Back in 2014, American poker champion Phil Ivey lost a High Court case against the owners of London’s Crockfords Club. The casino claimed that Ivey, heralded by some as the best poker player in the world, had cheated them out of £7.7m playing Punto Banco in August 2012. Ivey appealed the case, yet this week it has been announced that his case has been dismissed, leaving people questioning how clear UK gambling laws are.
The Original Case
In August 2012, Ivey was reported to have won £7.7 million playing Punto Banco at Genting Casino’s Crockfords Club, in London. He was later refused payment beyond his £1 million stake, however, as the casino claimed he had used ‘edge sorting’ to win.
Edge sorting is a technique where a player determines whether a face-down card is likely to be low or high by observing and exploiting subtle unintentional differences on the backs of some types of playing cards. The two long edges of cards are sometimes distinguishable, as the pattern is not symmetrical. The player using the technique will ask the dealer to rotate some face-up cards, claiming it brings them luck. Over the course of the game, therefore, the player is able to identify which cards are low and which are high.
In Ivey’s case, Crockfords Club claimed that edge sorting was an illegitimate strategy and, consequently, they had no legal responsibility to reward him his winnings. In the 2014 court case, the judge ruled that The method had given Ivey an ‘advantage which the game precludes’ and that, in his view, was cheating.
The Appeal
Phillip Ivey appealed the court’s decision, asking them to consider the definition of cheating. He questioned the court’s findings, as it was decided that although Mr Ivey was honest, even though ultimately, he cheated.
The appeal was dismissed this week, with Lady Justice Arden stating that there was an implied term in the contract not to cheat, and the meaning of cheating, was to be determined in accordance with the 2005 Gambling Act. She ruled that although Ivey may have not had any intentions to deceive the casino, the fact that his technique interfered with the process of the game was enough to call it cheating.
Ivey, however, maintains that he did nothing more than use Crockfords’ failure to protect themselves to his advantage. He claims that they should have safeguarded themselves against a player of his ability and that he played an honest game and won fairly. In his statement, he praised Lady Justice Sharp, another judge on the appeal panel who agreed with Ivey that the ruling was wrong.
Lady Justice Sharp stated that she believes that ‘dishonesty is an essential ingredient of the criminal offence of cheating‘ and that the law, in this case, is very much open to interpretation.
Ambiguous Laws
Although the final decision remains that Ivey will not be entitled to his winnings, the case has highlighted inconsistency and ambiguity in UK gambling law.
Ivey’s lawyer, Matthew Dowd, argued that the court’s decision for the appeal leaves the law unclear as to what constitutes cheating in gambling. He argued that over the course of Ivey’s case, four judges have looked at the issue and have not been able to agree on the same interpretation of the Gambling Act. Cheating comes under section 42 of the 2005 Act, and is defined as follows:
‘Cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with –
(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.’
As is shown in Ivey’s case, the contention is between the wording surrounding ‘deception’ and ‘interference’. His lawyer, Dowd, stated that ‘it is essential that the law is clarified’ and it’s likely that this trial will be the catalyst to readdress this section of the Gambling Act.
The Gambling Act covers all gambling activity in the UK, be it in a bricks and mortar casino or online. Any changes to the act will be scrutinized thoroughly before going ahead, and we’ll be watching closely to make sure we keep our readers up to date with any subsequent amendments.
