Report: Casion alleges Phil Ivey won $9.8 Million Fraudulently - Page 2

6celtics33 · 12-27-2016, 09:36 PM

If he would've lost would they be refunding his original buy in? When people are drunk do they cut them off from betting? F the casinos. Every gambler should boycott Borgata. He wasn't doing anything they didn't agree to. They are just butt hurt.

They agreed to the terms, it's gambling, they lost move on.

irfuji · 12-28-2016, 07:59 AM

Here's the thing. The casino knew the minute she walked in the door who Ivey brought. With face recognition software they ID'ed her and let her play, because they wanted Ivey's money.

It's not like he bet $9.8M on one hand, he won over the course of multiple hands. AND he only had knowledge of the first card. Baccarat is a minimum 4 card hand so there's still a massive element of chance there.

Bringing in a partner whose on HIS side of the table does nothing. It's not like the dealer was tipping him off on what card was coming up or showing him cards before he placed his bets. The person he brought in was no different than a card counter, which is 100% legal. Just like with any card counter, the casino could have kicked them out at any time.

At the end of the day reading the imperfections on the back of the card is something that anyone can do. But just like playing basketball or baseball or any other game, some people are just better at it than others. It's not cheating to see and interpret information that is available to literally anyone that wants to look for it.

The judge agreed Ivey didn't cheat. The judge ruled in favor of the casino because of a technicality that essentially voided the contract Ivey and the casino agreed to, which then nullified any winnings. Amusingly, if Ivey had lost money and sued, the judge would have found in his favor and returned any losses because of the technicality.

ssbledsoe · 12-28-2016, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonnyday

He's a cheater and a low life. If you defend him then you have no right to get mad at pack searchers.

What??? You're clearly delusional. You do realize that it's the casino's job to protect THEIR games right? If they use defective cards, that's on them. If their dealers are poorly trained and don't do what they should to protect their games. It's on them.

Say you are sitting at the blackjack table and the dealer thinks they've busted, but they actually have 21. Do you speak up and tell them they shouldn't pay your 18??? What if you've busted already? Do you speak up and say something when the dealer thinks they've busted and they try to pay someone elses' 19???

Dielon · 12-28-2016, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonnyday

He's a cheater and a low life. If you defend him then you have no right to get mad at pack searchers.

Yes, we must bow to the casinos because they definitely got started in a totally legitimate manner. Terrible comment gramps

12-27-2016, 09:36 PM	#26
6celtics33 Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 8,278	If he would've lost would they be refunding his original buy in? When people are drunk do they cut them off from betting? F the casinos. Every gambler should boycott Borgata. He wasn't doing anything they didn't agree to. They are just butt hurt. They agreed to the terms, it's gambling, they lost move on.

12-28-2016, 07:59 AM	#27
irfuji Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 1,586	Here's the thing. The casino knew the minute she walked in the door who Ivey brought. With face recognition software they ID'ed her and let her play, because they wanted Ivey's money. It's not like he bet $9.8M on one hand, he won over the course of multiple hands. AND he only had knowledge of the first card. Baccarat is a minimum 4 card hand so there's still a massive element of chance there. Bringing in a partner whose on HIS side of the table does nothing. It's not like the dealer was tipping him off on what card was coming up or showing him cards before he placed his bets. The person he brought in was no different than a card counter, which is 100% legal. Just like with any card counter, the casino could have kicked them out at any time. At the end of the day reading the imperfections on the back of the card is something that anyone can do. But just like playing basketball or baseball or any other game, some people are just better at it than others. It's not cheating to see and interpret information that is available to literally anyone that wants to look for it. The judge agreed Ivey didn't cheat. The judge ruled in favor of the casino because of a technicality that essentially voided the contract Ivey and the casino agreed to, which then nullified any winnings. Amusingly, if Ivey had lost money and sued, the judge would have found in his favor and returned any losses because of the technicality.