Poker pro Phil Ivey has lost an appeal stemming from a 2012 winning spree at Crockfords casino in London.
Ivey won $9.6 million playing baccarat at the casino—about 7.7 million pounds—but the casino did not have to pay Ivey his winnings after winning a suit charging that he used “edge sorting” to gain an unfair advantage.
Ivey “achieved his winnings through manipulating” the odds in his favor at a Genting Bhd. casino, Judge Mary Arden said in the appeal ruling handed down in London.
Arden said there is an implied term within casino gaming not to cheat and said the meaning of cheating for that purpose was to be determined in accordance with the UK Gambling Act of 2005.
“In my judgment, this section provides that a party may cheat within the meaning of this section without dishonesty or intention to deceive: depending on the circumstances it may be enough that he simply interferes with the process of the game,” she said. “On that basis, the fact that the appellant did not regard himself as cheating is not determinative. It is for the court to determine whether the interference was of such a quality as to constitute cheating. In my judgment it had that quality.”
Ivey has not denied he used the edge sorting technique in which he asked dealers to arrange cards in a certain manner to exploit design flaws he and a partner noticed in the cards. The design flaw essentially marked the cards for Ivey, allowing him to see which cards were coming next.
Ivey has maintained during the case—and in a similar case at the Borgata casino in Atlantic City—that it is up to the casino to ensure the integrity of their cards and that casino personnel did not have to arrange the cards as he asked. He argues that reading the design flaws was a legitimate tactic.
“This decision makes no sense,” Ivey, who will seek to appeal the ruling to the UK Supreme Court, said in a statement. “The trial judge said that I was not dishonest and the three appeal judges agreed but somehow the decision has gone against me. Can someone tell me how you can have honest cheating?”
The ruling “vindicates the steps that Crockfords has taken in this matter,” Paul Willcock, Genting U.K. president and chief operating officer, said in a statement. “Crockfords has acted fairly and honestly at all times and we are therefore pleased that the Court of Appeal has held that the decision not to pay out to Mr. Ivey was the correct one.”
