Phil Ivey vs Genting Casino

I’m sure a lot of you are aware of, or maybe have even discussed, the situation that Phil Ivey found himself in with Genting Casino.

A short version of the story:

Genting Casino invite Phil Ivey to play at one of their locations. I believe he is allowed to choose the game, bet size, and deck. He chooses a form of baccarat and requests a guest with a private room, which is granted.

Turns out Phil Ivey had invited an “edge-sorting” professional, as he knew a certain deck at that casino had errors on the backs which helped identify denominations. He won over $7 million that night.

When this went to court, Phil Ivey was honest about what he had done, claiming the casino set the rules and he just played by them. He didn’t bring the cards.

A jury decided he was dishonest and voted in favour of the casino. Phil Ivey’s winnings were withheld.

Who do you think should have won this court battle?

This was a Topic of like amost ist a decade ago?

They should have given him his winnings back then, yes.

Suns of Beaches said:

This was a Topic of like amost ist a decade ago?

They should have given him his winnings back then, yes.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It was a while ago now, but I was chatting to a friend that works in insurance and they were telling me how there’s a law that gets brought up a lot in insurance called Ivey vs Genting. I just couldn’t believe it was such a controversy that it changed the law.

Olzym said:

Exactly. It was a while ago now, but I was chatting to a friend that works in insurance and they were telling me how there’s a law that gets brought up a lot in insurance called Ivey vs Genting. I just couldn’t believe it was such a controversy that it changed the law.

Click to expand...

Yea I remember this whole thing. I get that he followed rules - but it is definitely a gray area and has a shady feel to it.

It is very similar to "spooking" at a blackjack table, where a person peeks at a dealer's hole card from behind and relays that information to a player at the table, so it is definitely un-sportsmanlike. However that isn't illegal, so if that is all of what happened I voted for Mr. Ivey to win.

Seems like collusion.

Debi said:

Yea I remember this whole thing. I get that he followed rules - but it is definitely a gray area and has a shady feel to it.

Click to expand...

Definitely shady

Ivey identified an edge in the game the casino created...i dont see how they can side with the casino reasonably...

ironduke11 said:

Ivey identified an edge in the game the casino created...i dont see how they can side with the casino reasonably...

Click to expand...

Ivey scammed the casino, he may have been playing by the rules set, but a scam is still a scam when the details emerge.