Doesn't seem fair. Hope the ruling is reversed on appeal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rm=.bc8ec8732a23&wpisrc=nl_most-draw14&wpmm=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rm=.bc8ec8732a23&wpisrc=nl_most-draw14&wpmm=1
OT: See link below, Phil Ivey beats casino at its own game only to lose in the end..................
- Thread starter Mr. Potter
- Start date
Interesting...I've got a very close friend, Chinese guy, who tells me he has a system to win with Baccarat. He's pushing 60 now and has three kids all over age 21. For each one, he took them to Vegas and taught them his system.
He's the smartest man I've ever known, lives in Calabasas. Likes his cars but is also one of the more honest men I've ever known.
He gave me a tip on roulette, that works but you've got to play a lot and let the odds catch up to you.
Not kidding, spending time with him on the floor is like being with a Chinese James Bond. By the end of the night, he'll have 20 to 100 people following him. He'll win, tip the dealer $200 and buy his new entourage a round and go to the next station. I've done it with him three times (Caesar's Palace and Bellagio are his places of choice). I have acquaintances that have gone with him and have the same experience. Fun times.
Didn't read the linked article (and I am not sure how they spun their interpretation).....but I am familiar with the situation
Phil Ivey - by any reasonable definition of the term - "cheated". Blatantly and with clear intent.
He should - at a minimum - reimburse for all his "winnings" (which - IIRC - were well into the "millions")
nope...but it is really kind of obvious. It is almost completely a game of luck, sans some physics.
I'm not sure if he cheated or not. For example, counting cards could be considered "cheating" but its not against the rules. Its the casinos fault for having ANY piece of equipment that is anything but completely random. If the roulette table has a bias, for example, and I discover and exploit that bias - I am not cheating, I am simply exploiting the casinos blunder.
The cards had irregularities from wear and tear. The guy Ivey was with asked the dealer to show him some cards in some manner after a hand. Ivey and his buddy were then able to identify some of the cards from the back side. Casino should have chaged a deck showing wear. Apparently, since his buddy asked to be shown cards, what they did was deemed illegal.
Actually, the cards had printing defects that Ivey was aware of, not wear and tear. They would ask cards to be rotated 180 so they could see the defects and that an automatic shuffler be used. They took advantage of the defective cards. The casino seems to have a beef with the card manufacturer.
Is it cheating? Is it cheating if you detect a betting pattern or a tell in an opponent at the poker table? I don't think so. The problem for Ivey is that the casino is the opponent here. To me the casino has the right to keep him from playing or barring him from the casino just like they would with a successful card counter. They also should win a suit against the card manufacturer. Now if Ivey worked with and needed his partner to accomplish this then it is cheating.
That's not even CLOSE to what happened
Is that the "synopsis" of what is in the linked story?
Am I cheating when I learn an opponents betting patterns and take advantage of that knowledge?
Fascinating. I love Phil Ivey. I wish it wasn't cheating, but apparently that's the way the judge interprets the Casino Control Act. I'm curious what the wording is.
If they didn't physically maneuver the cards, it seems like it shouldn't be cheating. The house could have refused to turn the cards when requested.
If they didn't physically maneuver the cards, it seems like it shouldn't be cheating. The house could have refused to turn the cards when requested.
That is not cheating in my book
No. It was deemed a breach of contract. And I'd like to see how they came up with that. Smells like b.s.
No. It was deemed a breach of contract. And I'd like to see how they came up with that. Smells like b.s.
That's not what happened. The cards were cut with an irregularity that She (Ivey's friend, not He) was able to decipher and have the dealer maneuver so they could read the cards.
TY......had a chance to read it, and - yes - the writer summed it up well and accurately
(The poster I was responding to had gotten information from "who knows where" - but it was all FUBAR)
Shame - because Ivey is (IMO) a damn good poker player.....
But this move was a low-rent, low-class crook move - - - and if he spent some time in the clink it might be justified (certainly, at a minimum, he should be forfeiting his "winnings")
Very disappointing that he continues to try to justify his BS crap
I imagine Ivey might have trouble finding a seat at any casino in the country now - despite his "celebrity status" and noteriety
