FabSwingers.com forum: Judge rules £7.7m winning poker player cheated

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

A top poker player paid £1m to join a game at a Mayfair casino.

At the end of the session he'd "won" £7.7m but the casino refused to pay up. Instead they gave him his £1m stake money back and told him to do one.

He sued the casino and lost.

The judge ruled that poker is a game of chance, and if you or the "house" gain any sort of advantage, that is cheating.

The guy's crime?

During play he memorised tiny variations in the pattern on the back of the cards.

He persuaded the casino to play with the same deck of cards all session. The casino supplied and chose the deck of cards.

He requested that they use a machine to shuffle the cards.

The judge ruled that his requests were to give him "an edge" which in a game of chance, is cheating.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I saw this, very tough decision either way. If the casino had lost, would have been tough to stop it happening again. Several other players and some incredibly intelligent people watched the case, I guess to hope they could do the same in the future.

Interesting level of skill - I play poker occasionally and couldn't imagine that ability!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I dont play Cards or any Games of Chance but what i cant understand is hy the Casino went along with His requests, Especially playing with the same deck all night.

Cool Hand Gimp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Over the course of the session, he memorised the deck of cards from the tiny variations on the back of the cards.

"Match" cards are usually plain colour backed, but this casino chose to use patterned cards. Their choice, not his.

They agreed with his request to use the same deck all session, after all, they chose the deck and they supplied them.

It seemed the machine shuffler was his down fall, as when using a machine the cards always come out the same way up, ie they don't turn them. This meant that due to his photographic memory he knew what each card was by looking at the back of the card.

I always thought that "winners" always looked to gain an advantage. That's what sport is all about isn't it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Over the course of the session, he memorised the deck of cards from the tiny variations on the back of the cards.

"Match" cards are usually plain colour backed, but this casino chose to use patterned cards. Their choice, not his.

They agreed with his request to use the same deck all session, after all, they chose the deck and they supplied them.

I always thought that "winners" always looked to gain an advantage. That's what sport is all about isn't it?"

Exactly..I wonder how many losers they return the Stake Money to if the think they were trying to "Cheat"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why did he tell them he memorised the cards?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

surely the seemingly added advantage of using the same pack was given him by the casino albeit at his request- so if he won because of that they gave him the extra chance to win - he won and they should accept that - i feel for him as he obviously is good at the game (sure he didnt win just by knowing some of the cards - also need the game skill )

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Over the course of the session, he memorised the deck of cards from the tiny variations on the back of the cards.

"Match" cards are usually plain colour backed, but this casino chose to use patterned cards. Their choice, not his.

They agreed with his request to use the same deck all session, after all, they chose the deck and they supplied them.

I always thought that "winners" always looked to gain an advantage. That's what sport is all about isn't it?"

But is Poker a sport?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Over the course of the session, he memorised the deck of cards from the tiny variations on the back of the cards.

"Match" cards are usually plain colour backed, but this casino chose to use patterned cards. Their choice, not his.

They agreed with his request to use the same deck all session, after all, they chose the deck and they supplied them.

I always thought that "winners" always looked to gain an advantage. That's what sport is all about isn't it?

But is Poker a sport?"

No, may be I should have said "life"?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

You never meet a poor bookie!

Likewise I doubt a casino won't cover any individual losses via other players.

It was their choice to meet his requests - stupid of them.

But even dafter of him to tell them and the judge what he was doing!

Muppet!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

I wish I had the million quid to start off with....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"You never meet a poor bookie!

Likewise I doubt a casino won't cover any individual losses via other players.

It was their choice to meet his requests - stupid of them.

But even dafter of him to tell them and the judge what he was doing!

Muppet!!!

apparently, there are a number of people who use this technique, but most of them are in USA.

This guy is waiting to go to court to fight a similar in USA.

He played a game in Nevada and won nearly $17m but they too refused to honour the debt and returned his stake money.

USA's judicial system is different to ours so they can't use this case as a precedent.

The USA judge can of course come to the same judgement.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

"You never meet a poor bookie!

Likewise I doubt a casino won't cover any individual losses via other players.

It was their choice to meet his requests - stupid of them.

But even dafter of him to tell them and the judge what he was doing!

Muppet!!!

apparently, there are a number of people who use this technique, but most of them are in USA.

This guy is waiting to go to court to fight a similar in USA.

He played a game in Nevada and won nearly $17m but they too refused to honour the debt and returned his stake money.

USA's judicial system is different to ours so they can't use this case as a precedent.

The USA judge can of course come to the same judgement. "

He will use the same judgement it's whether he can as they have different gambling laws out there..as you stated x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

the problems with a card game is that essentially what phil ivey did is no different to basically card counting... which is a definate no no....

he took advantage of cards flaws which doesn't happen if they use 4/5 different decks which are rotated

in the letter yes he didn't cheat... but in the spirit of the game... he did....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You will never beat a casino.

A few mates and myself visited a casino in Romania when on a weekend away. I never gamble but my mates where a few grand up when they went to cash in. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be getting any back let alone their stake. The police were called and we were all arrested.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You will never beat a casino.

wow!

Ive never won a thing at a casino,maybe its best not too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *odareyouMan
over a year ago

not far from iceland,,,,,, tescos is nearer though :-) (near leeds)

I don't play poker, so I'm not sure if it's luck or skill or both to beat the house, in most games the odds are stacked in the houses favour, if he managed to find a way of getting the odds into his favour I say good luck to him,

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *0hnnyBrav0Man
over a year ago

Great Wyrley

"A top poker player paid £1m to join a game at a Mayfair casino.

At the end of the session he'd "won" £7.7m but the casino refused to pay up. Instead they gave him his £1m stake money back and told him to do one.

He sued the casino and lost.

The judge ruled that poker is a game of chance, and if you or the "house" gain any sort of advantage, that is cheating.

The guy's crime?

During play he memorised tiny variations in the pattern on the back of the cards.

He persuaded the casino to play with the same deck of cards all session. The casino supplied and chose the deck of cards.

He requested that they use a machine to shuffle the cards.

The judge ruled that his requests were to give him "an edge" which in a game of chance, is cheating.

it wasnt poker ivey was playing. He is a top poker pro who was over here at the time for a tournament. He was in the casino and playing a house game against the casino. As he is a high roller he was in a private room playing the game.

house games are obviously have the odds in the houses favour. He used his knowledge of the patterns on the back of the cards to push the odds more towards his favour.

was this cheating? Is card counting cheating at blackjack? Is knowing the form of a horse cheating in the bookies?

Possibly or possibly not.........

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"A top poker player paid £1m to join a game at a Mayfair casino.

At the end of the session he'd "won" £7.7m but the casino refused to pay up. Instead they gave him his £1m stake money back and told him to do one.

He sued the casino and lost.

The judge ruled that poker is a game of chance, and if you or the "house" gain any sort of advantage, that is cheating.

The guy's crime?

During play he memorised tiny variations in the pattern on the back of the cards.

He persuaded the casino to play with the same deck of cards all session. The casino supplied and chose the deck of cards.

He requested that they use a machine to shuffle the cards.

The judge ruled that his requests were to give him "an edge" which in a game of chance, is cheating.

house games are obviously have the odds in the houses favour. He used his knowledge of the patterns on the back of the cards to push the odds more towards his favour.

was this cheating? Is card counting cheating at blackjack? Is knowing the form of a horse cheating in the bookies?

Possibly or possibly not.........

not cheating - everybody could learn what he has if they were that way inclined -

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lactontogMan
over a year ago

Clacton on Sea

I never play cards for money but have played the occasional games of 8 ball pool for money...betting is chance and I only involve money with dead certs lol.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

If this is about Phil Ivey, although he's a poker player, it wasn't poker he was playing on this occasion. It was a completely different game.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

The judge ruled that poker is a game of chance, and if you or the "house" gain any sort of advantage, that is cheating.

Where are you getting this statement from? He wasn't playing poker.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

I think it was the right decision - he was cheating, it's the same as using a marked deck, though ability required in this case is much greater.

Having said that, the house was stupid to agree to his terms, surely they must know all the tricks and should have been well aware of this one.

I don't see counting cards as cheating. If you have that good a memory, how can you unremember which cards have been played? Indeed, it is the very premise of card games such as Bridge.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

I don't see counting cards as cheating. If you have that good a memory, how can you unremember which cards have been played?"

You don't really need a good memory to count cards and don't need to remember which ones have been played. You add or subtract points based on which cards have come out and it is this tally that let's you know how to play.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I never play cards for money but have played the occasional games of 8 ball pool for money...betting is chance and I only involve money with dead certs lol."

I'll play you for a fiver.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

I don't see counting cards as cheating. If you have that good a memory, how can you unremember which cards have been played?

Ah, ok, not a gambler myself, though enjoy other card games. But may basic point stands in that if it is "do able" (and presumably can be done in memory, thus no-one needing to be aware that it's being done, or indeed if you know the technique, how can you not do it?), then it has to be accepted that it will happen. The only solution being to change the nature of the game and cards used, so as to make it impossible.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

why are some people under the impression he wasnt playing poker - the op states ''The judge ruled that poker is a game of chance, and if you or the "house" gain any sort of advantage, that is cheating.'' - this would only be relevant if it was a game of poker played - or am i missing something here

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

"why are some people under the impression he wasnt playing poker - the op states ''The judge ruled that poker is a game of chance, and if you or the "house" gain any sort of advantage, that is cheating.'' - this would only be relevant if it was a game of poker played - or am i missing something here"

This story has been known about for months, it's just taken till now for the judgement to be decided. You can google for the newpaper reports, they tell you the game he was playing and also there is no mention in the judgement of poker so I have no idea where the OP is getting that from.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

oh right - i was just going off the info on the thread

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

Interesting level of skill - I play poker occasionally and couldn't imagine that ability! "

I also play occasionally.... I can't even remember the variations on the front of the cards, never mind the back. I must look at my hand about every 10 seconds

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I'll stand corrected

He was playing a card game. The judge ruled that the game was a game of chance and that by giving himself an advantage he was cheating.

Apologies to the poker experts, but it makes no difference to me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread