Posts Tagged ‘Loses’

Phil Ivey Loses Edge Sorting Case Appeal in British Supreme Court

 Phil Ivey Loses Edge Sorting Case Appeal in British Supreme Court

Newly inducted Poker Hall of Famer, the legendary Phil Ivey, will not be receiving his winnings from five years ago from London’s Crockfords Club casino. On Wednesday, the British Supreme Court ruled against Ivey in his appeal of his “edge sorting” case against the casino, meaning that he will never see the £7.7 million he won in a lengthy punto banco session back in 2012.

For those unfamiliar, Ivey and his playing partner “Kelly” Cheung Yin Sun discovered that the cards used by Crockfords were slightly miscut, resulting in the pattern on the card backs being asymmetrical. The difference was very subtle, essentially unnoticeable to most people, but Ivey and Sun saw it.

In a similar scheme to one they engaged in at the Borgata, Ivey and Sun asked the dealer to rotate specific key cards 180 degrees after they were revealed before putting them back into the shoe. Because the automatic shuffler did not change the orientation of the cards, all rotated cards remained as such when they were dealt again. And because the card backs were asymmetrical, Ivey and Sun could see which ones were rotated and therefore important cards to the hand. They would know the approximate value of the top card in the shoe before the hand started and therefore could adjust their bets to take advantage of this information.

Ivey also requested to have the same deck used the next day (so that the rotated cards stayed that way) and since he was wagering millions of dollars, the casino complied.

After Ivey and Sun won the £7.7 million, the casino refused to pay up, as it had finally caught on to what they were doing (it helped that there was a payment delay because of a bank holiday). And thus the legal battle began.

The Supreme Court in ruling on the appeal said that Ivey’s “carefully planned and executed sting” violated the integrity of the punto banco game. Though he never touched the cards he convinced the casino and dealer to essentially “fix the deck” for him. By doing this, Supreme Court Judge Anthony Hughes said he was cheating.

In a statement, Ivey said, “At the time I played at Crockfords, I believed that edge-sorting was a legitimate advantage-play technique and I believe that more passionately than ever today. As a professional gambler, my integrity is everything to me.”

In response to the unanimous ruling, Genting Casinos UK President Paul Willcock said, “We are delighted that the High Court, the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court have all found in Genting’s favor, confirming that we acted fairly and properly at all times and that Mr. Ivey’s conduct did indeed amount to cheating.”

Though Ivey has been denied his £7.7 million in winnings from the punto banco games, Crockfords did refund him the money he wagered.

The post Phil Ivey Loses Edge Sorting Case Appeal in British Supreme Court appeared first on Poker News Daily.

Poker News Daily

Bryn Kenney Holds One, Loses Other Top Slot in POY Races

 Bryn Kenney Holds One, Loses Other Top Slot in POY Races

When it comes to the different Player of the Year races in the poker world, the end of the World Series of Poker is usually the time when everything resets. Players that jump out to a huge lead over the first half of the year are normally reeled in as the WSOP schedule closes. In 2017, this has held true – at least partially.

Prior to the start of the WSOP, poker professional Bryn Kenney was atop the CardPlayer Magazine Player of the Year leaderboard. Kenney, however, decided to sit out the entirety of the WSOP roster of tournaments (and other events around Las Vegas), which gave the pack a chance to either close on him or pass him. When it comes to the CardPlayer POY rankings, all it did was allow them to get closer.

Kenney, whose last cash was his victory in Monte Carlo at the PokerStars Championship €100,000 Super High Roller event in April, still has had a year that others would sell their mother for. With four tournament wins, 13 final tables and 17 cashes overall, Kenney has racked up 4162 points to the midpoint of the season. Perhaps more importantly for Kenney, he has earned a stunning $ 5,192,223 in just the first four months (remember, he didn’t play at the WSOP) of the season.

The field isn’t content to sign off the POY award to Kenney, however. Justin Bonomo utilized the High Roller tournaments around Las Vegas – the $ 300,000 Super High Roller Bowl and the ARIA Summer High Roller Series – along with a final table at the WSOP to accrue enough points to slide into the second-place slot on the CardPlayer POY. As the second half of the tournament poker year gets ready to kick into action, Bonomo is within shouting distance of Kenney with his 3841 points.

Another player that is slowing down a bit after a blistering start to the year is Nick Petrangelo. Although he cashed in both the WSOP “One Drop” tournament and the Championship Event, Petrangelo was passed by Bonomo for the second slot on the ladder. Petrangelo, who is also one of the serial High Roller cashers, is sitting at 3639 points, good enough for the third-place spot on the charts.

The man who is poker’s newest World Champion, Scott Blumstein, settles into the fourth-place slot on CardPlayer’s board, but his presence also demonstrates another problem with the CardPlayer rankings that Blumstein has absolutely nothing to do with. Blumstein had four cashes prior to the WSOP, but none of those cashes earned any POY points. The 3300 points that Blumstein has are purely derived from his win in the WSOP Championship Event; in NO RANKING should one tournament alone catapult you into the upper echelons of a yearlong pursuit.

For a guy that says he’s “retired” from poker, Fedor Holz seems to be playing quite a bit of cards. At the end of May, Holz won two ARIA Summer High Roller tournaments (both $ 50K buy ins) that added not only 916 points to his POY total but also added $ 748,200 to his poker bankroll. His overall play in 2017 has Holz currently in fifth place with 3272 points as he looks for the POY award that he barely missed last year.

Rounding out the CardPlayer Top Ten rankings are players such as Koray Aldemir (sixth place, 3262 points), 2016 POY champion David Peters (seventh, 3202), Nadar Kakhmazov (eighth, 3080), Adrian Mateos (ninth, 3076) and Andreas Klatt (tenth, 3068).

While Kenney continues to rule supreme on the CardPlayer rankings, the Global Poker Index tells a different story.

Instead of taking some time off during the WSOP, Dario Sammartino was an active participant in the festivities in Las Vegas. Sammartino cashed eight times during the WSOP and four of those tournaments earned him points in the GPI system (the GPI takes the 13 largest point-scoring tournaments of a player to give the player their total points). Those four adjustments – a lower scoring tournament for a higher one – have pushed Sammartino to the top of the GPI Player of the Year rankings with 2928.47 points.

Petrangelo picked up two better tournament finishes, one at the WSOP in the “One Drop” and the other at the Venetian’s Deepstack Extravaganza in maintaining his second-place spot on the GPI board. In tabulating 2881.97 points, Petrangelo came up just short of passing Sammartino for the top slot on the rankings. Perhaps more importantly, however, Petrangelo has some room to work on improving his point totals by getting better finishes whereas Sammartino is hamstrung.

The third-place slot on the GPI POY race is held by a man who didn’t even appear on the CardPlayer rankings. Since the close of the PokerStars Championship in Monte Carlo, Dan Smith has been on a tear in mostly the High Roller events. Two ARIA High Roller wins and two deep runs in WSOP events (the $ 10,000 Heads Up Event and the $ 25,000 Pot Limit Omaha tournament) have pushed Smith into the POY debate (for the GPI at least) with his 2841.98 points.

Kenney finally appears on the GPI rankings in fourth place. Because he didn’t play during the run of the WSOP, he didn’t have a chance to earn more points, but he’s also facing the difficulty of finding events that will give him more points to replace a lower event. With that said, Kenney’s 2840.97 in points will still improve over the last half of the year.

Aldemir rides high on the GPI rankings (fifth place, 2833.85 points), just not as high as he does on the CardPlayer board. For the remainder of the Top Ten, there are players that were already on the CardPlayer rankings and those that weren’t making the cut. Sergio Aido (sixth place, 2809.01 points), Peters (seventh, 2684.63), Ari Engel (eighth, 2652.8 points), Charlie Carrel (ninth, 2618.77) and Bonomo (tenth, 2616.7) all are part of the GPI POY and well set into their slots.

The halfway mark has passed and it is time to head into the second half of the tournament poker season. The Seminole Hard Rock Poker Open in Hollywood, FL, is going to have a significant impact on the standings as will the restarts of both the PokerStars Championship roster of events and Season XVI of the World Poker Tour. There’s still quite a bit of time for someone to come from the back of the pack to catch these men, but they are the solid contenders for the Player of the Year awards given out in poker.

Poker News Daily

Phil Ivey Loses Case with the Borgata, Owes $10.1 Million

 Phil Ivey Loses Case with the Borgata, Owes $10.1 Million

After a drawn out civil trial that saw both sides reveal the dirty underbelly of the gambling world, poker professional Phil Ivey has lost his civil suit against the Borgata in Atlantic City, per the New Jersey Law Journal and writer Charles Toutant.

In a decision released on Thursday, Ivey and his playing partner Cheng Yin Sun were ordered by U. S. District Judge Noel Hillman to pay the Borgata damages totaling $ 10.1 million. The judge could have ordered more damages as the Borgata wanted (the casino issued their statement saying they would have won more from Ivey if he had been losing), but Hillman rejected that notion as “too speculative” for the case. After hearing all the evidence in the case, it came down to a simple fact, according to Hillman.

Noting that Ivey and Sun admitted to using “edge sorting” – picking out slight cutting errors in a deck of cards and having them “adjusted” so they would know it when seen again – Hillman said that their actions was a violation of a ban on marked cards. Ivey and Sun believed they were playing an “advantage” (the ability to use information to shift the odds in the player’s favor), but Hillman didn’t buy the story. In fact, he went so far as to give the Borgata more than what Ivey won ($ 9 million) in those four baccarat stops because some of the money won was used in other games.

The entirety of the case was a demonstration of what the casinos will do to bring in a “high roller” like Ivey and what he will do – the “edge sorting” – to garner an edge against the casinos.

A main contention of Ivey’s case was that he never touched any card to “mark” them in any way. Ivey asked the casino to provide him a private playing area, a dealer that spoke Mandarin Chinese, a specific type of cards and an automatic shuffler (the automatic shuffler wouldn’t change the positioning of the cards). During play, Sun would indicate to the dealer that an advantageous card would be turned 180 degrees, allegedly as a “superstition” of Ivey’s but in reality so that they could identify the card when it came up during another deal. This, in Ivey and Sun’s eyes, meant they weren’t “manipulating” the cards and that the casino was acquiescing yet again to another of their demands for play.

During those four periods of play in 2012, Ivey racked up winnings of $ 9.6 million and walked away with the money. Then the Borgata staff learned of Ivey’s lawsuit with a London casino, Crockfords, where he allegedly took the same actions and beat them for $ 12.4 million. In the Crockfords case, they denied payment of the winnings almost immediately and instead fought it out in court, thus Ivey never received the money. That case is currently under appeal after the British courts ruled against Ivey.

The future of the New Jersey case is unknown at this time. Ivey does have the option of appealing to a higher court, but it is rare that a civil judgment such as this would be overruled on appeal. Ivey and the Borgata could also negotiate a settlement in the case but, with the decision in their pocket, it is unlikely that the Borgata will settle for less than what the judge has stipulated.

Poker News Daily will continue to monitor this decision and report as necessary.

Poker News Daily

Phil Ivey Loses Appeal in Crockfords Edge Sorting Case

 Phil Ivey Loses Appeal in Crockfords Edge Sorting Case

In 2012, poker pro Phil Ivey and his friend, Cheung Yin Sun, won £7.7 million playing punto banco at London’s Crockfords Casino. After a delay because of a bank holiday, though, the casino refused to pay them, claiming that they cheated. In 2014, a High Court ruled in the casino’s favor and now, a three-judge Court of Appeal of England and Wales panel has upheld that decision.

Ivey and Sun used a method of keeping track of cards called “edge sorting.” They had discovered that the cards the casino used had been miscut, making the pattern on the back of the cards uneven. To take advantage of this, they asked the dealer in the punto banco game to rotate certain key cards (after they were seen) 180 degrees. To the untrained eye, this seemed to make no difference, but Sun could see the slight differences in the card backs, so this rotation gave away the value of the cards. Ivey and Sun also requested that the casino “hold the shoe,” meaning that they wanted to have the same deck used when they came back the next day, claiming superstition.

After the appellate ruling, Ivey released a statement, saying:

This decision makes no sense to me. The trial judge said that I was not dishonest and the three appeal judges agreed but somehow the decision has gone against me. Can someone tell me how you can have honest cheating? I’d like to add that I am very grateful to Lady Justice Sharp who decided that the trial judge was “wrong” to decide that I had cheated.

Lady Justice Mary Arden, in writing the majority opinion, used a sports betting example to help explain cheating without dishonesty:

It is possible to think of actions which are neither deception nor interference with the process of the game, which may in some circumstances constitute cheating. For example, someone who has material information (for example, as to whether a star player will play in a particular game) which is not in the public domain may place a bet on the result of the game on the basis of that information. That person may be guilty of cheating because he has used his unequal access to confidential information to make a profit. In this type of situation, Parliament may well have taken the view that it was enough that covert use of confidential information was intrinsically wrong and that it could amount to cheating without any requirement for subjective dishonesty.

In her conclusion, she further explained how the edge sorting was cheating (several paragraphed snipped for space):

The crucial factor in this case is that Punto Banco is a game of pure chance. What Mr Ivey caused Crockfords’ staff to do was to take steps which would alter the chance of his winning materially by some 8% in his favour. In my judgment, because of his plan to play using the knowledge obtained from the reorienting of the cards under his direction, those matters amounted to interference with the process by which the game was conventionally played. It was quite different from card-counting which involves memorising where particular cards are.

…..

The question whether a reasonable person would say this is cheating turns on whether there was a dramatic effect on the odds in the game. Punto Banco, as I have already said, is a game of pure chance, and not a game of mixed skill or chance. The casino is highly regulated. It does not try to win every game but the house edge means that it should win over time. Edge-sorting materially altered the odds in the game of Punto Banco offered by Crockfords.

In the circumstances of this case, the fact that Mr Ivey was an advantage player did not mean that his actions were simply part of a cat and mouse game between him and the casino, and not cheating. Moreover, on the judge’s findings [case citation], Mr Ivey took steps not explicitly mentioned in his description of what he said an advantage player would be entitled to do.

Poker News Daily