London Casino refuses to pay out Californian Player

American poker player Phil Ivey won £7.3 million over two nights playing Punto Banco at Britain’s oldest casino. At the moment they are refusing to pay him a penny.

I seem to recall that Punto Banco was discussed on here and I am intrigued as how this situation will be resolved.

See link below for full details.

Andy


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-2-nights-London-casino-REFUSES-pay-out.html

 

I initially misread that as London Colin refuses to pay!

 

Five years later, it is in the process of being resolved by the U.K. Supreme Court. The wheels of injustice turn slowly.

If you've a few hours to kill, there's video of the proceedings available...
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0213.html
(Plus the text of the previous court decision(s), ruling in favour of the casino, which are being appealed.)

As I understand it, U.S. court(s) also ruled against Ivey in a similar case, except there he's actually been ordered to pay back his winnings, whereas here he's trying to get hold of winnings which were withheld.

Does any one know if the legal process also has further to run in the U.S. case?

 

The judgement is in.

From the press summary -

 

So, casino's positive steps to rig the payout in roulette can likewise be considered cheating ?

 

Do you have an example with evidence for this?

 

35-1 on a single number is a rigged payout

 

I've not read the judgement in full, but it seems to me it's the element of active deception that they are saying made the edge sorting cheating.

While it's obviously not cheating to offer games with a house edge, you could perhaps argue that the steps casinos take to pander to gambling superstitions (listing 'hot' and 'cold' numbers, etc.) are a similar form of deception.

And if the casinos are allowed to deceive players, seeking to take advantage of their ignorance, players should be allowed to return the favour!

 

I agree.
But rigging the game with biased payouts could be defined as cheating, particularly as most players are unaware of the edge the casinos have. Don't forget players are never told about edge they're playing against and caveat emptor is the casino's fall back position. Exactly the same logic can be used for the Ivey case....

 

I agree that most players don't know exactly what the house edge is, but your assertion implies that you believe most players are not even aware that there is a house edge. Do you really believe this? I think that most players know about the house edge and expect to lose when they play.

 

I certainly think they know there is an edge but they don't understand what it is or it's implications. There is no written information about the edge or it's implications given to players for them to agree to before they start playing. It is a case of caveat emptor. Casinos get away with what they do because of ignorance and I see no reason why a player cannot use the same tactics...
If casinos were not bright enough to pick up on the requests that were made by Ivey and his colleague then it's their problem...

 

Almost every major casino has written information available in the form of a pamphlet, at the player's club or the cage, listing the house edge for every casino game. Granted, it is not available at the gaming tables but it is available. Often it's right next to the pamphlet "Know when to stop before you start".

 

"listing the house edge for every casino game"

You think so ? Listing the actual edge and explaining what that means ? I doubt you'll find a casino showing the edges in it's pamphlets and anyway, the whole point is the casino had every opportunity to refuse Ivey's requests and by not questioning them they accepted the rules of play. If he had lost would they have returned his money ? Like hell they would...

 

I one have one right in front of me available from Caesars Entertainment: "A guide to understanding the odds". I have seen it at other casinos as well, although I'm sure not every casino has such an offering.

 

Dr Who, keep in mind that most of the posters here are U.S based. Things may be much different than in your locale with respect to casino transparency. In my locale, the casinos are required by law to have and to prominently promote programs designed to educate the public and to advertise assistance for problem gambling.

I do agree with you about the casino vs Ivey. In my opinion, he made his requests and due to their own greed, they agreed to them.

 

I also agree regarding Phil Ivey. Perhaps legal and/or corporate action should have been taken against the dealer and table games supervisor.

 

It's the fuddy duddy court that needs a poke in the eye really cos they simply can't accept that by the casino accepting all Ivey asked of them they were in effect agreeing to his rules and therefore they should have honoured their losses...seems open and shut to me....

 

In the UK it is a requirement -

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u...specific-compliance/Casinos/Casino-games.aspx

Of course, there is no stipulation about how prominently the information needs to be displayed!

 

OK, didn't realize that. Not certain I've ever read a pamphlet in the UK that shows the actual house edge. And, as I've said, that's not the point really....

 

I think I've seen them in most places. And in LCI (Caesars), rather than pamphlets, they have a folder which you can leaf through, attached to the wall.

Indeed not. I think we are all agreed that the court's decision is, at best, troubling.

But when it comes to drawing analogies between casino and player activities, I think that offering games with a house edge and doing as little as is legally required to educate players about what that means is really just the casino version of advantage play.

If we are looking for something on the casino side of the equation which is roughly equivalent to what went on in this case, then I think it has to involve active deception/manipulation of players by the casino. So, to my mind, some candidates are -

• Displaying histories in Roulette and Baccarat, and encouraging the belief that these can be studied in order to predict the future.
• Promotional material which talks up the prospects of winning, in defiance of what a study of the house edge would show. (For instance, double-zero roulette was recently introduced in one casino, not with an apology, but with a great celebration of this wonderful new feature that players could now enjoy!)