3 ms·
Google Phil Ivey Crockfords. This case isn't that bad because the casino let them have the winnings. Ivey didn't get his winnings, sued them and still lost beca
by skippyboxedhero 4y ago
Google Phil Ivey Crockfords. This case isn't that bad because the casino let them have the winnings. Ivey didn't get his winnings, sued them and still lost because the court concluded he was "dishonest". Iirc, all that happened was that there was an imperfection in how certain cards were printed, and Ivey was a stooge for a Chinese woman (Ivey is a poker player who is known to gamble huge) who had worked out this edge.
The same is also true with sports betting in the UK. Because sportsbooks are so bad at managing risk in the UK, they will shut down winning accounts (unlike in Asia where the huge books actually winning accounts to improve their line and make more money) and use the whole range of AML/consumer protection rules to tilt the odds in their favour.
The reality is that casinos can't beat that minority of customers that are smarter than them...so they cheat.
- japoco 4y ago>unlike in Asia where the huge books actually winning accounts to improve their line and make more money This is true but it should have a big footnote. Disregarding Asian bookmakers that like to void winning bets from time to time for no apparent reason, Pinnacle, which is the book you’re referring to, lets winning players bet at such low limits that making money off them is an excruciating process.
- skippyboxedhero 4y agoI was more thinking of SBO. They do have low limits on unpopular events, but syndicates are doing $1m/match with them on soccer...they are prepared to take risk. You have to understand that the limit is a function of the volume they take after you set their line. That is how the economy works. Your profit is paid out of their profit from squares after the line is set. So if they aren't doing volume after the line moves, then they are just going to leave the limit.