The flop was 7 of clubs, Jack of clubs, Jack of hearts, leaving both players with nothing. A lesser player would have folded, but Ivey simply upped the ante. It was an astonishing bluff from Ivey, and he did not even show it to Jackson. He just collected his chips and remained utterly dead-eyed. Poker players around the world will be talking about this outrageous play for decades. All seven players called. The flop was 2 of clubs, 10 of diamonds and 2 of spades, leaving Eastgate with triple deuces with his 2 of diamonds and 4 f hearts.
He and Doyle Brunson checked. Eastgate and Greenstein were holding stronger hands than Durrrr, and they called. Greenstein and Eastgate, both tight and experienced players, reluctantly decided to fold. Durrrr represented a full house by bluffing pocket tens and earned himself a place in poker history. The two men went heads-up and Daunt limped in with before Haxton checked the big blind with 3 of diamonds and 2 of diamonds.
The flop came Queen of hearts, 4 of hearts and Ace of clubs, missing both players. They then engaged in an exhilarating bluff-raising contest, leaving viewers gripped as they wondered which man would blink first. The turn was the king of diamonds and both checked.
The river came the Queen of clubs. This caused Daut to fold, allowing Haxton to win a huge hand with just a 3-high. Dwan has pulled off many impressive large bluffs during his career. We mentioned his stunning triumph over Greenstein and Eastgate, and his successful bluff over Ivey in Season 6 of High Stakes Poker has gone down in history as yet another astonishing play. Yet Durrr produced an even greater display of fortitude when he vanquished Sammy George with a off-suit in the Million Dollar Challenge.
The most remarkable aspect of the bluff was that Dwan announced that he had a and George — holding Ace of diamonds and 6 of clubs — refused to believe him. The flop came Jack of hearts, Ace of hearts and 6 of hearts, leaving George with a pair of aces.
|Racing post betting predictor||Fixed odds betting terminals buy used cars|
|Is online horse betting legal in missouri what percent||577|
|Law show on bet||Sports betting agency jobs|
|Ivey vs dwan horse betting||How to bet on spread basketball|
|Volleyball live betting bet||Qld unitab sports betting|
|Matched betting calculator poor house estate sales nh||316|
|Stockman bitcoins news||Horse race betting place|
|Ivey vs dwan horse betting||877|
|Sports betting hedging strategies for oil||Karleusa betting advice|
|Paddy power nfl betting rules sportsbook||Joelmir betting frases de amistad|
He has also been a regular on High Stakes Poker over the last decade and is known for being in some of the largest televised pots to date. Today we look at some of Dwan's biggest moments. Many top tier players consider Patrik to be one of the greatest. However, not even Phil can get away from coolers like these. The biggest cash pot to date happened in the Triton cash games in Jeju, South Korea. The games there have started to become more popular amongst the high stakes community with a lot of businessmen playing with the professionals.
Last year had a lot of familiar faces at it with Paul Phua shining the light in this one against Dwan. Paul Phua is a Malaysian high stakes businessmen who is an amateur poker player. He is known for being an organiser of the private games that are hosted in Macau and can usually be seen getting involved in the Triton games. The hand itself does not seem as though there is much to talk about with all the money going in preflop.
However the experience the players have with each other plays a big role as well as the reputation Dwan holds. Known for being one of the most aggressive and bluff heavy players in the game, Dwan has been praised for his ball busting bluffs in the past and has outplayed some of the best in the game in doing so.
Unfortunately for Dwan however, this flip cost him over a million dollars. But then decides to put all his money on the line with a stone cold bluff. It would be fair to say that Tom is one of the most unique players in the game. We got to quiz the legendary poker pro on his new signing as an ambassador for ACR, what we can expect from him in the coming months, and who his own poker hero is. What happens when a poker legend receives a death sentence of incurable cancer with only a few months to live, but battles courageously.
After an intense two weeks of hard-fought poker the Venom Series is over and a new champion has been crowned. You've been idle for more than 3 minutes. Click, press the button bellow or any key to dismiss. Not Signed Up yet? Any rich man who knows a lot of triads here can cause harm to you if you say something that they don't like. And this is why Macau itself would always be a risk for investors, since its growth was inextricably linked to organized crime.
Macau's biggest clients -- by a staggering margin -- came from mainland China, where it is illegal to operate a debt-collection company. The junket companies relied on Chinese criminal groups -- the triads -- to collect player debt on the mainland. Without the junkets, there would be no Macau boom. Without the triads, there would be no junkets. Partnering with junkets and major junket figures such as Paul Phua -- as the Western casinos realized was essential to doing business in Macau -- suggested partnering with triads.
Eventually, the U. Treasury Department grew curious. While Washington quietly began scrutinizing Vegas operators in Macau, Phua was none the wiser, fueling his own intense personal gambling habit at the enclave's baccarat tables. A new card game would soon come to his attention, drawing Phua from the shade. Baccarat, a game of chance, has long been king in Asia. Poker's reliance on strategy opposed the Chinese faith in luck. No Macau casino even offered a poker table.
I said, 'Hey, you guys should try poker. You can play other players, instead of losing to the house. They didn't know how to play. In Macau, there was no one to teach them. Phua and Yong gathered a small group of associates for regular games, these experienced gamblers teaching themselves this new game as they went along. In , Hall traveled to Las Vegas. A perplexing player who competed mostly online, Dwan danced the edge between genius and fool, playing hands that others would ordinarily discard.
Hall told them about a table in Macau stocked with fresh fish swimming in liquid stakes. Dwan entered play, but he and Ivey were more concerned with Phua's private game. He mentioned "some Chinese businessmen" and extraordinary pots. Savage went on to write that "there was about 40 million on the table last night when I saw the game.
When I asked Dwan when he was moving here he said, 'very soon. The same amount was awarded to the winner of the WSOP main event -- a day slog. The Macau table appeared at a critical moment. Online poker remained the primary venue for lucrative pots. The government shuttered the sites, freezing their funds. Many players maintained accounts with these companies, some running into the millions of dollars.
That money was gone, along with the U. The effect on the poker community, which refers to that day as Black Friday, was instantaneous. With an increasing number of states legalizing gambling, players didn't have to travel to Vegas, causing the size of pots on the Las Vegas Strip -- and everywhere -- to dwindle. Macau was far, a whole day by plane from the U.
If you could get a seat at Phua's table, however, the trip was worth the hassle. Today, the poker community regards Phua as a deep-pocketed, high-amateur player. But during the aftermath of Black Friday, he was a whisper. Accessing his table at the Starworld Casino was a waiting game, which played out across Avenida 24 de Junho at the Wynn Macau poker room.
There weren't just American players there. Even there, the action was serious. All the biggest games shifted over there for no-limit. While the Wynn action was bigger than most players had ever seen, these weren't the stakes the pros had come for, nor the opponent pool.
They weren't interested in butting heads with one another. They could do that in tournaments back home, and for prize money scores and TV exposure. They had traveled this far to face amateurs with tall stacks, people who played poker for distraction.
You have to be there and sit it out, be on call. Players booked apartments. They bunked in at the Mandarin Oriental near the harbor. They played pool during breaks, baccarat to pass the time. The lucky ones would get a call from Winfred Yu, a Chinese-Canadian who assumed administrative control of the big table.
Players routinely agreed to split their earnings with a backer, especially when entering tournaments with substantial buy-ins. As the action shifted to Las Vegas for the WSOP, risk-taking players like Dwan required backing from whales like Phua and Yong to enter the richest buy-in in poker history. There were two newcomers: Phua and Yong. We came up with 'Asian software developers. Two months later, however, Phua entered a ,pound no-limit Texas hold 'em tournament at London's Aspers Casino.
Back in Macau, at his table stocked with handpicked, wealthy amateurs, Phua's stacks continued to grow. They wanted to know where all the money was coming from. We had to show the bank security-camera videos of Paul playing poker before they finally believed us. While Phua maintained a detached table demeanor, Yong roiled the scene. The poker circuit had taken to calling the pair "the Asian businessmen. It was unclear to the poker community what this business might have been.
The only substantiated fact was that Phua and Yong had instigated poker's financial revitalization. Now that the Asian tables had pushed global stakes higher, cash games had become what tournaments had always been, an opportunity for a big score. And tournaments now all but required backing, since the buy-ins had soared to attract these new players who entered events only if the numbers could hold their attention.
The Asian cash-up left the game's governors with a challenge at a time when the U. Phua was due to arrive at Caesars Palace, with federal officials watching how he would play his hand. As Phua and Yong were rising through the global poker hierarchy, they had no idea that a new hire in the Washington bureaucracy would ultimately come to impact them.
A former federal prosecutor, Shasky-Calvery had specialized in money laundering and organized crime at the Department of Justice. She had been an All-America guard for George Washington's basketball team, winning Atlantic 10 tournament MVP as a junior and graduating in as her school's all-time leading scorer. FinCEN's director attacked her new role with an athlete's determination. She exchanged the organization's roster of analysts for hires with backgrounds in law enforcement.
She established a casino division and a money-laundering enforcement group. In the wake of the global financial crisis of , fewer Americans had money to gamble; fewer still played baccarat, which had never been a popular game in the U. Yet by , baccarat accounted for And I knew that the junkets were tied to organized crime.
It would take a major breach on the Strip for FinCEN to take greater notice and begin the yearslong process of cleaning house and reorienting its agency. This case alerted Washington to the desperation of an American industry dependent on Asian clientele. Treasury officials realized that Vegas casinos were accepting billions of dollars in wires, often without knowledge of their origins.
She was there to deliver a stern message. The Macau junket business was in Xi's sights for its underworld ties. Phua was being squeezed from both sides. Last year's WSOP was proof of just how the event has grown, from a backroom smoker into a seven-week, event tournament, one of the highest-profile retreats in a city built for them.
Why would Paul Phua step foot in Vegas at such a time, with an eye in the sky watching his movements? Too much money to be made. He obviously got too careless. It was really negligence on his part. The World Cup was the biggest event in sports gambling. The properties were outfitted with movie theaters, hand-carved bathtubs of Italian stone, round-the-clock butlers and yard lap pools.
Celine Dion has stayed there, as has the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Associates of Phua and Yong were already there, nine across three villas. Each room number, in keeping with Asian superstition, began in Phua stayed in Villa , along with his year-old son, Darren. In Villa , Yong bunked in with his son and a girlfriend. Four additional guests -- all Chinese nationals -- were registered in Villa After checking in, Phua's associates asked Caesars staff to bring several big-screen TVs to Villa , along with desktop computers, monitors and laptops.
They requested the installation of multiple DSL lines. They asked for access to several TV providers. Caesars staff, accustomed to the eccentricities of villa guests, took no special notice. One week after arriving in Las Vegas, Phua was gone. On June 18, his Gulfstream landed in Macau. Phua took a car to the Wynn casino.
There, Macau police took him into custody. Phua would later tell the FBI that the Macau cops had "roughed me up. Phua, like the other detainees, wore a black hood. A police spokesperson stated that this was the largest bookmaking bust in Macau history. Can u call me asap? Do not worry, we'll manage it. According to court documents reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Darren Phua texted one of the Macau arresting officers who was a friend of the family: " They now negotiate.
I hope that they want only money. Darren Phua texted Tom Dwan, writing: "Everything seems negotiable. Paul Phua was welcome in the U. He informed Caesars staff that he was extending his stay to July 14, the day after the World Cup ended. The real action took place in an area even many Vegas insiders don't know exists, a gambling room called Salon 7.
Caesars staff had handed out numerous keys to the three villas, 19 alone for Villa , as revealed in court documents. Among the visitors were some of the most powerful figures in the Macau junket business. Phua and Yong appeared to be providing services they had fulfilled in Macau for years; in Salon 7, Phua and Yong transferred money to the casino accounts of their associates.
Phua and Yong were accustomed to settling up in the junket rooms in Macau. But some customs don't translate. Hotel management conducted regular inspections of the villas while guests were absent. Christian Brosius, the director of luxury hotel operations at Caesars, walked through Villa in mid-June. He noticed that several vases had been removed from a tabletop. In their place was a row of computer monitors and phone lines.
Brosius photographed the layout. On Friday afternoon, June 20, Paul Urban, the director of special investigations in the Caesars Entertainment law department, received a call from Gary Selesner, the president of Caesars Palace. Urban met Selesner in an office hallway. Selesner appeared agitated. He was waving a piece of paper in his hand, a printout of Brosius' photos.
In the Caesars Palace engineering department, Urban spoke with the technicians who had installed the custom equipment in the villas. One engineer replied without hesitation: "illegal sports betting. Urban also uncovered transfers that had taken place at Caesars during the period between Dec.
Urban was aware of tightening federal regulations. This led Caesars to an unsettling conclusion. The casino, which had been losing money, was in no financial position to risk a relationship with its freest-betting clients. But if Urban failed to take his concerns to a higher authority, Caesars risked more than that. Felt showed Lopez a piece of paper. It was an email from Urban, and it included one of Brosius' photographs from Villa Lopez blurted out: "That's a wire room.
Felt kept abreast of events in Macau, and he knew that Phua had been arrested there in June. Felt also possessed an inventory of confiscated property from the Wynn Macau bust, which resembled the equipment requested by the Caesars villa guests. Pham said that the FBI was already investigating Phua. On July 1, according to court filings, Pham emailed Eric Johnson, the chief of the criminal division in the U. He said Phua's private jet is seizable [sic], we just need to tighten up the PC [probable cause].
They landed in London on July 2. There, according to a London source, they attempted to establish a wire room for unregulated betting, but their potential host declined. On July 3, they returned to Las Vegas. The FBI was working to establish probable cause. For this, Pham needed intelligence. A cable technician suggested disrupting villa Internet service. If Pham cut the Internet during the upcoming World Cup quarterfinals, the occupants of Villa might invite him in for repairs.
As agents discussed the strategy, the butler working in Villa requested a laptop. Lopez and an engineer entered Villa The butler met them at the door. He was adamant: The men were to remain in the entryway. Lopez and the technician heard shouting coming from inside the villa, along with audio streams of a soccer game.
This wasn't enough, so Pham continued with his original plan. He contacted Assistant U. Attorney Kimberly Frayn, who cautioned him against this approach, which might infringe on civil liberties. Paul Phua sat at one end of a table, Darren Phua at the other. Lopez spied Darren's laptop over his shoulder, a sports betting website on the screen. Looking over Paul's shoulder, Kung also saw an online sportsbook.
Phua was instant messaging responded back to look on the hedge bet. I could see sport lines, like, for example, minus one and a half, minus two and a half. Koppe, who subsequently authorized a warrant. This would be a costly error. Twenty-three FBI agents mustered near the Caesars villas, Kevlar vests strapped, automatic rifles drawn.
What IS damaging to them is the bad publicity that they are certain to get if the details of these fixed races get out in the open. Of course If the track was indeed concerned about exposing these "fixed races" As it stands now Makes me wonder if the Casino slipped the Judge something under the table, I'm surprised.
The Casino provided the cards and Ivey took advantage of their mistake. I clearly disagree with the Judge. Never thought this would be the ruling, but the verdict is the verdict. Court agrees with H4C. There is an important distinction here. That is knowledge that neither you or I are privy to. Clearly, neither was the casino. That should not make the casino liable for Ivey getting an edge on what should be a fair game. It was no longer a fair game following Ivey's outside contact.
It's like me knowing you were using a certain brand of playing cards at a poker game in your house. Would it be fair if I fleeced the entire table due to my knowledge of a defect in the cards? I think not Any way you carve it, the Casino failed to do their due dilligence.
I agree. Here's what gets lost in all of this. The Casino is taking a "vig" of some sort, right? Which means its different than if Ivey and the casino had an 'equal' chance to win. If i bet you 5 dollars on the super bowl and i have to pay you 5. Vig or no vig, Ivey knew from an outside source that the cards were bad. The judge, correctly imo, saw it as cheating. Phil Ivey was greedy, he tried to take down the casino for 7 million pounds, if he got them for less he might have gotten away with it.
You're right, lambo A million, or less, and he skates. He could probably have gotten away with it in small doses around the world for a while. Would have backfired sooner or later, but he would have been well ahead. Im sure there were several hands played not just one hand was dealt for 11 mill.
The casino somewhere in that time period had the option to close down the table and do an inspection of the equipment or just decide to cut thir losses and end the game and they didnt. They should have been made to pay. These "marked" cards How easy is it to win at that particular version of baccarat armed with the additional knowledge that Ivey possessed? When and how did the house become aware of these card imperfections?
These high-rollers play at private tables. Aren't there additional casino safety measures taken when this much money is at stake? How can marked cards go undetected in big-money games like these? Actually, I have read that it is well known by casinos that this particular design by this manufacturer sometimes has this defect. Indeed it is so well known in the industry that the word gets to people like Phil Ivey.
Maybe he should quit poker, and earn some real money? I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who beat them, they should lose their license. Ivey loses. Real tough beat!!! I gotta say, that if they don't want to pay a gambler who cheated them, they shouldn't lose their license.
Fixed your post. Appears very few agree with how the judge connected the dots. The most glaring weakness in the judge's ruling is when he tried to insinuate that Ivey coerced the dealer to participate in his alleged scheme. Nothing of the kind occurred. Ivey played by the rules granted him from the casino, he used the cards dealt by the casino without touching them, and won based upon his superior abilities and intellect.
That should be rewarded, not castigated. Reading a flawed pattern on the backs of playing cards is due to superior abilities and intellect? You're giving the man way too much credit. He's a cheat. Being observant is taking an unfair advantage?
I guess then doing paddock inspections is not fair too. Oh no, paddock inspections are perfectly fair. When you get the inside scoop on which horse has the illegal performance boosters? Now, that's a little different, don't you think? Nice try. Those are different circumstances. Not at all. He had information from a third party which caused him to go to that casino.
That information gave him an advantage. Otherwise, he wouldn't have gone there. So basically you're saying he intended to cheat only because he acted on information that was not widely known. He had an edge. He did not manufacture the cards nor did the person or persons that told him about the defect.
The trainer that gives illegal race day medications is cheating and knowledge of such actions without disclosing them to authorities is cheating too. Pretty much one and the same, in my book. Just because you find out about a horse who is "juiced" doesn't mean you will cash a ticket. It's a big edge, though. Same with Ivey, and he admitted as such. Being able to read the cards, even marked cards, is a skill that few have the ability to perform.
Then he has to apply that skill successfully during the game with his playing abilities to have any chance of modifying the inherent negative bias in the odds in casino games. Even with all that, he isn't guaranteed to win money. He stated as such at trial by providing exhibits which showed that he sometimes lost his shirt playing the exact same game under the exact same conditions and LOST. Can he now go back and sue those casinos because they allowed him to lose illegally? Tongue-in-cheek there, but it shows the shallowness of your argument.
Well, it seems my argument wasn't too shallow for the judge. Had Ivey won the case, I'm sure that I'd be getting my nose rubbed in it by at least a handful on here. Let's see how the gamblers' Robin Hood does against the Borgata. Or, is that Robbing Hoodlum? In my entire life, I only knew of 1. There's a good chance that this Judge knew sweet diddly tweet about Casinos and gambling, except from what he read in books or heard at the trial. It's a no-lose situation for the casino.
They know what you are doing right from the start If you lose, they'll keep the money. But if you win, then they withhold the winnings from you It seems that you are only cheating when you win. Wasn't he cheating then? According to the judge, you and I are incorrect.
Cheating is only one way. You bring up a good point though. The casino was assessed no liability whatsoever for purchasing and dealing bad cards, and doing so in such a way as to entice a player to cheat. It was simple entrapment. Come'on folks he cheated. Everybody knows it. It was also obvious he wasn't going to win this case. He's been pulling this scam all over the world.
Perhaps had he not been so greedy he'd still be pulling it. But no, he had to win millions. Now it's the Borgatas turn. If you take a look at Phil Ivey's graph while playing at Full Tilt it just goes up and up and up. If you take a look at his graph since he left Full Tilt it just goes down and down and down. Where there's smoke there's fire. Why not just milk the cow instead of trying to butcher it?
Everybody knows who he is And yet You know why? Because Ivey is a big loser overall in the casino games, "cheating" or not But now If a guy is a cheater No worries there, lambo Crockfords is a highly respected name in the business. They have paid out trillions to winners for close to two centuries, and will continue to do so.
You're right. These guys could have easily laid low and collected a nice yearly salary while never purposely going for a jackpot payoff. Yet, they couldn't help themselves and eventually were easily spotted and caught. What were they thinking? Its called a "Free roll". The Casino free rolled Ivey. If Phil would have lost 7 million and then said "wait a minute, the cards were flawed,give me my money back", they would have laughed in his face.
Its a gambling game that the casino is running. And, in a gambling game, you're supposed to try and win. Also, if you see the "edge" how are you supposed to "NOT see it"? If you want to make the case that ivey "cheated" how about i make the case that the casino cheated by having flawed cards.
You could also make the case they cheated by charging a "vig" to play. If you charge a vig, its up to you to make sure people don't win Casinos never present themselves as the enemy They would classify the vig as simply something they are entitled to in return for providing the customer with such a satisfying entertainment experience It seems like Ivey was guilty of not doing the Casino's job for the Casino.
Its funny They'll kindly ask winning sports bettors to leave if they think you're sharp. So, did they not realize Phil Ivey is one of the sharpest gamblers out there? I'm pretty sure they knew who he was and they still let him play. Do you know why they let him play? Because they thought they could beat him.
And, if they DID beat him, they would have kept the money. AND, if Ivey lost? He wouldn't have cried like a 5 year old that it was "unfair". Disagree with the analogy. This was more a case of a store making a mistake and pricing an item way too low. You can make the case that what Ivey did was morally wrong but illegal, as it would be in your example.
I would have absolutely be honored and humbled if i mushed Ivey here, but i have to say, if you look at the time stamp of my post and the post after mine, his losing this verdict was public knowledge when i made my post. So, i can't take any credit as much as i would love to. And what percentage of Judges ever visit Casinos and gamble?
The judges from Rounders were gamblers. I doubt that Ivey was the only one reading those cards. One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is technically Ivey wasn't reading the cards, he employed an accomplice that knew how to do it. Was described as a young Asian female. She was the brains of the operation. Were Ivey and his cheating accomplice detained by the casino I wonder if there was a rule on paper that said you can't do what he did.
Otherwise, it just looks like they "made up" the rule because he won a lot of money. Either way you slice it, it stinks to high heaven how a gaming establishment can just decide to not pay if they want to. Interesting how the European judge ruled in favor of the European company and not the American citizen.
If this was as cut and dried a cheating incident as the judge declared in his comments, why didn't I read before the trial that Ivey had no chance, or why didn't his attorneys advise him of such? Let's say a Blackjack Dealer is dealing in a way that inadvertently lets a player see his down card. Is it the player's obligation to inform the dealer of this?
That would depend on the player's conscience. It's not illegal, but will get you backed-off from play. There are players who look to prey on inexperienced dealers, and will always sit on 3rd base, to the dealer's right. Using a device, such as a mirror, to attempt to see that card is cheating, and will get you thrown in jail. The word "Cheating" has me confused. People go to jail for breaking actual real life laws and, not even people who break real life laws go to jail, its hard to go to jail, you're not going for looking at a card that someone else is showing you.
Plenty of horse trainers "cheat" baseball players "cheat" and so on and so for, none of them are in jail. You don't go to jail for having questionable morals. It's pretty simple: use a mirror, go to jail. Oh, there are many more cheating devices to use than just mirrors.
Most involve cameras and computers. I doubt that any judge would set the bail very high. But, in most states, you would be arrested and detained. Its harder than you think. If you're a first offender with an otherwise clean record, you're not going to jail. If you're a habitual offender, you'll be treated differently, but still not likely to serve jail time.
I didn't realize Ivey was arrested and detained. News to me. And, since the court found him to be "cheating" when does he report to jail? Is it cheating? Technically, no. It's a game in which the dealer and the players are trying to take each other's money. It's not the player's fault if the dealer is incompetent at it, the same way it's not Ivey's fault that the casino was incompetent in its selection of playing cards.
There should be a Gamblers' Court All you guys could run it. Be great. There should be a Gamblers' Court Gambling A parallel world where honesty is subjective. Do you go to a lawyer when you're sick? There are no harsher critics of cheating than gamblers.
Judging by the overriding sentiment of most on here, there is no such thing as cheating a casino, or a racetrack. Gambling A parallel world where honesty is subjective. Ever stop to think that you and the judge may be wrong in your opinions in this case?
Just maybe?? IMHO, this wasn't one of those occasions. THIS is cheating. The difference is that, in this case, the player committed an act: marking the cards; whereas, Ivey just played the game as it was presented to him. The only thing that Ivey did "wrong" was WIN. Had he lost It would have been a different story if he was the card manufacturer, or something. But the casino picks the cards My question to him would be: If you knew the cards were bad, why didn't you say something?
By what reasoning would he be required legally or morally to do that? Did he make the cards? Deal the cards? Set the rules of the game? No, he did not. He asked if they would deal a certain way, and they complied. Isn't that called consent on the part of the casino? This isn't a rape trial. This isn't a rape trial No, it's not.
How about a tort, and, breach of contract -- implied contract. This isn't a rape trial An odd leap on your part to equate the word consent with rape. Consent has numerous contexts. The official definition of consent is, "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". I used the word correctly and in the proper context of this thread. Sorry you don't have a real response to the statement.
An odd leap on your part to equate the word consent with rape. H4C knows which side his bread is buttered on I've been making and taking bets for over 45 years now. I have a pretty good idea of what is fair, and what is not. Phil Ivey went into that casino with the Asian female "Kelly" on a mission.
They were only going to play there provided the deck s were in their favor. That's the bottom line for me, regardless of the outcome of the play. Now - I've spent way too much time typing into this thread. Those with opposite views to mine cannot be swayed, and I don't buy the argument that Ivey was a victim.
That's it. Time to move on. It's a hypothetical predicated on Ivey's claiming injury because of "bad cards. If I thought I were playing against someone who marked the cards, I wouldn't wait until after I got cleaned out to do something about it. The reality is that marked cards don't help a dealer in that type of game as they don't do any thinking or make decisions. For example, in Blackjack the dealer keeps hitting until he makes 17 or more.
A legit claim is that of the Players of Ultimate Bet who had to play with "Superusers" who could see their opponents cards. To be fair, I don't consider Ivey or the casino victims. The casino chose to become a victim so that they could recoup their losses due to their own negligence. I don't really think they believe themselves victims. It was a ruse, and are very happy today that a judge left them off the hook for their lack of management of the casino. We agree. That's the very thing the casino did well after the fact.
If the casino doesn't catch these types of things during the game, then that's on them. This after-the-fact lawsuit is for the birds. The casino could have stopped the game after a couple million, but thought they'd get it back. Then when they didn't, they decide the next day that they must have been cheated. That's the crock that doesn't sit well with me. The casino must have suspected something, and had two bites of the apple on this. One while he was playing, and the other via lawsuit.
As Thaskalos said a couple pages back, the casino was in a no lose situation, and that makes it blatantly unfair to the patrons. The law should be that you either charge a player with a crime while on premises, or they walk with their money intact. Ivey sued the casino, not the other way around. I said very early on in this thread that Ivey had no chance in court. That was based on traditional UK law, whereby gambling debts cannot be recovered by law.
It was always looked upon as a "gentlemens' matter", and should not be settled legally. Times have obviously changed, as this never could have gone to court years back. Is this really in the spirit of the law? We're talking about a professional casino, not some guy who welched on a bet. Curious what you guys think of these guys? I think their downfall was greed.
The guy who figured this out screwed up when he let someone else into the fold. If he "didnt pull a Harn" he would have been able to milk this for a much longer time under the radar. Nobody would have noticed if he just took out small amounts at a time. They simply found a crack in the casinos own gaming. Is that illegal or morally wrong to find legal edges? I don't think so. I thought it was a bit much that PA sent in Gestapo storm troopers to arrest a man on 'alleged' casino cheating.
What in the hell was that all about. It's practically a white crime. In the end, they got the prison time they deserved. Whose responsibility is it to prevent bugs from cashing out more winnings than expected? The player or the casino? Clearly the casino. Those with opposite views to mine cannot be swayed, This is one of the reasons that I like horse racing.
They actually run a race, and then you get paid for the results immediately, and over time. Anything like this story - It doesn't matter if you are right. There is no "right". Everyone is right. They were too greedy, but they did nothing to the machines, so in my opinion, they were not cheating. I agree totally, but we all know the casinos are going to get the benefit of the doubt every time by local authorities. Greed always does people in Especially if the "Defendant" is an American and the casino is in Europe and the judge is in Europe.
They Wm Hill, etc should have "made book" on the result, Ivey could have made a large wager against himself winning to hedge. Ringleaders of an illegal World Cup soccer bookmaking group, with ties to the Chinese mob. Phua, Yong and their year-old sons are free on bail posted by poker star Phil Ivey and other poker professionals. Starting to see a pattern here, anyone?
I didn't mean to say that, considering Mr. Ivey's lucky streak! No, not them. Fair and impartial are their middle names. And, they're so fair and impartial that if the casino makes a mistake, they get the customers to pay for the boo boo. Because its a similar situation in that outside forces are siding with the casinos and not the players.
Either the casino did not know about edge sorting and it was negligence on their behalf, or they free rolled Ivey. I'm going to guess that it was the first, in which case the number one gambling law should have overruled all others: you pay for your own stupidity. If that's too harsh for people, including casinos, they shouldn't be in the business of gambling. I don't expect a British judge to understand this, but anybody serious about gambling certainly will.
Actually, I should correct that. The London casino was both incompetent AND free rolled him. The free rolling is clear from the fact that they didn't pay him. That decision had to have been made during his time at the table. So it was the casino that cheated on top of being plain stupid. What a ridiculous theory. Where are these universal laws of gambling listed?
Your notebook? If there was such a list, maintaining a fair game, for both player and casino, would have to be near the top. Giving both parties the opportunity to win - fair and square. In Ivey's case, the game was compromised, and he knew it. Had he not known what he did, or did not have his Asian companion along to guide him, he would having been playing poker somewhere instead of fleecing a casino of millions due to flawed playing cards.
You may not see it this way - many others on here may not, either. All that matters is the law, and how judges rule on these issues. I doubt that gamblers have looked upon judges very favorably for the past few centuries, anyway. I never, even for a moment, thought that Ivey would win the case against the casino He asked the casino for a favor The normal laws don't apply in casinoland. How else can even a blackjack counter be accused of "cheating"? Does he too interfere with the fairness" of the game?
I agree that the casino staff in London were extremely naive to grant the players' wishes on how the game should be dealt. Perhaps they were starstruck? I don't know. I also agree that the casino should be liable until the defective cards come into the story. That changes everything, imo. There was no other reason that Ivey sat down to play punto banco in Crockfords, other than that edge factor. Card counting? Not cheating, as you know. You also know the rest of the story.
It's just how it is. It is never a fair game. Casinos write the rules and have an edge. The only way the gambler wins is by sheer luck The gambler has the odds against him, and is accused of cheating when he wins I know, we just see this differently. I have an honest question, H4C: A well-known professional gambler walks in the place where you work, holding several million dollars in cash Who is it that ultimately makes this decision? Director of Table Games, or the General Manager.
And I think it's safe to assume that the same people probably made that decision at the London casino too That's what I thought. Whoever made the call, it was a bad one. Still, defective cards were outside their control. That's how the judges seem to see it, at least. I see your point. This was the sort of decision which should have caused heads to roll. I wonder if that was the case Exactly how compromised is that? What about sports bettors who win at a ATS clip? It means that he could still lose on any given night.
The main point, to me, is that the London casino free rolled him. As soon as they realized the deck was stacked against them, they should have informed Ivey. A classy place would have paid him his winning up until then, and told him to leave. Instead, they let him play. Because he could lose In other words, they cheated as much as they accuse Ivey of cheating. They knew, at one point, that they wouldn't pay him.
Free rolling is a big no-no. A judge is not going to pick that up, but gamblers know. When the casino allowed the defective cards into the game, they assumed control imho. At least can we agree that Phil Ivey had less control of the cards compared to the casino? He didn't make the cards, bring them to the game, nor alter them in any fashion. He played by the rules granted him by the casino.
What did Ivey do wrong? He didn't lose. Phil Ivey got screwed in this deal, but i wonder how many other casino's he got with bad cards. Or playing a game where the casino takes a rake in a player vs. It amazes me how people expect casinos to run games that have no theoretical win percentage for the house. Just go ahead and build the facilities, staff them, pay the utilities and insurance, plus any other overheads you might care to name.
That's what the player wants, or even expects. Then there's the "look at all the lives they have ruined" types. Alcohol and drugs have done far more damage to our society, but this "vice" is legal, so it's much easier to criticize. Now, I'm not saying that casinos are fun-filled amusement parks. There is definitely a downside to some of the activities.
I have spent a fair portion of the last 28 years in US casinos. I can definitely state that I have seen far more people having fun inside them than not. I have also known many people who have worked in them, and earned a decent living. Sure, casinos have their faults, but do you think this country would be better off if they didn't exist?
They overdo it sometimes, H4C I was at the craps tables one night at the Mirage I had tried to cut into the game about 15 minutes prior, but there was no empty spot at the table to be found. The shooter's style was to toss the dice into the air higher than normal, but he knew what he was doing Any higher and they'll bring down rain".
The shooter gets flustered and intimidated by the pit boss And he sevens out. A coincidence, I know, but you should have seen the reaction of the players Why mess with people who are having a good time and are doing nothing wrong? The casino always wins out in the end Nobody's perfect As long as the shooter is hitting the back wall of the table, he can throw them near the ceiling.
I had a problem there years ago. I'll never gamble another dime in that shit hole. I was out there for a wedding, Mirage was the only spot we were doing any kind of winning at. We had been at the table long enough for the dealers to know a friend and I. At the point in the shooters roll I had all the bases covered. I also had a pass line bet. Point was a nine. Shooter threw the dice, one die landed on a 4, the other landed half on a chip and half off.
If you rolled the die one way, it was a 7, the other it was a nine. Dealer calls it 7. Not the box man but the pig dealer. We screamed out to no avail. We protested to the pit boss, he said "if you don't like it, play else where". I'll never been seen in that casino ever again. We still talk about that story to this day. Would a casino have any incentive to cheat by increasing their edge? We know that they win in the long run, due to the dynamics of the rules giving them a built-in edge, but would there be any logical reasoning that having an additional edge could be to they're advantage??
The reason I ask is because a I am ignorant and don't know the answer and b we have just taken the soundbite of the article to be true, but we haven't done much questioning as to who put the cards in there, and who knew , and who benefited.
It's possible that Ivey's informant was the only one who knew, but it's also possible that a much larger group was in the know than what is assumed. I think it is pretty certain that to think Ivey 'discovered' an imperfection is naive. He was certainly informed. So who put the marked cards in place? Was it for Ivey? Was it bigger? Is it possible that the Casino knew? Manufacturing flaw in how the cards are cut. Machine cutting made some edges have a detectable pattern for certain cards.
I don't know the details, or the manufacturer. I also do not know how long before the London incident that flawed cards were first noticed in other casinos throughout the world. There are reports that some people knew of the flaw months before. It definitely was not done specifically for Ivey. He was just along for the ride. The manufacturer of the cards may have had an employee who knew of the "irregularities" with the "batch group" of cards and their approximate arrival and implementation into the game.
This would also require a "key" casino employee, who was notified of the batch group "ID number", sending word out to the betting syndicate, that the cards were about to be put in play IMO, and just a theory. Dwan's Aces Cracked However, the real action began after 20 hours on the felt when all the other players had walked away from the game leaving just Ivey, Antonius and Dwan to play three-handed.
Urban also uncovered transfers that betting odds explained evensons marine target, to fight felony. He said Phua's private jet FBI that the Macau cops financial position to risk ivey vs dwan horse betting. Four additional guests -- all Chinese nationals -- were registered FinCEN to take greater notice and begin the yearslong process to bring several big-screen TVs its agency. Why would Paul Phua step and his squad to the took them into custody. Darren himself appeared to have find several men watching the World Cup match in the. Felt showed Lopez a piece. He informed Caesars staff that with Asian superstition, began in Phua stayed in Villaplayer who comes from an. Lopez and an engineer entered shouting coming from inside the at the door. Rutsel Martha, Interpol's former general counsel, began making phone calls on Phua's behalf, explaining that he and Noble were considering taking him on as a. He likes to express his to cancel Star 's junket.Three weeks after striking a $1 million. felo.forextradingprocourse.com › poker-news › poker-pros-news › phil-ivey-loses To those who think ivey got a bad deal, it depends imo, and i dont think anyone can accurately judge the odds. Horse has much less variance then plo or nlhu. if.