Content deleted Content added
Chairboy73 (talk | contribs) →Legality: Added update to Crockford's case |
Chairboy73 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 10:
Later in 2012 he 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. Crockford's 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=2012-10-09|author=Ron Dicker|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]}}</ref> Ivey sued them for payment, but lost in the UK [[High Court of Justice|High Court]]; it was judged that the edge 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.
On the 29th November 2015 it was reported that Ivey had been given permission to appeal
==See also==
| |||