Content deleted Content added
after persuading a croupier to cooperate unintentionally |
m →References: see counting |
||
Line 8:
Phil Ivey was sued by Crockford's over his £7.7m winnings, but lost in the UK [[High Court of Justice|High Court]]; it was judged that the technique was "cheating for the purpose of civil law".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29543448|title=Top poker player Phil Ivey loses £7.7m court battle|date=2014-10-08|publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/08/top-poker-player-phil-ivey-loses-court-battle-7-million-winnings Guardian newspaper:Top poker player Phil Ivey loses court battle over £7.7m winnings, 8 October 2014]</ref> It was accepted that Mr Ivey and others genuinely considered that edge sorting was not cheating, and deemed immaterial that the casino could easily have protected itself. Critically, the judgement pointed out that Ivey had gained an advantage by actively using a croupier as his innocent agent, rather than taking an advantage of an error or anomaly on the casino's part.
==See also==
[[Card counting]]
==References==
| |||