In court documents obtained by an English newspaper, poker pro Phil Ivey and a London casino have filed their claims with a London court, with the casino alleging that Ivey cheated for his nearly £8 million in winnings and Ivey claiming he simply used a “gambler’s edge” to take down his windfall.
The Daily Mail detailed out the documents earlier today in the disagreement that arose back in May. As was reported by many outlets, Ivey was able to have a private punto banco (similar to baccarat) game arranged for him in August 2012 at the London casino Crockfords. Over the span of two evenings, Ivey was able to win £7.8 million in the game, but the casino refused to pay him off due to what they alleged were incidents of cheating during the game. Crockfords, according to the Mail, says that Ivey “operated a scam” and that he “acted to defeat the essential premise of the game” in refusing his payout.
Court documents obtained by the Mail deal with Ivey’s side of the story. In his filings, Ivey admits to be an “advantage player,” meaning that he uses legal methods to gain an advantage over the normal casino edge. In this particular game, Ivey admits having an associate – referred to only as “Kelly” – who was adept at identifying flawed cards that had printing errors that allowed for the cards to be identified. “Kelly” would have these cards turned in a particular fashion so that Ivey could easily identify what cards would be useful for him in the game while also identifying when he would be at a disadvantage.
After starting out at £50,000 a hand, Ivey and his associate went through the deck until it was arranged as they needed. After that was completed, Ivey requested the limit to be raised to £150,000 per hand. It was at that point that Ivey went on his run, taking down his winnings over several hours of play.
Ivey, for his part, doesn’t admit to cheating in stating that the “edge sorting” technique is a way that a knowledgeable player can shift the odds into his favor, much like a card counter in blackjack can shift the odds in his favor through a count of the deck. Ivey says that Crockfords’ owners are the ones to blame as they knew about the technique but still allowed the game to go on.
Crockfords originally said they would honor the debt, agreeing to transfer the winnings to a bank account that Ivey used. After investigation from their ownership that included examination of camera footage and interviews with employees who dealt the game, the parent company of Crockfords, the Malaysian gaming giant Genting Group, refused to return the winnings to Ivey, instead transferring to the account the £1 million stake that Ivey had used in the game.
Not surprisingly, the sentiment of the poker community is firmly behind Ivey in the case. “There’s every chance the case falls his way,” Two Plus Two poster ‘The Detonator’ stated. “He played a game the casino offered him, not his fault they had flaws that made the game beatable.” Many other posters fall into this line of thinking, but there are others who believe the casino has a case.
“In the United Kingdom, cheating is defined as ‘interference…with the process by which gambling is conducted,’” poster ‘davmcg’ observed. “If Ivey’s manipulation of the cards is considered by the judge to be such interference, he loses.” ‘davmcg’ did admit that Ivey should win the case because the casino acquiesced to his requests in the game.
What will more than likely be the outcome of the case is some sort of settlement between Crockfords and Ivey. The casino doesn’t want to be seen as welching on a wager while Ivey’s high stakes gaming, well known to the poker world, might not be something that the poker superstar wants to see played out in court. There are no further details at this time as to when the case could potentially come to court.