UK Casino Accuses Phil Ivey of Cheating
This was published 18-05-2013It was recently reported that one of the world’s leading professional poker players, American Phil Ivey, had issued a lawsuit in London’s High Court against the Genting Group for payment of an amount of approximately 7.8 million pounds ($11.9 million) which he claimed was due to him in respect of winnings racked up last summer playing baccarat at Crockfords Casino, which is part of the Genting Group.
However, the Malaysiabased Genting Group, which is a major casino operator, has since filed court papers in Britain’s High Court. The papers state that Ivey, together with an accomplice, successfully used a scam to rack up the winnings of about 7.8 million pounds between 20th and 21st August, 2012 at Crockfords, one ofLondon’s oldest and most respected casinos.
The Genting Group is refusing to pay Ivey the money as they accuse him of cheating and that his winnings were invalid due to the fact that it was “based upon illegal acts”.
Thirty seven year old Ivey issued a statement via his lawyers saying that any misconduct is denied by him and also said “The fact that I have issued a lawsuit in the face of what they are alleging says everything about how comfortable I am with my conduct and the validity of my win. Any allegations of wrongdoing by Crockfords are denied by me in the very strongest of terms.”
The casino group claims that Ivey’s “illegal acts” void any winnings that he claims is due to him as he had a huge advantage over the casino by using improper means to determine whether the first card being dealt in the baccarat hands would be a powerful or weak card.
It is also alleged that Ivey and his accomplice found a “shoe” containing decks of cards with an asymmetrical design and convinced the dealer to turn the card either sideways or end over end after the cards were revealed. Ivey’s accomplice told the dealer in Cantonese that she was superstitious and that changing the way the cards lay was for good luck. This resulted in the dealer inadvertently sorting the cards making 7, 8 and 9 cards distinguishable from others. The court papers also claimed that Ivey asked that the cards be shuffled automatically by a machine, which meant the way the cards were arranged was not altered during the game.
