Casino is accusing the player. It's the Casino that is the cheat in this case. As KGB would say, pay that man his money. Phil Ivey, British casino embroiled in dispute over payment of $12 million in winnings What's the best way to win a game of chance? Turn it into a game of certainty. That, a British casino is charging, is exactly what world-renowned poker player Phil Ivey did in winning £7.6 million â about $11.9 million â in one spectacular run of punto banco, a baccarat game. Crockfords is charging that Ivey observed tiny flaws in the game's cards, and used that knowledge to give the house a severe thrashing. As a result, the casino is refusing to pay, and Ivey has filed suit to receive his withheld winnings. Basically speaking, the idea in punto banco is for the player to draw two or three cards with a sum total closer to nine than the dealer. At the game last August played at Crockfords' casino in Mayfair, London, Ivey and an unidentified woman were playing alone against the dealer, in full view of 10 casino cameras. Ivey started his betting at £50,000 (about $77,000) per hand, and later raised that, with the casino's blessing, to £150,000 (about $230,000) per hand. As in blackjack, punto banco hands can be over in less than a minute. It's a game that's supposed to be entirely based on the luck of the draw. Over the course of three nights, Ivey and his companion dipped as low as £500,000 ($770,000) in the red, but ended up with a substantial sum. The casino's theory: that Ivey had spotted tiny imperfections in the cards' designs, and used that knowledge to help identify when certain cards would be on the table, even when face-down.
that Ivey had spotted tiny imperfections in the cards' designs, and used that knowledge to help identify when certain cards would be on the table, even when face-down. ------------------------------- Gotta love it. Ya think the losers gave up their edge as a defense?
They had a big drawdown, then they quit when they were flush. Quitting at the right time is a big part of keeping winnings. Essentially, that casino should get a boycott for not paying the winner. The gamblers should start a petition on change.org.
This is great. So basically the casino is admitting that the cards are kind of marked. If the imperfections are visible to the human eye, that means theyâre in essence marked. Unless he has Superman vision.
Huh? Imperfections in the cards? So if I play Blackjack long enough, I can tell what the cards are by imperfections? Seems like the casino is almost openly admitting cheating â or maybe one should call it âcapital preservationâ.
Nothing illegal about it IMHO - just damn smart and ballsy play. I think he should get the money, but Ivey and his friend worked some tricks into the caper: 1. The cards were cut slightly wrong, so the pattern was different between the top and bottom of the cards. This could be seen more easily if they were turned around, swapping tops and bottoms. 2. Ivey's friend was asian and could talk to the asian dealers without the pitboss understanding what was said. 3. Ivey's friend had the dealers spin certain cards over because "she was superstitious". Those cards were the ones needed to swing the odds. 4. Ivey requested a machine shuffle, because that did not reorient the tops and bottoms. 5. Ivey requested the same decks be used all three days. This of course kept their advantage. New decks are almost always used each day, otherwise.