They allowed him (them) to play, and they went along with his requests, af accommodated him (and his companion). He played accordingly. Then he won. They must not complain, they themselves did not use their right to keep him away from their tables or put of their joints. And also a good point in his favour, it is not forbidden to use your eyes, is it?
In the meantime, Ivey has lost these court cases against both casinos, which I personally find totally flabbergasting and disappointing . I hold with the expert they interviewed above that if Ivey had actually cheated, the police would have arrested him and he would have been interdicted by a public prosecutor for fraud. The very fact that this did not happen should have been reason enough for the courts to side with Ivey. In effect, he turned the tables on the casinos: normally, they make money by playing on an emotion of their customers, namely their greed. The casino knows for a fact that the house has a small, but persistent statistical advantage in every game of chance it offers. In the long run, every customer simply *must* lose. All the casino needs to do to win big in a very short time is to reel in a whale with a lot of money who thinks he will out-luck it.
There is in fact only one game of chance in which the customer has indeed a chance of obtaining a tiny statistical advantage over the casino, and that is Black Jack, and only when he engages in card counting. Note that if one simply plays „mathematically correct“ in Black Jack (i.e., the optimal strategy without card counting), the casino still enjoys an advantage of 1.42%. This is far smaller than its advantage in other games such as roulette, which if memory serves amounts to 3.27% on a single zero wheel and is absolutely crushing on a double zero wheel (well over 5%). What this means in the Black Jack example is that over time, players who play mathematically correct are apodictically certain to lose $1.42 for every $100 they bet - for all eternity.
Because this is so, it has long been accepted from a legal perspective that casinos have no legal claim against card counters who turn the tables on them and use their skill to eke out a tiny advantage for themselves (as Ivey notes, even if you do that, you can still lose!). Since casinos are private establishments, , they can ban such players from their premises in the future, but they bloody well have to pay out their winnings.
Edge sorting to win in Baccarat sounds perhaps a bit more „iffy“ than card counting in Black Jack, but in principle it requires almost the same skill set, namely a mixture of precise powers of observation , a very good memory and an understanding of the underlying maths. Legally it is undoubtedly not different at all - it simply amounts to the player turning the probability tables against the casino by using his or her skill.
Now, Ivey asked for certain preconditions to be fulfilled contractually before he would sit down and play for millions. The managers of these casinos *must* have known from the outset that he was going to try to win by some sort of advantage strategy. It is freaking obvious to anyone who thinks about it for five seconds, and it is beyond belief that the people running the casinos somehow couldn’t tell (if that was really the case, they should all be fired immediately and be replaced by people with an IQ above room temperature). That means they thought that he would try and fail. In other words, they were naively expecting that they would end up taking his money anyway. And then they lost. Oops!
So what they are now saying is effectively: „Unless it is mathematically certain that you, the customer, will *definitely* lose when you come to play at our casino - which by the way attracts customers by advertising to them *how much they stand to potentially win* - you are simply not allowed to play at our establishment.“ Fine, but then they actually agreed to *every precondition Ivey asked for in writing* and let him come and play anyway! At that point, the foregoing (which they of course never said beforehand - it only came out after the fact, implicitly, in their law suits) was no longer relevant - if they allow someone to play and that person wins by applying a skill (as opposed to doing something that is legally defined as cheating), they cannot retroactively refuse to pay out the winnings, in my opinion.
I have to add „in my opinion“, because obviously, both courts disagreed with me. I haven’t seen the rulings in detail, so perhaps I am missing something, perhaps there is a fact that is not revealed in this documentary. I am pretty certain though that no such fact exists, since no prosecutor has decided to pursue Ivey for fraud. Thus the facts seem crystal clear: he won by using the unlimited greed of the casinos and his (and his companion‘s) skill against them. He did to them precisely what they normally do to their customers, hence he deserves to get his money, and they deserve to lose.
More importantly, I think the courts made an extremely misguided decision here, that is simply not tenable on legal grounds. As a precedent, it opens the door to all sorts of shenanigans by casinos in terms of trying not to pay winning players - essentially any people who the casinos believe are smarter than they „ought“ to be. Even players who just get lucky may henceforth run into problems when it comes to collecting their winnings. What if a casino decides their winnings are „too big“ and they then simply allege that they were outsmarted (as opposed to „out-lucked““) by the players concerned, who therefore have have forfeited their right to get paid? Potentially this is quite a big can of worms... I sure hope Ivey wins these cases on appeal.
The interviewers moustache is pissing me off... did he purposely shave it so it doesn't connect to his nose like a regular moustache? Like now it doesn't look like a moustache, it looks like he missed a really big spot. Does he think it looks good? It doesn't...
Ivey did nothing wrong btw
Yet the Casino itself is an advantage player. They do everything they can to put the odds in their favor. They use psychological tricks and games that have terrible odds. Phil picked them apart and they can’t stomach it.
Baccarat is a game thats easily winnable. If you got a million dollars and stick to one side, Martingale every bet from $25 on, you'll always be a winner. Now betting $30,000 to win $25 is insane but I've never seen the banker or the player drop 16 or 17 straight times. Thats why I wait until theres a 7 or 8 game streak for either bet and go in betting the other way. If the banker won 10, 11 straight then the player is due for a win. At a small house, you can win everyday. But strange things happen in Vegas. If there's a chance you'll lose, you most likely will lose it all. The Casino knows gambling better than everybody. They shouldnt allow requests and cry foul when someone knows what their doing. They expected his routine to fail then found out the man is smarter than them. Corporational ego.
This is all stupid.. The game is Baccarat. You cant change your bet once the cards are drawn so even if you know you about to win, you cant possibly cheat. Phil Ivey lost his cases because he didnt stress the operation of the game. Only if Ivey was allowed to add or take away money once the cards that leave the shoe but thats the casino responsibility. Just like allowing gamblers to see the top card of a shoe. Its unfair to the gambler to present a negative expectation game, allow all requests and go after the money once they get beat. But Im sure they made money having Ivey physically in their house. The Casino should not be allowed to be a sore loser. We cant be sore losers.. We have to pay rent after losing the rent money. It is possible for people to get lucky. To have great runs at negative games. But the Casino wanna say you cheating. Smh. There is no spirit in gambling after that. Its all demonic.
These casino's thought they could still beat him with a 5 or 6 percent advantage over the average player and still got beat. He made them look like assholes and now they are making it worse. I hope that he gets more than he beat them for.
Edge sorting may be of help in a poker game but who cares? The casino's money is not at risk. It is virtually impossible in black jack and absolutely impossible in Baccarat. Even if the dealer was "in, they would have to break procedure and that draws attention. Conspiracy theories are like roses, they only grow if you water them.
Wait so you let him set this up and you lost and got pissed then sued.
If you ask me the borgata and the UK casino are the ones that lost face.
They looked stupid and told everyone that they don't honor there bets.
I'd never play in those casinos.
I'm all in with Phil. If those casinos granted him his requests, he should get every penny. He did nothing wrong. What he did was take their money and make them look foolish. Hurt pride is no legal reason to win in court. This young cat is as smart as they come. If I owned a casino, I'd either set a predetermined amount that he could take the casino for and if he hit that amount, he would lose gaming privileges in my casino. Or easier yet, don't let him gamble in your casino in the first place.
There was a guy playing the slot machines at the Georgian Downs Casino a few years back. He won the $1,000,000 progressive prize. The casino managers came out and told him the machine was defective and they would not honor his win. The gave him a free dinner ticket instead....he hired a lawyer!
Goes to show just how idiotic most people are. They gamble without any kind of unfair advantage at their side and expect to get lucky. Always do your homework. Always have an unfair advantage. Always have a plan. Have statistics and information on your side. Not alleged luck
I think he did some fuck ups though, why ask for an asian dealer and then have someone with you as partner in crime which is also asian. I am pretty sure co-operating in casino games are forbidden and asians are the most sneaky gambling cheaters there is on this planet, systems and tricks for everything. I mean why an asian dealer that only she could communicate with in mandarin, was he in on it for a cut, I mean it do raise flags? I like Ivey but I think he got greedy and flew to close to the sun here. Also there is hesitation and morale doubt when he is asked if he was cheating. I think he knows deep down that he might have hustled them a bit too much and it is all in his last moments responding to the accusations, the eyeblink, the feeling of uncomfort that make him squeeze in that smile instead of looking guilty for even a second longer, you can see there is focus to not start moving also which is another sign of a person feeling cornered and uncomfortable with the question. I can spot a liar from miles away and something is off here.
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a problem with getting and maintaining an erection that’s firm enough to have sexual intercourse. All men have trouble getting an erection from time to time, and the likelihood of this problem increases with age. If it happens to you often, though, you may have ED.
Viagra is a prescription drug that can help men with erectile dysfunction. For many people, romance means candlelight, soft music, and a glass of wine. The little blue pill, Viagra, can be part of this picture, but only if you drink small or moderate amounts of alcohol.