Ivey Says He Read Cards, Didn't Cheat at London Casino

Phil Ivey
Ivey: Advantage player?

More details emerged in the Phil Ivey vs. Crockfords Casino case on Sunday with Ivey admitting to being an "advantage player" but claiming the casino is still on the hook for the £7.8m.

Citing Ivey's court submission, which it claims to have seen today, the Daily Mail UK reports Ivey says he used a "legitimate technique called edge sorting" to identify cards and gain an advantage at Punto Banco.

The way Ivey sees it, though, the casino knew about the technique and let him do it, meaning it should still pay out his massive winnngs.

Biggest Legal Battle in Casino History

For those who missed the story the first time around, Ivey and a "Chinese associate named Kelly" played Punto Banco over two nights at Crockfords in London in August last year.

Phil Ivey
Ivey: Doesn't like to get it in bad.
 

Using "edge sorting," meaning reading an asymmetrical printing error on certain decks of cards to tip off which cards are coming, the two racked up £7.8m in winnings the casino then refused to pay out.

The court claim says Ivey asked for several decks to be changed until a deck with the printing error was found. The associate Kelly knew how to find the "good" cards and told the dealer to turn them in a specific way to make them easier to spot.

In both cases, Ivey says the dealer complied. After originally betting £50,000, once the edges had been sorted Ivey asked the casino to raise the maximum bet to £150,000.

As edge sorting is a known technique in the caisno world, Ivey says it's on the casino to check the cards and stop it from happening. They didn't, so the money should be his.

The casino says Ivey "operated a scam" and "acted to defeat the essential premise of the game." To this point it has only returned Ivey's original £1m stake.

The case will be heard in court later this year. Read the full piece here.

You May Also Like

assets/photos/_resampled/croppedimage12580-liv-boeree.jpg

Liv Boeree: "Making Money is Fine, but It’s Time to Give It Back"

A trip to Burning Man. A strong relationship.(25)

21 October 2014
assets/photos/_resampled/croppedimage12580-George-Lind2.jpg

Poker Pro George Lind Sees Bright Future for Real-Money Hearthstone

A unique mix of luck and skill is a big reason why poker's so popular and according to veteran poker pro George Lind III, new virtual...(25)

14 October 2014
assets/photos/_resampled/croppedimage12580-IMG1731.jpg

Ivey Denied £7.7m in Crockfords Edge Sorting Case, Called "Truthful Witness"

Despite his best defense to the contrary, Phil Ivey was denied £7.7m in winnings from a 2012 edge sorting session in Crockfords Casino by a London...(25)

08 October 2014
assets/photos/_resampled/croppedimage12580-4021-Dan-Cates.jpg

Jungleman: Dwan Won't Play, Pay Penalties in durrrr Challenge

Another year has passed with no real activity in the high-stakes challenge between Dan “Jungleman” Cates and Tom “durrrr” Dwan.(25)

22 September 2014 2

Please fill the required fields correctly!

Error saving comment!

You need to wait 3 minutes before posting another comment.

Comment added. Thank you!

D R 2013-09-27 17:10:38

Poker players are always looking for an edge whether it be from a prop bet, to various poker offerings, to flaws in cards. A house that provides faulty cards is not the fault of the player though.

The real fault here is the casino allowing Ivey to study the backs of the cards, and then, after that recognition, allowing those same cards to be in play the following day!

The casino is 100% at fault. As far as how much they are legally entitled to pay him for their own errors, its in the courts hands now.

I have not paid this particular variation of baccarat, but that game is usually dealt from a shoe. The reason you use the shoe is so BACKS OF CARDS CAN NOT BE SPOTTED. TO pull the cards out and show them to the players first defeats the purpose of having a shoe.

alan 2013-09-23 13:59:46

AT least Ivey admitted to what he did but the real issue is did he cheat? Absolutely not. He didn't alter cards. He didn't use electronic devices. He wasn't in cahoots with the dealer. The house was stupid. Pay dat man his money.

Craig P 2013-09-16 19:25:44

Such a self-serving cheating scumbag! No clue why the poker world, including myself, still supports the loser and routes for him to win big tournaments after this, his divorce, the FTP scandal, etc. Just one more black eye in terms of the genera public's perception of the game.