There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41751208
Supreme Court Summary
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-press-summary.pdf
Supreme Court judgment
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
WFM but not good news for punters if it strengthens the hands of welching bookmakers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41751208
Supreme Court Summary
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-press-summary.pdf
Supreme Court judgment
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
WFM but not good news for punters if it strengthens the hands of welching bookmakers.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 29
|
By:
didnt play to the rules ,, therefor rightly , didnt get the winnings
|
|
By:
Actually good news for punters. The Gambling Commission now has to prosecute cheating racehorse connections as the law has been clarified.
|
|
By:
Did I read that the cards had different patterns on the back of them?
 |
|
By:
"didnt play to the rules ,, therefor rightly , didnt get the winnings"
This is factually incorrect. In as much as Ivey proposed a set of rules, the casino(s) agreed to those rules and then (some casinos) refused to pay when they lost. |
|
By:
@ s.kenbo No you didn't read that.
@ Escapee nine judges have disagreed with that viewpoint. |
|
By:
@s kembo the wording from the judgement
Being able thus to see which long edge is displayed is by itself of no help to the gambler. All the cards have the same tiny difference between their right and left long edges, so knowing which edge is displayed tells the gambler nothing about the value of the next card in the shoe. The information becomes significant only if things can be so arranged that the cards which the gambler is most interested in are all presented with long edge type A facing the table, whilst all the less interesting cards present long edge type B. Then the gambler knows which kind of card is next out of the shoe |
|
By:
"Did I read that the cards had different patterns on the back of them?"
The cards used for this game have a small diamond pattern on the back of them, when fresh out of the pack all the diamonds line up to create a set of vertical lines when the pack is viewed from the side. If one of the cards is rotated 180 degrees and then placed back in the deck, the card stands out because the lines don't match up. The proposition was based on running thru the deck once and all high cards turned one way and the low cards returned the other as they are returned back to the stack for shuffling. It is then possible to determine in advance the odds of the outcome on each deal on the next and subsequent runs from the deck. Ivey offered high stakes action under certain conditions which the casinos deemed to be the silly whims of a whale rather than the shrewd nuances of a shark. |
|
By:
Or as the five judges agreed (in addition to four other judges to various degrees)
For the same reasons which show that Mr Ivey’s conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, cheating, the better view would be, if the question arose, that his conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, also dishonest. |
|
By:
Thanks, Dave and Escapee.
|
|
By:
8 judges, dave1357, not 9 (for what it's worth ... which is not much to PI)
|
|
By:
If Genting already had knowledge of this swindle, why use those particular decks ?
Or was it a case of investigating when he had taken them for many millions, an almost impossible feat mathematically unless you were cheating. |
|
By:
The latter
|
|
By:
@bigboss from the judgement
Crockfords’ practice after a large win such as this is to conduct an ex postfacto investigation to work out how it occurred. After quite lengthy review of the CCTV footage and examination of the cards, the investigators succeeded in spotting what had been done. Nobody at Crockfords had heard of edge-sorting before. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Did he supply the cards to the casino? Well, of course not. However, as was stated "Ivey did not personally touch any cards, but persuaded the croupier to rotate the most valuable cards by intimating that he was superstitious". That was their decision!
Does that constitute cheating? I am not so sure. He must surely have been known to the casino. They allowed him the platform to play, they should pay out IMO. |
|
By:
rofl read the judgement. Stop being a low information voter.
|
|
By:
They accommodated him, he beat them. Unless he actually touched their cards before THEY did, then is is their own fault. If I lay a horse in running because I see a jockey looking behind in a concerned manner, should I be classed as a cheat? We will all be asking for our money back when a race reversal is turned over a month later? Ivey played the game, it was not HE who was lacking!
|
|
By:
Have you read the judgement?
|
|
By:
asking for cards to be rotated,150 grand a pop when the right cards were coming out of the shoe,they must have smelt a rat long before they were the best part of 8 million down ,small stakes on losing hands and a 150 grand on the winning hands. he,s also got court cases pending with 2 or 3 American casino,s
|
|
By:
You can bet on the player or the bank in punto so no need to vary the bets once the deck is sorted much as most times one side will have the advantage. Playing low at the beginning while the deck was sorted and increasing the bets when winning is just standard punter behaviour.
|
|
By:
hoped he would win - & I think he should have been paid out - but knew he never would be
remember reading somewhere he had made $80 million from playing cards - unreal |
|
By:
First of all, Ivey was clearly at it and deserved to lose. That out of the way, let's move on.
The problem with this judgment is that it vindicates the casino (or bookmaker, for this forum) behaviour of taking punters' money and only after the result is known, deciding whether it wanted to lay the bet. Obviously, if the bet's gone down, the bookie decides that yes, he will take the bet and keep the money. It also broadens the definition of cheating but I've not yet worked out if that is good or bad. As @dave1357 said earlier, if it gets rid of some of the sharks, it may be good for ordinary punters. But I'm not holding my breath. |
|
By:
I originally wanted Ivey to receive the cash but on reading it all he was definitely at it - he was undoubtedly involved in artificial manipulation to gain an advantage & whatever we might thinks of casinos & bookmakers he was involved in cheating...whether that is also dishonest seems to be contentious but as far as I'm concerned there really can't be one without the other but it appears the judiciary suggest it is possible...that possibly has relevance to Ivey as he hasn't been accused of outright dishonesty which would sully his reputation...do poker players have a reputation for integrity?..thats another question
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
ok dave cheers
|
|
By:
Interesting... if you are playing in a casino and you have a poor croupier and when she/he deals you notice their face down card. You end up winning. At the end of the night, should the casino be able to not pay out?
|
|
By:
depends if its one deal that you've seen it or if you are seeing it most/all of the time
would be a tidy edge to have  |
|
By:
Actually the judges specifically referenced blackjack and card counting and said it was perfectly acceptable even to use deception to hide that the card counting. It was ok because the edge was gained by simply observing the cards. Ivey crossed the line by using deception to cause the cards to be moved so that their value was known.
|