Phil Ivey Ruled a Cheater by England’s High Court
England’s High Court has determined that 10-time WSOP bracelet winner Phil Ivey “cheated” in winning $12.4 million from London’s Crockfords Casino back in 2012. Judge John Mitting handed down the unpopular ruling on Wednesday, one that could have consequences on Ivey’s Borgata Case.
Bloomberg broke the story on Wednesday revealing that poker’s top player was considered a cheater. Ivey attempted to defend his reputation and while the judge applauded him for his honesty on the stand, he still believed that Ivey had an unfair advantage during the game.
Ivey Used Croupier as “His Tool”
Phil Ivey took the stand during this trial and defended edge sorting as a legitimate strategy to win against the casino. During his defense, he stated that it was not in his nature to cheat and that “I consider that I would not be doing my job very well if I did not seek to use to my benefit weaknesses that I identify in the way that casinos set up or offer particular casino games.”
Judge Mitting did not agree. He stated that Ivey “gave himself an advantage which the game precludes. This is in my view cheating.” This viewed stemmed from testimony that Ivey and his associate influenced the croupier (dealer) to deal the cards in such a way that Ivey could incorporate his edge sorting strategy without anyone catching on.
Mitting ultimately stated that Ivey cheated “by using the croupier as his agent or tool.” Ivey obviously did not agree with this sentiment. In a statement released through an associate, he stated that, “I believe what we did was nothing more than exploit Crockford’s failures. Clearly the judge did not agree.”
Ivey’s defense team was denied permission by the judge to appeal the ruling.
Will This Decision Impact the Borgata Case?
The Crockfords is not the only casino suing Ivey over his edge sorting activities. The Borgata Casino in Atlantic City wants Ivey to repay $9.6 million in winnings that he earned playing mini-baccarat in 2012.
There are a few differences between this case and the Crockfords case. First, Ivey’s $9.6 million in winnings was split over four sessions from April through October 2012. Ivey and his associates also made numerous demands from the casino, including that the casino use the cards that they knew were flawed.
In the Borgata case, one can clearly argue that Ivey went out of his way to give himself an advantage against the house before even arriving at the casino. While I’m not a lawyer, it would seem that this proactive setup by Ivey could cost him his Borgata winnings if anything.
The popular opinion among many poker players and Ivey supporters is that the casino had a responsibility to catch the flaws in the cards to prevent Ivey’s edge sorting. At the same time, one has to wonder how many players would have the same opinion if the edge sorting happened at the poker table as opposed to punto banco.
