E dge-sorting sees players exploit design irregularities on the backs of playing cards, for example, identifying that the edge of one side is marginally longer than the edge of the other, in order to try and better their odds. Uk casino.
The 39-year-old, from Las Vegas, had been playing a version of baccarat known as Punto Banco and was told originally that his winnings would be wired to him. He later found that his £1 million stake had been returned, but the extra never arrived.
In what some reports have described as the biggest legal battle in casino history, Mr Levy challenged Genting Casinos UK, which owns the club, at the High Court in 2014, but a judge dismissed his case.
Genting, which owns more than 40 casinos in the UK, claimed the technique of "edge-sorting" was not a legitimate strategy and said the casino had no liability to him. It also claimed that Mr Ivey's conduct defeated the essential premise of the game and constituted cheating.
Y esterday, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision with one of the appeal judges arguing that a player can cheat “without dishonesty or intention to deceive”.
Lady Justice Arden said it was common ground that there was an implied term in the contract not to cheat and said the meaning of cheating for that purpose was to be determined in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005.
Casino no deposit bonus uk
"In my judgment, this section provides that a party may cheat within the meaning of this section without dishonesty or intention to deceive: depending on the circumstances it may be enough that he simply interferes with the process of the game,” she said.
"On that basis, the fact that the appellant did not regard himself as cheating is not determinative."
She added that she believed the actions of Mr Ivey and another gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, interfered with the process of the game.
"It is for the court to determine whether the interference was of such a quality as to constitute cheating. In my judgment it had that quality,” she said.
M r Ivey has maintained that he did nothing more than exploit Crockfords' failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of his ability.
"I was upset as I had played an honest game and won fairly. My integrity is infinitely more important to me than a big win,” he said.
Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Tomlinson dismissed the appeal but the third member of the panel, Lady Justice Sharp, allowed it, saying that the trial judge, Mr Justice Mitting, was wrong to construe the issue of "cheat" in the way that he did.
A fter the ruling, Paul Willcock, Genting UK president and chief operating officer, said the company was “very happy” with the decision.
"Crockfords has acted fairly and honestly at all times and we are therefore pleased that the Court of Appeal has held that the decision not to pay out to Mr Ivey was the correct one,” he said.
But Mr Ivey said the decision “makes no sense to me”. “The trial judge said that I was not dishonest and the three appeal judges agreed, but somehow the decision has gone against me. Can someone tell me how you can have honest cheating?” he asked.
Uk casino games
Mr Ivey's lawyer, Matthew Dowd, of Archerfield Partners LLP, said the decision “leaves the law totally unclear as to what constitutes cheating at gambling”. He said his client is seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.