Content deleted Content added
→Legality: sort |
Misspelt name corrected |
||
Line 6:
Casinos usually regard this technique as cheating; many players consider that they are legitimately playing to gain an advantage.
In 2012 poker player [[Phil Ivey]] won [[US$]]9.6 million playing [[Baccarat (card game)|baccarat]] at the [[Borgata]] casino with partner
</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=2014-04-13 |accessdate=2014-04-19}}</ref> In April 2014 the Borgata filed a lawsuit against Ivey for his winnings.<ref name=CNN/> 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 [[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=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 sorting 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 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.
| |||