So yesterday I saw that Phil Ivey
lost his case against the Crockfords Club.
The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards.
Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage...
The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards.
Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage.
However, Mr Ivey contended that the technique was not a form of cheating because it did not involve dishonesty.
He said that he had merely exploited Crockfords' failure to take proper steps to protect itself against a gambler of his ability - and he was therefore entitled to his full winnings, rather than just having his initial £1m stake returned to him.
A little bit over a year ago I would have had no clue what edge sorting was or what "advantaged play" was and just taken the casino's word for it. Today I know a whole lot better and this case should have
never gone against Ivey.
The casino's argument in a nutshell is that a player cannot use
all available information that is readily observable by any player AND dealer in order to "win". In other words, the Casino argued that the court should find that a Casino is the only party allowed to "stack the deck" in their own favor. This decision shows that the court had no clue about what advantaged play is vs what cheating is.
Lord Hughes saying it was essential that punto banco remained a game of pure chance with neither the casino nor the player being able to beat the randomness of the cards that were dealt.
This statement in and of itself shows that the judge had no clue as to how card based games work and how casinos work. Casinos "beat the randomness" of cards dealt by doing things like changing penetration of shoe games (in Blackjack). They do things like "preferential shuffling". In addition the casino's edge is modified by the rules they impose at a table. In the case of Blackjack, they do shit like pay 6/5 instead of 3/2 for a natural. This increases their edge by over 800%. Casinos use things like continuous shuffling machines (CSM) in order to stop people from counting cards. When one counts cards, one is observing the flow of cards to determine when the advantage has passed from the casino to the player (or vice-versa). This isn't cheating because any and every player (and dealer) can see the cards. Cards aren't modified in any way. no outside device is used. There is no third party relating information. There is no cheating. There is simple observation. That only a few people have the intellect and/or motivation to do it doesn't make any difference. The player is simply using his powers of observation and his knowledge of mathematics to make a
more informed play. That is what is meant by "Advantaged players". This information in no way guarantees that a player will win a particular hand or even win a particular session. Just like even though a casino has a mathematical edge, players still "win" in the short term. So back to Phil.
Ivey and his companion who has perhaps the best eyesight on the planet used the physical properties of cards used by casinos in which cards of a certain value (I'm assuming the higher ranked cards) are thicker at the edges than cards of lower rank. Because they could observe this difference during play, they could make bets that corresponded to the likely hood that either they or the dealer would get the "desired" card and therefore win the hand. Edge sorting is not an unknown phenomenon. A casino that fails to secure it's game to guard against such an observation is negligent of protecting it's game. That's not cheating and that's not Phil's problem. The casino's claim that by asking for the deck to be turned a certain way, Phil was cheating. I disagree wholeheartedly. At no time was Phil in control of the deck of cards. The house was. The house should have had a blanket rule that said that the cards will not be turned for any client. They did not do so. Why not? Because the casino was hoping to get Phil for a couple million. It was the casino's greed that caused them to lose to Phil. All the dealer had to say was "no" and that would have been the end of that.
Let's examine one important part of the decision process here:
There was no doubt, she added, that the actions of Ivey and another gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, interfered with the process by which Crockfords played the game of Punto Banco with Ivey.
Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, the law firm that represented Crockfords, said: “This is one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation. The concept of dishonesty is central to a whole range of offences, including fraud.
“For 35 years, juries have been told that defendants will only be guilty if the conduct complained of was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people, and also that they must have realised that ordinary, honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest.
How did Phil "interfere" with the process? He made a request that could be denied. Crockfords acceded to his request. How is that interference?
Secondly this "ordinary, honest people" part shouldn't be a part of the proceedings. most "ordinary" people have no idea what the casino edges are. Most ordinary people are happy to be raped at button push by the casino in order to get "comps" or "have fun". Most ordinary people have no idea that many slot machines take nearly 5 cents of every dollar they feed it or how fast that 5 cents adds up.
Most ordinary people do not understand the amount a casino with 6/5 or 1:1 Blackjack makes off a player. Ordinary people have no clue and therefore are a bad standard. You know what else an "ordinary person" would do? If they found a slot machine that was miss-programmed and was paying out every 5 spins, they would sit there and spin like mad until someone made them stop. In other words, the ordinary person would take advantage of a broken machine without thinking they were cheating. Why? Because they would say that the casino should have either programmed the machine correctly or turned it off. They would say that they
saw and opportunity to win and took it. When was the last time you saw an "ordinary person" complain to a casino when a machine appeared to be paying out too much?
Right.
I understand that casinos need to protect their business interests. I get that. Matter of fact, I want them to protect their business model so that other people lose their money so I can continue to get paid off Blackjack. But they should be required to take responsibility when they fail to secure their games. And this case could have been avoided with a simple "no." This decision could mean that a casino could grant a request to turn cards
knowing that if they player wins any large amount of money, they could just deny the payment knowing the court will side with them.
But if the courts are so interested in 'honesty" how about outlawing 6:5 and 1:1 Blackjack?
Posts
