OZ - because I wouldn't expect a reputable casino to be angle shooting, or freerolling a player.
*shrugs*
Doesn't come as any real surprise to me.
Keep in mind that this isn't an everyday run of the mill situation - the fact that this happened doesn't mean the same casino will also try to angle shoot you next time you sit down to play $10
blackjack or whatever.
If Ivey was indeed trying to advantage play them (and that seems all but confirmed at this stage) the casino would have recognised it as soon as he started asking for specific cards to be turned. Moreover, Ivey would have known that the casino would know - he was playing for high stakes in a private salon with multiple cameras watching him, there was
no way it was going to go unnoticed. And since they didn't stop the game immediately after he started turning cards, he would have known that the casino going to the tapes afterwards, accusing him of angle shooting and refusing to pay him was a likely outcome.
They might have been dealing punto banco at the table, but it seems what Ivey was really playing that night was a high stakes game of chicken.
The more I think about it too, the more I wonder if maybe it really was Ivey that leaked the story in the first place last year? He now seems to be the one that has the most to gain from the story going public...
cotta777 said:
the guy has some kind of 6th sense and when his instinct's are in full flow he's unstoppable at any form of gambling
Did you read the bit where the casino says he was edge sorting, and it wasn't even Ivey that was doing the work? It wasn't sixth sense, it was effectively card marking, and his "companion" seems to have been the real brains behind this streak.
ChipEaterMan said:
Sounds like bs to me. The casino needs to cowboy up and pay him and cut the crap. How many others have lost at least that much and more? I bet the casino doesn't do an investigation then....
Let's try to put this into poker terms: you're playing heads up poker against someone, and at the end of the game you find out that the other player has marked the deck so he can tell where all the aces are. He's taken a bunch of your money as a result. Are you going to happily let him walk away with your money, and even pay him a little extra for being smarter than you for noticing?
That's not a hundred per cent accurate analogy (in Ivey's case, it seems likely both sides were playing a little dirty) but you get the picture - this isn't just an ordinary game that the casino is refusing to pay out on.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea BTW, my
personal view is that the casino should pay him. IMO the minute they recognised what he was doing they should have either cut him off or decided to accept the consequences of letting him to continue to play if he went on to win. That said, the way all of this has gone doesn't surprise me either...