Ivey wins $12 Million by noticing flawed cards

[Mr. Poon]

Thanks dunclock, I thought those links were to just other forums discussing it. This is from your last link:

It is not known if Crockfords has solid evidence that any of this happened. As was mentioned earlier, in the original investigation, nothing odd was discovered, so it does seem strange that all this would come out now.

 

[The Joker]

So pay Phil or don't pay.....what's the answer you all came up with??opcorn2

 

[JOSHNAUDI]

Perhaps you are both correct, and just have different opinions of what would be classified as a "huge" advantage....

 

[Jorgesca]

You guys both agree there was an advantage, but the size of the advantage is in question.

What if it was a medium sized advantage. Who wins?




In all seriousness, you are two of the most intellegent posters here. Perhaps you are both correct, and just have different opinions of what would be classified as a "huge" advantage....

Agree 100%. I side with kickserv as I don't think the advantage is huge over a 2 day period. I agree with YYZ it is huge if you had that advantage long term. It'd take a lot of hands for the advantage to really come into play, since the most probable thing that happened is they had 1 defective deck out of 6, he was tilting 7s,8s and 9s, thats 23% of the cards of 1 deck. Out of the 6-deck shoe those cards represent a 3%, so he would be getting one of those and thus the advantage only 3% of the time. let's say the advantage gives you a 65% probability (improving from 50% or whatever) to win that hand and in the long run, his odds improved 1.9%. Over a 2 day period I wouldn't call that "HUGE".

 

[kickserv]

Agree 100%. I side with kickserv as I don't think the advantage is huge over a 2 day period. I agree with YYZ it is huge if you had that advantage long term. It'd take a lot of hands for the advantage to really come into play, since the most probable thing that happened is they had 1 defective deck out of 6, he was tilting 7s,8s and 9s, thats 23% of the cards of 1 deck. Out of the 6-deck shoe those cards represent a 3%, so he would be getting one of those and thus the advantage only 3% of the time. let's say the advantage gives you a 65% probability (improving from 50% or whatever) to win that hand and in the long run, his odds improved 1.9%. Over a 2 day period I wouldn't call that "HUGE".

YYZ just can't get his thick skull around the fact that Phil at best had a tiny tiny advantage. He just can't friggen get this.

He just can't:facepalm:

 

[kickserv]

There you go, sport!


Now.....Just wrap your head around the fact that knowing every time an 8/9 is the first card out of the shoe makes a significant difference, and you'll be right where you need to be on this matter.

1st off, even if he knew all the 8's and 9's were he could go 20 fucking hands and not see an 8 or a 9. He could go an entire deck and not see an 8 or a 9 in the 1st card. I have explained this to you over and over and over and over again. And you just can't grasp this fact. You just can't get this fact into your head:facepalm:

And even if he saw an 8 or a 9 as the 1st card, he is far from a lock of winning that hand.

His advantage was so small yet you compare it to knowing you had an Ace in blackjack and all these other stupid comparisons.

I don't know why you think he had this big advantage, he didn't.

There are now numerous posters trying to tell you that he did not have a huge advantage, yet still this doesn't change your thinking. His advantage was so small. So so small.

Oh and nobody knows if he knew what any of the cards were.

 

[kickserv]

Yep! The whole world is wrong, and you are correct on this.

Seems other posters are agreeing with kickserv.

Just sayin'

 

[kickserv]

Agree 100%. I side with kickserv

Chalk up another one that is "against the world".


:yup

 

[kickserv]

Saint.....any thoughts?

Am I still "getting owned"?

Or are you still on the side of the world:shrug:


:lol:

 

[craig31]

I am on your side kick and on the side of never defending scum casion, pay up that's it

 

[kickserv]

I am on your side kick and on the side of never defending scum casion, pay up that's it

Everybody is on the side of Phil, even YYZ thinks Phil should get paid.



And wow....another person in this thread that agrees with kickserv.

Another person "against the world".

YYZ, guess "Canadian Math" isn't so bad after all huh:shrug:

Just need Saint to come on my side and I'll be in the majority in this thread.

Not bad for having "the entire world against me" and not bad for "Canadian math huh":mj07:

It pretty much all comes down to Saint, if I can't get him on my side then YYZ still wins the argument.

I am just glad I have some people on my side. I can stop crying now. So in my eyes I am a winner.

 

[Mr. Poon]

kickserv with 6 posts in the last hour, most just bumping up the thread (surprise, surprise). I knew he had more dedication to getting the last word in on this.

 

[The Boys]

I don't think it's right to take advantage of a casino or sportsbook.

 

[The Joker]

He did nothing wrong and the casino knows it.

Pay him.

Casino fucked up, simple as that.

"Punto banco" is known as "mini baccarat" here in North America. Or simply put it is where the dealer touches the cards at all times. In "baccarat" the customer can touch the cards, in "mini baccarat" the customer can not touch the cards" that is the only difference.

Go to any casino anywhere in the world and play "mini baccarat".....the shoe changes after 70-90 hands. Then those cards from that shoe are never used again after roughly 3 hours or so.

(in baccarat cards are destroyed after one hand, customers can rip cards in half if they like)

For some stupid reason Phil got to use the same cards for days:scared

Oh and for those that know baccarat, if what the casino says is in fact true Phil didn't know for sure he was going to win. Yes if what casino said actually happened he had an advantage but that didn't mean he was 100 percent going to win his hand. Only some of the cards were "defective" and in baccarat there can be 6 cards dealt in one hand.

Oh and I call bullshit on what the casino said. And even if it was true, they made errors that were beyond stupid.

Fire the staff........pay Phil his money.

This is horrible advertising for the casino. Should have just paid him his money and shut up. This will cost em so much money in lost revenue because of their stupidity.

They fucked up, big time. And made it worse by making it public.

Using the same shoe in baccarat for days. Moronic.

Making it public knowledge that they were stupid beyond belief......even dumber.



And oh yeah, ya think the would have given Phil his money back if Phil lost 12 million US dollars?

ummmm no.

I have played thousands of hands of "mini baccarat" in casinos. The shoe gets switched out after all the cards are dealt. Most casinos have "red cards" and then "blue cards". They will deal the "red cards" (roughly 80 hands), then deal the "blue cards" (roughly 80 hands).

Some casinos will even just deal one shoe and take the cards out of play. Some will maybe deal the shoe twice. And at max three times. And then that's it.

How in the love of fuck they used the same shoe FOR DAYS is mind boggling.:scared



And if some of the cards were "defective"....how could nobody at the casino notice this:shrug:

It is their job to check the cards for fucks sake.

WRONG


If you know baccarat he may have known what the next card was or maybe two. But he would not know what the next 4 cards were or the next six.

The only way that would be the case would be if he had the dealer deal 4 cards face down AND THEN he was allowed to bet.

If that happened and the casino actually let him BET AFTER THE CARDS WERE ON THE TABLE, then the entire casino should just open the vault to every customer and have them walk in and take all their money.


Oh and even then Phil would not know if he was going to win or not.



Bottom line, the casino was beyond stupid and they were lucky they only lost 12 million US dollars. Or maybe they did. Perhaps someone else noticed the defective cards and took money off em.

The casino fucked up so massively in every way.


Phil did nothing wrong....pay him.

And I say again.............if the casino actually let him bet AFTER THE CARDS WERE DEALT (face down). Then that casino will go down as being the dumbest casino in the history of the world.

All the executives at that casino should be fired if that actually happened.

For those that don't know what "mini baccarat" is......

*mini baccarat = customers can not touch cards
*baccarat = customers can touch cards

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/19gGDesRaVQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Don't need the internet to know the casino fucked up beyond belief.

Just sayin.

:mj23:

They still have newspapers.

The ones with the naked chicks in em.

Yep.

An advantage yes, but a small one. But yes an advantage.

You only see one card in the shoe, just one.

Unless of course the casino was beyond stupid and let him bet after the cards were dealt. If that was the case then the casino staff should just open the cashier window to every single customer.

Oh and nobody knows for sure if some cards were "defective" anyway, that very well could be the casino making up shit.

Even if true that some cars were "defective" the advantage to a customer in baccarat is minimal. Yes an advantage for sure, but a small one.

I have played a ton of hands in baccarat, if I knew what one card was every hand the advantage would be almost nothing.

The casino is simple making up bullshit trying to cover their ass, and in turn are making things worse.

But as stated if 4 cards were dealt face down and THEN Ivey was allowed to bet......well then that is just moronic and Ivey should be paid double because the casino was so stupid.


Ivey did nothing wrong.....nothing. Pay him

This is not even close to correct. Not even close.


Unless of course the casino let him bet after the cards were dealt (face down).


Even if he knew what the 1st card was on EVERY hand (which he did not) it would not give you a "tremendous advantage". Not even close. Plus if even half of the deck was "defective" that means that most of the time Phil wouldn't even know what the 1st card was most of the time. You need 4 cards minimum to play baccarat, and sometimes six cards. And considering most of the time Phil wouldn't even know the value of the 1st card and considering you need at least 4 cards to play baccarat his advantage is small. Very small.

Fuck even if you knew the 1st card was zero on 10 straight hands your advantage of winning is increased but not by much.

You could have the entire shoe face up and every player at the table would have a slightly better advantage, but not much. Before you bet you would only see the 1st card, that's it.

For you to say he had a "tremendous advantage" is just plain wrong. Not even fucking close.

1st off it is Baccarat, huge money is bet on that game all the time.

2nd off if you play baccarat you will realize that him seeing one card every 5 or 6 hands gives you a small advantage (and 5 or 6 hands is generous). Go deal yourself 10 hands of baccarat and see the 1st card every hand, you will see what I am talking about. You will notice the advantage is small. As said.....you could turn the shoe over and deal the entire deck face up, would not make much of a difference, you would only see the 1st card. Would there be an advantage....yes there would be, but a small one.

Of course he had an advantage (if the casino story is true, which I doubt) but it was a small one.

Let's put it this way........if you had a 52 card shoe and 20 of the cards were "defective" you could go the entire shoe and not see one "defective" card showing as the 1st card.

And I'll say this again.........if the casino was stupid enough to let him bet AFTER THE CARDS WERE DEALT (face down)

Well then fuck yeah he had a massive advantage. He'd win 80 percent of his hands easily if that were the case.

yep.

Guess you have trouble reading. If the shoe was covered he'd only see one card. And if even 20 of the cards per deck were "defective" (I am giving a big number for my example I am sure it was not 20 cards).

You are smarter then that....figure it out. He had a tiny little advantage every 7 or 8 hands if that. It meant almost nothing.

Again......go deal yourself baccarat....show yourself the 1st card every 6th hand or so....you'll pick up on the fact that the advantage is almost nothing.

Come on YYZ, get with it:facepalm:


Now if they dealt the cards face down and then he bet.

Well then of course he had a massive massive massive huge huge advantage.

Bottom line.......he did nothing wrong.

How in the love of fuck a casino could go days and not change the cards is just so stupid.

And if they actually let him bet with the cards face down............well they are lucky they didn't lose 30 million US dollars.

Your example above is showing that he was allowed to bet AFTER THE CARDS CAME OUT

I already said, if that was true then he had a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE advantage. You'd win like 80 percent of your bets if that were the case. That would be a huge advantage:scared :scared

If the casino was that fucking stupid then they deserve what they got. I find it hard to believe any casino in the world would let you bet on Baccarat AFTER THE CARDS LEFT THE SHOE.

They could not be that fucking stupid...could they:shrug:


Every single customer at that casino should just be paid for walking in the door. When a casino is that dumb they deserve to lose millions of dollars.

Tranny advantage:shrug:

I'll go with a no.

I'd like to know where you are playing Baccarat....because your info above ain't right:facepalm:

I'd like I said.....you are wrong:mj07:

Are you fucking high?

You can't be this dense.

You can't see two whole cards in the shoe.

Are you this dense?

Come on dude.

You don't seem to understand.

WTF is wrong with you?


I have said it 100 times on here and you just don't seem to be able to read.


WTF?

I said over and over again about the value of seeing one card.......and now you say "look at this video and see the card".....I said over and over about seeing one card. Of course you can see the 1st card.


What the fuck is wrong with you?


Why are you telling me to watch a video about seeing one card?


Sheesh:facepalm:

You are smarting then this.....you just don't seem to get it:facepalm:

Amazing someone as smart as you can be so fucking dense.

We all have bad days......

oh well moving on.........all good yyz all good.

And we don't know why he won 12 million. The fact that the casino said "the dealer moved the cards at a certain angle" shows that they might have let him bet after the cards were dealt (face down). Tilting the cards does fuck all after the bet is placed.



Oh and pay the man his money he did nothing wrong.

Turning the cards means nothing unless the they were dumb enough to let him bet after the cards were out of the shoe.

And has stated over and over again, if they actually let him bet after the cards were out of the shoe then they are the dumbest casino on the planet and deserve to lose all the money they did.

I can't believe they were that fucking stupid. But maybe they were.:shrug:

Lucky they didn't lose 24 million US dollars if they were that stupid.


Now matter what happened.....Phil did nothing wrong and should be paid.


Oh and not changing the shoe:facepalm:

Wow...........it sounds like they were that stupid:scared

Unreal.

I give up trying to explain this to you.

Can we just move on.

Of course there is an advantage to seeing the 1st card in Baccarat....but seeing the 1st card once every 5 or 6 hands is a minimal advantage. I don't know why you seem to not get that?

It is a small advantage. It isn't like Phil knew what every card was.

Why is this so hard to figure out?

Go deal yourself 20 hands of baccarat...see the 1st card every 5th hand. The advantage is there but small. If the card is 2, 3, 4, for example the advantage is even smaller.

This is basic math.

I don't understand why you think he had this big advantage...he didn't.

And as stated...there could be 20 "defective" cards for every 52. He could go 10 hands and not see the "defective card" not one time as the 1st card. Plus the first card could be a 3 or a 4.

It is not a big advantage, you seem to think it is....it isn't.

I don't understand why you don't get this?

Bottom line it sounds like the casino was a bunch of idiots. Did so much stupid shit (that we know of). Amazing how stupid some of their practices were.

Wow:facepalm:

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You really don't.


You comparing an Ace in blackjack proves my point that you are clueless as to how to play baccarat.

Knowing you have an ACE in blackjack is totally different then knowing what the 1st card is in Baccarat.

Learn math and get back to me. Because I have tried explaining this to you and you are totally clueless.

You do not get it.

You simply have no clue what the fuck you are talking about.

None.

You just keep thinking that.


One day you will realize that it is not this huge advantage that you think it is.

It isn't.

It is called math.

That wouldn't happen that often, if you saw the 1st card every 5 or 6 hands how many times would it be an 8 or a 9? Not much. Obviously if it was an 8 or a 9 you'd bet on the side that card ended up on. Obviously if you knew the 1st card was an 8 or 9 your advantage would go up. But one shoe has about 80 hands if even 20 out of 52 cards were "defective" that means you'd see the 1st card maybe 5 or 6 times a cycle. How many of those cards would be an 8 or a 9 not a ton. And how many of those would win? Even if 1st card is an 8 or a 9 your odds of winning are not a lock, not even close.

But no question about it, if you saw the 1st card was a 9......you'd have an advantage that is for sure.

This casino did so many dumb shit we don't know how Phil won.

If he had a small advantage because some cards were "defective" it wasn't his fault.

Pay him.

YYZ thinks it is this huge advantage if you see the 1st card every 5 minutes or so, it isn't. It is an advantage, but not some massive advantage, not even close.


This casino was so dumb maybe they dealt the cards face up and told him to bet after the cards were dealt?

:mj07:

If you want a 5 percent edge on that coin flip every sixth flip then I guess you have a huge advantage huh:facepalm:

He doesn't get it.....don't bother explaining it to him. I have tried.

Yes a huge advantage :facepalm:

Difference is Phil didn't have a 55 percent advantage, like a coin flip by seeing one card every 6th hand. Not even close.

Of course yyz isn't huge on math, so we won't go there:facepalm:

Where in the love of fuck did ya get his stat?


Like hell he did, you know something I don't?

Where do you come up with that number?


Unreal:facepalm:

You do realize I was mocking YYZ Saint....if Phil had a 5 percent advantage every 6th hand of course that would be huge.

He didn't.

Not even fucking close.

Come on Saint........wake up dude.


YYZ try to use a "coin flip example of 5 percent" and "if you knew you had an ace in blackjack" as stats.

Not even close to an accurate analogy:facepalm:

You suck at math and don't know baccarat at all....yet think you do.

Now you are just throwing numbers out that are complete shit.

Saint is buying it though:facepalm:

dunclock knows what he's talking about, listen to him.

Most likely he had a small one....but nowhere close to the stats YYZ is throwing out and nowhere close to a huge advantage.

YYZ...you are an idiot...sorry.


Keep believing your bullshit math.


Keep thinking he had a huge advantage...he did not. You are a fucking idiot.

Amazing how dense you are.

Under your fucked up math and lack of knowledge each goal in hockey is worth 9 goals:mj07:


Math ain't for you YYZ:lol:

And stay away from baccarat, you don't know how the game works.

Even the best can make mistakes.

He doesn't know Baccarat.

But maybe he knows other stuff in the gambling world.

I also agree 100 percent.

That is why I am stunned at what he said.

YYZ is a smart dude.

Would be better odds if he did.

Yep.


Phil maybe had a tiny advantage every 6th hand or so (if he actually knew the cards, which nobody knows for sure). If he knew what every card was his advantage would increase but nobody knows exactly how many cards he knew if any. But it does help if you are betting huge and can make more money off a tiny advantage.

For the record.......odds of winning:

8 deck shoe

Banker = 45.85 percent (bet 100 win 95)

Player = 44.62 percent (bet 100 win 100)


Not exactly coin flip odds, but one of the best odds of any game you will find in the casino.

YYZ before we start attacking one another and calling one another "fuckface".

Let's play baccarat together and call it a day:142smilie



Oh and by the way pretty sure you knew this.....but YYZ is airport code for Toronto airport.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. Although I am sure you knew that. Was always curious if your username had something to do with the Toronto airport?

Maybe he saw them at Toronto airport:shrug:

This is the point of the thread. I have yet to see one person think Phil should not be paid.


Pay him his money.

That is rather funny.

Obviously he is a tad bias. I don't know how anyone could say Phil should not get his money.

Pay him.

Such a stupid decision by the casino, the amount of revenue they lost from all this bad press is costing them big time. The worst thing a casino can do is not pay its customers.

I am not saying they will be declaring bankrupcy anytime soon. Just making the point that no business wants bad PR.

Once a business receives bad PR, it can take years and years to get it back, if ever.

Not one business owner on the planet want's bad PR. You can't get much worse then being a casino and not paying out customers that win.

I am guessing after their major gaff, things have changed. Also guessing some staff got fired for all their moronic mistakes.

Yep, if anybody knew the 1st player card (almost all casinos that deal baccarat, the 1st card goes to the player) then obviously there is an advantage. And the more one knows what the 1st card is then the advantage increases. And if you knew the 1st card was 8 or 9 then the advantage would increase that much more.

Nobody would argue that, the difference is we disagree what the advantage is.

In this case we don't know if Phil knew what every card was, we don't know if he knew what half the cards were, we don't even know if he knew what any card was.

Even if he just knew what the nines were (best case scenario) you could easily go 15 hands and not see the nine as the 1st card in the shoe. You could even go 20 or 25 hands and not see any 9. Or of course you could go three straight hands and see the nine every time. If you only see one card every hand odds are low you will see the nine many times. In a 8 deck shoe there are not lots of 9's in that shoe. And with the cut, you can have 2 9's that are in the cut and would never have been dealt. Usually the cut in baccarat is one deck. Depends of course on where the customer cuts the deck.

And even if you see the 9, your odds of winning are far from a lock. Far far from it. But of course you would bet on the Player if you knew the 1st card was a nine.

Oh and pay Phil he did nothing wrong.

No I wouldn't. Big advantage playing single zero roulette vs double zero roulette.

The percentage difference of winning between single zero roulette vs double zero roulette are significant. Adding one spot to the wheel makes a significant difference.

YYZ just can't get his thick skull around the fact that Phil at best had a tiny tiny advantage. He just can't friggen get this.

He just can't:facepalm:

1st off, even if he knew all the 8's and 9's were he could go 20 fucking hands and not see an 8 or a 9. He could go an entire deck and not see an 8 or a 9 in the 1st card. I have explained this to you over and over and over and over again. And you just can't grasp this fact. You just can't get this fact into your head:facepalm:

And even if he saw an 8 or a 9 as the 1st card, he is far from a lock of winning that hand.

His advantage was so small yet you compare it to knowing you had an Ace in blackjack and all these other stupid comparisons.

I don't know why you think he had this big advantage, he didn't.

There are now numerous posters trying to tell you that he did not have a huge advantage, yet still this doesn't change your thinking. His advantage was so small. So so small.

Oh and nobody knows if he knew what any of the cards were.

Seems other posters are agreeing with kickserv.

Just sayin'

Chalk up another one that is "against the world".


:yup

Saint.....any thoughts?

Am I still "getting owned"?

Or are you still on the side of the world:shrug:


:lol:

Everybody is on the side of Phil, even YYZ thinks Phil should get paid.



And wow....another person in this thread that agrees with kickserv.

Another person "against the world".

YYZ, guess "Canadian Math" isn't so bad after all huh:shrug:

Just need Saint to come on my side and I'll be in the majority in this thread.

Not bad for having "the entire world against me" and not bad for "Canadian math huh":mj07:

It pretty much all comes down to Saint, if I can't get him on my side then YYZ still wins the argument.

I am just glad I have some people on my side. I can stop crying now. So in my eyes I am a winner.

 

[yyz]

So, kick?

Your saving grace on this matter is a guy who thinks ONE deck was flawed? :142smilie

And you always keep coming back to how the "flawed cards" won't come up that often. (kinda like that extra zero won't in roulette, but somehow you understand THAT game has a huge edge?)

Do you think Ivey made the same size wager on every hand, or is it just possible, when he thought he had the edge, he made his highest wagers? You know, like a card counter might in blackjack? Naturally he isn't going to win all of these wagers, but just like knowing an Ace is your fisrt card in blackjack, and making a larger wager based on that, I'm pretty certain Ivey was jacking his bets based on the 8/9 being his lead card, and winning a greater amount of these than he lost.

Also, given the fact that these wagers would be on the Player, they would be commission free. (Another huge edge in the game for him) Meanwhile, he could play Banker for modest sums all of the other hands, and have a decent shot at winning more of those than he lost.

This really isn't that hard to see.


Oh, and if we use your new best friend's math (which is still coming up short), he claims Ivey's odds would have "only" improved 1.9%

Well, buttercup.......that's enough to turn the game from a negitive return game to a positive return game.

You know what that is?


HUGE!

 

[JOSHNAUDI]

that's enough to turn the game from a negitive return game to a positive return game.

You know what that is?

 

[dunclock]

I still dont know how to multi quote :facepalm:

 

[kickserv]

YYZ........many on here agree with me.


Makes me feel good.


I guess having "the whole world" against me was too much for me to take. As long as the entire world isn't against me I can carry on with my life. Some of the worlds population knows that I am right and you are wrong, and as stated that will allow me the self confidence to go on and live my life with bliss.


Yippie:00hour

 

[kickserv]

I still dont know how to multi quote :facepalm:

You will have a HUGE advantage at madjacks if you learn how to do this.

HUGE.

:lol:

 

[Sportsaholic]

So, what have I missed........:shrug: