An absurd result in London's High Court today!

[Koz84]

http://www.pokertube.com/poker-news/...uthful-witness

"In fact, Genting’s lawyers were well aware of the fact that ‘cheaters’ card would probably not stand, so they came up with the phrase – ‘defeated purpose of the game’. One must wonder, what is the purpose of the game?"

Unfortunately, it appears as though the UK judiciary do not believe in AP techniques. If such a ruling were to be used as a precedent before a case involving card counting, STing etc. in a British casino, would a similar result ensue?

[Sonny]

I appreciate the defense:

"'We observe the unwritten doctrine: how do I find a legal way to beat the house? Any method that could amount to cheating would breach the doctrine and cause you to be ostracised by your fellow players - we are all very careful to stay the right side of the line and we discuss advantage play strategies at length.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-cheating.html

-Sonny-

[Brock W]

I'm shocked. This could have repercussions. I thought Crockfords had no hope of winning.

[mofungoo]

Bribery works. With 7.7 million at stake the casino could afford some "influence".

[Sonny]

The expert witness in the case (you'll never guess who) seems to agree:

"Sometimes you just have to let out a big sigh and let it pass, but the verdict in the Phil Ivey vs. Crockfords case is not be easy for me to accept."

http://apheat.net/2014/10/08/edge-so...-not-cheating/

-Sonny-

[Koz84]

"The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating. Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practiced by the casino for which he was not responsible. He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation. This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”

Wow! So using an innocent vector is cheating, according to the British HC. Therefore shuffle tracking and hole carding are cheating, by this definition, because you're exploiting what a dealer is doing in order to gain an advantage. Does that mean simple card counting is cheating, too? I mean, if the dealer didn't draw the cards from the shoe you wouldn't be able to count and gain an advantage.

The judge's reasoning is inherently flawed, because you can't do anything in a casino without it being facilitated by an "innocent" dealer. The nature of the industry and the games themselves dictates that someone has to deal to you! Perhaps you can be alleviated of being branded a cheater in Britain so long as you walk up to the dealer and profess, "I am taking advantage of the way you deal this particular game."

[Three]

Ivey would not play with the casinos regular cards. He made them buy a particular kind of card so he could play knowing they were imperfect so he could know the values of certain cards. To me that is like bringing a marked deck yourself to a card game. While I don't think edge sorting itself is illegal but when the imperfect cards are only there because you demanded them we have another issue that we are talking about. We are definitely in a grey area here and I understand why the judge ruled as he did. If he had done it using the standard cards used at every table in the casino it would be a totally different issue.

What we have here is an elaborate scheme to trick the casino into using cards, different than they normally use, that can be sorted and then tricking or worse yet colluding with the dealer to get the cards turned. Obviously if these were the casinos standard cards this would not be cheating. If he brought cards himself and snuck them into the game it would obviously be cheating. What we have here is between these extremes. Ivey demanded that a specific brand of cards be used with the specific intention of tricking the casino into sorting cards that can be sorted rather than their standard cards. That much is obvious. We have a line that falls between the 2 extremes and the question is which side of that line does this fall. A key issue in deciding which side of the line it falls is that the casino did supply the cards but only after Ivey's demand that was a line in the sand for getting his action. I am not a lawyer. I don't know what the civil law in England states for fraud or cheating.

In searching for a legal definition of fraud in the UK I came across this:
"In the most general terms fraud is defined as intentional dishonesty or a planned or conceived deception that is committed with the goal of damaging another individual for personal gain." Other than the use of the term "individual" that is exactly what Ivey did. As I understand it there is no gambling regs in the UK. It is up to the casino to decide what is and is not permitted. The casino is simply reigned in by what the publicity of their actions would cause the public to think. You make an issue of enough money and public sentiment takes a back seat. The greedy killed the opportunity and didn't even get paid. luckily he got his initial stake back. That was not a guarantee by any means. The only reg I see in UK that is at all relevant is that gambling must be conducted in a fair and open way. It hardly seems applicable but that is the closest thing to being relevant in this case.

[Sonny]

Ivey would not play with the casinos regular cards. He made them buy a particular kind of card so he could play knowing they were imperfect so he could know the values of certain cards.

I heard a very different story. Like many casinos, Crockfords uses decks with different colored backs (e.g. yellow, purple). He requested that a certain color be used because the imperfections were more visible. I don't believe they were special in any way.

-Sonny-

[Koz84]

I heard a very different story. Like many casinos, Crockfords uses decks with different colored backs (e.g. yellow, purple). He requested that a certain color be used because the imperfections were more visible. I don't believe they were special in any way.

-Sonny-

That sounds more plausible. What kind of a casino lets you bring your own cards?

[Sonny]

"He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation. This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”

There you have it folks: casino ignorance = player cheating.

-Sonny-

[Three]

I heard a very different story. Like many casinos, Crockfords uses decks with different colored backs (e.g. yellow, purple). He requested that a certain color be used because the imperfections were more visible. I don't believe they were special in any way.

-Sonny-

I just went by info in one of the articles I read. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the info.

[Norm]

I heard a very different story. Like many casinos, Crockfords uses decks with different colored backs (e.g. yellow, purple). He requested that a certain color be used because the imperfections were more visible. I don't believe they were special in any way.

-Sonny-

And some use two different colored backs in the same shoe.

[UK-21]

The basis of the judges decision is very simple. Here's an extract from the Gambling Act 2005, the section relating to "cheating":

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)
cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual
or attempted deception or interference in connection with . . .

Genting's barrister successfully argued that Mr I had deceived the staff into carrying out actions that provided him with an advantage
over the house that isn't normally there and which other players did not enjoy - the deception being that he led them to believe this
was purely out of a superstitious belief when in fact it was a deliberate move on his part to gain an "unfair" advantage. It was clear
from his own testimony that he did deceive the people at Crockfords (as incredibly stupid as they were) and so deception = cheating.
Simples. Bearing in mind the precident consideration of the case, anyone caught "edge counting" in a UK casino now can expect to be
charged with committing a criminal offence under the Gambling Act. I can't see this affecting card counting though, as it's virtually
impossible to prove beyond "all reasonable doubt" that anyone's doing it.

I think what will be interesting will be the ruling of the judge in the Borgata -v- Ivey case that is still to come to court?