Let's forget it's Ivey, if it's ok then why would you leave if you knew it was going on? Why wouldn't you just try it yourself and level the field if it's ok to be part of the game. Makes zero sense.
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)
- Thread starter NewlyRetired
- Start date
TakiToki
Footballguy
Only thing that comes off really bad is the casino. Law is stupid WRT gambling in many avenues. Legislators gonna legislate and courts gonna court. $12mm doesn't just flow in an instant before anyone knows what's happening. People with the authority to do so were okaying the action and conditions.
It's disgusting and immoral.
It's disgusting and immoral.
Otis
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
I've heard on top of being the poker player he is he's also a pretty degenerate gambler. So his actions here surprise me not at all.tonydead said:
I'd put it as those few who don't do crazy side bets and hit the craps tables after the poker is over. Annie Duke comes to mind. She made huge bank.FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
If he's smart enough to take advantage of the playing field, without manipulating it himself, then the more to him. Once I'm privy to the fact that he's able to do it, then I'm out.tonydead said:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Do you really think Someone is going to be able to 'level the field' in a couple of hands, a couple of orbits, a couple of hours, a couple a days?tonydead said:
T Bell
Footballguy
Yeah, this is what baffles me. It's pretty bad faith to allow someone to "cheat" after they've asked you permission to do so, and then object later to them winning on the basis that they're cheating.FlapJacks said:But, that seems like evidence that the casino was aware that he was edge counting. If they were aware and they still took his bet, I'd have to rule against them.Because if he loses money, they can keep it. If he wins money, they can sue for it back. Win/win.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
He broke the golden rule, never skin the sheep. He could have took them for much less and they not notice. Like 100 or 200K. When you skin the sheep people notice.Yeah, this is what baffles me. It's pretty bad faith to allow someone to "cheat" after they've asked you permission to do so, and then object later to them winning on the basis that they're cheating.FlapJacks said:But, that seems like evidence that the casino was aware that he was edge counting. If they were aware and they still took his bet, I'd have to rule against them.Because if he loses money, they can keep it. If he wins money, they can sue for it back. Win/win.
flapgreen
Footballguy
for real
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Interesting documentary (also on Netflix) about something similar. The guy would negotiate multiple rule changes with the casinos to remove the house edge ie. dealer stands soft 17, can double any two cards, can split as much as possible, etc. The guy took casinos for about $15M then got banned from the majority of them.
Completely horrible ruling by the judge (summary). He's saying that for gambling to make sense, the house must win in order to pay income taxes (um, do you think Phil Ivey wasn't going to pay income taxes on his winnings?), so the players must lose. If the rules are changed so that the house accidentally has a disadvantage, the house can sue afterwards to recover its losses -- but if the house wins, it's valid. A free-roll for the house.
How about a different, more sensible convention instead? If the rules are changed so that the house accidentally has a disadvantage, then the house will accidentally have a disadvantage -- just like when a player miscalculates the odds -- and the loser must pay the winner. The house agreed to the rule change. That means it gets to free-roll? Geez, the house should change the rules to every game so that it "accidentally" has a disadvantage -- a strategy so certain to avoid losses that it's even more ingenious than my roulette strategy.
How about a different, more sensible convention instead? If the rules are changed so that the house accidentally has a disadvantage, then the house will accidentally have a disadvantage -- just like when a player miscalculates the odds -- and the loser must pay the winner. The house agreed to the rule change. That means it gets to free-roll? Geez, the house should change the rules to every game so that it "accidentally" has a disadvantage -- a strategy so certain to avoid losses that it's even more ingenious than my roulette strategy.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I think the ruling is a bit more nuanced than this summary. There were two claims - one based on breach of contract and the other in fraud. He ruled against Ivey and his partner on the breach of contract claim based on specific NJ statutes. He ruled in favor of Ivey on the fraud claim, because there was no material misrepresentation.
The contract ruling essentially holds that gambling is legal in NJ only due to the statute, that the statute forms a contract between the parties which each agrees to abide, and that Ivey breached it by edge sorting. The reference to paying taxes is not really a fundamental part of his ruling. It still could be a completely horrible ruling, but not quite as arbitrary as the summary makes it seem.
Similar threads
