Phil Ivey loses court case over multi-million dollar baccarat wins.
After a five-year legal battle, the dispute between Phil Ivey and the Crockfords Casino unfolds in a way that is not favorable to the American. The case revolved around almost €9 million that Ivey allegedly won unfairly. Let's take a stroll down memory lane and look at the incredible story.
On August 20, 2012, a celebrity strolls into the posh Crockfords Club in London. This is none other than the then 35-year-old Phil Ivey, who is renowned as the world's best poker player. He is joined by Chinese Cheung Yin Sun. At this esteemed establishment, established in 1828, the notable guest is warmly welcomed. Ivey has set some conditions for his visit: He requests to play Baccarat Punto Banco with Yin Sun. He also asks for cards from the Gemaco company and a dealer capable of understanding Mandarin, so that Yin Sun can communicate easily. Crockfords willingly caters to his requirements. After all, Ivey isn't just a renowned poker star but is also referred to as a whale who gambles in substantial amounts. He's come with a million dollars to play. Although Punto Banco has a minuscule house advantage, a profit for the casino appears imminent.
However, the events do not pan out as planned, and it's costly for Crockfords. Ivey has no intention of losing due to mere chance or house advantage. Instead, he aims to extract money from the casino, just as he does from his poker opponents. He has devised a strategy.
How they swindled the bank
Ivey and his companion start the game cautiously, with careful bets. Initially, their winnings and losses balance each other out, as is typical in Punto Banco. Time and again, they ask the dealer to turn over and place cards played and displayed back into the pile in the opposite direction. This is because many gamblers are superstitious. The cards remain covered, and the croupier obeys their requests.
The decks are played out, and they're reshuffled mechanically. The cards' positions, according to the players' wishes, remain unaltered. At this point, the used cards and Yin Sun's unique ability come into play. The backs of playing cards in the casino are not identical. There are subtle differences in the pattern that result from the manufacturing process. For a normal person, the discrepancies in millimeter range are barely noticeable.
However, Cheung Yin Sun can see these differences and now knows that the cards in the stack have high values (6-7-8-9). This strategy, known as "edge sorting," is not a new concept. With this technique, the deck is more or less open before their eyes. This is particularly advantageous in Baccarat because the players don't have to wait for their own winning cards. It's all about predicting which hand out of two or three cards will be closer to nine in the end. Whether it's the player's hand or the dealer's hand doesn't matter.
Ivey then begins his bets based on Yin Sun's instructions. The plan works: At the end of the evening, the duo is clearly in the black. And at that moment in time, it appears that the casino has not noticed anything. However, the casino agrees to let them repeat the performance the following night, amounting to €9 million in winnings.
The casino refuses to pay out
The casino doesn't pay out. Instead, it accuses Ivey and Yin Sun of cheating. The duo denies the accusations and files a lawsuit against the casino. The case goes to court. The judge rules in favor of the casino. Ivey and Yin Sun appeal. The appellate court also rules in favor of the casino. Ivey and Yin Sun escalate the issue and take it to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issues its verdict and concludes that the casino is in the right. Although Ivey and Yin Sun had used their unique skills to gain an advantage, they hadn't violated any rules. Ivey and Yin Sun lost the lawsuit.
The case, known as "Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd.," grabbed global headlines. It was an enthralling tale of a poker player who tried to outwit a casino with his own tricks. In the end, the casino emerged victorious.
Despite the agreement that Ivey's winnings would be transferred to the US, he only received the initial million he had brought to the casino. The casino accused him of cheating and, therefore, had no obligation to pay out his winnings. Ivey sued for the restitution of the sum. During the court proceedings in 2014, there was surprising agreement about the strategy used by Ivey. He openly confessed to employing "edge sorting" to gain an advantage. This is a legal strategy in gambling; the casino had underestimated Ivey's prowess. The casino countered that Ivey had interfered in the gameplay in a way that could only be considered cheating.
The English lower courts ruled in favor of the casino, but left the possibility open for Ivey to appeal the case. The central issue was whether Ivey had deceived them. He had admitted to his edge-sorting technique and the casino had agreed to his requests, so he argued that he had been honest and that "honest cheating" didn't exist. He had also not physically tampered with the game. However, with a unanimous Supreme Court decision in his favor, the casino no longer has to pay.
Ivey claimed he was just exploiting the casino's mistakes. He thought edge-sorting was a legal tactic when he played at Crockfords, and he still does now. In a statement about the decision, he said:
"I didn't do anything more than exploit the Casino's mistakes. The Supreme Court's decision against me makes no sense. When I played at the Crockfords, I believed that edge-sorting was a legitimate strategy. I believe that even more strongly today."
The judges defended their verdict by stating that dishonesty isn't necessary for cheating. The Gambling Act of 2005 says that just influencing the game is enough. Winning doesn't matter either. Ivey not only observed but also convinced the dealer to turn the cards over. Lord Hughes, Supreme Court Judge, clarified:
"It was a carefully planned coup. If he had managed to gain physical access to the cards and sort them himself, no one would have doubted that he was cheating. He achieved the same result by convincing the dealer that their actions were irrelevant. In a game based on the random distribution of unknown cards, this is undoubtedly cheating. That it was clever and skillful, and required remarkably sharp eyes, changes nothing about this fact."
So, a highly publicized casino scandal of recent years concludes. Some commentators saw it as an underdog story, with Ivey fighting against the powerful casino. Many admired his confidence in defending his actions. Although he lost in England, both he and Yin Sun had also used their technique at the US Borgata. That casino also wants its money back, pending further proceedings.
Image: Phil Ivey
Read also:
- The discontinuation of SVolt would significantly affect Saarland.
- Hamburg celebrates the vibrant, noisy, and piercing Schlagermove with enthusiasm and excitement.
- Tornado warning: Storm hits the Elbe area
- Upcoming challenges loom large for Tuchel as season ends.
Source: www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com
