A London judge has ruled for Genting Bhd. In the lawsuit filed against the operator by poker pro Phil Ivey, who sued after being refused payment on £7.7 million (.4 million) he won playing punto banco, a form of baccarat, by employing edge-sorting.
Edge-sorting is a way experienced players can exploit flaws in the design of playing cards. By spotting certain patterns on the backs of the poorly designed cards, some players can accurately determine the value of the cards. That’s how Ivey, a 10-time World Series of Poker winner, gained an advantage at Genting’s Crocksfords casino in London in August 2012. Ivey and a companion reportedly influenced a croupier to deal the cards in certain ways. The casino refused to pay him his winnings, saying the practice gave Ivey an unfair advantage.
Judge John Mitting agreed, holding that while Ivey was not being dishonest in the practice and might not have considered edge-sorting as cheating, it essentially was. “He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes,” Mitting told Bloomberg after upholding the casino’s right to withhold winnings. “This in my view is cheating.”
Mitting said Ivey also cheated by “using the croupier as his innocent agent or tool.”
“We attach the greatest importance to our exemplary reputation for fair, honest and professional conduct,” Crocksfords casino said in a statement to Bloomberg, “and today’s ruling vindicates the steps we have taken in this matter.”
Ivey’s attorney, Richard Spearman, had argued that edge-sorting is not cheating, nor is it illegal—and the simple fact it creates an advantage for the player does not relieve the casino of paying winnings. “(A casino) is a cat-and-mouse environment,” argued Spearman. “It is an adversarial environment. It doesn’t mean you have to be dishonest.”
Ivey sued Genting after being told at Crocksfords that the money would be wired to him after he left the U.K. to return to the U.S. for a family emergency. The casino sent back his £1 million stake, but not the winnings.
“There are legitimate strategies that may used by skilled players which have the purpose and effect of providing the player, rather than the casino, with the advantage on particular bets,” Spearman said in court documents. “Tactics, such as card marking and collusion with the dealer, are accepted by both sides.”
Mitting turned down Ivey’s request to appeal the verdict.
