Ivey loses Crockfords court case

World poker player Phil Ivey has lost his high court case against London casino Crockfords and will not receive the £7.7 million he won there back in 2012 the judge has ruled.

The 38-year-old American who is regarded as one of the world’s top poker players sued over a game of baccarat that he played at the casino over two days in August 2012.

Following his winning streak Ivey left the casino and flew back to the US with the casino promising to wire his winning onward. However the money never arrived, only his initial deposit of £1 million.

Genting Casinos UK, which owns Crockfords, said the technique of “edge-sorting” Ivey used – which aims to provide the customer with an element of “first card advantage” – was not a legitimate strategy and that the casino had no liability to pay him.

Its lawyers told Mr Justice Mitting in London that Ivey’s conduct defeated the essential premise of the game of baccarat so there was no gaming contract or constituted cheating.

A spokesman for Crockfords said later: “Crockfords is pleased with the judgment of the high court today supporting its defence of a claim by Ivey.

“It is our policy not to discuss our clients’ affairs in public and we very much regret that proceedings were brought against us. We attach the greatest importance to our exemplary reputation for fair, honest and professional conduct and today’s ruling vindicates the steps we have taken in this matter.”

Speaking through a spokesman, Ivey said: “ I am obviously disappointed with this judge’s decision. As I said in court, it is not my nature to cheat and I would never do anything to risk my reputation.

“I am pleased that the judge acknowledged in court that I was a truthful witness.

“I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords’s failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability.

“Clearly today the judge did not agree.”

In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “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 realise 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 practised 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.”

The judge concluded: “This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.”

Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.