In a decision handed down by the High Court in London, the United Kingdom, poker professional Phil Ivey will NOT receive the £7.6 million (approximately $12 million U. S.) that he supposedly won from Crockfords casino in 2012.
In issuing his decision on the case, Justice Sir John Mitting stated that the case pivoted on whether or not there was cheating involved. “If Mr. Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.” Delving further into the case, Justice Mitting looked at the actions of Ivey and his associate, known card sharp Cheung Yin Sun (who herself has allegedly been banned from some casinos, according to reports), and stated that their directions to the dealer amounted to using the dealer “as an innocent agent or tool” to give him an advantage.
“What Mr. Ivey and Ms. Sun did was…persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines (in Punto Banco, the object is to come as close to nine as possible to defeat the dealer),” Justice Mitting stated. “He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors (at Crockfords) did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation. This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”
Through his spokesman, Ivey commented that he was “obviously disappointed” at Justice Mitting’s ruling in the case. “I am pleased that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords’ failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability. Clearly today, the judge did not agree.”
Crockfords weren’t exactly crowing about the decision of the court, realizing that it could potentially come back to harm them in the high stakes gaming world. A spokesman said, “Crockfords is pleased with the judgment of the High Court today, supporting its defense of a claim by Ivey. It is our policy not to discuss our clients’ affairs in public and we very much regret that proceedings were brought against us…today’s ruling vindicates the steps we have taken in this matter.”
The trial, which featured interesting subject matter in the lengths that a casino will go to keep a “high roller” on the tables and Ivey’s usage of “edge sorting” to garner an advantage at the tables, concluded on Wednesday with Ivey looking to receive the money he won during a Punto Banco session two years ago. After playing four sessions at the noted London casino, Ivey was able to bank a sizeable payday and, after being reassured that a wire would be sent to his bank, instead saw Crockfords deny him payment (they did return his original stake, however). After settlement discussions fell through, Ivey sued in the London High Court for his winnings.
Crockfords admits that they acquiesced to all of Ivey’s stipulations for his appearance on their tables. They set up the private game with no other players, provided a dealer who knew Mandarin Chinese (Sun’s native language) and, when Ivey or Sun requested to turn certain cards in a particular direction, allowed for the action. In a usually unheard of move in a casino, once Ivey stopped a session, he also requested that the cards in play remained a part of the gaming kit, which Crockfords agreed to. This was but a small list of the moves Crockfords used to keep Ivey happy on the table.
Ivey brought the “edge sorting” technique to the United Kingdom in what is thought to be the first usage of the ploy in that area. “Edge sorting” takes a trained eye in that cards have to be identified by an anomaly in the cutting of the cards by the manufacturer that leaves an ever-so-slight difference in the print. If a player is able to identify those helpful cards (the sevens, eights and nines, as stated by Justice Mitting) and be able to identify them throughout play, he can shift the percentage edge ever so slightly into his favor.
While Ivey is now out his big score, what effect it will have on his ongoing case in New Jersey remains to be seen. The Borgata in Atlantic City filed a lawsuit against Ivey in April 2014, alleging that he used the same “edge sorting” technique to take down over $9.6 million during the same time period in 2012 as the Crockfords case. With a decision against him in England’s High Court, the New Jersey court system may have found a tool that would allow them to determine that Ivey “cheated” and force Ivey to repay the Borgata that princely sum.
