Poker pro Ivey dealt bad hand as U.K. court says he’s a cheater
Jeremy Hodges, Bloomberg · October 25, 2017
Poker champion Phil Ivey’s luck ran out at the U.K.’s Supreme Court, which ruled that he cheated at a form of baccarat to win 7.7 million pounds ($10.1 million) at a Genting Bhd. casino in London.
The U.K. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether dishonesty is a necessary element of cheating. Ivey, a 10-time winner of World Series of Poker bracelets, originally sued the London casino for his winnings in 2014.
While the veteran gambler said he was just taking advantage of the dealer and marks on the cards, the top court unanimously ruled Ivey’s use of a technique called edge-sorting was dishonest. The judges said rather than being clever, Ivey “duped the croupier into unwittingly fixing” the cards.
Edge sorting involves arranging cards to take advantage of slight design differences or flaws to give a player a better idea of high and low-value cards. Ivey argued that when he played the game of Punto Banco at Crockfords Casino in 2012, he believed edge sorting was a legitimate way to gain an advantage.
“It makes no sense that the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled against me, in my view, contrary to the facts and any possible logic involved in our industry,” Ivey said in a statement following the ruling. “It is because of my sense of honor and respect for the manner in which gambling is undertaken by professional gamblers such as myself that I have pursued this claim for my unpaid winnings,” he said.
While Ivey said the case was about honor, U.K. lawyers called the ruling, which held that most cheating is by definition dishonest, “one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation.”
“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 realized that ordinary honest people would regard their behavior as dishonest,” said Stephen Parkinson, a lawyer for Genting at Kingsley Napley in London. “The Supreme Court has now said that this second limb of the test does not represent the law.”
Jeremy Hodges, Bloomberg · October 25, 2017
Poker champion Phil Ivey’s luck ran out at the U.K.’s Supreme Court, which ruled that he cheated at a form of baccarat to win 7.7 million pounds ($10.1 million) at a Genting Bhd. casino in London.
The U.K. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether dishonesty is a necessary element of cheating. Ivey, a 10-time winner of World Series of Poker bracelets, originally sued the London casino for his winnings in 2014.
While the veteran gambler said he was just taking advantage of the dealer and marks on the cards, the top court unanimously ruled Ivey’s use of a technique called edge-sorting was dishonest. The judges said rather than being clever, Ivey “duped the croupier into unwittingly fixing” the cards.
Edge sorting involves arranging cards to take advantage of slight design differences or flaws to give a player a better idea of high and low-value cards. Ivey argued that when he played the game of Punto Banco at Crockfords Casino in 2012, he believed edge sorting was a legitimate way to gain an advantage.
“It makes no sense that the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled against me, in my view, contrary to the facts and any possible logic involved in our industry,” Ivey said in a statement following the ruling. “It is because of my sense of honor and respect for the manner in which gambling is undertaken by professional gamblers such as myself that I have pursued this claim for my unpaid winnings,” he said.
While Ivey said the case was about honor, U.K. lawyers called the ruling, which held that most cheating is by definition dishonest, “one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation.”
“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 realized that ordinary honest people would regard their behavior as dishonest,” said Stephen Parkinson, a lawyer for Genting at Kingsley Napley in London. “The Supreme Court has now said that this second limb of the test does not represent the law.”
