Here is the article about the incident, also a claim from a casino in london for about 12 million. This was also just the lead story on Showtime’s 60 Minutes sports last night. For those that play or follow poker, Phil is no stranger, often touted and the best player in the world right now. He has about 20 mil at stake and his reputation as a gambler in the balance here. I think i know how the US court will rule, but have no idea what goes on in London in these types of cases. Maybe some perspective from locals there on what his fate might be;
Personally i think he has a slam dunk here, but stranger things in courts have happened, and nothing is a lock. I’m sure Phil has weighed the odds, and feels is a clear favorite in these cases. (-;
Wow, i guess that settles the european half of this drama. I have to say i’m surprised at the verdict, wonder if i will also be shocked once the US verdict is reached. Says this was a judge, wonder if it will be a jury here to judge the case?
Now, I will preface this by saying that I am not a card player.
However, if you are astute enough to notice imperfections on the sides of the cards and the house doesn’t change up their cards on a regular basis then I don’t have an issue with it.
I was under the assumption that casinos change their decks fairly regularly. Is this not the case here?
The do change the decks pretty often, but even then the really astute will just look again for those tiny imperfections.
In this case since Ivey is such a high roller, he was able to ask the casinos for concessions before he gambled with them. He asked for the same deck to be used once chosen by the casino, and an automatic card shuffler. That insures that all the cards are right side up as opposed to a live shuffle where they could be any which way. Just makes it easier to spot differences if they are all right side up. He had a couple other things granted to him too, but the shuffler and same decks were the big ones that gave him a couple extra % and threw it just a tiny bit in his favor vs the casino’s.
Keep in mind there is still a huge luck factor here and he could have lost it all. When you just play for one night, the variance is huge. Over time you would have things swing your way eventually, but on one session having a few % advantage is good, but no lock by any means you are going to be a winner. Just think about all the times all of you were able to walk away from the blackjack or roulette tables a winner. You had the house odds way against you, but you still won. This is because there are wide swings in variance, but since the house has all the time and numbers of gamblers on their side, they always win in the long run.
The worst thing that should happen here is that he just gets banned from gambling in the casinos(other than poker and slots). This is nothing worse than card counting a 6 shoe deck in my opinion, and they invited him to come gamble at their casinos.
Now, I will preface this by saying that I am not a card player.
However, if you are astute enough to notice imperfections on the sides of the cards and the house doesn’t change up their cards on a regular basis then I don’t have an issue with it.
I was under the assumption that casinos change their decks fairly regularly. Is this not the case here?
x2 I don’t how the casinos won the case in the UK. He figured this out and beat them at their own game.
The issue was with this one brand of cards were cut cut a certain way that he could tell what cards were coming, so he just asked for that brand of cards and the casino was stupid enough to not know this and got beat fair and square.
According to the article they are also going after the card manufacturer? Like it is their fault someone noticed that the edge of one side of their cards is 1/2 a millimeter smaller than the other and was able to use it to their advantage?
I think what Ivey did is not only not wrong, it is pretty amazing.
Now, I will preface this by saying that I am not a card player.
However, if you are astute enough to notice imperfections on the sides of the cards and the house doesn’t change up their cards on a regular basis then I don’t have an issue with it.
I was under the assumption that casinos change their decks fairly regularly. Is this not the case here?
x2 I don’t how the casinos won the case in the UK. He figured this out and beat them at their own game.
The issue was with this one brand of cards were cut cut a certain way that he could tell what cards were coming, so he just asked for that brand of cards and the casino was stupid enough to not know this and got beat fair and square.
So from reading both articles in England it appears that a contract to enter into a gambling relationship was not entered into because of the faulty cards, but the author of the U.S. article feels that no contract could be created (casinos in the U.K. are private clubs if I remember correctly so that might be a deciding factor). Also it will be interesting to see if the U.K. case is used in the U.S.
Seems like casinos basically define “cheating” as anything you do that makes you better at casino games. If you’re smart and can count cards - cheating. If you’re astute and can notice details about the cards that tell you which card is which - cheating. It’s a little bit astounding that they can kick someone out, prevent them from playing, and even sue based on the fact that the person is too good at their game.
No doubt. It’s like studying for a test, getting an A, then being accused of cheating because you memorized the answers.
Yeah. Can you imagine someone accusing Peyton Manning of being a cheat because he studies film, and then has a good idea which defense the opposite team is going to use on a particular play based on tells from their players at the line of scrimmage?
In almost any other endeavor, that’s just called being prepared and being good. In casinos, it makes you a cheat.
Seems like casinos basically define “cheating” as anything you do that makes you better at casino games. If you’re smart and can count cards - cheating. If you’re astute and can notice details about the cards that tell you which card is which - cheating. It’s a little bit astounding that they can kick someone out, prevent them from playing, and even sue based on the fact that the person is too good at their game.
It’s because casinos have enough money to lobby powerful politicians to rig the laws in their favor.
Seems like casinos basically define “cheating” as anything you do that makes you better at casino games. If you’re smart and can count cards - cheating. If you’re astute and can notice details about the cards that tell you which card is which - cheating. It’s a little bit astounding that they can kick someone out, prevent them from playing, and even sue based on the fact that the person is too good at their game.
Slowguy //
I guess is all in the definition of cheating. What they are going for here is well beyond card counting, as if you are caught doing that, they just ask you to leave, with your money. In this case they are trying to actually claw back almost 10 million that he won. They are trying to get the courts to view this like someone that made phony dice or weighted the roulette wheel, or used magnets on a slot machine. In these cases you pay up all winnings and go to jail. Doubt they want to send Phil to jail, but if they get some ruling in their favor somehow, it might also involve jail time…
They absolutely know already that many card decks do not come out perfect, that is a fact. What they maybe did not know was that “this” deck was out, and maybe they did not piece together the fact that he asked for an automatic card shuffler to make sure cards were always coming out in one direction. They certainly do now, but i think it is their bad in this case. And they should now be happy that he has shown then a flaw in their usually flawless money grab from people…
Seems like casinos basically define “cheating” as anything you do that makes you better at casino games. If you’re smart and can count cards - cheating. If you’re astute and can notice details about the cards that tell you which card is which - cheating. It’s a little bit astounding that they can kick someone out, prevent them from playing, and even sue based on the fact that the person is too good at their game.
Slowguy //
I guess is all in the definition of cheating. What they are going for here is well beyond card counting, as if you are caught doing that, they just ask you to leave, with your money. In this case they are trying to actually claw back almost 10 million that he won. They are trying to get the courts to view this like someone that made phony dice or weighted the roulette wheel, or used magnets on a slot machine. In these cases you pay up all winnings and go to jail. Doubt they want to send Phil to jail, but if they get some ruling in their favor somehow, it might also involve jail time…
They absolutely know already that many card decks do not come out perfect, that is a fact. What they maybe did not know was that “this” deck was out, and maybe they did not piece together the fact that he asked for an automatic card shuffler to make sure cards were always coming out in one direction. They certainly do now, but i think it is their bad in this case. And they should now be happy that he has shown then a flaw in their usually flawless money grab from people…
He walked into their casino and sat down at their table. He then proceeded to use their cards, their shuffler, and their dealer to beat them. He didn’t bring in anything other than knowledge and good eyesight. They agreed to change the rules in an attempt to take his money. If he had lost would they be suing? No, but since they are butt hurt because someone smarter than them outfoxed them they are suing. (Technically in the U.K. the casino held onto his money)
Surprising consensus here.
If I’m on the jury he keeps his money. //
Well i think that is the consensus here, pretty much 100% as i can tell. I think if he gets a jury he will be ok. But like in London, if it is just a judge deciding, we’ll have to know what that judge is all about first. Maybe is ultra conservative and religious and just hates gambling. But then who’s side do you take, both were gambling. Maybe favors big corp over the little guy, or vice versa. Could have some lobby money interests tied to them, I know the casinos give a ton of cash out there. I would take my chances with 12 regular people over one rich probably white guy any day if i were him…
HE doesn’t have to be, but since we are in a thread that is all about odds, I figure that if you did a survey of all judges, the majority would be white rich guys.
