Phil Ivey wins an appeal on the edge sorting case by the United Kingdom Supreme Court. In November, the court ruled against him in the case where he was unable to collect nearly 8 million GBP in casino winnings from the Crockford casino. He maintains his innocence and stated he was merely using “edge sorting”. Edge Sorting is a form of sorting the cards giving the player and edge based on the design on the back of the cards giving a small player advantage. The appeal will give him more time to present his case.
Many people have speculated the reason the court gave the first decision to the Crockford and other casinos that since joined in not paying Ivey or requesting their money back is the close relation between the tax roll the casinos provide to the local governments and the casinos. If the casino loses money, it closes and there goes many local jobs. A loss that big could cripple even the largest of casinos. It would almost be impossible to break that bond. Ivey used what is called edge sorting.
Edge sorting requires paying attention to the cards and noticing the design. These are only on certain makers of cards. To play using edge sorting, you have to notice the patterns on the cards and have high and low cards seperated. There are edge irregularities in many decks of cards. When the edge sorting player sees this they ask the croupier to turn the card around so the long edges are different. Usually this is done with 6, 7, 8, and 9. This process works best in high low games. As the game continues, the edge sorting players can decide to bet based on the knowledge of a high or low card. Call the makers of the cards in this case. Many casinos have since chosen card makers whose design makes it impossible to detect.
“Last November’s Court of Appeal ruling made no sense to me. The original trial judge ruled that I was not dishonest and none of the three Appeal Court judges disagreed, and yet the decision went against me by a majority of 2 to 1,” said Ivey, in a statement released by his legal team.
He went on to say, “I am so pleased that the Supreme Court has granted me permission to fight for what I genuinely believe is the right thing to do in my circumstances, and for the entire gaming industry. I look forward to the Supreme Court reversing the decision against me.”
Ivey has two at the same time. One is at the Mayfair Casino in London and the other at the Borgata in Atlantic City. Both cases involve millions of dollars. The amazing thing is these casinos invited him to play in the first place. This is not only a Phil Ivey case. There was a winner in New York who won a jackpot at slots only to be told it was a machine malfunction. Similarly, the jackpot winner will have to pursue the case in court, but they probably don’t have the deep pockets of Phil Ivey. And this has probably happened and the public doesn’t always find out.
The Borgata case is also not over. The court ruled Ivey had to pay back the $10.1 million he won playing Baccarat from the Borgata in 2012. That ruling has also moved on to appeal. It will be important to take notice of the results. If a casino can get away with not paying winners does it make sense for the general public give them hard earned money?