Phil Ivey wins 11.9 million but doesn't

London casino refuses to pay

Obviously, this is a big hit against the casino and they are trying their best to not pay.

His companion is banned from two casinos.

They should release the videos. If the article is true, it sure sounds like they were cheating though.

 

I think this happened almost nine months ago and was even aired on CNN at the time. I just think the casino is trying to stall since it seems like they found nothing suspicious. Playing baccarat at £150,000 a hand it doesn't seem impossible to net a £7.3million win when hitting a hot streak.

 

I like the guy but it seems from reading the article that he was up to something.

I could understand if he were counting cards because thats sort of a skill they need in poker, at least the ability to keep track of whats out there to some degree.
This seems like more than that though.

I think he was cheating or at least getting an advantage.

 

Who of us here woudlnt have done the same thing?
Imagine you were in Vegas playing $25 a hand blackjack and noticed a small dot on every card that was a ten. who wouldnt use that information for their benefit and up their bet?
You didnt do anything wrong, you are using the best information you have available to you. But i know there are some do gooders who would immediately inform the casino of their error.
hmm now lets imagine a slot machines computer messed up so that the rng paid back at only 5% instead fo 95%, therby ripping the customers off. When the error was noticed do you think the casino would start paying back everyone that played that machine?
Casino owes Ivey the money unless it can be proven he did something illegal. Noticing a flaw in a game and exploiting it is not illegal.

 

I think it's pretty simple-the casino put the cards in play not Phil. He played the hands he was dealt so to speak.

 

yeah, it's such a double standard. casinos make mistakes all the time that screw people over and benefit them, but as soon as one of their mistakes benefits the player, the casino screams "unfair".

 

This case is interesting especially in light of that VP software bug case and the recent decision handed down to dismiss all the main charges.

I don't like it because its once again the casino punishing someone simply for using their brain and figuring out a way to beat the system using only what the casino laid out for them. Just like in the VP case. Only difference here is he DID have them break normal protocol and turn those cards and not destroy them so arguably he did exceed the boundaries set by the game, unlike the VP case where that was a major part of their defense.

But the casino willingly agreed to Ivey's request so they expanded the boundaries in the first place.

 

Pay Phil pay Phil pay Phil pay Phil....

 

This is absolutely crazy. Without any firm evidence, the casino is throwing out a theory of how he cheated.

 

Complete bullshit if that's the entire story. The casino should be forced to pay for their own mistake.

 

The casino didn't wash or otherwise reorient the cards when shuffling? I think the dealer was in on the play.

 

I think they reshuffled, but did not reorient the cards as the casino did not realize that the cards were improperly manufactured so when the player asked that the strong cards be reversed, when the next shoe was dealt, the tip of the card peeking out of the shoe would have been the card(s) with the defect at the leading edge, so they could recognize the value of the first card coming out. They would not know the other cards of course, but knowing if a 6,7,8,9 is the first card out would be a distinct advantage. At least that is my take on how they gained an edge.

 

In any casino game where players do not handle the cards the cards stay in the same position... ie the right side of the face down card will still be the right side after having been dealt, discarded, and shuffled. If the table has an automatic shuffler the cards are also not washed during play or between shoes unless requested by a player (and then only on certain games). I don't understand why the cards would not have been washed when first introduced to the table but the rest makes perfect sense.

 

because these days the cards come pre-shuffled from the manufacturer to save time. that's the reason the one group of people a while back were able to take the casino for a huge win when they figured out that the cards weren't shuffled at all and coming out in the exact order.

 

That explains that.

 

Say it ain't so Phil

Anyone else read this article on Phil Ivey? Cheater!!!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.yahoo.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe-turnstile%2Fphil-ivey-british-casino-embroiled-dispute-over-payment-032520482.html&ei=zMuRUYX4OJCA0AHUpYGYBA&usg=AFQjCNF6p-sN4R4AtpW1GHrKQPYsTEy6xA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

 

Yeah, I did. Might be true but I have a tough time believing it. I just think the casino is sweating a big pay, their reputation be damned. Ivey was betting several hundred K at a time. 12 Mil is a possibility at those levels. They are going to prove he had actual knowledge.

 

Another article said that his "companion" is banned from two other casinos for cheating. I hope its not true...but seems fishy. We shall see.

 

If its in the paper it must be true! It doesnt matter if no evidence is presented.

 

Gambling Lawsuit: Did Ivey Notice Defective Cards At London Casino En Route To Winnin

The Daily Mail reported that the casino which withheld about $12 million of Phil Ivey’s winnings at a game called punto banco thinks the pro gambler cheated — well sort of.

Genting Crockfords London said that Ivey was able to read the backs of the cards that allegedly were defective and used this to his advantage to win millions last year.

The game doesn’t involve players touching the cards. Ivey apparently would have had to ask the dealer to turn them a certain way in order to notice the spot where he could obtain the crucial information needed to beat the game, which normally has a house advantage.

Ivey was reportedly playing with a woman who has been banned from other casinos.

The defect would be the result of a manufacturing mistake, likely attributeable to high demand for cards across the casino world, according to The Daily Mail.

Punto banco is a form of baccarat, and Ivey was betting up to £150,000.

Last week, Ivey announced that he was suing the casino for his winnings, which he maintains he accumulated legitimately and without any sort of edge.

“I am deeply saddened that Crockfords has left me no alternative but to proceed with legal action, following its decision to withhold my winnings,” Ivey said in a statement. “I have much respect for Gentings, which has made this a very difficult decision for me. Over the years I have won and lost substantial sums at Crockfords and I have always honoured my commitments. At the time, I was given a receipt for my winnings but Crockfords subsequently withheld payment. I, therefore, feel I have no alternative but to take legal action.”

For a closer look at how the game might have unfolded, check out The Mail’s reporting.