Phil Ivey Fights Back: Motion Filed to Dismiss Borgata’s Lawsuit5 years ago
Great majority of poker fans are aware of the fact that Phil Ivey is currently involved with two lawsuits. The first suit is Ivey’s against Britan’s Genting Group, where Crockfords Casino refuses to pay Ivey his $12 million in winnings, claiming these winnings came from exploiting a defect on playing cards, giving him an unfair edge in the game of Punto Banco.
The other lawsuit came earlier this year, but this time it was Ivey on the other side, as he was being sued by Borgata for an incident that took place in 2012. According to Borgata’s statement, Ivey used a technique known as edge sorting to gain an unfair advantage. Casino claims that Phil Ivey and his accomplice Cheng Yin Sun used a defect on the back of the cards to be able to discern the favorable from unfavorable cards, leading to the win of $9.6 million.
While there are no known developments in the Genting case at this point in time, there has been a movement in the Borgata case, as Ivey’s legal time filed a request for the lawsuit to be dropped earlier this week, on Wednesday.
They are basing their request on several facts, one of them being that their defendant has done nothing wrong and all the winnings came from the pure skill. Apart from this, they are also claiming that the statute of limitations has expired for the alleged offense, and Borgata failed to submit their motion in timely manner. Finally, there is a claim that the violation of state gaming laws must be persuaded by state regulators and not an individual casino.
While the latter two statements fall strictly under the category of legal expertise, there is not much point in discussing them here, as I lack necessary legal knowledge. The first one, however, is very interesting.
Ivey’s lawyers are in all likelihood top-notch defenders, so they have reasons to bring the skill into the play, but from a layman’s point of view, this has never been an issue. Certain level of skill was clearly required to be able to use the infamous cards’ defect, but I don’t see it working to his advantage that much.
Without taking any stance on the matter, it is rather clear that any type of cheating requires certain level of skill and dexterity. The argument of skill could also be used by anyone adding chips to a certain roulette number after the ball has already stopped or increasing your bet after you have been dealt a Black Jack. It takes skill to do these things unnoticed as well, but it would hardly be a consideration in legal proceedings.
What will happen with the motion to dismiss is anybody’s guess, but Ivey has clearly shown that he will not go down without putting hell of a fight. Considering the amount of money on the line, it is hardly a surprise, as more than $20 million combined is probably not chump-change even for someone like Phil Ivey.
Did you like this article?Tweet +0