Gambler’s card trick to score £7m casino win was the definition of cheating
IT IS a case that has been dubbed the Battle of the Dictionaries. A long legal wrangle between a casino and a punter over the definition of “to cheat” ended in the Supreme Court yesterday in a victory – and £7.7million – for the gambling firm.
Each side used a different edition of the Oxford Dictionary to argue their case. The gambler, Phil Ivey, argued that his definition meant his win was legitimate while Genting Casinos claimed he had unfairly conned them out of the money.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Mr Ivey, known as the “Tiger Woods of poker”, is not entitled to the money, won over two days in August 2012, because his ingenious method should be defined as cheating.
Mr Ivey used a practice called “edgesorting” to win a series of games of punto banco, a form of baccarat, at luxury Mayfair casino Crockford’s. He argued that the method was legitimate. However five senior judges ruled that by any definition the Court of Appeal’s earlier conclusion that he was cheating was “unassailable”.
Ivey and his playing companion Cheung Yin Sun, known as “Kelly”, requested that the same “shoe” of Angel Co Ltd cards be kept in use after noticing the design on the back was slightly asymmetrical.
They then attempted to sort the strongest cards – the seven, eight and nine – by asking the dealer to turn them around 180 degrees. The strongest cards could then be identified the next time they came into play.
Crockford’s claimed that Ivey and Sun covered up their strategy by disguising their requests as superstition, referring to their “lucky deck” and “lucky Crockford’s hat”.
An expert concluded the technique turned a one per cent advantage in favour of the casino into a 6.5 per cent advantage in favour of the player.
Mr Ivey relied on the Oxford Dictionary (1989) definition of cheat: “To deal fraudulently, practice deceit”. Crockford’s used the more recent Concise Oxford Dictionary definition: “To act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage”.
Lord Hughes said Mr Ivey “took positive steps to fix the deck” which was “inevitably cheating”: “What Mr Ivey did was to stage a carefully planned and executed sting.”
The judges also said the legal test used to determine whether someone can be convicted of a dishonesty offence such as fraud should be changed.
Currently the law requires that a defendant has to recognise other people would see his actions as dishonest.