Phil Ivey "wins" 7.5 million pounds at Genting-owned Crockfords.
I agree he should not be penalized,the casino should be made to pay. I was just curious,to me 50 units seemed like a very large win for a flatbetting regular gambler.Quote: pacomartinI 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.
Quote: FleaStiffIts 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.
If true, then it sounds to me that this is a form of cheating.
Not the taking advantage of what can be seen; the problem is having the dealer orient the cards to his direction.
Question: had she not oriented the cards when and as she did, would he have been able to win as he did?
I thought it was the players who arranged the cards in edge sorting, not the dealer: wouldn't that be obvious?
Okay, I've been impermissibly imprecise here.Quote: MrVI thought it was the players who arranged the cards in edge sorting, not the dealer: wouldn't that be obvious?
I think it is clear that in any game if it is the players who actually arrange for the valuable cards to be edge-sortable in a distinctive manner then it is indeed cheating.
With the Ivey incident it is my understanding that the Asian woman claimed Ivey was superstitious and asked the dealer to orient the cards with a 180 degree turn and did this openly within hearing of the Investigator (A person who in America would be called Floor Person ... more of an observer than investigator).
So the house willingly turned certain cards 180 degrees but did not realize that this made them woefully easy to edge sort as they were about to come out of the shoe.
It certainly is NOT clear that it is cheating.It is a gray area and you may be morally against it but it is the casinos responsibility to prevent this.Quote: FleaStiffOkay, I've been impermissibly imprecise here.
I think it is clear that in any game if it is the players who actually arrange for the valuable cards to be edge-sortable in a distinctive manner then it is indeed cheating.
With the Ivey incident it is my understanding that the Asian woman claimed Ivey was superstitious and asked the dealer to orient the cards with a 180 degree turn and did this openly within hearing of the Investigator (A person who in America would be called Floor Person ... more of an observer than investigator).
So the house willingly turned certain cards 180 degrees but did not realize that this made them woefully easy to edge sort as they were about to come out of the shoe.
Quote: HunterhillI agree he should not be penalized,the casino should be made to pay. I was just curious,to me 50 units seemed like a very large win for a flatbetting regular gambler.
Well 50 units is a very amount to win, there is no question. But it does depend on how much you had to start with. If he had 15 million pounds to begin, it is much more likely he would win 7.5 million pounds before going bankrupt. If he had less than a million pounds, it would be very difficult to win 7.5 million pounds.
The article says that he was at one point down 1/2 million pounds. Since that is only down a little more than 3 units at his maximum bet, it does make the feat even more impressive.
But in and of itself such a win is not unprecedented. Casinos normally limit bets to 5000 pounds or something, just in case. It is much less risky to give a person all the high end booze that he can drink and free rooms, then to let him make such high bets.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrMr. Ivey and his "partner" must have requested that the cards be reused. Casinos in my area do not reuse the cards from the $25 baccarat tables. A casino would certainly not reuse cards on game where $50,000 is bet per round.
Well 150K GBP is closer to $230,000 but that just makes your point even stronger. So they re-used cards and turned the cards 180 degrees to comply with the players request. And then they blame the player because he theoretically had observational skills.
Seriously?
Maybe I am confusing this with some other "scam", but isn't the card turning thing well known for, like, years? How could they not know about this at the casino?
Also, even if they didn't, if the punter would ask to turn certain cards, they should get really suspicious, superstition or no. Maybe they shouldn't have let some poorly trained guy oversee a 150k a pop game. I would really like to know how they explained this "superstition". I can't come up with anything anybody with half a brain would buy.
"Please rotate this card 180 degrees!"
"Why?"
"Phil's supersitious..."
"A'ight then!"
....
"Rotate this card as well."
"Awful sorry, m'am, but this is against...."
"...Superstitious!"
"A'ight then!"
"No not that one, the other one! - Turn that one back!"
"Blimey, that is quite the specific superstition, innit? Here, have 150k!"
Nope... you've obviously got a sense of humor!Quote: CanyoneroAm I missing something here?
And, quite frankly, I think you hit the nail on the head. Hire some dope who makes less than the doormen make and then make a deal to go 150K a hand. Then get surprised at a little strange superstition known as edge sorting.
Quote: CanyoneroAm I missing something here?
Yes.
Casinos will bend over backwards twice to appease high rollers. Money makes them stupid. Stupid costs them money.
Pay the man.
Quote: FleaStiffDon't the bets have to be placed prior to cards being dealt ... so edge sorting would only let him see the value of the FIRST card about to be drawn ... admitedly this is valuable information but it is no guarantee.
It is no guarantee on any specific hand but even over a relatively short session of play you are virtually certain to win. I can't ever remember being signficantly down on my capital using plays similar to this one, and I use a hell of a lot more cover....
Ivey's companion had a shady reputation specifically relating to edge sorting and it is this fact on which the casino seems to base its defense.
An internal investigation failed to disclose any cheating, which shows that edge sorting was not initially discovered.
The casino now claims that that Ivey/Asian-Woman "manipulated" their employee into turning the 8s and 9s but no other cards.
The "manipulation" occurred in open view of the casino's "Floor Person".
The edge sort would have been visible in the shoe prior to bets being placed, but presumably only for the first card to be dealt. This provides a significant advantage, nevertheless.
It appears that the casino may lack the originally employed cards since any discovery of the events seems to have been based upon the Asian Woman having a history of being banned for edge sorting in other casinos.
As always, the casino chose the cards and had every opportunity to inspect them prior to and during their use. The casino provided the "manipulated" employee.
pokerfuse link
Quote: AxelWolfwonder if he has been edge sorting in poker(; Doing anything remotely grey may bring up suspensions about his incredible poker "skills". If he was involved in edge sorting I would be surprised if this was a first attempt at such grey areas.
This idea definitely came to me, but he was good online too if I'm not mistaken.
You want someone to be good when the tv cameras are on him... which is when Ivey looks dead.
Quote: FaceYes.
Casinos will bend over backwards twice to appease high rollers. Money makes them stupid. Stupid costs them money.
Pay the man.
Yeah, check out APHeat for the most comprehensive article (three parts) about how AC learned that the hard way and how it may even could have been worse. Sitting there and permitting a dude to wong-out with bets of $50,000-$100,000 while his buddies play the rest of the shoe betting $100!
The newspaper however has launched this theory about edge sorting here’s how it worked. All of the cards backs were identical but due to a poor cut were a-symmetrical, that is the “leading edge” (first side out of the shoe) was distinguishable from the “trailing edge”. Dealing procedure meant that all cards were dealt so that after being played and shuffled the leading edge still always came out of the shoe first, therefore even though the cards were a-symmetrical since they were identical Ivey started with no advantage. Ivey noticed the improper cut, to gain an advantage after the cards were dealt and exposed Ivey asked for certain cards to be rotated 180 degrees for luck (I’ve read either the 8s and 9s or 6-9s), this was accommodated the cards were flipped back over into the dis-card and then into a new shoe. Now, after the shuffle the 8s and 9s would come out trailing edge first while all others still came out leading edge first.
Now my speculation begins. Assuming this theory is correct (remembering that neither Ivey nor the casino have commented on the theory) Ivey would now know if the 1st card out was either an 8/9 or not. If it was an 8/9 player would have a big edge and Ivey would bet player, otherwise he’d bet banker.
I’m wondering if any of the math wizzes on here can calculate the player’s advantage knowing the 1st card is an 8/9 or not in punto banco.
If there is a court case it will be quite interesting. In court “he who alleges must prove”. Ivey alleges that he played punto banco at the casino, he won 7.6 million pounds, and the casino has refused to pay. It seems to me all of these allegations will be very easy to prove he can easily call any of the dealers or pit bosses as witnesses and enter his receipt to establish these facts. Once Ivey proves he played and won it will be up to the casino to provide and prove a defence at law as to why they don’t have to pay.
Here there are 2 components: First the casino must establish that Ivey completed the “scam” established above and knew the first card was an 8/9 or not. How would this be done? If what is printed is true the casino could easily establish that Ivey had the dealer turn certain cards through testimony. Next, I’d think you’d watch hours of surveillance footage and try and establish that a high percentage of the time when he bet player the 1st card was an 8/9 and a high percentage of the time he bet banker the 1st card was not an 8/9 I say high percentage because maybe he occasionally mis-read the cards or threw his bet to avoid suspicion. Maybe this would be enough to prove he was using the scam above it's circumstantial but not conclusive. The second step is to then establish that using the scam is illegal at law. I’m no English lawyer and I have no idea what the laws state about gambling cheating or if this would be considered cheating but I think the arguments on both side would be quite fascinating and similar to the arguments seen in most AP cases.
I suspect the casino is currently pouring over the tapes and information trying to build a defence and if there is any shred of truth to the edge sorting theory I would not be surprised if this was settled out of court for around half the total.
Quote: CrazyCanuckI’m wondering if any of the math wizzes on here can calculate the player’s advantage knowing the 1st card is an 8/9 or not in punto banco.
Way ahead of you. That information is in my baccarat appendix 9. To save you the trouble of the click, the Player bet has a 17.3% with first card of an 8, and 21.% with a 9.
Quote:The second step is to then establish that using the scam is illegal at law. I’m no English lawyer and I have no idea what the laws state about gambling cheating or if this would be considered cheating but I think the arguments on both side would be quite fascinating and similar to the arguments seen in most AP cases.
I'm certainly no expert on English law, but in Nevada I would lay good money that Ivey would win. There is no law against edge sorting and it is the casino's job to protect their own game. Go Phil!
Quote: WizardWay ahead of you. That information is in my baccarat appendix 9. To save you the trouble of the click, the Player bet has a 17.3% with first card of an 8, and 21.% with a 9.
It's also important to note that simply knowing it's NOT an 8 or 9 means the Banker bet has a small edge too. And if you successfully sort them all, eventually you'll know that too. (Nowhere near 17%, but I suppose you could average the 0 thru 7 EVs you have in the appendix...probably a couple % worth)
Quote: FleaStiffAn internal investigation failed to disclose any cheating, which shows that edge sorting was not initially discovered.
I think the casino had to re-investigate before they discovered this edge sorting, so they don't really have the cards anymore and don't even have contemporaneous recollections of the "orientation" of the cards despite there being two casino employees present at all times.
I look forward to the actual trial. Anyone know when its scheduled?
Quote: cclub79It's also important to note that simply knowing it's NOT an 8 or 9 means the Banker bet has a small edge too. And if you successfully sort them all, eventually you'll know that too. (Nowhere near 17%, but I suppose you could average the 0 thru 7 EVs you have in the appendix...probably a couple % worth)
A 6 and 7 as the first card also give the Player bet a small edge. I think the best way to edge sort baccarat would be to put 0-5 point cards one way, and 6-9 the other. With a low card (0 to 5) bet the Banker, otherwise Player.
Average advantage on Banker bet = 4.56%
Average advantage on Player bet = 11.74%
Overall advantage = 6.76%.
Quote: AxelWolfwonder if he has been edge sorting in poker(; Doing anything remotely grey may bring up suspensions about his incredible poker "skills". If he was involved in edge sorting I would be surprised if this was a first attempt at such grey areas.
I've never seen any casino anywhere that uses cards that have a pattern that is cut at the edge. Typically there is a 1/4" white border around the edge. Is it feasible to edge sort this kind of card?
Quote: WizardA 6 and 7 as the first card also give the Player bet a small edge. I think the best way to edge sort baccarat would be to put 0-5 point cards one way, and 6-9 the other. With a low card (0 to 5) bet the Banker, otherwise Player.
Average advantage on Banker bet = 4.56%
Average advantage on Player bet = 11.74%
Overall advantage = 6.76%.
True but I think they probably realized with only minimal sorting likely allowed, the best bet is 8 and 9. While 6 and 7 do provide a player edge, 0 to 7 overall provides a banker edge.
Quote: paisielloI've never seen any casino anywhere that uses cards that have a pattern that is cut at the edge.
They are almost always cut that way in Vegas.
this is a example of sarcasm: Ya Because no one ever did anything suspicious while playing online poker.Quote: onenickelmiracleThis idea definitely came to me, but he was good online too if I'm not mistaken.
Way back when I fist heard a VERY REPUTABLE casino that Can handle millions in payouts withheld Phil's 7mill when playing a unknown game at the time with some ASIAN lady. I IMMEDIATELY I knew Grey area type play/cheatinf would be a factor I said this to many friends I even sent an Email to a friend stating this. I Have suspicions about some higher profile poker players that I'll keep to myself.
I may take a bet with you on this come up with a few scenarios and odds to think about.Quote: Wizard
I would lay good money that Ivey would win. There is no law against edge sorting and it is the casino's job to protect their own game. Go Phil!
Would you say Go Phil if you found out this was not all by chance? IE: A team known for shady play set this all up and they conspired and colluded with Phil to screw the casino?
I'm certain he would not be a one trick pony. There are many many things possible when it comes to cards and poker even some techniques we have never even heard or thought of.Quote: paisielloI've never seen any casino anywhere that uses cards that have a pattern that is cut at the edge. Typically there is a 1/4" white border around the edge. Is it feasible to edge sort this kind of card?
Quote: WizardWay ahead of you. That information is in my baccarat appendix 9. To save you the trouble of the click, the Player bet has a 17.3% with first card of an 8, and 21.% with a 9.
I'm certainly no expert on English law, but in Nevada I would lay good money that Ivey would win. There is no law against edge sorting and it is the casino's job to protect their own game. Go Phil!
The legal definition of "cheating" in Nevada is to "alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit."
hi, this caught my eye. I know you are not a lawyer, but why do you think that would be the case in Nevada? I posted the relevant law that I could find. Couldn't you claim that sorting would alter the elements of chance which determine the results of a game? Am I wrong?
Would your answer be different if Mr. Ivey sorted the cards himself vs having the dealer sort them?
Turn it over. Put a few ordinary cards in one direction and turn a few valuable cards 180 degrees round. If you can figure out the difference, so can anyone else as long as that difference is visible from the edge of the shoe.Quote: paisielloIs it feasible to edge sort this kind of card?
Quote: paisielloI've never seen any casino anywhere that uses cards that have a pattern that is cut at the edge. Typically there is a 1/4" white border around the edge. Is it feasible to edge sort this kind of card?
Click on any of these images for a larger version. I assure you these cards were not cherry picked, but decks I had laying around my house.
You will notice the pattern is cut off in a different place on each side. For example, note how the white diamonds barely touch the side of the card on the top of the image, but are cut off about half way on the bottom side. If the casino chooses to save a few pennies per deck with poorly cut cards, then I don't have much sympathy for them if player's exploit the defect.
Quote: curiouslookCouldn't you claim that sorting would alter the elements of chance which determine the results of a game? Am I wrong?
Would your answer be different if Mr. Ivey sorted the cards himself vs having the dealer sort them?
No, I wouldn't claim that. The casino chose to use cheap cards in a game where millions were at stake. Then they said "yes" when the player requested the cards be rotated by the dealer. There was no cheating device involved. Ivey just gave the casino his best game.
I would liken this to hole carding. Every time casinos have back-roomed players for that, under the incorrect notion it was cheating, the player sued for wrongful imprisonment, and won to the tune of about half a million dollars. Again, I support Ivey 100%.
Quote: AxelWolfI may take a bet with you on this come up with a few scenarios and odds to think about.
I don't know much about gaming laws in England, so I wouldn't make a large wager on the outcome. If this were in Nevada, I would lay long odds Ivey would win.
Quote:Would you say Go Phil if you found out this was not all by chance? IE: A team known for shady play set this all up and they conspired and colluded with Phil to screw the casino?
Yes. As long as no casino employees were part of the conspiracy. Much like card counting well done, I admire all successful attempts to win at a game of chance under the casino's own rules.
Quote: Wizard
You will notice the pattern is cut off in a different place on each side. For example, note how the white diamonds barely touch the side of the card on the top of the image, but are cut off about half way on the bottom side. If the casino chooses to save a few pennies per deck with poorly cut cards, then I don't have much sympathy for them if player's exploit the defect.
Do they use these same type of decks in the poker rooms as well?
Quote: paisielloDo they use these same type of decks in the poker rooms as well?
Yes. Poker cards are all plastic, as opposed to plastic coated heavy paper, but the back pattern still goes to the edge. A couple decks I have from the Claridge are definitely edge sortable.
A little off topic, but does anyone know why casino cards have a geometric pattern going to the edge, while store-bought cards generally have a border around the edge. The casino-style card also makes it easier to deal seconds undetected, and perhaps false shuffles. I hope telitot notices this question.
They did not request 6-9's be turned. The requested that any card who's orientation they wanted to reverse be changed. The cards did not come pre-sorted, so no specific subset was re-oriented.Quote: NokTangIt's hard to even imagine that a player requesting one card, or two, or three in each deal be turned 180' would not cause alarm when said cards were always 8's and 9's, even if 6-9's. Add to that the amount being wagered makes it also difficult to believe said player could request use of the same cards and get both of these out of the ordinary requests granted.
Cards that have plain-white backs are subject to incidental marks and blemishes that make them identifiable, so some sort of pattern is appropriate. At that point, my understanding is that it is simply a cost equation. Cards with faded or bleached borders cost more.Quote: WizardA little off topic, but does anyone know why casino cards have a geometric pattern going to the edge, while store-bought cards generally have a border around the edge?
What I don't understand is why the cards can't be cut more accurately to begin with. How hard can that be? I surveyed over 650 pattern-based decks from various casinos and fully 70% of them were sortable.
I created the following image to summarize the top 10 designs in my survey. The first four, which are all sortable, account for 68% of all pattern-based cards.
Quote: teliotWhat I don't understand is why the cards can't be cut more accurately to begin with.
If a manufacturer were to answer [that wouldnt be me] I'd suspect he'd say the cost multiplier for accurate pattern alignment is a 5X to 10X multiplier
Quote: FleaStiffRECAPITULATION of points thought to be significant.
Ivey's companion had a shady reputation specifically relating to edge sorting and it is this fact on which the casino seems to base its defense.
An internal investigation failed to disclose any cheating, which shows that edge sorting was not initially discovered.
The casino now claims that that Ivey/Asian-Woman "manipulated" their employee into turning the 8s and 9s but no other cards.
The "manipulation" occurred in open view of the casino's "Floor Person".
The edge sort would have been visible in the shoe prior to bets being placed, but presumably only for the first card to be dealt. This provides a significant advantage, nevertheless.
It appears that the casino may lack the originally employed cards since any discovery of the events seems to have been based upon the Asian Woman having a history of being banned for edge sorting in other casinos.
As always, the casino chose the cards and had every opportunity to inspect them prior to and during their use. The casino provided the "manipulated" employee.
pokerfuse link
....................................
ADDENDUM:
It appears that Phil Ivey, who has a reputation for being polite, asked the casino to supply a Cantonese speaking dealer since he would be bringing a companion who spoke Cantonese.
Although the casino's allegations are vague, it appears that the casino is alleging that the orientation of valuable cards was done as a result of Cantonese conversations and the dealer's impressions about the woman's feelings.
Ivey also asked for a machine shuffler which meant cards, once oriented, would merely be shuffled, never re-oriented.
.........
Ivey's defense might well be that all he did was a socially correct gesture of courtesy towards his companion and that any social discussion of feng shu for certain cards was in Cantonese and was the dealer's decision, the casino having at all times the right to have Cantonese speaking supervisors present and more knowledgeable dealers present.
I would believe according to paigowdan this would definitely be cheating. Not necessarily illegal just cheating. I really can't believe that if any of this is true people are not more suspicious of his poker wins.Quote: FleaStiffQuote: FleaStiffRECAPITULATION of points thought to be significant.
Ivey's companion had a shady reputation specifically relating to edge sorting and it is this fact on which the casino seems to base its defense.
An internal investigation failed to disclose any cheating, which shows that edge sorting was not initially discovered.
The casino now claims that that Ivey/Asian-Woman "manipulated" their employee into turning the 8s and 9s but no other cards.
The "manipulation" occurred in open view of the casino's "Floor Person".
The edge sort would have been visible in the shoe prior to bets being placed, but presumably only for the first card to be dealt. This provides a significant advantage, nevertheless.
It appears that the casino may lack the originally employed cards since any discovery of the events seems to have been based upon the Asian Woman having a history of being banned for edge sorting in other casinos.
As always, the casino chose the cards and had every opportunity to inspect them prior to and during their use. The casino provided the "manipulated" employee.
pokerfuse link
....................................
ADDENDUM:
It appears that Phil Ivey, who has a reputation for being polite, asked the casino to supply a Cantonese speaking dealer since he would be bringing a companion who spoke Cantonese.
Although the casino's allegations are vague, it appears that the casino is alleging that the orientation of valuable cards was done as a result of Cantonese conversations and the dealer's impressions about the woman's feelings.
Ivey also asked for a machine shuffler which meant cards, once oriented, would merely be shuffled, never re-oriented.
.........
Ivey's defense might well be that all he did was a socially correct gesture of courtesy towards his companion and that any social discussion of feng shu for certain cards was in Cantonese and was the dealer's decision, the casino having at all times the right to have Cantonese speaking supervisors present and more knowledgeable dealers present.
I think there might be a difference between "taking a shot" and setting up the shot so it could be taken. Think for a minute of the Pai Gow Poker players who convinced the dealer that deuces were wild. Were they a bit soused and having some fun at the expense of the careless casino who but a neophyte on the carnival games table? Sure...but they kept the money! Its not just alcohol and a momentary impulse.Quote: AxelWolfI would believe according to paigowdan this would definitely be cheating. Not necessarily illegal just cheating. I really can't believe that if any of this is true people are not more suspicious of his poker wins.
Here Ivey can claim mere courtesy as far as the language went but ain't nobody gonna really believe him.
He can claim ignorance of Feng Shi and the Asian-Woman versus Dealer interaction.
He can legitimately claim ignorance of Cantonese.
But there is no one who would think he was ignorant of card values and looking at the leading edge appearing at the shoe lip.
This reflects on character but as far as poker goes ALL character is merely a Persona adopted for the game. When VegasRex sat down at one game and bet in the dark announcing he had not looked at his cards those local sharpies came awake. When he saw two aces in the flop, and later looked at the two aces in his own hand, he announced that he had two aces in his hand. Well, of course no one believed he was telling the truth and one player who went All In tried to complain that he had told the truth instead of lying. Well, truth telling is nothing but a temporary persona in poker. And perhaps in real life too.
Quote: teliotThey did not request 6-9's be turned. The requested that any card who's orientation they wanted to reverse be changed. The cards did not come pre-sorted, so no specific subset was re-oriented.
That's a distinction without much difference. If you change all/most of the other cards it leaves of course, the in our examples 6-9's. Same same.
Name of "Asian woman from Las Vegas". (I don't think its important that we repeat her name here, she is not necessarily a public figure under USA laws merely because an English casino makes allegations of her cheating in the UK).
Sizes of bets in first two days.
Specific request from Ivey that casino use exact same cards the next day.
Request from Ivey that manager leave the room.
link.
While it IS illegal to cheat, it IS NOT illegal to talk a casino into cheating itself.
I give him huge credit for having the balls to do it, and the skill to pull it off. And I WILL NOT play cards against him, nor bet him that the jack of spades won't jump up out of the deck and spit in my eye. Because if I do, I will need a handkerchief to wipe my eye.
A raconteur in the mold of Titanic Thompson, Phil Ivey.
