Ivey Did Cheat, Judge Rules.
Well Stephen , seems the judge thinks you and Geoffrey were cheats too. Do you feel guilty? LOL
Quote: MrCasinoGames
Wowwww, I hope this can get appealed. This is ridiculous. He never touched/placed/marked the cards. He simply used his mouth to speak words and the dealers manipulated the cards. He literally did nothing but speak and bet. How on Earth is that cheating?
The casino talks a big game about "all the winners" to get people in the casino... When in reality so many more lose. That should be cheating too then.
Crockford's screwed up and didn't realize that allowing Phil to pick out the card manufacturer, allowing Phil to tell the dealer to arrange the cards in a certain manner & asking for an automatic shuffling machine to be used, that they were destined to lose.
How is that different than a casino deciding that paying 2-1 BJ's is a good promotion to run and then asking for all the patrons to re-pay their winnings because they didn't realize this would create a player advantage on their BJ tables?
Insane ruling!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-battered-senseless-left-dead-4164292
Quote: ParadigmWow is right!! This is the same as any poorly thought out casino promotion gone awry.
Crockford's screwed up and didn't realize that allowing Phil to pick out the card manufacturer, allowing Phil to tell the dealer to arrange the cards in a certain manner & asking for an automatic shuffling machine to be used, that they were destined to lose.
How is that different than a casino deciding that paying 2-1 BJ's is a good promotion to run and then asking for all the patrons to re-pay their winnings because they didn't realize this would create a player advantage on their BJ tables?
Insane ruling!!
Agreed. It's not like he manipulated a single person either. I'm sure there were multiple people who were involved in the decisions to permit the brand of card, allow for the turn and authorize the card shuffling procedure. Not to mention the number of people watching a game of these type of stakes. Crockord's at fault. My opinion doesn't carry any weight, but I think it's a bad decision.
I would compare it to asking your BJ dealer to show you their down card every hand before you make your play. People here are arguing that Ivey didn't touch the cards all he did was have the dealer change their routine to give him an advantage. I think that is exactly the same as my BJ example. In both cases it is collusion to give an advantage.
Quote: DRichI guess I am one of the few here that thinks this is a reasonable judgement.
I would compare it to asking your BJ dealer to show you their down card every hand before you make your play. People here are arguing that Ivey didn't touch the cards all he did was have the dealer change their routine to give him an advantage. I think that is exactly the same as my BJ example. In both cases it is collusion to give an advantage.
Bad analogy. If I ask the dealer to show me his hole card and he does, then that is not cheating! If I offer a bribe to the dealer to show me his hole card, then that is cheating, or collusion, or whatever crime you want to call it.
Quote: SOOPOOBad analogy. If I ask the dealer to show me his hole card and he does, then that is not cheating! If I offer a bribe to the dealer to show me his hole card, then that is cheating, or collusion, or whatever crime you want to call it.
You are 100% wrong!!!
Collusion does not require all parties participating to be rewarded.
Quote: DRichYou are 100% wrong!!!
Collusion does not require all parties participating to be rewarded.
To the specific example you made..... If I politely ask the dealer.... "I play better when I know what your hole card is, will you please show it to me?", and he does so, you think I am cheating?
An expensive lesson they should have learned will morph into an unearned triumph, accompanied by worse rules and less good games for everyone. Bad.
Quote: SOOPOOTo the specific example you made..... If I politely ask the dealer.... "I play better when I know what your hole card is, will you please show it to me?", and he does so, you think I am cheating?
Yes, and if you continue doing it you will both be arrested for cheating. If it wasn't cheating, wouldn't we all sit at a BJ table with a friend dealing and have them show us their card every hand?
Quote: DRichYes, and if you continue doing it you will both be arrested for cheating. If it wasn't cheating, wouldn't we all sit at a BJ table with a friend dealing and have them show us their card every hand?
I disagree! You are now adding the 'friend' part. To me that would make it collusion. It is up to the casino to teach their employees not to honor my request, not up to me not to make the request. It is up to the casino to make sure if they don't want that card seen, they should not show it.
I am guessing we would disagree on the legality of regular hole carding AP opportunities.....
Quote: MoeHowardGoing forward, any casino that gets beat by an AP using a method the casino had never heard of before can use the "Crockfords" defense to withhold the AP's winnings.
I'm not an lawyer, but I think this bad precedent would not apply outside of England and maybe the rest of the UK.
cards illegal for sure.
Quote: RomesQuote: MrCasinoGames
Wowwww, I hope this can get appealed.
"Judge Mitting turned down Ivey’s permission to appeal his verdict."
Only if the casino claimed it had never heard of card counting before. Otherwise it would be legal.Quote: EvenBobUsing this judges logic, he would find counting
cards illegal for sure.
Quote: DRichYes, and if you continue doing it you will both be arrested for cheating. If it wasn't cheating, wouldn't we all sit at a BJ table with a friend dealing and have them show us their card every hand?
DRich the big difference SOOPOO is failing to point out in your example is that when you ask the dealer to expose their card they know what you're doing. They know the game is being manipulated, thus you're both "in" on something for some form of collusion. However, in Ivey's example he was asking the dealers to spin the cards for luck and the dealers were indeed spinning them around for what they thought was "luck." There's a clear separation and idea of what's going on here that in my opinion absolutely can not be consider colluding. The dealers had no clue what they were doing, obviously. Now if Ivey told them, hey it's called edge sorting, turn these cards this way, and they did... Then yes, that's colluding.
What he did was beat them legally, without collusion, and then the casino simply said "You won too much, you must have done something wrong, we're keeping your money!" which is NOT within their right to do. They should be charged for robbing the man, because when they refused to pay up, that's exactly what they did.
Quote: SOOPOOI disagree! You are now adding the 'friend' part. To me that would make it collusion. It is up to the casino to teach their employees not to honor my request, not up to me not to make the request. It is up to the casino to make sure if they don't want that card seen, they should not show it.
I am guessing we would disagree on the legality of regular hole carding AP opportunities.....
DRich,
Getting the dealer to show you the hole card is collusion. The dealer and player are cooperating in an improper manner that defrauds the casino. In holecarding, there is no cooperation; the dealer is just ill-trained. Edge sorting is similar in that regard to hole-carding, not collusion. This decision is wrong, and your analogy is wrong.
If you are taking your analogy so far into the realm of fantasy (as SOOPOO appears to be) where you just blurt out strange things out loud that no one would ever say, and the dealer has the IQ of a circus monkey and flips over the down card--I suppose because you didn't have any intent, and because the casino is hiring untrainable retarded persons, this wouldn't actually be collusion.
Quote: DRichI guess I am one of the few here that thinks this is a reasonable judgement.
I would compare it to asking your BJ dealer to show you their down card every hand before you make your play. People here are arguing that Ivey didn't touch the cards all he did was have the dealer change their routine to give him an advantage. I think that is exactly the same as my BJ example. In both cases it is collusion to give an advantage.
Bad analogy because Crockford's would never agree to a dealer showing a hole card in a BJ game.......they agreed to everything that was going on in this case, the dealer's actions, the cards, the shuffler......everything. If they agreed that was how the game was going to be spread, they are wrong to come back and say it wasn't fair after losing money.
Quote: MoeHowardOnly if the casino claimed it had never heard of card counting before. Otherwise it would be legal.
I'm talking in the early days. He would have
found a way to make it illegal.
Quote: ParadigmBad analogy because Crockford's would never agree to a dealer showing a hole card in a BJ game.......they agreed to everything that was going on in this case, the dealer's actions, the cards, the shuffler......everything. If they agreed that was how the game was going to be spread, they are wrong to come back and say it wasn't fair after losing money.
this is the part that is crazy to me. How can the higher ups in a casino agree to order special cards, change their procedures, and the shuffler then get mad when they are taken.
I can see it now. Ivey probably said I will play there if you order these cards. Obviously thinking they would say no, when they said yes he kept giving them demands. He was probably confused when they kept saying yes.
Above was quoted about not being able to appeal. From what I read, the judge denied an automatic appeal. Ivey can still appeal on his own.
Anyway, does the dealer here end up charged in some way. Judges says collusion, I thought colluders would be hit by charges too. Or this is new to me.
Quote: SonuvabishDRich,
Getting the dealer to show you the hole card is collusion. The dealer and player are cooperating in an improper manner that defrauds the casino.
I agree. I also agree that hole-carding is different because the player is not influencing the dealer to do it. I believe hole carding is just and legal.
Quote: mcallister3200If I recall correctly, two prominent gaming lawyers with the first name Bob disagreed on whether e.s. was legal. Just important to be cognizant that there's different jurisdictions to be aware of. A play that is legal in Nevada may not always be legal in Iowa, or on an Indian reservation. There's also often a gap between what is legal and what can happen, we don't live in a country with a completely effective "justice" system.
Doesn't matter if it's legal on an Indian reservation, it matters if it's a legal under federal or state law, unless you're an Indian.
Quote: ParadigmBad analogy because Crockford's would never agree to a dealer showing a hole card in a BJ game.......they agreed to everything that was going on in this case, the dealer's actions, the cards, the shuffler......everything. If they agreed that was how the game was going to be spread, they are wrong to come back and say it wasn't fair after losing money.
The way to know if this was a fair judgment is: If Crockford's had won overall, then discovered the method Phil was using (say, a game protection person was shown footage after the fact and spotted the edge-sorting), would they have pursued a prosecution, or just said, "Wow, we lucked out; we need to brief and train our people about this!"). Of course they would have done the latter. If they would have pursued it either way, then perhaps there's room to justify the verdict. But as it stands, no way.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe way to know if this was a fair judgment is: If Crockford's had won overall, then discovered the method Phil was using (say, a game protection person was shown footage after the fact and spotted the edge-sorting), would they have pursued a prosecution, or just said, "Wow, we lucked out; we need to brief and train our people about this!"). Of course they would have done the latter. If they would have pursued it either way, then perhaps there's room to justify the verdict. But as it stands, no way.
They could not pursue your hypothetical action in civil court because they have no damages. The case would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. As for criminal court, 'pressing charges' would certainly be fruitless. The actual claim was taken to civil court and Crockford's was the defendant.
Quote: EvenBobUsing this judges logic, he would find counting
cards illegal for sure.
Yup. That is also Dan's argument why card counting is cheating.
it will be overturned on appeal.
Besides, ivey is one of the top poker players. Why was the casino not be suspicious that he's going to AP any game he plays. unlike 95% of the gambling population, he clearly understands what "odds, EV, etc" means. Why did the casino let him play to begin with.
I also find it ironic the laser roulette case a few month ago was ruled legal but this is not. The roulette case was clearly more "cheating" by any means compared to edge sorting.
Quote: NeutrinoIf he was cheating then why isn't he subject to criminal prosecution? As far as I know all casino "true cheating" carry severe legal punishment. All AP acts that casinos call "cheating" but really are not (card counting etc) will result in them kick you out at the most. That's how you're supposed to know if it's cheating or not.
Civil and criminal court have different burdens of proof. OJ was not guilty of murder in criminal court, but liable for wrongful death in civil court. Basically, that meant they were 75% sure he did it, but not 99%. Further, Ivey sued them. Ivey was not arrested. They let him play because they thought the game was unbeatable, absent cheating.
Quote: Neutrino
Besides, ivey is one of the top poker players. Why was the casino not be suspicious that he's going to AP any game he plays. unlike 95% of the gambling population, he clearly understands what "odds, EV, etc" means. Why did the casino let him play to begin with.
I don't think you are very familiar with his Craps reputation. Every casino in the world has wanted him as a customer until this became public.
Quote: Paradigm......Crockford's.....agreed to everything that was going on in this case, the dealer's actions, the cards, the shuffler......everything. If they agreed that was how the game was going to be spread, they are wrong to come back and say it wasn't fair after losing money.
Yes ! This is the key point ! The casino willingly agreed to everything. So essentially they set some "new rules". That's their responsibility, right ? And it's fine if they want to change the rules later, but NOT retroactively !
Quote: Neutrino
Besides, ivey is one of the top poker players. Why was the casino not be suspicious that he's going to AP any game he plays. unlike 95% of the gambling population, he clearly understands what "odds, EV, etc" means. Why did the casino let him play to begin with.
I also find it ironic the laser roulette case a few month ago was ruled legal but this is not. The roulette case was clearly more "cheating" by any means compared to edge sorting.
ummm because very few poker players are APs. Actually most poker players spew their poker winnings before they make it out of the casino.
Quote: NeutrinoBesides, ivey is one of the top poker players. Why was the casino not be suspicious that he's going to AP any game he plays. unlike 95% of the gambling population, he clearly understands what "odds, EV, etc" means. Why did the casino let him play to begin with.
I can't speak about Ivey, but a lot of professional gamblers are also compulsive gamblers and known to bet on negative games as well. Stu Ungar is a good example. I've known skilled advantage players who, when there wasn't anything positive to bet on, would resort to something negative.
I can say that when I played at the Mandalay Bay a lot Johnny Chan was often seen in the high limit room playing baccarat. Why, I have no idea.
Of course the best chump you can find for hustling at pool or at cards is a successful business man. Just one or two fish like that can give you a nice living for several years. I was never into golf, but I can only imagine the chumps available at the country club.
Quote: WizardI can't speak about Ivey, but a lot of professional gamblers are also compulsive gamblers and known to bet on negative games as well. Stu Ungar is a good example. I've known skilled advantage players who, when there wasn't anything positive to bet on, would resort to something negative.
I can say that when I played at the Mandalay Bay a lot Johnny Chan was often seen in the high limit room playing baccarat. Why, I have no idea.
What you just said absolutely blew my mind. Especially the Johnny Chan part, baccarat should be the game most intuitively obvious for being a losing game. I'll take your word for it even though I am very surprised that is the case.
So can you answer this: Am I more suspicious or less suspicious for being a card counter at the blackjack table, if I'm known to play poker in the casino. What if I'm known to be a regular winner at the poker tables?
To me if I'm working for a sweaty casino I would sweat anyone who looks like they know what EV is. So obviously all winning poker players are included.
Quote: BuzzardAlways been amazed at guys who can kill one game, then lose it all playing another. Sorta like a death wish. I know guys who made a living shooting pool, but dumped a ton of money betting the ponies. Or card players who leave a great game to go bet on the dogs.
Of course the best chump you can find for hustling at pool or at cards is a successful business man. Just one or two fish like that can give you a nice living for several years. I was never into golf, but I can only imagine the chumps available at the country club.
Hustling seems to take a whole new dimension of skills compared to advantage gambling like poker or blackjack. I couldn't even get the fishes to stay at the poker tables. Guess I'll never go into hustling then.
Quote: BuzzardSome of the biggest chumps I have seen losing at Bj were guys from the poker room. And I mean the winners, not the calling stations.
Were they losing because they were playing bad strategy or were they losing despite playing a +EV strategy? I'm assuming it's the first part but I'm asking just to make sure.
Technically it would apply to Wales as well. Northern Ireland doesn't have gambling and Scotland have their own legal system. However the laws from Westminster usually state they apply to Scotland (or list the differences) - an example is the Sunday opening hours.Quote: WizardI'm not an lawyer, but I think this bad precedent would not apply outside of England and maybe the rest of the UK.
On many of the comments that this is a rubbish decision seem fair - but (I'm not an expert) our system relies on case law and judges (or juries) occasionally make strange decisions based on the facts of the case. Personally I am wondering whether the key factor here is whether the player exploited a defect (e.g. marked cards, hole cards showing) which they had no influence on, or persuaded the house to perform some act different to their normal (or natural) procedures, knowing the possible advantage from such an action.
Quote: NeutrinoWere they losing because they were playing bad strategy or were they losing despite playing a +EV strategy? I'm assuming it's the first part but I'm asking just to make sure.
Terrible basic strategy, doubling on hard 12, blaming loss on third base, etc.
Also used to root for some people to win poker tournaments. Because they would then play 2/4 limit and try those same fancy moves, try and move calling stations off a hand and other stupid moves.
Use to practice against a guy Rich Riggie, Maryland State Poll Champion about 10 years in a row. One handed best player ever. We would play to a 100. I got shut out twice. He would go to PA, win money shooting heads up one handed. Then lose it and more playing 2 handed one pocket. One pocket is more like chess than pool.
