(photo credit: Daily Mail)
Phil Ivey was dismissed in court last week in London by the High Court of Justice. His litigation against Crockfords Casino was a case of "edge sorting". Basically, Ivey took advantage of the imperfection of the casino cards for profit. According to judge John Mittings in this case, this Act is akin to an act of cheating.
Pros react
The Court's decision made big noise in the community. On Twitter, the veteran Doyle Brunson says: "Ivey could have lost and he would have then had to pay. This is completely stupid. He as certainly an advantage over the casino, but he was no certainty of winning".
Daniel Negreanu goes further: "I think that's ridiculous, absurd, completely unfair and absolutely wrong. [...] It did nothing to manipulate the cards. Them, however, acceded to all of his demands. It is a very bad precedent for the big players. You can earn a lot of money and then all of a sudden, without being responsible for a true act of cheating, we will decide not to give you this money".
In an article published in the Guardian, brilliant Vicky Coren says: "why should casinos be protected from this type of tricks? Somehow, they handle them as players in their own way: no window or clock to make us lose our time markers; free drinks, nice dealers; and of course, a statistical advantage on which they do not communicate."
She then puts the idea that comes to mind for many when they think about this case: "Phil Ivey has changed the course of the game. It is a definition of cheating in the eyes of the judge and I can understand why. But my heart tells me that Ivey has just been smarter than the casino. He did not bring a set of rigged dice or equipment x-ray, there no marked cards or corrupt the dealer. [...] But not to manipulate the manipulator, because the judge ruled that it was inadmissible."
Another upcoming trial
Ivey is not out of the Inn because in the coming months, he will have to attend another trial which opposed it this time at the Borgota in Atlantic City. In this case, the casino will attempt to recover 9. $6M which, according to them, have been earned illegally by Ivey.
Case to follow.
Discuss this news on PokerCollectif forums: Ivey case vs Crockfords: pros react
