were being varied, but Baccarat players will often parlay.
2->4->8->16->32->64 is just 6 wins in a row.
I don't think this is how Phil won, but any time you have an edge, especially if it's double digit percentage on an even-money bet, full parlay can be quite effective.
2->4->8->16->32->64 is just 6 wins in a row.
I don't think this is how Phil won, but any time you have an edge, especially if it's double digit percentage on an even-money bet, full parlay can be quite effective.
aahigh.com
May 13th, 2013 at 6:51:03 AM
permalink
Its not alleged that he placed any marks upon the cards, Its alleged that he oriented the cards in a certain fashion to reveal a pre-existing edge sort that serves as a mark and that such orientation was by his order via the Asian female.Quote: pacomartinFurthermore, even if he did observe the cards, he didn't mark anything. You should never be penalized for being observant.
