[Illusion]

Sounds like the casino has an issue against the card maker, not Ivey. Any advantage recognized is fair game imo.

[icheerthebull]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

Casinos dont force people into their buildings. Same with food not forcing itself into some fat fucks mouth.

People do it and should STFU about the consequences.

I disagree. The house wine and cry like bitches when they lose. Counting cards is not illegal nor is exploiting a card flaw. The house should face the consequences but the point of the story is they are not. Fuck the house. They should STFU

[invertigo]

Sleight of hand is as much a part of Poker tradition as anything else. Only a fool bets blindly on the honor system; You may not be cheating, but you can bet your ass someone at the table is, to some degree or another. At least when this much money is involved.

At any rate, this guy's screwed. That casino and their dream team attorneys are going to dry-rape him in court

[Illusion]

Update: Famed poker pro Phil Ivey, accused of cheating by casino, loses court case — and $12 million

Imagine you go to a casino to play blackjack. You find a table, sit down and buy some chips. Gambling has few barriers to entry.



After awhile, you notice: For some reason, all of the cards higher than 9 are marked. Because of some slight imperfection in the deck, you can tell whether a card is an ace, king, queen, jack or ten before it’s turned over. Because of a manufacturer’s mistake, you have a huge advantage over the house. And the dealer doesn’t notice.

You decide to stay at the table. You win $12.4 million dollars. But later, the casino figures out how you won, says you cheated and refuses to pay. So you sue.

So: What’s a judge to do? Were your gains ill-gotten — or is it the casino’s responsibility to watch its own back?

A different version of this question was put before a British court after American poker pro Phil Ivey sued a London casino. In 2012, Ivey was accused of cheating at Punto Banco, a form of baccarat, by Crockfords, which withheld Ivey’s $12.4 million winnings.

And on Wednesday, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice decided Ivey had done wrong — and won’t get paid.

“He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes,” Judge John Mitting said, as Bloomberg reported. “This is in my view cheating.”

Ivey was disappointed.

“I was upset as I had played an honest game and won fairly,” Ivey said in a statement, as the Guardian reported. ” … I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords’ failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability.”

Ivey’s admitted strategy — what’s called “edge-sorting” — was quite involved. Here’s poker scribe Jim McManus’s excellent description of the angle, which he wrote for Bloomberg. Headline: “Judge Says Poker Champ Robbed the Casino.”


more

[Blewvane]

I don't consider card counting or exploiting defects as cheating. Fuck the casino.

[MrCorpse]

Originally Posted by mr black ↗

Update: Famed poker pro Phil Ivey, accused of cheating by casino, loses court case — and $12 million

Imagine you go to a casino to play blackjack. You find a table, sit down and buy some chips. Gambling has few barriers to entry.

Attachment 575096

After awhile, you notice: For some reason, all of the cards higher than 9 are marked. Because of some slight imperfection in the deck, you can tell whether a card is an ace, king, queen, jack or ten before it’s turned over. Because of a manufacturer’s mistake, you have a huge advantage over the house. And the dealer doesn’t notice.

You decide to stay at the table. You win $12.4 million dollars. But later, the casino figures out how you won, says you cheated and refuses to pay. So you sue.

So: What’s a judge to do? Were your gains ill-gotten — or is it the casino’s responsibility to watch its own back?

A different version of this question was put before a British court after American poker pro Phil Ivey sued a London casino. In 2012, Ivey was accused of cheating at Punto Banco, a form of baccarat, by Crockfords, which withheld Ivey’s $12.4 million winnings.

And on Wednesday, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice decided Ivey had done wrong — and won’t get paid.

“He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes,” Judge John Mitting said, as Bloomberg reported. “This is in my view cheating.”

Ivey was disappointed.

“I was upset as I had played an honest game and won fairly,” Ivey said in a statement, as the Guardian reported. ” … I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords’ failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability.”

Ivey’s admitted strategy — what’s called “edge-sorting” — was quite involved. Here’s poker scribe Jim McManus’s excellent description of the angle, which he wrote for Bloomberg. Headline: “Judge Says Poker Champ Robbed the Casino.”


more

As an avid poker player this verdict makes me angry. What a fucking joke, if you're able to find a mathematical advantage over the house in any form of gambling that money belongs to you. As far as I'm concerned they just stole 12 million off him. He's a very successful poker player and no doubt worth a lot more than that, but this is probably still a decent chunk of his net worth.

[niknik]

Fuck the casino. It was their deck, their dealer, their game.

[GRiZ]

You can tell theres something seriously wrong there just by looking at that picture.

[niknik]

So he's not denying he was reading the cards based on the faulty design or printing. He's stating doing so isn't cheating. Is that correct?

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

So he's not denying he was reading the cards based on the faulty design or printing. He's stating doing so isn't cheating. Is that correct?

The guy is the best at what he does. His annual income on internet poker alone is roughly 10 mil.