Phil Ivey -v- Crockfords

To bring you up to date, I was Ivey's expert witness in this case: that has been the primary cause of my reluctance to post over the last few months, and in particular my complete absence of posts over the last month. In case you live under a rock and haven't heard the news, Ivey lost the case.

The judge confessed early on during the trial that he was a bridge player. He discussed the general nature of cheating at bridge during the trial. He had a common-sense approach to cheating at cards that was certainly a gentleman's approach. The judge also confessed that he had never been to a casino as an adult. The judge was very fair and deliberate in his manner of conducting the trial. Naturally, I completely disagree with his verdict and the line of reasoning he used to reach it.

I am going to withhold more detail about this matter until things quiet down.   After that, with respect to privacy and in consideration of future lawsuits, I will have to consider the scope of what I will be willing to share about this case. In the mean time, know that Phil had a great team, top to bottom. Everyone I met was first-rate, worked tirelessly on his behalf and supported him 100%.

Here are the judges concluding remarks:

“If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is.

What Mr Ivey and Ms Sun did was to persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines, and in circumstances where she did not realize she had done so – and, if she had, would have immediately stopped play.

The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating. Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool.

It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practiced by the casino for which he was not responsible. He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation. This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”