This is the face of the man who tried to take 7.7 million pounds from a casino in England by beating them at their own game. Professional poker player, Charity fundraiser, and father of two Phil Ivey set upon Crockfords casino or Crock of Shit as the locals lovingly call it in August 2012 and lured them into playing a game of baccarat with him, which ended with the casino owing Ivey 7.7 million pounds. The casino then decided they should not have to pay the money under the finders keepers law, and declared the game was null and void as it was not in their own interests to give money away.
John Kipper a spokesperson for Crockfords had this to say “We’re just a poor innocent little casino struggling to make our own way in this big and scary world full of dangers. Why did this have to happen to us? We’re here to take money, not give it away, why do bad things happen to good people? If Mr. Ivey thinks he can walk in off the street, gamble his money and then win he has another thing coming to him.”
Downswing Players understanding of the situation is that the cards had images on them that Phil was able to identify and memorize and that this gave him an advantage. The card pictured below is exhibit B from the ongoing court case between Ivey and Crockfords.
Ivey testified in court stating “I deposited my money into the casino played a game of baccarat under the terms and conditions that the Crock of Shit provided. The cards were dealt by one of their employees, who is a trained and competent dealer, and I in no way interfered with any element of the game. After I finished playing the game I had won 7.7 million pounds and left the casino with the understanding that the winnings would be deposited to my bank account. Only then did the casino decide to change the time honored tradition of paying the winner. I see this as illegal and I am entitled to the money I won.”
Crockfords attorney responded by saying “Your honor the law clearly states that finders keepers, losers weepers. When Mr. Ivey deposited the money into the casino my client assumed ownership of it and the matter should have ended there and then, however, due to Mr. Ivey’s persistence that he should somehow be rewarded due to winning at baccarat my client has generously offered to give Mr. Ivey his own money back minus the 7.7 million.”
With both parties claiming protection under the finders keepers law, the case will have to be settled by the supreme court with speculation that Ivey will be demanding the winnings under the fair and square act.