The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Poker player loses court battle over £7.7m winnings from London casino (2 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

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

Profile of AMcD
Peterson
View Profile
Regular user
134 Posts

Profile of Peterson
"Ivey did not personally touch any cards, but persuaded the croupier to rotate the most valuable cards by intimating that he was superstitious."

Interesting.
Cagliostro
View Profile
Inner circle
2291 Posts

Profile of Cagliostro
I think the decision against Phil Ivey was a fair and reasonable decision.

Quote:
Five justices unanimously upheld the majority decision of the court of appeal, which dismissed his case on the basis that being knowingly dishonest was not a necessary element of "cheating".

Genting said the technique of edge-sorting used by Ivey, which involves identifying small differences in the pattern on the reverse of playing cards and exploiting that information to increase the chances of winning, was not a legitimate strategy.


Interesting interpretation that being dishonest is not necessarily cheating and edge sorting was not a legitimate strategy.

Quote:
In the court of appeal, Lady Justice Arden said the Gambling Act 2005 provided that someone may cheat "without dishonesty or intention to deceive: depending on the circumstances it may be enough that he simply interferes with the process of the game".

There was no doubt, she added, that the actions of Ivey and another gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, interfered with the process by which Crockfords played the game of Punto Banco with Ivey.


I don't think any fair-minded person would doubt that statement. And that "they must have realised that ordinary, honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest."

I think that is a key point here. It appears that what they did was dishonest and deceitful and not a legitimate strategy. One might come to that conclusion about some elements of most advantage play.

But...according to the high court...it was dishonest but not cheating.

Good thing AMcD ws not one of the judges on the high court as he no doubt would have cast a dissenting opinion. Smile
jefkve
View Profile
New user
Orange County, CA
52 Posts

Profile of jefkve
Wow, can't say I'm surprised that Phil lost, but the wording of the opinion troubles me a bit. What constitutes "interfering with the process of the game"? Seems like it gives the casinos a lot of latitude to deny winnings...
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
To me it was cheating. They tried to modify the procedures in order to get an edge. As a Latin living in the obsessed-with-money England, I fully understand that Anglo-Saxons can't name a cat a cat when money is involved but if this is not cheating, I'd like to know what cheating is!

From Merriam-Webster, to cheat: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.

Now! There was a serious flaw with the personnel accepting the players to interfere into the casino procedures. That's absolutely right. So, I'm not sure what a fair decision would be.

They were dishonest but didn't cheat. That precious! But you know, we see judgements like this everyday in England: Young girls raped but it's their fault, they were leading on the guys, woman raped but it's okay, the guy was drunk and he fell on her, he didn't pay attention, etc. etc. I'm getting used to about everything in terms of judgement here!

If I try to modify something in order to get some advantage, call it the way you want, advantage play or being a genius, but ME, I call it cheating.
jefkve
View Profile
New user
Orange County, CA
52 Posts

Profile of jefkve
AmcD, I agree with you that they were taking advantage, but I feel that it is on the casino to inspect their decks before putting them in play and to avoid allowing players (no matter how big a whales they are) to alter the games in any way....In a certain respect, the casino allowed themselves to be cheated before crying foul....
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
@jefkve

Absolutely. The casino made many mistakes. And several layers of responsibilities are involved. The dealer, pit boss, etc. So, in my eyes, it's impossible to give a tough sentence to Phil, if any sentence at all. And, as I have said many times, my hat off to him and his partner for being so creative.

My concern is more about ethics. In short, they did their best to get "marked" decks (if you can read a card from its back, sorry I call that deck a marked deck!) during their play. They ASKED the dealer to turn the cards, the intention is there, they WANTED a marked deck. If playing with a marked deck isn't cheating, well, guys, tell me what cheating is!

And don't bring the fact that they didn't do it themselves. I'd like serious comments, thanks.
Cagliostro
View Profile
Inner circle
2291 Posts

Profile of Cagliostro
Quote:
On Oct 25, 2017, AMcD wrote:

To me it was cheating. They tried to modify the procedures in order to get an edge. As a Latin living in the obsessed-with-money England, I fully understand that Anglo-Saxons can't name a cat a cat when money is involved but if this is not cheating, I'd like to know what cheating is!

From Merriam-Webster, to cheat: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.


I won't say that as a Latin living in England you are a "racist," as you seem to be biased in your opinion against "Anglos," to which you are entitled, of course. We are all human and are allowed some degree of irrationality in our thought processes and discourse. However, makes one wonder why any Latin would live in England if these Anglos are so detestable or at minimum, offensive. (Me...I just hate everyone on general principles so I can live anywhere.) Smile

(I don't know if you are aware of this Arnold, but the new "norm" in the US among left-wing liberals is calling someone you disagree with, or take exception to, a "racist," so I am just following that lead and practicing its application.)

The term is used continually by both left wing whites and non-whites because it obviates the need for any rational discussion. We have a lot of illegals here, mostly Latinos, who receive all types of free benefits, (health care, food, housing, legal services). Many are hardworking family people, some are violent criminals and others just want to enjoy the free benefits. Still others literally hate us Anglos and the US in particular, but still enjoy the freebees.) Makes one wonder...

Getting back on topic. There is a difference between the dictionary definition of a term or word and the legal definition. Legal definitions cannot be just black or white...there are nuances and extenuating factors that can modify the simplistic black or white definition. I think the court reached a nice balance on legal grounds which is all that is relevant in this situation.

Quote:
They were dishonest but didn't cheat. That precious! But you know, we see judgments like this every day in England: Young girls raped but it's their fault, they were leading on the guys...


Of course, I don't agree with all court decisions, especially if the bias of the judge seems to influence the outcome. However, that is the system we have, like it or hate it...it is better than most systems throughout the world. I should add that in my opinion, general non-substantive statements regarding court decisions imply arguable conclusions.

Quote:
If I try to modify something in order to get some advantage, call it the way you want, advantage play or being a genius, but ME, I call it cheating.


Now you just wait a minute, AMcD. You have gone too far here. I have done precisely that quite frequently. Are you saying I am not a genius? Are you?

Well...you are wrong. I am a genius. If you don't agree, take me to court. (I'll probably get a good "Anglo" judge to give me a favorable decision.) Smile
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
I didn't say I don't like English people lol, in fact I appreciate most of them! I like England in general, otherwise, I wouldn't live here.

But not admitting that they are xenophobic and obsessed with money would be a terrible lie. I hear racists and xenophobic comments every day, as a foreigner, I know what I'm talking about! And to be honest with you I don't think we're gonna stay here. Their Brexit crap has destroyed everything. The country is now divided.

About the money, well, I'm gonna give you a hint. If you don't know a single English word, no need to learn much in order to live in UK. Learn the following ones: money, cash, dough, pound, quid and grand. Should be enough.

About the word "racist" it's more or less the same here. We have the young generation who are offended by about everything. We call them snowflakes.
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
Besides, I have never understood your problem with the word "anglo-saxon". Here's the modern acceptance, from the Cambridge dictionary:

"used to describe modern societies that are based on or influenced by English customs"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction......lo-saxon

Update your vocabulary my friend Smile.
Cagliostro
View Profile
Inner circle
2291 Posts

Profile of Cagliostro
Quote:
On Oct 25, 2017, AMcD wrote:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction......lo-saxon

Update your vocabulary my friend Smile.


Thanks for the lesson in English usage. I would never have become reasonably adept with the English language if it weren't for your expert tutelage. Smile
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
And it's for free!
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15457 Posts

Profile of tommy
At least Phil is not a tuppenny-ha’penny cheat.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
Since I'm back here, I ask myself very often: how long is tommy gonna restrain himself before the next insult towards me?

Bets are open!
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15457 Posts

Profile of tommy
We have the young generation who are offended by about everything.

We call them snowflakes.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
Nah, it's okay, I'm a bit tougher.
JasonEngland
View Profile
V.I.P.
Las Vegas, NV
1621 Posts

Profile of JasonEngland
Arnold,

EVERY dice setter is trying to alter the outcome of the game. None of them can do it, but THEY don't know that. Should they all be arrested and charged with "attempted cheating?"

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
Jason,

Technically yes. I think that arresting them would be far too much, because it's not working after all, but every pit boss should force them to throw the dice the correct way.

Again, to me, and by definition (even if there are many as Cag says), you cheat from the very second you try to modify/alter the natural outcome. Personally, I have stacked and dealt thousands of cards. Even if it's not pleasant to hear, if people want to call me a cheat, they are absolutely right. That is, unfortunately, what I was.

I would admit that advantage play is a bit different though. But what Phil did in London is not advantage play. Advantage play is using LEGAL methods. What I call advantage play is, for instance, card counting or shuffle tracking. You don't alter anything. You're just using your brain. Had Ivey used edge sorting without asking the dealer to turn the cards, it would have been advantage play.
Mr. Bones
View Profile
Regular user
163 Posts

Profile of Mr. Bones
They may not have given Ivey his money, but they also didn't charge him with anything.
By not charging him with any crime, one can deduce that they don't believe he committed any crimes.
In effect, it's a tacit admission that Ivey didn't do anything wrong.

If Ivey didn't commit a crime, then this is all just one judges subjective decision in a field of endeavour that said judge doesn't (and can't really) understand fully.

So IMO Ivey didn't cheat, and this decision reflects only that when you're in a casino, you're at the mercy of the casino. You have few rights, and you're not owed any winnings until the casino decides it's OK to give them to you.
By gambling in a casino, you are (in effect) entering into a private contract between yourself and the casino. If the casino management decides to dispute that contract, the outcome will no doubt be decided in court.

In reality though, it has nothing to do with a crime - only a contractual dispute.
Mr. Bones
"Hey Rube"!
AMcD
View Profile
Inner circle
stacking for food!
3106 Posts

Profile of AMcD
If he did nothing wrong, why they didn't give him the money then?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Poker player loses court battle over £7.7m winnings from London casino (2 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 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