• Edge Sorting In Poker
• Poker Edge Sorting

There is a decision in the Borgata vs. Phil Ivey edge-sorting case (some background here), and it looks like the poker pro will be forfeiting $10 million in baccarat winnings after a US District Court judge found Ivey to be in breach of contract, guilty of marking cards. Edge Sorting at the Casino: Phil Ivey Beat Casinos for $21 Million Phil Ivey in 2009 – Image source: photo by flipchip / CC BY-SA via Wikimedia Commons Back in 2012, poker professional Phil Ivey beat both the Borgata and Crockford’s casinos to the collective tune of $21.6 million whilst playing baccarat.

Ivey Claims He Used 'Edge Sorting' in £7.8 Million Lawsuit With Crockfords September 16, 2013 Rich Ryan 0 In May, PokerNews learned that Phil Ivey was suing Crockfords, Britain's oldest casino, for.

Professional poker player Phil Ivey hit the news when he was spectacularly denied winnings of £7.7 million from Crockfords Club casino in Mayfair. The US pro gambler was accused of cheating by a technique known as ‘edge sorting’, prompting the casino to refuse to pay out on winnings he had picked up at the Punto Banco table. While the game in question took place back in 2012, the resulting legal action unfolded over a number of years, with appeals and challenges extending the duration of the case.

The case attracted significant media attention at the time, with people all over the world captivated by Ivey’s claim that he had legitimately won the money. So was he in the right, or is he just another cheater looking to exploit unfair loopholes to take advantage of the casino?

The Edge Sorting Scandal

Ivey accepts that he used a technique during the game in question called ‘edge sorting’. This occurs where players use small imperfections on the back of playing cards to glean information about the face value, on which they then make corresponding betting decisions. With fellow gambler Cheung Yin Sun, Ivey identified small flaws on the back of certain cards during the game, which he used to distort the game maths in his favour.

He and a colleague were found to have used a technique known as 'edge sorting' to gain an unfair advantage while gambling at the Crockfords casino in London's posh Mayfair district. Ivey accepts that he used a technique during the game in question called ‘edge sorting’. This occurs where players use small imperfections on the back of playing cards to glean information about the face value, on which they then make corresponding betting decisions.

Ivey has never denied that he used the technique during the game. However, he has maintained that it was perfectly legitimate to do so. After winning, Ivey was handed a receipt for the £7.7 million owed to him by the casino. When attempting to redeem, he was told that the casino was refusing to pay.

Edge Sorting In Poker

In his own words, Ivey said he felt he had little option but to take the matter to court in an attempt to recover the money. But was the refusal to pay his winnings a justified move by the casino?

Refusal To Pay

When presented with Ivey’s demands for payment, Crockfords declined, citing edge sorting as a form of cheating which it could not countenance. While Ivey said the casino should have taken steps to prevent losses to highly experienced gamblers, the casino alleged the strategy gave Ivey an unfair advantage.

In the eyes of the casino, the technique was illegitimate, and akin to other forms of cheating and fraud often deployed in casinos. Citing legal definitions of ’cheating’ under UK law, the casino said it had no obligation to pay the amount, despite Ivey’s protests to the contrary.

Ivey initially brought the case to the high court in 2014, where it was ultimately dismissed. This led to appeals to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the UK Supreme Court, in Ivey’s bid to get a ruling against the casino.

The Legal Battle

After being thrown out of the High Court, Ivey took the case to the Court of Appeal in 2016. The court upheld the previous ruling, finding that edge sorting constituted a form of cheating as defined by the Gambling Act 2005. In court, the appeals judge said whether Ivey considers himself to have acted dishonestly is irrelevant, and that his actions could properly constitute cheating as legally defined.

“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.”

Ivey eventually took the case to the Supreme Court, but was denied a satisfactory result in the end. The court found that Ivey had been using techniques to give himself an unfair advantage, and that these techniques do constitute a form of cheating under UK gambling laws.

While disappointed with the result, it is only the latest time Ivey has been held accountable for edge sorting techniques. While he maintains this was merely the sign of an effective, high calibre gambler at work, the casinos and courts have continued to disagree.

Paul Willcock on behalf of Crockfords welcomed the courts ultimate ruling in their favour, describing the result as a “landmark case” for cheating casinos in the UK.

“This has been a landmark case in how the courts approach cheating in the modern day. This entirely vindicates Genting’s decision not to pay Mr. Ivey, a decision that was not taken lightly.”

In May, PokerNews learned that Phil Ivey was suing Crockfords, Britain's oldest casino, for withholding £7.8 million he won playing Punto Banco, a form of baccarat. The Daily Mail got a look at Ivey's court submission over the weekend, and the nine-time World Series of Poker bracelet winner claims that he used a technique called 'edge sorting' at the casino.

Poker Edge Sorting

According to the Daily Mail, the claim states, 'During the second session on August 20 [Mr. Ivey] made various requests for decks of cards to changed at the end of hands with which [Crockfords] chose to comply. This continued until Kelly identified a deck or decks of cards where the pattern on the reverse side of the cards was asymmetrical.'

Kelly accompanied Ivey at Crockfords, and is 'adept at identifying the design flaws.'

'Kelly would ask the dealer to reveal each card in turn by lifting the edge furthest from the dealer so that Kelly could identify whether the card was a seven, eight, or nine — the key cards in the game,' the claim continues. 'The first time that Kelly indentified a key card, she told the dealer that it was a 'good' card which she wanted the dealer to rotate in the opposite direction to all the other cards and the dealer complied with the request... The cards in the deck were increasingly orientated so that 'good' and 'bad' cards faced in the opposite direction.'

The Daily Mail provided this graphic:

Ivey believes that Crockfords management only has itself to blame, because their owners were well aware how edge sorting worked. The casino initially agreed to transfer Ivey's winnings, but have only returned £1 million of the reported £7.8 million win.

In May, Ivey released the following statement regarding the situation:

“I am deeply saddened that Crockfords has left me no alternative but to proceed with legal action, following its decision to withhold my winnings. I have much respect for Gentings, which has made this a very difficult decision for me... Over the years I have won and lost substantial sums at Crockfords and I have always honoured my commitments. At the time, I was given a receipt for my winnings but Crockfords subsequently withheld payment. I, therefore, feel I have no alternative but to take legal action.”

The lawsuit, the biggest legal battle in UK casino history, is due to be heard later this year. Upon any further developments from the story, PokerNews will provide them.

Get all the latest PokerNews updates on your social media outlets. Follow us on Twitter and find us on both Facebook and Google+!

• Tags

  Phil Ivey

• Related Players

  Phil Ivey