Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think some people may have misunderstood - in the real case that I described above, the cheater was a better player than the accomplice, and that is why he said “I hate winning money off you”. He did not say to him “I am going to throw contracts and deliberately lose”. That was a concealed. What he meant was: “you have helped me out in the past, and I want to not be in a position that when you happen to cut me at the table, that you lose money to me … so let's make it that we have no action”. This was a deal he had regardless of the stake. So when the stake was even all round, the cheater played to his best ability.

In one of the cases (not the one I am described above) the cheater got caught out because he left his hand written summary of the day's action, and the club manager saw it - initially could not work out what was going on. Then, suspecting foul play, asked the unwitting accomplice. They worked it out, and the manager banned the cheater from the club.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Benoit - I could have explained that better. I know from general knowledge, and from confirming with high stake and frequent players (and my own experience) that there is always a dealer AND and inspector. In addition to that, there is video (with audio) and frequent visits by other staff, including pit boss. In one portion of the morning evidence a the appeal, they make reference to video evidence from the original trial where a conversation takes place between TWO (possibly more) staff, and they are discussing Ivey's actions.
In any case, I don't think either side in the original trial made the point you are perhaps trying to make (but I am not sure). I suspect the casino is rather embarrassed that they did not stick to at least 3 (4?) of their internal regulations ….(not changing decks at policy frequency, not cutting off 1 deck , only using the machine to shuffle, using same cards next day (I think).

shmoosh described here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/best-way-to-shuffle-cards-math_n_6948720.html

I rang a bridge player who plays very high stakes at casinos to ask. He said that Ivey's presence would have been a big deal, and they would be keeping a very close eye on him, and watching his progress.

Now, I don't know this, but if they had a change of shift, or different managers taking it in turns, and not sharing information/thoughts/concerns, then I can see how this farce can take place. Remember initially he lost (whilst he was playing the 79 deals to arrange the deck … and this probably took maybe 1 to 2 hours), so maybe they were watching closely, but simply thinking “whatever they are doing, it isn't working for them”.
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I found slightly surprising is that the casino allowed the request to play all but 7 cards, rather then cutting off about one deck.
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Benoit - I am sorry but I am finding it difficult following your view point (I mean, I am not sure I understand your English).

There were at least 2 casino people there all the time.

In the Supreme Court there were no witnesses, just barristers (Ivey was not there either, well I did not see him).

In the first trial I think the croupier did not give evidence because there was no point. Neither side thought she did anything other than her job, which was to pander to the requests of the punters. In the first trial there were some witnesses who were casino staff.

It seems that she just did what she was asked. Several staff watched. He was betting very large amounts of money - there were casino staff looking and checking.

About 20 years ago a Polish friend of mine told me about the faults in cards, and he said that many people in Poland know about this … it is part of a well known card trick.

I spoke to several casino players, and they all told me that edge sorting is widely known ….
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those who are interested in the bridge discussion need to see Morning Session at 1:39:20 and certainly continue on to 1:47 - now that I have watched this again, I think the arguments made by the barrister (in connection to the mirror, the bidding, Reese-Schapiro) are not very well prepared.
July 18
Shireen Mohandes edited this comment July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you watch the video of the supreme court hearing (now on the website) you will hear the barrister make it clear that between 2 and 3 (possibly more) people were around when the various requests were made by Ivey. Also, the language was Cantonese (minor point). Part of the conversation was in English …. watch session 1, from around 1:20 onwards
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, when one person told me that he was the unwitting accomplice, he explained how he was roped in. He was young, and he had helped out the cheater in the past. The cheater spun a story about “look, you have been really good to me, and I hate winning money off you in games at rubber bridge … the least i can do is not win when I play you.”

At least 7 people who you know have agreed to equalise winnings. Of that 7, one pair were not scamming. One pair might have been, and the others definitely. The reason that the total is an odd number is because there is an individual who is known to repeatedly off to do this.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob is a much better player than the the other three. He plays every day, several hours a day.
Why should he care that his scam partner is a palooka? if there are 3 of them at the table, this is ideal.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob plays for $3, Jane for $5. Jane and Steve normally play $5 game. Both of them are willing to drop to $3 whenever it is their turn to partner Bob.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh - understand now. Thanks :)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jon: please can you describe his method for the previous occasion? thanks.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have not read everything, but from what I understand at least 2 members of staff knew what was being asked of the dealer.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in the first case, a gaming expert polled 7 casinos. I quote:

David Mills, a levelheaded and experienced English expert in casino gambling considers that it does. Towards the end of 2013 he conducted a survey amongst seven of the eight biggest casino operators in the UK. He found that four out of the seven considered that it was cheating and two out of seven considered it was not a legitimate practice. The remaining one considered that it was not cheating, nor illegitimate. Dr. Jacobson, to whom I have already referred, who has extensive experience in the USA of casino gambling both as a consultant to casinos and, between 1997 and 2005, as an advantage player himself, considers that it is not cheating. His informal survey, as he put it, of “hundreds of people” has provided the answer that the general but not universal view is that it is not cheating. I have not found these expressions of opinion to be helpful. Mr. Mills did not canvass gamblers and, as far as I can tell, Dr. Jacobson's survey was unsystematic. Neither establishes a generally accepted view.

source: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/3394.html
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in the first case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/3394.html
see para 37. An expert polled 7 casinos about the practice.

In para 41. “His purpose, which succeeded, was no more and no less than to try to ensure that the casino staff, and in particular Ms Yau and her immediate supervisor, Mr. Hillier, did not depart from the usual practice of humouring high stakes gamblers by acceding to a request which did in their view not affect the outcome of the game. ”
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Benoit: I listened to the interview with Ms Sun. Her English is pretty bad within context. The pod cast interview was fascinating, and well worth listening to.

Also, from my recollection at the trial yesterday more than one staff knew what watching the table, and at some stage there was video footage referred to, where the staff discuss what they perceive to be superstitious requests. That part of the conversation in the court was about the condensed video footage, so they were not debating any lack of knowledge….if you see what I mean … they were debating casino staff talking about all this.

I have only been to a casino less than 20 times, but each time I have been there has been more than one staff present at the table.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steven, astonishingly Kelly can see errors that are 1/32 of an inch, and some smaller, apparently. (1/32 inch = is 0.8mm.)
And I guess she needs to see them from maybe 2 feet away, in maybe a room with lighting that's not “surgical”.
So since the cards were printed to the acceptable error tolerance, then she found something that's in a deck accepted by the casino as “OK”.
see here http://www.flushdraw.net/news/borgata-v-phil-ivey-queen-of-sorts-eyesight-not-illegal/
For a sample card.
In Montecatini the flaw on the face of the cards was pretty obvious. Anyone who wanted to exploit it could have done so easily.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One very amusing thing did happen. A couple, clearly tourists, wearing shorts, turned up just as Ivey's barrister was ending his part, and they misunderstood the seating for kibitzers. They accidentally went right to the front, and sat next to the lead barrister (who was standing and delivering his arguments).

The entire court started smiling and laughing, as the usher (in a John Cleese-esque/Fawlty Towers state of alarm) ran over, and ushered them to the spectator gallery. The judges laughed, and the barrister said something like: “well I do seem to have a popular following”.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was only able to listen to the 2 hours of Ivey's barrister and 30 mins of Crockfords. At times it was hard to follow because the audio/speakers were not great, and the barristers were quickly reading out from other cases, citations, and similar. Things that I found interesting: (keep in mind the above)
a. from what I heard, Ivey used phrases like “I like that lucky deck”.
b. The instructions to rotate were given by Ms Sun in Cantonese to the dealer (who also spoke Cantonese). The dealer wasn't sure what she was being asked to do, needed clarification, which was provided. She wasn't a witness in the original case. Nobody thought that she did anything other than what was being asked of her (which was, to pander to punters).
c. There was plenty of video footage, but when condensed, without the hours of non-events in between, made it look like “lots of things all took place at once”. The barrister made the point that it was misrepresentative to look at the condensed version alone.
d. There was video and audio footage of the casino staff commenting on superstition, and speculating
e. There were (I think) three levels of casino staff around at the time, at least. Meaning, dealer, her boss/supervisor, and a manager.
f. On one of the days there was a shortage of new decks, and one other player was playing a game (Blackjack, I think) at a nearby table, and wanting new decks all the time. When Ivey said he wanted to use the same deck, this didn't seem as bad news to them, because of the shortage of new decks at that time.
g. Understandably, there was much discussion as to the meaning of “cheat” and honesty, technical, and in ref to criminal and civil law. It would not be good for me to summarise it, but from what I understood, agreement among the people the previous hearings, and today, was not consistent.
h. IMHO the Bridge bits were not handled well.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am in court, and right now bridge has come up. The question was: at bridge if I Move my chair so I can see other person hand, is that cheating. Reese and Schapiro just cited. And also mention of tactical bidding V shy bidders. Not sure if some of the bridge stuff is relevant in the way they are discussing it.
July 13
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top