Published on
Update on

This week Phil Ivey’s battle against Crockfords Casino is set to resume. A UK judge granted the poker pro an appeal and affirmed this case could set an important legal precedent.

Back in 2012, Ivey won £7.8 million ($11.2 million) inside London’s Crockfords Casino, but lost his claim to the amount. Despite that, the player always argued he didn’t do anything wrong.

The Law

After London’s most exclusive casino refused to pay out Ivey’s winnings the dispute started. The decks used in the game and Ivey’s playing partners were part of the issue.

The cards used by Crockfords had a manufacturing error and that gave Ivey’s playing partner insight into the cards on the table. In that way his partner could guide him in his betting.

Ivey has never denied this technique, named edge sorting, but the player argues that this technique is not cheating.

However according to a judge ruling back in 2014, even though the action is not necessarily cheating, the casino can choose to not hand over the winnings. After the ruling, Ivey’s lawyers requested permission for an official appeal. Earlier this week the Court of Appeal Judge Lord Justice Lewison finally granted permission for an official appeal.

Borgata Case

On April 13 at 10 am, the hearing will take place and might unlock a $11,2 million prize earned by Ivey in 2012.

Ivey has also a similar ongoing battle against Atlantic City’s Borgata Casino and a successful appeal in London could influence this battle.

Atlantic City’s Borgata Casino sued Ivey for $9.6 million after finding out the player had used edge sorting techniques to win at their tables.

In 2015 Ivey counter sued and since then Borgata Casino and Ivey have been engaged in a complex legal battle. However if Ivey’s legal team manages to overturn the Crockfords ruling, Borgata casino could lose the battle.

Regarding the latest news Ivey appears to be very calm:

“As  I said at the time of the London verdict in October 2014, it is not in my nature to cheat which is why I was so bitterly disappointed by the judge’s decision, even though he said that I was a truthful witness and that he was sure I didn’t believe that what I was doing was cheating” Ivey said.