Here's a better article about Phil Ivey

[popinjay999]

http://tinyurl.com/o4ol9nn

But check this out! Read this paragraph from the article, what it
says about casinos in England and what they can do against common card-
counting in blackjack. This shit wouldn't fly in the United States.

--------------

"Whether what Ivey did was illegal isn’t what’s being decided. It
doesn’t need to be illegal for a casino to consider it a violation of
its own rules. Counting cards in blackjack, a practice that isn’t
anything like “edge sorting” but is similarly frowned upon by casinos
for giving players an advantage over the house, isn’t illegal either.
However, a casino can withhold winnings and bar players for counting
cards if they want."

[risky biz]

Good article. I see he has a couple of articles about horseracing there,
too.

According to the article Ivey was up 2 million pounds before they started
requesting the cards be turned. It seems pretty evident that Ivey hustled
them.

But in the US I would still consider the casino on the hook. It takes two
to tango. But who knows about the law in Britain? They're weird.

[popinjay999]

On May 23, 3:29 pm, "risky biz" <a31d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> According to the article Ivey was up 2 million pounds before they started
> requesting the cards be turned. It seems pretty evident that Ivey hustled
> them.
>

Fuck yeah he hustled them! Ivey's guilty as a mutherfucker. I can't
believe he got involved in that shit. He's so fucking smart, doesn't
he know there's a good chance of this shaking out exactly how it's
shaking out? You need a clean getaway, man. The best hustles are
when the mark doesn't know he got hustled. Under the radar, man.
What the fuck is his problem?

[brattt]

From the article it appears he got caught up in a good piece of Asian ass.

[Bill Vanek]

Once again, I still cannot believe that the casino exists that is
unaware of edge-sorting. Or unaware of who Phil Ivey is. And I don't
know how anyone could call what he did illegal. Hustling isn't.

[popinjay999]

On May 23, 4:17 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Once again, I still cannot believe that the casino exists that is
> unaware of edge-sorting.

I can't either.

> Or unaware of who Phil Ivey is.

I can't either.

> And I don't
> know how anyone could call what he did illegal. Hustling isn't.

According to this article, no one is asserting that it is illegal.
Just against the casino's "rules".

To me it seems like the casino needs to pay up. But someone, or
someones, should get their asses fired but good.

[Tim Norfolk]

Did they change the law in Nevada? They used to ban card-counters there, didn't they?

[risky biz]

No pictures but who cares if you're up $12 million?

[Bill Vanek]

They still do, but counting is not illegal.

[Bill Vanek]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:53:06 -0700, Bill Vanek <bilv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

I forgot to add that they don't withhold winnings.

[risky biz]

Yes. They still do. I don't think they were ever able to stiff them,
though.

[ChrisRobin]

On May 23 2013 6:58 PM, brattt wrote:

> From the article it appears he got caught up in a good piece of Asian ass.

Lol. That is a blessing, not a crime.

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:06:20 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
<tims...@aol.com> wrote:

It's always seemed absurd to me that they can ban a way of thinking.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

On 24 May, 09:02, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >> "Whether what Ivey did was illegal isn’t what’s being decided. It
> >> doesn’t need to be illegal for a casino to consider it a violation of
> >> its own rules. Counting cards in blackjack, a practice that isn’t
> >> anything like “edge sorting” but is similarly frowned upon by casinos
> >> for giving players an advantage over the house, isn’t illegal either.
> >> However, a casino can withhold winnings and bar players for counting
> >> cards if they want."
>
> >Did they change the law in Nevada? They used to ban card-counters there, didn't they?
>
> It's always seemed absurd to me that they can ban a way of thinking.

It would be absurd to me that a casino would allow +EV customers.

[Tim Norfolk]

I didn't say that. I was addressing Paul's last sentence.

[Tim Norfolk]

> It would be absurd to me that a casino would allow +EV customers.

It occurred to me yesterday that casinos could offer could offer a 0 EV game as a loss leader, and still make money on that game, given the typical gambler's compulsive behaviour.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

popinjay999 <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/o4ol9nn
>

Still something missing from the story. Ivey requests
a Cantonese-speaking dealer who carries on discussions
about careful manipulation of the cards with Ivey's
friend during a million-pound betting session and the
house is ambivalent? I'm also skeptical about the
ability of his companion to learn the identity of the
cards from glancing at the cut diamonds on the edge.
Is the cantonese-speaking dealer still working at the club?
Still breathing?

--bks

[Mossingen]

"popinjay999" wrote in message
news:3a18f7a3-b521-4431...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

_________________________________________________



Sounds like the rules are different in England in favor of the casino, as if
the casino can assert pretty much any type of irregularity and get away with
not paying. Maybe that was the only thing Ivey overlooked--the fact that
the rules are a little different regarding what the casino can do to refuse
to pay.

[popinjay999]

On May 24, 5:52 am, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> It occurred to me yesterday that casinos could offer could offer a 0 EV game as a loss leader, and still make money on that game, given the typical gambler's compulsive behaviour.

Here's a fact, but too many paranoid suits don't understand. A casino
can allow GREEN CHIP action with no heat, not even worry about it.
Let them count cards all they want. Green chips and smaller is not
worth the hassle of scrutinizing. The casino will make plenty of
money, even if they post a big sign saying "counters welcome - $25
tables and smaller".

Two things they should do. Make all games, handheld and shoes, where
the dealer hits soft-17. Average players don't give a fuck. Other
than that, liberal rules won't hurt the casino. In fact, it will just
help them by getting more players under their roof. And the other
thing, increase penetration. What they save from paranoia and
reshuffling is lost in reduction of hands put out. Those two things,
hit soft-17 and increase penetration, and the casino will be fine,
even if they welcome counters.

[Bill Vanek]

Boomtown, which is now the Silverton, ended up in a situation where
counters infested the place. We would sit there and do nothing to hide
the fact - everyone's bets up and down in unison. Boomtown got
crushed. This was the time when they hired Howard Grossman to oversee
the BJ games. Idiots. I think they lost money in the pit for three
straight months.

Similar thing happened when they opened what is now the Fiesta
Henderson.

Bill Zender had a sort of open policy at the Aladdin where he ran the
table games, but he was smart enough to 86 any greedy counters who
knew what they were doing.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 24 2013 10:27 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Boomtown, which is now the Silverton, ended up in a situation where
> counters infested the place. We would sit there and do nothing to hide
> the fact - everyone's bets up and down in unison. Boomtown got
> crushed. This was the time when they hired Howard Grossman to oversee
> the BJ games. Idiots. I think they lost money in the pit for three
> straight months.
>
> Similar thing happened when they opened what is now the Fiesta
> Henderson.
>
> Bill Zender had a sort of open policy at the Aladdin where he ran the
> table games, but he was smart enough to 86 any greedy counters who
> knew what they were doing.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/357590364_1789f64311.jpg

notice how many cars are in the parking lot.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

On May 24, 9:27 am, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Boomtown, which is now the Silverton, ended up in a situation where
> counters infested the place. We would sit there and do nothing to hide
> the fact - everyone's bets up and down in unison. Boomtown got
> crushed. This was the time when they hired Howard Grossman to oversee
> the BJ games. Idiots. I think they lost money in the pit for three
> straight months.
>
> Similar thing happened when they opened what is now the Fiesta
> Henderson.
>
> Bill Zender had a sort of open policy at the Aladdin where he ran the
> table games, but he was smart enough to 86 any greedy counters who
> knew what they were doing.

My post was saying essentially what Bill Zender has said. I was
surprised, but he swears adding penetration is better because it puts
more hands out and that there just aren't enough players who know what
they're doing to worry about, at least at green chip level and
smaller. And the soft-17 rule is an easy .20% that nobody seems to
mind, and the ones who do mind it are probably the players they don't
want. I'm pretty sure he would still advocate this. Do you agree or
disagree?

[Bill Vanek]

I agree with what you're saying now, but this is what you originally
said:

"A casino can allow GREEN CHIP action with no heat, not even worry
about it. Let them count cards all they want."

I don't agree that "a casino" can get away with it. I agree that a
casino run by Zender could, but that's only because if it became
overrun with counters like the two I mentioned, he would be aware of
it, and he would put an end to it. Even quarter action can do a lot of
damage if it's mostly +EV players. And right now, I'm not aware of any
good games in LV, so counters would flock to anything that opened up.

Why don't you try this at the Roadhouse, huh?

[popinjay999]

On May 24, 2:25 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Why don't you try this at the Roadhouse, huh?

I'm thinking of free $5 gas cards for any suited 9-7.

Get it? 9-7? Sept. 7, Ramashiva's birthday! I'm sure you would have
figured that out.

I'm a shrewd marketer.

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On May 24, 2:25�pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't you try this at the Roadhouse, huh?
>
>
>I'm thinking of free $5 gas cards for any suited 9-7.

For the nearest Clark Super 100 station?

>Get it? 9-7? Sept. 7, Ramashiva's birthday! I'm sure you would have
>figured that out.

Maybe not.

>I'm a shrewd marketer.

No offense, but there is a rumor that the Roadhouse is faltering.

[halfpastdead]

IT GOES ON EVERY SINGLE DAY IN THE US and with much less evidence and
much less over sight

WRONG AGAIN

have you ever really been in a casino ?


*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[risky biz]

On May 24 2013 5:03 PM, halfpastdead wrote:

> On May 23 2013 4:28 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/o4ol9nn
> >
> > But check this out! Read this paragraph from the article, what it
> > says about casinos in England and what they can do against common card-
> > counting in blackjack. This shit wouldn't fly in the United States.
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > "Whether what Ivey did was illegal isn�t what�s being decided. It
> > doesn�t need to be illegal for a casino to consider it a violation of
> > its own rules. Counting cards in blackjack, a practice that isn�t
> > anything like �edge sorting� but is similarly frowned upon by casinos
> > for giving players an advantage over the house, isn�t illegal either.
> > However, a casino can withhold winnings and bar players for counting
> > cards if they want."
>
> "This shit wouldn't fly in the United States."
> >
> IT GOES ON EVERY SINGLE DAY IN THE US and with much less evidence and
> much less over sight
>
> WRONG AGAIN
>
> have you ever really been in a casino ?

So if a Las Vegas casino decides a blackjack player is counting they come
over and take away all his winnings? Really?

[popinjay999]

It's very important for Doggy to try to prove me wrong at every
opportunity. As long as one understands the basic psychological
motivation behind his actions it's hard to be too annoyed with him.
It is sad, though.

[Pepe Papon]

Of course, they wouldn't *want to* allow +EV customers, but the idea
that they can get away with banning people for thinking a certain way
just seems wrong.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

On May 25, 6:00 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >> >Did they change the law in Nevada? They used to ban card-counters there, didn't they?
>
> >> It's always seemed absurd to me that they can ban a way of thinking.
>
> >It would be absurd to me that a casino would allow +EV customers.
>
> Of course, they wouldn't *want to* allow +EV customers, but the idea
> that they can get away with banning people for thinking a certain way
> just seems wrong.

Which is a gross oversimplification of why they 86 people.

I don't know much about it's legality, but I doubt anyone important
enough, politician, lawmaker, casino owner would object.

[fffurken]

On May 24, 1:52 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

> It occurred to me yesterday that casinos could offer could offer a 0 EV game as a loss leader, and still make money on that game, given the typical gambler's compulsive behaviour.

Sure, I don't see how a zero EV game would be necessarily unprofitable
for the casino if they made it like say Blackjack. I mean, in
Blackjack the casino makes a small edge when the player plays basic
stategy. But that small edge is increased further when players divert
(negative to their cause) from basic strategy. And then to top it all
off, you have complete and utter morons like this guy -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wms9LGqjkWA

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:c0231ee6-58a3-4829...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

LOL -- irony, thy name is Pop-Tard.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:01:37 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 25, 6:00 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >Did they change the law in Nevada? They used to ban card-counters there, didn't they?
>>
>> >> It's always seemed absurd to me that they can ban a way of thinking.
>>
>> >It would be absurd to me that a casino would allow +EV customers.
>>
>> Of course, they wouldn't *want to* allow +EV customers, but the idea
>> that they can get away with banning people for thinking a certain way
>> just seems wrong.
>
>Which is a gross oversimplification of why they 86 people.

How so? If you keep track of cards in your head (a thought process),
they ban you.

>I don't know much about it's legality, but I doubt anyone important
>enough, politician, lawmaker, casino owner would object.

It's obviously legal, since it's been going on openly since forever.
It still doesn't seem right. YMMV.
--

Pepe Papon

[brattt]

I don't think they state *counting cards" as the reason they ban you.
They find something else - some miniscule rule hidden somewhere as the
reason. And they make it very unpleasant for you if you do decide to come
back.

[popinjay999]

On May 26, 3:53 am, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> I don't think they state *counting cards" as the reason they ban you.
> They find something else - some miniscule rule hidden somewhere as the
> reason.  And they make it very unpleasant for you if you do decide to come
> back.

I don't think so, Susan. I think they ban you for counting cards.
Why not? It's their joint? There doesn't have to be any "rule".

Another option is just to stop you from playing blackjack at their
establishment, not completely 86ing you.

[brattt]

On May 23 2013 4:28 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/16139-phil-ivey-admits-to-noticing-flaws-in-cards-at-crockfords-en-route-to-12-1-million-win

[paulpo...@sbcglobal.net]

On Monday, September 16, 2013 9:35:52 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> On May 23 2013 4:28 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/16139-phil-ivey-admits-to-noticing-flaws-in-cards-at-crockfords-en-route-to-12-1-million-win

I didn't know it was Genting. I believe they have bought the project where the old Stardust was, bought it from Boyd, I think. Anyway, they were EXTREMELY stupid for allowing Ivey to pull this off. It's an old scam and they should have known better. On the other hand, I can't understand Ivey getting himself involved in it. It may not be cheating, but he didn't need to do it either. I think they should pay him, but don't really have a favorite in this race.

[Mossingen]

wrote in message
news:e534d0e5-0598-4dfc...@googlegroups.com...

______________________


I am in complete agreement.

[paulpo...@sbcglobal.net]

On Monday, September 16, 2013 1:25:52 PM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

>
> I am in complete agreement.

Ivey is working toward a one-world government.

[Mossingen]

wrote in message
news:8b55fb30-7e6c-4bb1...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, September 16, 2013 1:25:52 PM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

>
> I am in complete agreement.



Ivey is working toward a one-world government.

_______________________________-



See, now here is where I have to disagree.....