Edge sorting: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:16, 10 October 2014

Revision as of 13:28, 10 October 2014

Line 3:

Casinos usually regard this technique as cheating; many players say that they are legitimately playing to gain an advantage. A UK High Court judgement ruled that the technique, which requires the player to trick the croupier into rotating cards, is cheating in civil law, and that a casino was justified in refusing payment of winnings; this ruling would not be applicable if the player simply took advantage of an observed error or anomaly for which he was not responsible in, say, the backs of the cards.

==Is edge sorting cheating?==

==Incidents==

In 2012 poker player [[Phil Ivey]] was reported to have won £7.7 million (approx. $11 million) playing [[Baccarat (card game)#Punto banco|punto banco]], a version of baccarat, at [[Crockford's]] casino in London. Earlier that year, Ivey had won [[US$]]9.6 million playing [[Baccarat (card game)|baccarat]] at the [[Borgata]] casino with partner Cheng Yin Sun.<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=2014-04-13 |accessdate=2014-04-19}}</ref> Crockford's refunded his £1 million stake, but refused payment of his winnings.<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=2012-10-09|author=Ron Dicker|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]}}</ref> In April 2014 the Borgata filed a lawsuit against Ivey for his winnings.<ref name=CNN/>

Phil Ivey was sued by Crockford's overfor payment of his £7.7m winnings, but lost in the UK [[High Court of Justice|High Court]]; it was judged that the techniqueedge counting 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 advantage of an error or anomaly on the casino's part.

==See also==