Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
25 Oct 17
23:32
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 06
.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/25/poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-over-77m-winnings-from-london-casino
.
Poker player loses court battle over £7.7m winnings from London casino
American Phil Ivey sued over baccarat game after owners of Crockfords Club claimed ‘edge-sorting’ technique was illegitimate
The decision in the case brought by Phil Ivey was described as one of the most significant in criminal law for a generation.
Wednesday 25 October 2017 12.35 BST First published on Wednesday 25 October 2017 10.34 BST
The poker player Phil Ivey has lost his court bid to recover £7.7m ( $10.2m) of winnings from a London casino.
The 40-year-old American has been fighting to recover the sum since successfully playing a version of baccarat known as Punto Banco at Crockfords Club in Mayfair in 2012.
The hearing at the supreme court considered whether dishonesty was a necessary element of the offence of cheating.
Ivey had challenged a 2016 majority decision in the court of appeal dismissing his case against Genting Casinos UK, which owns Crockfords. Genting said a technique he used, called edge-sorting, was not a legitimate strategy, while Ivey maintained that he won fairly.
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”.
After the game in question, Ivey was told the money would be wired to him in Las Vegas, but it never arrived, although his stake of £1m was returned.
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.
Ivey did not personally touch any cards, but persuaded the croupier to rotate the most valuable cards by intimating that he was superstitious.
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.
Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, the law firm that represented Crockfords, said: “This is one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation. The concept of dishonesty is central to a whole range of offences, including fraud.
“For 35 years, juries have been told that defendants will only be guilty if the conduct complained of was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people, and also that they must have realised that ordinary, honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest.
“The supreme court has now said that this second limb of the test does not represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given by the courts.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/25/poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-over-77m-winnings-from-london-casino
.
Poker player loses court battle over £7.7m winnings from London casino
American Phil Ivey sued over baccarat game after owners of Crockfords Club claimed ‘edge-sorting’ technique was illegitimate
The decision in the case brought by Phil Ivey was described as one of the most significant in criminal law for a generation.
Wednesday 25 October 2017 12.35 BST First published on Wednesday 25 October 2017 10.34 BST
The poker player Phil Ivey has lost his court bid to recover £7.7m ( $10.2m) of winnings from a London casino.
The 40-year-old American has been fighting to recover the sum since successfully playing a version of baccarat known as Punto Banco at Crockfords Club in Mayfair in 2012.
The hearing at the supreme court considered whether dishonesty was a necessary element of the offence of cheating.
Ivey had challenged a 2016 majority decision in the court of appeal dismissing his case against Genting Casinos UK, which owns Crockfords. Genting said a technique he used, called edge-sorting, was not a legitimate strategy, while Ivey maintained that he won fairly.
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”.
After the game in question, Ivey was told the money would be wired to him in Las Vegas, but it never arrived, although his stake of £1m was returned.
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.
Ivey did not personally touch any cards, but persuaded the croupier to rotate the most valuable cards by intimating that he was superstitious.
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.
Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, the law firm that represented Crockfords, said: “This is one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation. The concept of dishonesty is central to a whole range of offences, including fraud.
“For 35 years, juries have been told that defendants will only be guilty if the conduct complained of was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people, and also that they must have realised that ordinary, honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest.
“The supreme court has now said that this second limb of the test does not represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given by the courts.”
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 20
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOnK7_CXrik
|
|
By:
the case laid down some interesting features
that a game that is designed to be fair should be fair..... may have a few implications for punting on here if anybody ever takes it to court. knowing a horse has already crossed the line may well be same as edge sorting to a supreme court judge? |
|
By:
Thought that was the point of digital TV Donny
so us plebs are ten secs behind the money men hey that's capitalism. |
|
By:
.....and of course how many packs of cards can be edge sorted, how many pros have
exploited this advantage in other card games such as those where two cards are placed face down in front of players.....? |
|
By:
It isn't at all feasible to edge sort in poker. It has been done in blackjack, but isn't very effective mainly because of countermeasures in place for card counting.
|
|
By:
btw as I said in the horse racing thread about this, the Gambling Commission now has no excuse to ignore cheating horse race connections and poker colluders/bot users.
|
|
By:
more to the point how many casino,s have used the same idea to rob punters,crockford said they,d never heard of it but theres court cases in America including ivey
|
|
By:
why would it not work in poker dave?
if i see you have two pictures, surely thats good info for me? edge sorting is different to card counting, he is saying he recognises certain cards or category of card because of printing errors, or even design flaws! |
|
By:
edge sorting relies on going through the pack and rotating cards so that you can get some info by splitting the pack into two categories. You have to have "control" over the way the cards are handled and shuffled. That isn't possible in poker as people thrown in their hands in a random manner.
You could use it in blackjack to sort out aces and tens but because of card counting they don't go all the way through the packs, so it would take a while to sort the deck. You would also have to use Ivey's deception to get the dealer to turn the cards as you aren't allowed to touch the cards in uk blackjack and you are only allowed to touch the edge in us casinos because of card marking. Casinos are always going to be highly suspicious of variable bets because of card counting, which are necessary to profit. So they would shut you down very quickly suspecting that you were card counting. |
|
By:
a player, or a couple of players rotating pictures over a period is easily possible,
esp if cards are shuffled rather than mixed i came across a deck of cards where i could tell which card was a spade because of the way the corners were cut, and another deck where i could feel the colour of the card because the black ink was rougher than the red ink ! i guess casinos take much more care over quality of cards than players away from casinos, and likely will be even more vigilant now i remember some old film called kaleidoscope that always made me wary of cards and the possibilities of cards. |
|
By:
They can try what they like but other players and the dealer will always mess up the deck. It simply isn't a practical method of cheating given the other options available if you are inclined to cheat.
i came across a deck of cards where i could tell which card was a spade because of the way the corners were cut, and another deck where i could feel the colour of the card because the black ink was rougher than the red ink ! That is simply marked cards and nothing to do with edge sorting where the cards are all the same, but asymmetric. |
|
By:
you,d think with all the money involved some loon would have a made a fortune by suggesting using plain white backs to cards
|
|
By:
yeah, marked cards, but fresh out the wrapper, and yeah there are plenty of other ways to cheat or attempt to.
anyway interesting to see how the law progresses after this case |
|
By:
with all the planning,milking of the croupier,stake planning ,using a friend at the table etc,is it fair to suggest that his millions of pounds worth of poker wins will have used similar bending of the spirit of the game [ cheating ]
|
|
By:
i dont think you can accuse him of that without proof, but i think it safe to assume
that some will be wise to simple ruses |
|
By:
what are his court cost So?
|
|
By:
must be gynormous xmoneyx. There are rumours that Ivey's costs were underwritten by a backer who would have got a big slice of the £7m had he won.
|
|
By:
i read that david pannick qc charged £400k for a two day
trial he did not attend, obviously plenty of prep! |
|
By:
Correct decision by the court in my opinion. I have a very low opinion of Ivey after this incident.
|
|
By:
The casino seems a bit gullible if the facts presented are true? "You must use this pack of cards" "I'm superstitious so you must rotate cards I tell you to".
"card counting" where you are passive and observing is a type of skill using the face value of the cards, interacting to influence the game and cards and even the cards used like this to aid you is cheating, the courts are right. Off with his head! |