I
IvanShovski
Visionary
Silver Level
There exists an English legal principle called Estoppel which prevents a party from acquiescing in certain conduct and then later asserting that the conduct was objectionable. Whether it applies in this case, I really don't know. Did the casino really know what was going on? Can Phil Ivey prove that the casino knew and acquiesced in his edge sorting?
T
trent32la
Legend
Bronze Level
that's why u don't go to a €urop€ to gamble If your an American....you are not a citizen there and they will take advantage of ya. However if they have no proof of Ivey cheating he should be given the $ he deserves!
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
*takes a deep breath*
They did find that he was edge sorting - they don't need to find evidence of what he was doing, they need to establish whether it was legal or not.
H
highway26776
Rock Star
Silver Level
Its not hard to have a casino checking you out. I have had a good run at roulette before dropping $100 chips straight up on numbers you only have to hit a dozen odd times before you have a gaggle of pit bosses and security breathing down your neck. And I often have a friend with me who mentally calculates winning payouts as dealers often get it wrong.
They seem to eye that with suspicion
They seem to eye that with suspicion
M
Macaroon
Rock Star
Silver Level
What a load of rubbish. How can anyone know, just by your accent, whether you live in Europe or not? Some Americans do live in Europe you know! And some Europeans live in the USA! It's very good of you to allow that...
DariusDruski
Rising Star
Bronze Level
I agree with you - shame on the casino...
T
TheNoobie
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yea, I'd hate to find out in time he won those money cheating, but for now Im sure that he didnt. Its a shame on the casino for not wanting to pay him the money which he obviously won. I cant say I dont understand them, its 11 million afterall, but a respected casino should have this kind of money in spare. What I dont understand is why did they choose to do that to someone, a millioner, that has no problems going into court with this and they can lose much more. I'd love to see an update of that article just aswell, so if anyone hears anything - please, share it.
And that mediea .. he was a hit-and-run player, of course he will be. If you sit on the roulette and never get up you will lose your money eventually, you cant just win forever. Its 10 times better to get up and leave when you won a nice amount of money than to waste it all over. But of course, the casino makes a profit from that so they would try to make him feel guilty.
And that mediea .. he was a hit-and-run player, of course he will be. If you sit on the roulette and never get up you will lose your money eventually, you cant just win forever. Its 10 times better to get up and leave when you won a nice amount of money than to waste it all over. But of course, the casino makes a profit from that so they would try to make him feel guilty.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
*takes another deep breath*
A couple of things:
On the first point, nobody is suggesting for a second that Ivey won his money in poker by cheating. And I don't think there's any suggestion at this stage that the casino doesn't have the money to pay him either - they're just arguing over whether they should have to give it to him or not, given how the game was played.
I think they did it to him because they thought they had a good case for not having to pay him the money if he won.
On the second point, if you're an ordinary Joe who walks in the door of the casino, plays for a little while, has a decent size win and walks away then that's one thing.
Ivey and other high rollers aren't ordinary Joes though. High rollers receive indulgences that ordinary players don't get - free suites, meals, private salons to play in, limo transfers, trips in private jets, raised limits on their favourite game and so on.
So you can see the difference - when an ordinary Joe hits and runs the casino couldn't (and shouldn't) care less because they've made no special investment in that player. But when they've spent thousands of dollars providing a high roller with a range of different luxuries, you can see why they might be upset when that player only plays for 20 minutes, takes them for a few hundred grand and then leaves.
They casino isn't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, naturally. They just expect some quid pro quo from the player. Which is why, for example, in the original story in this case Ivey had agreed to play for a "serious amount of time".
HaNz17
Enthusiast
Silver Level
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Any denial of edge sorting from Ivey or his lawyers is conspicuous in its absence so... no, it seems you're not being kidded.
