The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Judge: Poker Pro Phil Ivey Cheated At Casino (4 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
You're mixing up everything.

In the interview Steve is talking about card counters. Card counting is not cheating. You use the information which is available to everyone, you don't manipulate the cards, etc. Besides, if you wanna get ridden of card counters, it's easy, shuffle after every hand.

Cards are designed in such a way that it should be impossible to read their value from their backs. If there is (and there is quite often) a flaw, a bad printing, etc. it can be possible to use that flaw to the advantage of the player. That's why card manufacturer do their best to avoid that.

I don't clearly see what turning cards in order to recognize them from their backs has to do with mental skills. it's simply a way to mark the deck. Asking the dealer to manipulate the cards in such a way is also altering the game.

You should read more accurately the case Steve is talking about:

http://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supre......4-1.html

"By crimping cards, respondent's alleged coconspirator in effect made the cards readable on both sides. While this did not alter the location of the cards in the deck, which was established randomly by the dealer's shuffling, it did alter a crucial characteristic of the game. The card crimper by his actions eliminated the element of chance as to himself and respondent concerning the point value of the top cards in the deck at the time of deciding whether or not to take a hit."

"The evidence adduced at Martin's preliminary hearing was sufficient on the elements of conduct and intent to warrant binding him over for trial, and indicates that he was or should have been on notice that his conduct was proscribed by NRS 465.083 and NRS 199.480."

NRS 465.083 Cheating. It is unlawful for any person, whether the person is an owner or employee of or a player in an establishment, to cheat at any gambling game.

NRS 199.480 Penalties.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, whenever two or more persons conspire to commit murder, robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping in the first or second degree, arson in the first or second degree, or a violation of NRS 205.463, each person is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished:

(a) If the conspiracy was to commit robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping in the first or second degree, arson in the first or second degree, or a violation of NRS 205.463, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years; or

(b) If the conspiracy was to commit murder, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 10 years,

and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.

2. If the conspiracy subjects the conspirators to criminal liability under NRS 207.400, they shall be punished in the manner provided in NRS 207.400.

3. Whenever two or more persons conspire:

(a) To commit any crime other than those set forth in subsections 1 and 2, and no punishment is otherwise prescribed by law;

(b) Falsely and maliciously to procure another to be arrested or proceeded against for a crime;

(c) Falsely to institute or maintain any action or proceeding;

(d) To cheat or defraud another out of any property by unlawful or fraudulent means;

(e) To prevent another from exercising any lawful trade or calling, or from doing any other lawful act, by force, threats or intimidation, or by interfering or threatening to interfere with any tools, implements or property belonging to or used by another, or with the use or employment thereof;

(f) To commit any act injurious to the public health, public morals, trade or commerce, or for the perversion or corruption of public justice or the due administration of the law; or

(g) To accomplish any criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means,

each person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Artie Fufkin
View Profile
Special user
857 Posts

Profile of Artie Fufkin
Despite the lengthy cut-and-paste, you repeatedly fail to address the fact that ivey and his partner did nothing other than speak, never physically altering the deck in any way seen as "illegal"
they opened their mouths, and as a result of failing to say "no", the dealer having 100% control over the deck did whatever they were authorized to do by management
ivey and his partner touched nothing, prepared nothing, manipulated nothing, and committed no crime
crimping cards involves direct manipulation by the player, something that is clearly a crime in most gambling jurisdictions
crimping has nothing to do with a casino that is too stupid to protect their game from manipulation by their own dealer
ivey and his partner simply sat at a table and played, committing no abuse to the deck of cards, and therefore responsible for nothing that could be remotely considered "cheating"
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
First, I was answering something different. Please, be focused about what I really do. And it was lengthy because I added NRS 465.083 and NRS 199.480 details, just for the sake of information.

Second point, PI and his partner asked to have the cards turned, in such a way they could read them from their backs. It's cheating. You can post for ages, you won't change my mind. Sorry bro.

I must say I kind of admire your determination, the way you always stick to the words. Life is a bit more complex my friend. Here's an an example. If you paid someone for killing your wife, you could not, - technically -, been accused for having killed her yourself. You did not pull the trigger after all, you did not physically touch her. Yet, she would be dead Smile. You don't have to alter the cards yourself for cheating, you don't even need to touch them. Just use a camera in the ceiling, a partner in a car, half a mile from the cardroom, and a 5mm in size ear receiver.
Artie Fufkin
View Profile
Special user
857 Posts

Profile of Artie Fufkin
Obfuscation doesn't help make a case that Ivey was cheating
Hiring somebody to kill your wife is a crime, and is irrelevant to this conversation
a camera in the ceiling is a piece of cheating apparatus, and is illegal in gambling jurisdictions if used to gain an advantage
it too is irrelevant to the discussion
5mm earpiece used to gain an advantage is also cheating apparatus
Ivey had no cheating apparatus, and did not touch or manipulate the cards
he simply sat at the table and played cards while conversing with his partner and the dealer
these are the facts
thank you for considering me a friend
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
Why would I consider you as anything else as a friend? This place is now (more or less) a gentlemen' place, where people can debate and expose their opinion freely; let's keep it that way. Besides, every people showing respect, able to debate or able to set out his arguments has all my consideration.

The only problem I have with you is that you alter everything I say on purpose. It looks like you refuse to understand my points of views, the images I use for depicting similar situations. Everything is irrelevant for you!

No, PI and her partner did not just sit! They asked the dealer to turn the cards in such a way they could read them from their back. They did not chat with the dealer, they asked him to set up the deck for their own benefit. If you can read the cards, there is no random factor anymore, it's not Gambling.

Again, without image this time, because you didn't do something yourself doesn't mean you are not part of the scam.

I have a question for you. Had PI turned the card himself, would you consider him as a cheat?
Artie Fufkin
View Profile
Special user
857 Posts

Profile of Artie Fufkin
Quote:
On Nov 15, 2014, AMcD wrote:

I have a question for you. Had PI turned the card himself, would you consider him as a cheat?


you've asked a difficult question to answer, as it is intrinsically tied into the remainder of the stupid and unprofessional actions that Crockfords allowed to take place while ivey played
normal dealing procedure at crockfords (which I'm not 100% an expert on by any means) would seem to preclude the player handling any cards that would have a future impact on the outcome of the game
in this case, the concept of the "lucky deck" was what allowed the turned cards to be used to advantage for ivey
given that information, it would seem ivey himself would never have a chance to turn cards to gain an advantage, as the turned cards were played only in conjunction with the lucky deck
these two things combined are what resulted in the advantage for ivey, inasmuch as ivey would gain nothing from turning cards in a deck that was going to immediately go out of play, unless he could convince the casino to continue using it - which he did

I do see where you're coming from though
i don't want you to think I'm simply being obtuse to antagonize you
i just don't agree with your take on the situation, as you don't agree with mine
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
"the stupid and unprofessional actions that Crockfords allowed to take place while ivey played"

About that, we agree!!!

Thanks for your advice. I surely disagree with you on some points, but I fully get your point.
JasonEngland
View Profile
V.I.P.
Las Vegas, NV
1621 Posts

Profile of JasonEngland
Arnold,

There are many games where "playing the turn" has been used successfully in the past by advantage players turning the cards by hand. It isn't considered illegal. What it boils down to is essentially this: if YOU can turn the cards absent-mindedly and with no larger aim, then I can turn them purposefully and with the goal of taking advantage of your lax shuffling procedures (shuffling procedures that don't involve spinning some of the cards during the shuffling process).

So no, even if PI had turned the cards physically it still isn't cheating. The only way it's cheating is if there is a rule against ANYONE turning cards for any reason and a player does it anyway.

Superstitious gamblers can ask for cards to be turned and flipped in a dozen different ways and as long as they're not playing with an edge no one cares - suddenly a player comes along and asks for the exact same actions but with a mathematically sound strategy driving the requests and he's a criminal? Give me a break.

Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
Many of your arguments are debatable (turning cards for getting a mathematical edge and for luck are 2 different things) but break accepted Smile.
JasonEngland
View Profile
V.I.P.
Las Vegas, NV
1621 Posts

Profile of JasonEngland
Actually, turning for luck and turning for a mathematical edge are the SAME thing! Both groups are trying to improve the game for themselves. The two approaches just have drastically different success rates. Regardless, it's important to remember that both groups are TRYING to win - the saps that believe in luck just aren't doing anything with any scientific merit.

Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
I'm not sure we have the same scientific background here. Luck and mathematics... I give up bro Smile.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15457 Posts

Profile of tommy
Cheung Yin Sun is the sharp in this affair and ought get more credit for it than Phil and yet she hardly gets a memtion.


Crockfords lawyers told Mr Justice Mitting in London that Ivey’s conduct defeated the essential premise of the game of baccarat so there was no gaming contract, or constituted cheating. Which seems to me to be saying there was no cheating in the legal sense but conduct which amoounted to gaming contract causing the bets to be null and void.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Brad Jeffers
View Profile
Veteran user
316 Posts

Profile of Brad Jeffers
Quote:
On Oct 10, 2014, jackouille07 wrote:
Imagine a guy behind Phil Ivey just watching the game. The guy do not know Phil, he has nothing to do with him, he is just watching the game.

Then, Phil start to ask for his numerous request (sorting cards)

The guy understand what is happening (edge sorting) and decide to sit at the table and exploit the informations for himself.

Is he a cheater? (morally and legally)



Modify the above scenario thusly ...

The guy has no idea what is going on, but sees that Ivey is on a lucky streak and decides to enter the game. He wins 12,000,000 pounds by mirroring Ivey's bets.

Would he be allowed to keep his winnings?

Why not?
owenscott
View Profile
Regular user
168 Posts

Profile of owenscott
I lean toward the cheater label. If he somehow learned about a manufacturer of table felt that was designed reflective at a certain angle. He chose to exploit this is it not the same thing.
Its assumed equal playing field for such things. To specifically request such table felt and use to your advantage would also be cheating right ?
Artie Fufkin
View Profile
Special user
857 Posts

Profile of Artie Fufkin
Quote:
On Nov 23, 2014, owenscott wrote:
.....a manufacturer of table felt that was designed reflective at a certain angle.....


while postulating all sorts of different comparisons about what cheating might or might not be in order to perpetuate the ongoing discussion, it's probably a good idea to stick with reality when coming up with those assorted "fantasy" cheating scenarios
cheesewrestler
View Profile
Inner circle
Chicago
1147 Posts

Profile of cheesewrestler
Same as a prop bet. Ivey told them exactly what his terms were. The casino thought about it, and agreed. Why? Because they figured they could take Ivey's money if they agreed to his terms. Instead, Ivey took their money. Pay up and shut up, that's the rule. But the casino hollered cop & welshed on the deal.

Lesson to learn from this: NEVER patronize that casino.
JasonEngland
View Profile
V.I.P.
Las Vegas, NV
1621 Posts

Profile of JasonEngland
Quote:
On Nov 23, 2014, owenscott wrote:
I lean toward the cheater label. If he somehow learned about a manufacturer of table felt that was designed reflective at a certain angle. He chose to exploit this is it not the same thing.
Its assumed equal playing field for such things. To specifically request such table felt and use to your advantage would also be cheating right ?


In what other industries or business ventures is it a criminal offense to ask for conditions that give the asker a bargain?

Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
539 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On Nov 17, 2014, tommy wrote:
Cheung Yin Sun is the sharp in this affair and ought get more credit for it than Phil and yet she hardly gets a memtion.



There is an ESPN 30 for 30 podcast called "A Queen Of Sorts" that focuses on Kelly Suns story. It's definitely worth a listen if anyone is still interested in this thing.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Judge: Poker Pro Phil Ivey Cheated At Casino (4 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.25 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL