Edge sorting: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 10:07, 27 December 2024 edit Marcus Markup (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,835 edits Restored revision 1265389158 by 2601:589:4E02:23B0:D5A2:5AAA:B78:81C9 (talk): Self rv. Actually, the caption is talking in generalitiies, and not about the deck in the picture per se Tags: Twinkle Undo ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:18, 13 July 2025 edit undo Kilvin77 (talk \| contribs) 239 edits →Legality: Linking unfamiliar term "croupier"
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 17: In 2012, poker player [[Phil Ivey]] and partner Cheung Yin Sun won [[US$]]9.6 million playing [[Baccarat (card game)\|baccarat]] at the [[Borgata]] casino in [[Atlantic City, New Jersey]].<ref>{{cite news\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/how-advantage-players-game-the-casinos.html\|title=How 'Advantage Players' Game the Casinos\|newspaper=The New York Times\|first=Michael\|last=Kaplan\|date=29 June 2016\|accessdate=29 August 2018}}</ref><ref name=CNN>{{cite web\|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/casino-sues-poker-champ-phillip-ivey/ \|title=Atlantic City casino claims poker champ Phillip Ivey cheated to win $9.6 million \|publisher=[[CNN]] \|author=Haley Draznin and Sho Wills \|date=13 April 2014 \|accessdate=19 April 2014}}</ref> In April 2014, the Borgata filed a lawsuit against Ivey and Cheung for their winnings.<ref name=CNN/> In 2016, a Federal Judge ruled that Ivey and Cheung Yin Sun were required to repay US$10 million to the Borgata. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman ruled that while Ivey and Sun did not commit fraud, they did breach their contract with the casino by not abiding by a New Jersey Casino Controls Act provision that prohibited marking cards. Although they did not mark the cards, using the tiny imperfections in the cards to gain an advantage qualified as an illegal advantage.<ref>{{Cite news\|url=http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2016/12/poker_pro_phil_ivey_ordered_to_repay_10m_to_atlantic_city_casino.html\|title=Poker pro Phil Ivey ordered to repay $10M to Atlantic City casino\|newspaper=NJ.com\|access-date=20 December 2016}}</ref> Later in 2012, ~~Ivey~~the ~~was~~[[Huffington Post]] reported~~{{by~~ ~~whom?\|date=October~~that ~~2021}}~~Ivey ~~to have~~had won £7.7 million (approx. $11 million) playing [[Baccarat (card game)#Punto banco\|punto banco]], a version of baccarat, at [[Crockfords (casino)\|Crockfords casino]] in London. Crockfords refunded his £1 million stake and agreed to send him his winnings but ultimately refused payment.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/phil-ivey-poker-champion-_n_1951012.html\|title=Phil Ivey, Poker Champion, Denied $11.7 Million Payout From Punto Banco Card Game\|date=9 October 2012\|author=Ron Dicker\|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]}}</ref> Ivey sued them for payment but lost in the [[High Court of Justice\|High Court]] of [[England and Wales]]; it was judged that the edge sorting was "cheating for the purpose of civil law".<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29543448\|title=Top poker player Phil Ivey loses £7.7m court battle\|date=8 October 2014\|publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref name=Guardian/> It was accepted that Ivey and others genuinely considered that edge sorting was not cheating, and deemed immaterial that the casino could easily have protected itself. The judgment observed that Ivey had gained an advantage by actively using a [[croupier]] as his innocent agent rather than taking advantage of an error or anomaly on the casino's part. Ivey appealed against the judgment but was unsuccessful.<ref>{{cite news\|url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/03/poker-player-loses-appeal-against-london-casino-over-77m-edge-sorting-win\|title=Poker player loses appeal against London casino over £7.7m winnings\|first=Nadia\|last=Khomami\|date=3 November 2016\|accessdate=29 August 2018}}</ref> He further appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom\|UK Supreme Court]] (see ''[[Ivey v Genting Casinos]]'')<ref>{{cite web\|title=Poker Pro Ivey Goes All In at U.K.'s Top Court Cheating Case\|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-13/poker-pro-ivey-goes-all-in-at-supreme-court-over-cheating-case\|publisher=Bloomberg\|accessdate=25 September 2017}}</ref> which also decided in favour of the casino. All five justices upheld the decision of the court of appeal, "which dismissed his case on the basis that dishonesty was not a necessary element of 'cheating'."<ref name=Guardian>{{Cite news\|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/25/poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-over-77m-winnings-from-london-casino\|title=Poker player loses court battle over £7.7m winnings from London casino\|last=Grierson\|first=Jamie\|date=25 October 2017\|work=The Guardian\|access-date=25 October 2017\|language=en-GB\|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>