|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Artie Fufkin Special user 853 Posts |
A re-read of the story mr. conely linked to in the OP will demonstrate that the judge decreed that ivey have his original stake returned to him in his legal finding. he denied ivey his winnings, but ordered his original stake be returned to him.
the above indicates that despite the judges misuse of the word "cheating", he in fact found ivey guilty of no such crime as cheating - in fact he found him guilty of no crime whatsoever. not to put too fine a point on it, but the judge and crockfords both view this the same way based on their actions, that ivey was doing nothing illegal such that he could be arrested or charged with anything. the fact this case had to go to court for a resolution means that until the judge made his finding, there was still a chance that crockfords would have to pay ivey out his winnings. again, not a demonstration of an illegal activity - only an activity that crockfords didn't approve of. this was at no time about ivey going to jail, only about whether crockfords would be obliged to give him his winnings. this case has nothing to do with crime and punishment, it's only about greed. the above series of events does not support the theory that anybody involved thought ivey was cheating, only that ivey had manipulated the situation such that the casino created an unintended advantage play for him. thank you AMcD, for letting me think differently. I do indeed think differently, and its within those different thinking processes that conversations like this are inspired to take place. I will presume that's why mr. conely posted in the first place - to inspire a conversation. |
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
@artie
That's because many people posting here are from different countries, cultures that I like this place. We have different opinions, different ways to see things and I like it. Personally, I learn many things here, over the years. About PI. Well, I already said it, he deserved to keep the money. After a long chain of decisions, PI was eventually allowed to do what he wanted to do! So, where's the problem? If you can't be sure to leave a Casino with the money you've just won, I'm not sure they're gonna last long... That said, after checking a few numbers, the Casino industry is not in good shape. Who would have expected that, 10 years ago: http://www.statista.com/chart/1455/macau......visitor/ So, maybe they're a bit on their nerves... |
|||||||||
ssibal Veteran user 352 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 10, 2014, JasonEngland wrote: The cards were technically marked, they just happened to have been marked at the factory, and when you're relying on the marks on the backs or edges of cards to play and win in a card game you are cheating (at least what I have always understood cheating to be) even if it is perfectly legal. |
|||||||||
Artie Fufkin Special user 853 Posts |
No, the cards weren't "technically marked".
edge reading a factory deck is not reading a marked card, it's edge reading by definition. they're entirely different things in this specific case. people can present their own theories and interpretations of ivey's predicament, but it gets a bit difficult to follow the facts in the conversation if people begin to present their own "new definitions" of actual words that have an agreed upon meaning. i will agree that edge reading a factory cut deck is done by observing ink irregularities in the full bleed back, and that one could refer to those irregularities as "marks", but every card on earth picks up or already has marks along their short life, but those assorted, unintentional marks do not a "marked deck" make. edge reading is edge reading, and marking a deck is marking a deck. they're not the same thing at all. one is a crime, and the other is an advantage play. the law agrees with this assessment. |
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
Who cares about the laws here?! In the name of laws, legality and other sophism people are killed every day...
Face the facts: IF SORTING A DECK ACCORDING SOME FLAWS IN THE BACK OF THE CARDS ALLOWS YOU TO RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF EACH CARD FROM ITS BACK THEN, TECHNICALLY, THE DECK IS MARKED!!! What's so difficult to understand here??? They asked to turn the cards in order to recognize them, they asked for the deck to be marked! |
|||||||||
JasonEngland V.I.P. Las Vegas, NV 1728 Posts |
AMcD,
The problem with calling a deck of asymmetrically cut cards "marked" cards is that you could continue on to declare every deck of cards on the planet to be "marked" as long as we just looked closely enough (like with cameras or high enough magnification devices). And if every deck on Earth is "marked" then that term loses meaning, it doesn't gain meaning. The term "marked" has virtually always been used to refer to a process that takes place after the deck leaves the factory (although there have been exceptions of course). That isn't the case with these cards, or any other cards with an asymmetric back design, or one with an internal orientation feature. In fact, we can move the orientation element completely off of the cards themselves and you can still "read" the deck. Imagine that I turned all the high cards in a completely symmetrical deck so that the short ends pointed North and South, and the low cards I turned so that the short ends pointed East and West. You would be able to immediately point out which cards were highs and which were lows by only looking at the backs, but that doesn't mean the deck is "marked." Getting information via orientation doesn't = marked, although the play may look the same to an outside observer. Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
|
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
Jason,
Here, you make a point that people in a law court may enjoy . Of course, we assume it's not a big scam and that the decks weren't cut that way deliberately (and for such a purpose) at the factory. By the way, they are decks like that (marked right from the start, at the factory) existing for ages. All Magicians use them. They are marked decks and it hasn't be done AFTER the factory process, but during it (I suppose it's the exception you mention). Again, battle of words. But I'm afraid it changes nothing. OK, all cards have tiny discrepancies. OK, PI didn't mark them himself. But after asking for sorting the deck according those discrepancies, the cards could be read from their backs. |
|||||||||
JasonEngland V.I.P. Las Vegas, NV 1728 Posts |
Arnold,
I think the larger point is that you devalue the term "marked" when you use it in an all-encompassing manner. If I told you I had a great collection of antique marked cards for sale and you bought them thinking you were getting a collection of juice, white-flash, shade, cut-out and block-out work, wouldn't you be upset when I shipped you a bunch of asymmetrically cut Bee cards? Wouldn't you have the right to complain that I had misrepresented the word "marked" as it's usually used? That's all that's being said here. Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
|
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
No, I wouldn't be necessarily upset. It took me a "few" Bee decks before I could get a good deck of "sorts" .
Joke put aside, I know it's a matter of semantics, but, if I get you well, you wouldn't call marked cards such a deck? Yet, many experts classify them as marked cards. Steve Forte in "Poker Protection" for instance, Chapter 7. Or, p. 478-479 in "Casino Game Protection". In many crooked gambling equipment catalogs, they are with marked cards as well. I don't clearly see the difference between a poorly cut Bee and the Gemaco used in our case. To me, PI and her mate merely asked the dealer to turn the deck into a deck of "sorts". And that's the most clever part of the ploy. Anyway, just my opinion. I won't add anything, I talk too much. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Wouldn't it be bad business for the casinos to let this happen? Who wants to sit in a game they think is not square at a casino? Isn't that their main function? The illusion of fairness?
Legal or not moral or not it seems bad business to allow it to happen. I am guessing the casino position has to do as much with the future perception of players as anything.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Well as I said before, the casino in question is one knows. They have been in the game forever and they would have taken expert legal advice before taking their decision. Thus they would have known that they were on firm ground beforehand. So I am not surprised the ****ers won. Even though I do think it's unfair.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
||||||||||
Artie Fufkin Special user 853 Posts |
Despite the blaring heading declaring "cheating", ivey was given his original million pound stake back by crockfords, given a handshake by crockfords management, and sent out the door sans his winnings.
if ivey himself hadn't sued for his winnings, we'd have never heard the story. the above as opposed to ivey being arrested, cuffed, and thrown in jail if he had actually been cheating. we all know ivey wasn't cheating, crockfords knows ivey wasn't cheating, and now we all know that crockfords won't make good on any sort of advantage play they can see, or deduce through surveillance video. crockfords has saved their 7 million pounds, but crockfords reputation among the whales will keep them away as if ebola is crawling the walls. cheating had nothing to do with this story, and still has nothing to do with this story. this story has always been about simple crockfords greed, unbelievably poor casino management, and the crockfords now obvious policy that advantage play simply won't be tolerated. |
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
You have (like me) strong views. Thus, I think you should say "according to me", "In my opinion", etc.
Because, to me, it was cheating. It's the definition of cheating. See how different opinions can be ? |
|||||||||
Artie Fufkin Special user 853 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 3, 2014, AMcD wrote: i certainly present this as nothing more than my personal opinion on the subject. I'm not a judge and/or jury, so a personal opinion is all I (or anybody else for that matter) can offer here. but I would ask you in all seriousness, and in the spirit of friendly conversation, if "it was cheating" as you put forth, why was ivey NEVER arrested or charged with any crime, and why did crockfords return to him his 1 million pound stake in full? |
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
Because they want him to come back, there or in another place they own... You may not know PI, but he plays HUGE money in casinos. He's a very good customer...
|
|||||||||
Artie Fufkin Special user 853 Posts |
My question remains unanswered, which is fine.
in many ways the question was simply a redundant one, because crockfords, the local constabulary, and even the judge sitting on the case quite obviously all believe that no crime was committed, but rather an unapproved advantage play was undertaken which resulted only in a denial of winnings, with 100% of his original stake returned to him. |
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
What is unanswered? PI is a big Gambler, they don't want him far from their casinos. It would be a bad, very bad move to bar him from their business. He bets millions. It's my idea. It wasn't mere sleight of hand cheating either. As Jason told me, I haven't read what has been said at the court, so I don't know everything. I'm just giving my opinion.
I explained 10 times already why, according to me, it was cheating. If what they did is not cheating, then I'm the most stupid ass*** ever. I don't care about what the justice said. Because a court doesn't say it's a crime doesn't imply it wasn't a crime for real, far from it! People are killed every day, women raped and yet many of the persons responsible are free. It's called corruption, it's called justice for the rich. Had it been me, you can be sure I would not had my money back! Again, many cultures, many ways to see things. Allow me an anecdote. I talked about that affair with many guys. Privately, here, on Facebook, etc. For months. Can you explain me that odd fact: I'd say that, roughly, 90% of the people I talked to thinking that PI was not cheating are... USA citizens! |
|||||||||
Artie Fufkin Special user 853 Posts |
I don't follow your line of thinking in the slightest, but thanks for the conversation.
|
|||||||||
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts |
You're welcome...
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Judge: Poker Pro Phil Ivey Cheated At Casino (4 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |