The Crockfords / Phil Ivey Case

[AAroddersAA]

If you are not aware of it the story is here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/12/poker-casino-phil-ivey-gambling

What is peoples opinion. I have been surprised that most poker players and general gamblers seem to think Ivey should have won the case and Crockfords should have paid. I would have said he knew the rules and knew what he was doing was against the rules so he should not have been paid. He was cheating.

Do you think this should damage Phil Iveys reputation? I would be thinking twice about playing any kind of gambling game with somebody who is confirmed as a cheat.

Thoughts?

[Big Club]

There is an interesting point that I"ve not seen anyone raise yet in that what would be the view of the poker community had he found a similar defect in the cards while playing in a poker tournament. I would hope, and believe he would, have divulged this information to the powers that be to ensure they were not used. However, there may be others that wouldn"t.

Is the moral dilemma different when playing against a faceless casino that has a mathematical edge in every hand played rather than playing against the poker community where there is only a perceived edge.

Also one would think that the reaction from the poker community would be very different if it was the poker community he was "stealing from"

As it was, I for one don"t think that what he did is "cheating", He was using a flaw that he had noticed, not engineered, to obtain an edge against an organisation designed to take your money with a guaranteed edge in the name of entertainment. The casino were also incredibly naive in the sessions where Ivey and his partner were asking for the cards to be turned due to superstition. At no point did Ivey or his partner touch or interfere with the cards in any way.

An interesting case but one where the casino industry finally got their fingers burnt and still managed to close ranks and become the injured party.

[duke3016]

Why do they use asymmetrical cards anyway?

"Cheating" is a strong word - however Big Club makes a great point about Man v Man and Man V Casino, are Casinos the bad boys who take your hard earned money and "deserve" to be done over? Not an easy answer. Is it in the same frame as card counting and was he just using the situation to his advantage?

I for one do not think he should have "engineered" it....

[Swinebag]

Ivey shouldn"t worry about his reputation being tarnished."1

Didn"t he scam THM in a golf bet where his handicap was fiddled.

[AAroddersAA]

There is an interesting point that I"ve not seen anyone raise yet in that what would be the view of the poker community had he found a similar defect in the cards while playing in a poker tournament. I would hope, and believe he would, have divulged this information to the powers that be to ensure they were not used. However, there may be others that wouldn"t.

Is the moral dilemma different when playing against a faceless casino that has a mathematical edge in every hand played rather than playing against the poker community where there is only a perceived edge.

Also one would think that the reaction from the poker community would be very different if it was the poker community he was "stealing from"

As it was, I for one don"t think that what he did is "cheating", He was using a flaw that he had noticed, not engineered, to obtain an edge against an organisation designed to take your money with a guaranteed edge in the name of entertainment. The casino were also incredibly naive in the sessions where Ivey and his partner were asking for the cards to be turned due to superstition. At no point did Ivey or his partner touch or interfere with the cards in any way.

An interesting case but one where the casino industry finally got their fingers burnt and still managed to close ranks and become the injured party.

Good post.

It is actually very surprising that a flagship casino did not pick this up. They should surely know about edge sorting and must know who Phil Ivey is, it"s not like they are a small local casino.

I would consider what he did cheating though, it is clearly against the rules off the game and you are not allowed to manipulate the games in a casino. If you choose to play you accept the house edge, card counting is considered cheating by casinos and as I understand it (which is not that well admittedly) what Ivey has done here gives a much bigger edge than card counting.

Interesting discussion point though.

[Matt D]

Ivey shouldn"t worry about his reputation being tarnished."1

Didn"t he scam THM in a golf bet where his handicap was fiddled.

Ram Vaswani I believe? Though, I think the consensus was that he (Ram) was in the wrong, despite Phil angle-shooting him.

[KarmaDope]

There is an interesting point that I"ve not seen anyone raise yet in that what would be the view of the poker community had he found a similar defect in the cards while playing in a poker tournament. I would hope, and believe he would, have divulged this information to the powers that be to ensure they were not used. However, there may be others that wouldn"t.

Is the moral dilemma different when playing against a faceless casino that has a mathematical edge in every hand played rather than playing against the poker community where there is only a perceived edge.

Also one would think that the reaction from the poker community would be very different if it was the poker community he was "stealing from"

As it was, I for one don"t think that what he did is "cheating", He was using a flaw that he had noticed, not engineered, to obtain an edge against an organisation designed to take your money with a guaranteed edge in the name of entertainment. The casino were also incredibly naive in the sessions where Ivey and his partner were asking for the cards to be turned due to superstition. At no point did Ivey or his partner touch or interfere with the cards in any way.

An interesting case but one where the casino industry finally got their fingers burnt and still managed to close ranks and become the injured party.

Good post.

It is actually very surprising that a flagship casino did not pick this up. They should surely know about edge sorting and must know who Phil Ivey is, it"s not like they are a small local casino.

I would consider what he did cheating though, it is clearly against the rules off the game and you are not allowed to manipulate the games in a casino. If you choose to play you accept the house edge, card counting is considered cheating by casinos and as I understand it (which is not that well admittedly) what Ivey has done here gives a much bigger edge than card counting.

Interesting discussion point though.

Feel the need to point something out - card counting isn"t cheating. The reason the casinos dont like counters is quite simply because it gives you an edge over the house. They can"t prosecute you for it, even with the Ivey ruling, as you aren"t doing anything physically or asking the dealer physically to change any part of the game, you are just using your skills to gain an advantage. That"s why all a casino can do if they believe you are counting is refuse your business and ask you to leave, as it is private property. (More often than not, counters get told that they can play any other game except Blackjack)

[Fluence]

Good article by Vicky Coren.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/12/poker-casino-phil-ivey-gambling

Also a video on "edge sorting for dummies"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVfVtpSYp4&feature=share

With casinos you have to remember the golden rule. They have the gold, so they make the rules.

[AAroddersAA]

There is an interesting point that I"ve not seen anyone raise yet in that what would be the view of the poker community had he found a similar defect in the cards while playing in a poker tournament. I would hope, and believe he would, have divulged this information to the powers that be to ensure they were not used. However, there may be others that wouldn"t.

Is the moral dilemma different when playing against a faceless casino that has a mathematical edge in every hand played rather than playing against the poker community where there is only a perceived edge.

Also one would think that the reaction from the poker community would be very different if it was the poker community he was "stealing from"

As it was, I for one don"t think that what he did is "cheating", He was using a flaw that he had noticed, not engineered, to obtain an edge against an organisation designed to take your money with a guaranteed edge in the name of entertainment. The casino were also incredibly naive in the sessions where Ivey and his partner were asking for the cards to be turned due to superstition. At no point did Ivey or his partner touch or interfere with the cards in any way.

An interesting case but one where the casino industry finally got their fingers burnt and still managed to close ranks and become the injured party.

Good post.

It is actually very surprising that a flagship casino did not pick this up. They should surely know about edge sorting and must know who Phil Ivey is, it"s not like they are a small local casino.

I would consider what he did cheating though, it is clearly against the rules off the game and you are not allowed to manipulate the games in a casino. If you choose to play you accept the house edge, card counting is considered cheating by casinos and as I understand it (which is not that well admittedly) what Ivey has done here gives a much bigger edge than card counting.

Interesting discussion point though.

Feel the need to point something out - card counting isn"t cheating. The reason the casinos dont like counters is quite simply because it gives you an edge over the house. They can"t prosecute you for it, even with the Ivey ruling, as you aren"t doing anything physically or asking the dealer physically to change any part of the game, you are just using your skills to gain an advantage. That"s why all a casino can do if they believe you are counting is refuse your business and ask you to leave, as it is private property. (More often than not, counters get told that they can play any other game except Blackjack)

OK, I feel the need to respond to that, of course it is. It is very clearly cheating :-)

It is against the rules which you agree too by playing the game and you can be banned from casinos for it. Don"t see how it is not considered cheating? What difference does the fact that you can"t be  prosecuted for it make, you can"t be prosecuted for stealing chips during a break in a poker tournament but pretty sure it is cheating and it would get you a ban from the casino. If you are saying it s not illegal you are correct but it is still cheating as it is against the rules, there are numerous other examples like this that could be sited - diving in the penalty box being an obvious one.

[Paulie_D]

Feel the need to point something out - card counting isn"t cheating. The reason the casinos dont like counters is quite simply because it gives you an edge over the house. They can"t prosecute you for it, even with the Ivey ruling, as you aren"t doing anything physically or asking the dealer physically to change any part of the game, you are just using your skills to gain an advantage. That"s why all a casino can do if they believe you are counting is refuse your business and ask you to leave, as it is private property. (More often than not, counters get told that they can play any other game except Blackjack)

OK, I feel the need to respond to that, of course it is. It is very clearly cheating :-)

It is against the rules which you agree too by playing the game and you can be banned from casinos for it.

Gonna have to disagree with Steve here..card counting is not against the rules. It"s never stated that you can"t do it. You  just that you have to be aware of the consequences if the casino decides to exercise it"s option to bar you from playing if the decide that"s what you are doing.

Cheating is taking advantage by unfair / illegal / immoral methods.

Card counting is not taking an unfair advantage as the other examples mentioned by Steve are...in fact it"s taking a fair advantage of the odds provided by the casino. The fact that they would rather bar you from playing than adjust the game so you can"t count is a purely financial one on their part.

They could easily adjust the basic rules to make card counting uneconomic but if they did...no one would play it...except Ger!