Ivey Loses!!

[UK-21]

This case has now been heard in both England and the United States.

Are you really a builder . . . ?

[davethebuilder]

Are you really a builder . . . ?

Yes, with an interest in Blackjack. Why do you ask?

[Bodarc]

Even though the casinos agreed to these
requests it is clear they did not understand the potential consequences of their actions.

This is what bothers me davethebuilder. Casinos can pay 6:5 on bj and still call the game bj. The players don't understand the potential consequences of their actions and the casinos get away free and clear. A casino is a professional gambling organization and if they make a gambling bet and allow variations in a game because of greed, they should know what they are agreeing to and be held accountable.

[davethebuilder]

This is what bothers me davethebuilder. Casinos can pay 6:5 on bj and still call the game bj. The players don't understand the potential consequences of their actions and the casinos get away free and clear. A casino is a professional gambling organization and if they make a gambling bet and allow variations in a game because of greed, they should know what they are agreeing to and be held accountable.

6:5 BJ games are mainly found on low limit tables and have house edges of around 1.5 - 2.0% for the BS player, depending on the rules. A card counter should not waste their time on this but instead it is possible that the casino may use inexperienced dealers who give up hole card information. Also, if the games are dealt from a shoe the dealer may perform poor shuffle procedures thereby allowing skilled players to shuffle track and ace sequence. So it works both ways but since most players at this level are relatively unskilled the casino comes out ahead.

As for Phil Ivey's case the casinos have definitely been found wanting and should bear some responsibility for permitting this situation to occur. Edge Sorting is a well known advantage play and defective cards should never have been used especially in the high limit rooms. The case is complicated due to way the play was conducted and also language issues so we will just have to wait for the results of any appeals.

[UK-21]

Yes, with an interest in Blackjack. Why do you ask?

No reason, just curiosity. Your posting isn't something I'd expect from someone in the building trade.
Apologies for being a snob.

[BlackjackFeign]

And if Ivey had lost these large sums instead of won these large sums, would there still be a court case right now? No. So the casinos had a freeroll if the court rules against Ivey. That is no way fair. The casinos failed to protect their games. Period. That's their own fault.

[UK-21]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ge-sorting-win

Here's an end to it . . . . in London, it was considered by three Appeal Court judges that he cheated.

[Frank Galvin]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ge-sorting-win

Here's an end to it . . . . in London, it was considered by three Appeal Court judges that he cheated.

As Lady Justice Sharp before me, in response to the decision rendered by her colleagues, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Tomlinson, I respectfully dissent from your conclusion.

Quoting that notable statesman, John Blutarski (Bluto in Animal House for those of you with no cultural awareness), "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!".

You left out an important tidbit of information appearing at the very end of the article. Ivey's counsel, Matthew Dowd, is quoted as stating that they are seeking leave to appeal this matter to the supreme court. So, no, it's not over just because the trial and appeals court held that Ivey and Sun cheated, without defining that term "cheating" as used pursuant to the Gambling Act 2005.

P.S. - Sorry that I never had the opportunity to attempt to say hello when I was in London in June.

[UK-21]

Hmmm . . . I wouldn't bet money that this'll go any further. Obtaining leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and spending the money to present a case there are poles apart - I don't think it'll ever get there as the costs will be obscene and Mr I is certainly a guy who knows when to fold a losing hand. Dowd does make a fair point around "cheating" as described in the Act not being particularly well defined although as I wrote a couple of years back when the initial ruling was made, Ivey clearly had offended against one definition which is the reason the court ruled against him: https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...vey#post142971

No, I think on balance of probability this one's over.

Still, it kept Mr Dowd busy at c£500+/hr ???