Poker Coverage: Poker Tournaments U.S. Poker Markets Sports Betting Poker Strategy

Poker Pro Phil Ivey Appeals 'Cheating' Ruling

Ivey's Legal Team To Fight Back To Obtain Money From Crockfords


Poker legend Phil Ivey will be appealing a court decision last month that went against him in his quest to be paid more than $12.4 million that he thinks a casino in London owes him.

The casino refused to pay because it said Ivey cheated by “edge-sorting” against it. A judge agreed with the casino, basically saying that Ivey was not entitled to have an edge on the house.

Ivey won the massive sum in a 2012 gambling session at Genting Crockfords London. The owner of the casino is one of the richest and most powerful casino firms in the world.

Card Player was given the following Wednesday from Ivey’s U.K. legal team:

Following the High Court decision of Mr Justice Mitting last month (8 October) in Phil Ivey’s claim against London casino, Crockfords, for non-payment of his £7.8m winnings in August 2012, Mr Ivey has (through his solicitors, Archerfield Partners LLP) launched an appeal against the ruling, it is announced today (3 November). Commenting on the decision, Phil Ivey’s lawyer, Matthew Dowd of Archerfield Partners LLP said: "I can confirm that Phil Ivey filed papers at the Court of Appeal last week. Phil is seeking to appeal the decision on the basis that the Judge was incorrect in both fact and law to conclude that “edge-sorting” was cheating, particularly in circumstances where the Judge made it very clear in his judgment that he considered Phil to be a truthful witness and that he accepted that Phil genuinely believes that his actions during the game at Crockfords did not constitute cheating."

Below is a look at the ruling. (The document was filed in Ivey’s case against the Borgata in Atlantic City, which is suing Ivey for $9.6 million because he allegedly used the same method against the New Jersey casino in 2012.) That case will unfold in 2015.

Ivey vs. Genting

Tags: Phil Ivey,   Crockfords


over 6 years ago

My reading of the judgment indicates that in the judge's view Ivey was in fact cheating by getting the dealer to turn the cards so he could ascertain what they were. He did not say "that Ivey was not entitled to have an edge on the house".