What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Phil Ivey wins $12M; Casino claims cheating/exploiting, won't (1 Viewer)

I have a different impression of the story because I first heard about it as a casino not having the funds to give Ivey his winnings. This idea the casino has of him cheating came up later. Could be the casino making excuses...
This seems to be the most likely explanation. The casino surely knew what was happening, took the risk and lost, and are taking this position to negotiate a lower payout.
Certainly seems plausible. And, like every other angle to this story, very shrewd.

I'm not sure why, but I find every aspect of this type of scenario to be incredibly fascinating.

 
I have a different impression of the story because I first heard about it as a casino not having the funds to give Ivey his winnings. This idea the casino has of him cheating came up later. Could be the casino making excuses...
This seems to be the most likely explanation. The casino surely knew what was happening, took the risk and lost, and are taking this position to negotiate a lower payout.
Why negotiate? If him cheating gives themthe leverage to keep his winnings, there is no reason to negotiate. This will be an all or nothing decision.

 
Could someone break this down for me and pretend I am in the 5th grade while doing it.

How was Ivey smart enough to pick up the marks? How did the markings get made? Something seems missing from the story.
The marks weren't made. They were design flaws inherant to the cards themselves. Skewed printed designs on the backs of the cards. As for how he spotted them, he's a professional gambler. It's what he does for a living.
From what I read, they specifically requested a Korean (I believe) speaking dealer so that Ivey's companion could speak to the dealer without those around being able to listen/understanding what was being said to the dealer. Ivey's companion then request that all the 7, 8, and 9s be turned for superstitious reasons because in the game they were playing 7, 8, and 9s are the top starting cards. Then they requested that the cards be machine shuffled so that the turned cards would stay turned. That allowed Ivey the ability to determine whether the first card being dealt was a 7, 8, or 9 and he changed his bet accordingly. Seems a bit far fetched from the Casino's standpoint.
Interesting. A lot of things had to go right in that situation. And how dumb is the casino if they agree to requests being made by a professional gambler and his known card-counting friend?
Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too ####in' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it. Either way, YOU'RE OUT! Get out. Go on, let's go.

 
I have a different impression of the story because I first heard about it as a casino not having the funds to give Ivey his winnings. This idea the casino has of him cheating came up later. Could be the casino making excuses...
This seems to be the most likely explanation. The casino surely knew what was happening, took the risk and lost, and are taking this position to negotiate a lower payout.
Why negotiate? If him cheating gives themthe leverage to keep his winnings, there is no reason to negotiate. This will be an all or nothing decision.
Because, assuming this makes it to court, there are simply no guarantees of an outcome. Additionally, the casino and Ivey would likely incur expensive, non-refundable legal costs in some form.

Assuming each side rationally does a cost-benefit analysis, there should be a number somewhere in the middle there that makes sense for both sides. Naturally, that number would be lower than Ivey's initial win, so the casino's choice to hold out and create civil litigation saved them money in the end.

 
Baloney Sandwich, on 16 May 2013 - 11:03, said:So even if everything the casino said is true, how is Ivey not due his money? The dealers agreed to the requests he made and if they had an issue they should have just kicked him out.
Perhaps the casino thinks the dealer was in on the scam?
 
I have a different impression of the story because I first heard about it as a casino not having the funds to give Ivey his winnings. This idea the casino has of him cheating came up later. Could be the casino making excuses...
This seems to be the most likely explanation. The casino surely knew what was happening, took the risk and lost, and are taking this position to negotiate a lower payout.
Why negotiate? If him cheating gives themthe leverage to keep his winnings, there is no reason to negotiate. This will be an all or nothing decision.
He's filed a lawsuit, which they surely knew could happen when they refused to pay. All litigation is essentially a negotiation. Although I know almost nothing of gaming law in the UK, it seems the casino has significant exposure based on the facts presented here and in the article. The standard notion of "cheating" is inconsistent with a game in which both parties knowingly participate.
 
If you bend the corner of a card, you can totally use this to your advantage. I pretty much beat my 6 yo kid everytime in Old Maid. I suspect Ivey is doing something similar.
Dear Mr. Brony,

This letter is to inform you that you have been nominated for the honor of receiving the Father of the Year Award.

Sincerely,

Parents Everywhere

 
I have a different impression of the story because I first heard about it as a casino not having the funds to give Ivey his winnings. This idea the casino has of him cheating came up later. Could be the casino making excuses...
This seems to be the most likely explanation. The casino surely knew what was happening, took the risk and lost, and are taking this position to negotiate a lower payout.
They were probably waiting to see if he'd lose - where they say nothing, or if he wins a lot - where they take the cheating approach.

Casinos want to have it all. They do everything within their power to separate players from their money but don't want to follow a typical rule of business - taking a loss when you screw up.

 
Baloney Sandwich, on 16 May 2013 - 11:03, said:So even if everything the casino said is true, how is Ivey not due his money? The dealers agreed to the requests he made and if they had an issue they should have just kicked him out.
Perhaps the casino thinks the dealer was in on the scam?
I am unsure how the high stakes tables work but this played out over the course of 3 days. There was likely multiple dealers unless Ivey was able to get one dealer for his entire stay.
 
If you bend the corner of a card, you can totally use this to your advantage. I pretty much beat my 6 yo kid everytime in Old Maid. I suspect Ivey is doing something similar.
Dear Mr. Brony, This letter is to inform you that you have been nominated for the honor of receiving the Father of the Year Award. Sincerely,Parents Everywhere
My 5 year old daughter kept beating me in candy land till I realized she had bit the corners of the best cards.
 
If they argue his winning were invalid because their cards were flawed, then they should void all games played with flawed cards and refund everyone their losses as well on the grounds the game was void and any winnings, such as this guy's, would also be voided.

 
If you bend the corner of a card, you can totally use this to your advantage. I pretty much beat my 6 yo kid everytime in Old Maid. I suspect Ivey is doing something similar.
Dear Mr. Brony,

This letter is to inform you that you have been nominated for the honor of receiving the Father of the Year Award.

Sincerely,

Parents Everywhere
Would you rather his kid played Old Maid with Phil Hellmuth?

 
So even if everything the casino said is true, how is Ivey not due his money? The dealers agreed to the requests he made and if they had an issue they should have just kicked him out.
Where was the pit boss in all this? A guy dropping that much coin on each bet is going to be watched continuously, I'd think.

From what I read, they specifically requested a Korean (I believe) speaking dealer so that Ivey's companion could speak to the dealer without those around being able to listen/understanding what was being said to the dealer. Ivey's companion then request that all the 7, 8, and 9s be turned for superstitious reasons because in the game they were playing 7, 8, and 9s are the top starting cards. Then they requested that the cards be machine shuffled so that the turned cards would stay turned. That allowed Ivey the ability to determine whether the first card being dealt was a 7, 8, or 9 and he changed his bet accordingly. Seems a bit far fetched from the Casino's standpoint.
####### that's brilliant.
He's easily one of the best gamblers in the world. Not surprising in the least.


 
If the casino agreed to his request to keep the cards in play, I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. Ridiculous. Even if he did notice flaws in the cards, I'm not aware that it's actually illegal in any way.
I don't think it was illegal, but the presence of Ng may nullify any winnings. A card counter keeps their winnings and is usually banned. If they return the casino will confiscate their winnings if caught.
Has it been confirmed that the woman with Ivey was Evelyn Ng? Article just said she was unidentified.And this game is not affected by card counting is it?
It has been speculated that it was Ng. the casino has not given the actual identity but they did say the person in question had been previously banned.
So they let her play a high stakes game for 3 days even though she was banned? Was she wearing one of those disguises made up of plastic glasses, a fake nose and mustache or something? Seems doubtful.
Why not? I have no problem with a casino spotting a banned player and free rolling them.
The ultimate angle shoot.Let it ride, house takes all the winnings and if the player runs hot just pull the plug and say she was banned.
Sportsbook.ag did this exact thing to me earlier this year, for much lower stakes obviously.

Gambling houses don't exactly have an honorable history when it comes to someone getting the best of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the casino agreed to his request to keep the cards in play, I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. Ridiculous. Even if he did notice flaws in the cards, I'm not aware that it's actually illegal in any way.
I don't think it was illegal, but the presence of Ng may nullify any winnings. A card counter keeps their winnings and is usually banned. If they return the casino will confiscate their winnings if caught.
Has it been confirmed that the woman with Ivey was Evelyn Ng? Article just said she was unidentified.And this game is not affected by card counting is it?
It has been speculated that it was Ng. the casino has not given the actual identity but they did say the person in question had been previously banned.
So they let her play a high stakes game for 3 days even though she was banned? Was she wearing one of those disguises made up of plastic glasses, a fake nose and mustache or something? Seems doubtful.
Why not? I have no problem with a casino spotting a banned player and free rolling them.
The ultimate angle shoot.Let it ride, house takes all the winnings and if the player runs hot just pull the plug and say she was banned.
Sportsbook.ag did this exact thing to me earlier this year, for much lower stakes obviously.

Gambling houses don't exactly have an honorable history when it comes to someone getting the best of them.
No doubt, I've had some terrible floor rulings in my lifetime. Just seems silly considering the reach that Ivey has. Hes no schmo.

 
If the casino agreed to his request to keep the cards in play, I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. Ridiculous. Even if he did notice flaws in the cards, I'm not aware that it's actually illegal in any way.
I don't think it was illegal, but the presence of Ng may nullify any winnings. A card counter keeps their winnings and is usually banned. If they return the casino will confiscate their winnings if caught.
Has it been confirmed that the woman with Ivey was Evelyn Ng? Article just said she was unidentified.And this game is not affected by card counting is it?
It has been speculated that it was Ng. the casino has not given the actual identity but they did say the person in question had been previously banned.
So they let her play a high stakes game for 3 days even though she was banned? Was she wearing one of those disguises made up of plastic glasses, a fake nose and mustache or something? Seems doubtful.
Why not? I have no problem with a casino spotting a banned player and free rolling them.
The ultimate angle shoot.Let it ride, house takes all the winnings and if the player runs hot just pull the plug and say she was banned.
Sportsbook.ag did this exact thing to me earlier this year, for much lower stakes obviously.

Gambling houses don't exactly have an honorable history when it comes to someone getting the best of them.
No doubt, I've had some terrible floor rulings in my lifetime. Just seems silly considering the reach that Ivey has. Hes no schmo.
No schmo, but it's a lot of dough.

 
How is this any different that someone figuring out

CletiusMaximus said:
17seconds said:
I have a different impression of the story because I first heard about it as a casino not having the funds to give Ivey his winnings. This idea the casino has of him cheating came up later. Could be the casino making excuses...
This seems to be the most likely explanation. The casino surely knew what was happening, took the risk and lost, and are taking this position to negotiate a lower payout.
How much business is this casino going to lose fighting this? I don't get it.

 
Every casino I have worked for, the cards are checked for imperfections before they are allowed in play. If the casino missed them or didn't check the cards, it's their own fault.

 
Every casino I have worked for, the cards are checked for imperfections before they are allowed in play. If the casino missed them or didn't check the cards, it's their own fault.
The cards were perfectly fine and would pass any/all inspections
 
I guess I don't understand.The King of Hearts looks exactly the same whichever way I turn it.Are you saying the reverse side of the King of Hearts will look different held in different ways?I don't see how its possible to notice that.

 
Okay that video explains a lot. Thank you.Still I think a dealer would have to hold the deck two inches from my face to be able to notice that flaw

 
Sounds like the Casino screwed up doubly here.

Firstly, Is it really that hard to find decks that have a symmetrical pattern on the back? I would think that would be goal #1 in card design for casinos. I'm pretty sure that dollar tree deck of Bicycle cards can't be edge sorted, but Casino's are using cards with asymmetrical patterns that can be? Wtf?

Secondly, what kind of a dealer would turn all the good cards one way and not expect some kind of foul play going on? I'm pretty sure if I was playing a friendly game of blackjack for Jolly Ranchers with my family and one of them asked me to turn all the high cards in a different direction "for luck" I would tell them to F off, much less if we were playing for $230k a hand.

As others have pointed out, casinos do everything in their power to make the players screw up as much as possible and never give them their money back, yet when they screw up themselves they want a do-over.

 
"I'm a very superstitious guy, Mr. Blackjack Dealer. Will you please bend the corner of every face card for my, uh, belief system? Thanks in advance."

 
As others have pointed out, casinos do everything in their power to make the players screw up as much as possible and never give them their money back, yet when they screw up themselves they want a do-over.
Isn't this exactly what they were doing? You have a high roller with a known Advantage Player, who, oddly enough was banned. They are openly edge sorting. Do you stop them or do you let them play, knowing that you can confiscate their winnings?

Don't make Ivey out to be the victim here. They went in looking to angle shoot and ended up getting slow played.

 
If the casino really allowed a korean dealer to be requested so a korean player could speak to the dealer in korean (which no one else there understood), the cards to be turned for superstitious reasons, and/or actually let Phil talk them into using the same cards for over 3 days, then they should be forced to pay up for being so abso-freakin-lutely stupid.

 
If the casino really allowed a korean dealer to be requested so a korean player could speak to the dealer in korean (which no one else there understood), the cards to be turned for superstitious reasons, and/or actually let Phil talk them into using the same cards for over 3 days, then they should be forced to pay up for being so abso-freakin-lutely stupid.
The 'stupid' theory is less plausible to me than...1. Let them play. They win, claim cheating and don't pay. They loose, good for the casino. 2. They wanted to make a name for themselves/make Ivey and his friend look like cheaters. They agreed to the request to make this public.
 
If the casino really allowed a korean dealer to be requested so a korean player could speak to the dealer in korean (which no one else there understood), the cards to be turned for superstitious reasons, and/or actually let Phil talk them into using the same cards for over 3 days, then they should be forced to pay up for being so abso-freakin-lutely stupid.
The 'stupid' theory is less plausible to me than...1. Let them play. They win, claim cheating and don't pay. They loose, good for the casino.2. They wanted to make a name for themselves/make Ivey and his friend look like cheaters. They agreed to the request to make this public.
How is accusing gamblers of being cheaters when they win good for business?

 
As others have pointed out, casinos do everything in their power to make the players screw up as much as possible and never give them their money back, yet when they screw up themselves they want a do-over.
Isn't this exactly what they were doing? You have a high roller with a known Advantage Player, who, oddly enough was banned. They are openly edge sorting. Do you stop them or do you let them play, knowing that you can confiscate their winnings?

Don't make Ivey out to be the victim here. They went in looking to angle shoot and ended up getting slow played.
And? Angle shooting isn't illegal and it never will be. The casino should be using better cards, shufflers, dealers and floor men. It doesn't give the casino the right to take a players winnings. They can ban them for whatever they want, but taking their winnings is stealing, simple.

 
As others have pointed out, casinos do everything in their power to make the players screw up as much as possible and never give them their money back, yet when they screw up themselves they want a do-over.
Isn't this exactly what they were doing? You have a high roller with a known Advantage Player, who, oddly enough was banned. They are openly edge sorting. Do you stop them or do you let them play, knowing that you can confiscate their winnings?

Don't make Ivey out to be the victim here. They went in looking to angle shoot and ended up getting slow played.
And? Angle shooting isn't illegal and it never will be. The casino should be using better cards, shufflers, dealers and floor men. It doesn't give the casino the right to take a players winnings. They can ban them for whatever they want, but taking their winnings is stealing, simple.
If you are banned and somehow get back into the pit without being cleared, don't expect to keep your winnings. Had she been by herself and went on a heater without sorting, I would expect them to take her winnings as well. Ivey was merely a puppet in this whole thing.

 
I have no idea what the law says about this, but if Ng had been banned and it can be shown using video evidence that both she and Ivy were edge sorting (with or without the help of the dealer), it seems reasonable that his winnings would be linked to her play. I would think he'd also be banned, but the article didn't mention that.

Thanks for that video on edge sorting. I had no idea this could be done. I'll have to try it at home sometime to see how hard it really is. It looks like it would take hours of practice just to get the exploitation down without being obvious, and hours more to get the sorting down because you'd have to reorient the cards inconspicuously as you play.

 
'I read the cards but I'm no cheat': U.S. poker ace suing Britain's oldest casino after being denied £8million win admits using controversial 'edge sorting' technique

14 September 2013

A gambler who is suing Britain’s oldest casino for withholding his £7.8 million payout has admitted he did win the cash by ‘reading’ the cards.

Phil Ivey, dubbed the Tiger Woods of poker, says he used a legitimate technique called ‘edge sorting’ to identify cards during a game of punto banco, a type of baccarat based purely on luck. But he vehemently denies cheating.

However, Mayfair club Crockfords believes he ‘operated a scam’ and claims he ‘acted to defeat the essential premise of the game’ – and is refusing to hand over his winnings.


Mr Ivey – a professional American poker player – is suing the casino in the High Court and the case, the biggest legal battle in casino history, is due to be heard later this year.

In May, The Mail on Sunday reported details of Mr Ivey’s win – and revealed that the casino had not paid out because it believed he had been reading the cards.

In his court submission – seen by The Mail on Sunday – multi-millionaire Mr Ivey, 37 admits to being an ‘advantage player’ – someone who uses legal ways to gain a mathematical advantage over the casino.


Playing punto banco over two nights in August last year, Mr Ivey says he was able to exploit tiny flaws in the design of the cards – asymmetrical pattern differences on the rear that are the result of mistakes made during the manufacturing process.

It was well known in the industry around this time, according to Mr Ivey’s claim, that players might be able to use imperfectly cut cards to their advantage.

Because of this, the claim adds, the casino should have thoroughly checked them before use.

On his visit to Crockfords, Mr Ivey was accompanied by a Chinese associate known as Kelly, who was adept at ‘identifying the design flaws’.

Mr Ivey’s claim says: ‘During the second session on August 20 [Mr Ivey] made various requests for decks of cards to be changed at the end of hands with which [Crockfords] chose to comply.

This continued until Kelly identified a deck or decks of cards where the pattern on the reverse side of the cards was asymmetrical (in that one “long’’ side was different from the opposite side).’

Outlining how the pair managed to ‘edge sort’ the deck, the claim says: ‘Kelly would ask the dealer to reveal each card in turn by lifting the edge furthest from the dealer so that Kelly could identify whether the card was a seven, eight, or nine – the key cards in punto banco.

The first time that Kelly identified a key card, she told the dealer that it was a 'good' card which she wanted the dealer to rotate in the opposite direction to all the other cards and the dealer complied with the request.

‘In this way, the long edges of the key card became distinguishable from those of the other cards.’

Over the course of time, ‘the cards in the deck were increasingly orientated so that “good” and “bad” cards faced in the opposite direction’.

This meant that Mr Ivey was later able to recognise the key cards and bet accordingly.


Initially, he was betting £50,000 a hand but, having edge sorted the cards, he asked the casino’s permission to raise the maximum stake to £150,000.

Mr Ivey maintains in his claim that Crockfords’ owners were well aware how edge sorting worked and only have themselves to blame.

He says that casinos frequently accede to advantage players’ special requests because they do not want to deter them from playing.

Crockfords, the oldest private gaming club in the world, initially agreed to transfer Mr Ivey’s winnings to his bank account, but has returned only his £1million stake.

The casino is owned by Genting, a Malaysian gaming corporation, which sent investigators to London to question employees and scrutinise hours of CCTV footage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420796/I-read-cards-Im-cheat-U-S-poker-ace-suing-Britains-oldest-casino-denied-8million-win-admits-using-controversial-edge-sorting-technique.html

 
This is pretty hysterical. They gave in to his obviously suspicious requests for 2 days and never said a word until it was time to pay out? They deserve to lose just based on principle.

 
There should be multiple people being fired over this and a casino happy that he only took them for a few million. The dealer would turn the cards around for him? No pit boss anywhere in the neighborhood of the high stakes table with the celeb playing? If that story is true, this should be a slam dunk for Ivey.

 
Mr Ivey’s claim says: ‘During the second session on August 20 [Mr Ivey] made various requests for decks of cards to be changed at the end of hands with which [Crockfords] chose to comply.

This continued until Kelly identified a deck or decks of cards where the pattern on the reverse side of the cards was asymmetrical (in that one “long’’ side was different from the opposite side).’

Outlining how the pair managed to ‘edge sort’ the deck, the claim says: ‘Kelly would ask the dealer to reveal each card in turn by lifting the edge furthest from the dealer so that Kelly could identify whether the card was a seven, eight, or nine – the key cards in punto banco.

The first time that Kelly identified a key card, she told the dealer that it was a 'good' card which she wanted the dealer to rotate in the opposite direction to all the other cards and the dealer complied with the request.
Wow

 
What I don't get is why Phil isn't under glass for every fixed odds game in every casino in the world. I sure as hell wouldn't let him play if I were the house.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I don't get is why Phil isn't under glass for every fixed odds game in every casino in the world. I sure as hell wouldn't let him play if I were the house.
Because his swings are huge.

He wins and losses big. They just hope he losses.

 
What I don't get is why Phil isn't under glass for every fixed odds game in every casino in the world. I sure as hell wouldn't let him play if I were the house.
You would't play him in Craps? Child, please.
He evidently only plays games in which he thinks that he has an edge. And, since this is Ivey we're talking about, he's almost certainly correct. Why take the chance?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top