Talk:Phil Ivey

Specific Hands

The hand in the heads up tourney where he kept rebluffing his opponent in HU play with Q-high has become a youtube sensation with nearly 500,000 views and has been immortalized. It should definetley be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.166.244 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Better pic?

Do you think we could get a better picture of Ivey? The one now doesn't look so good. Just saying. --Code1390 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what video games specifically Phil Ivey played during his stint as a professional player? I've looked all over, but have only managed to find that he was a "phenom" who later moved on to poker. --SonicDeathMonk3y 00:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking around, I can find it reported that Ivey was born in both New Jersey and California, and that he currently resides in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. As for the latter, both could be true, I suppose, but this site suggests that he lived in AC until a few years ago. [1]. anthony 14:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, according to about.com, he grew up in New Jersey, but it doesn't say he was born there. He probably was born in CA but grew up in New Jersey. anthony 14:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah really, which videogames did he play?

SonicDeathMonk3y, if you do find out, please post the info here.

Ivey mentioned in this interview that video games were never really a major part of his life, he just happened to respond to a question that he likes to play. It was done by All In Magazine so its credible.

http://www.allinmag.com/article.php?article=79

Removed line about being renowned in video game circles

In the interview with All-in Magazine [2], Ivey denies the stories that he was some video game star before he became a poker player. Excerpt:

There are a few articles out there that said before your focus shifted completely toward poker, you were known for your phenomenal video game skills. How good were you?

They’re making that up. I played video games, but it was nothing serious. I was above average. Interviewers ask me questions like “Do you like to play video games?” I say, “Yeah, I like video games,” and then they just make up stuff. You say something and they write a phantom story. That’s why I don’t really read about myself too much. People always are going to have something to say, so I don’t put too much into it. If you start worrying about every little thing people say about you, you won’t be able to sleep.

Daleliop1 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Barry Greenstein's website noted Ivey's Pac-Man prowess in Greenstein's bio for Ivey [3]

Blongitron 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent blogish additions

Especially crabby is not needed for this article , I saw the pad episode, screenshots are not needed, see WP:POINT ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Earphones Please

Thanks for the input regarding my "earphones please" submission. I took your commnets to heart, carefully matching the "fair use" lanuage you used in the photo you submitted to the "Poker After Dark" wikipedia article. In addition, I converted the image to low-res, as you used in the PAD article and dropped it down to the bottom of the page. I am also happy to address the first issue that someone raised in this forum, which is that the other photo is quite poor and looks very little like Ivey, although it is admittedly him. I hope this fun-loving photo I submitted, which is one of the most memorable screencaps available from PAD, will be appreciated by all who read this article and also satisfies your (the person who deleted my previous submission) tastes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToothlessGranny (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

BTW

I also refrained from adding "crabby", which I can neither confirm, nor deny, was a little over the top ;)

very well ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WPT Final Tables

He has been on more than 1 wpt final table. He has never won the a wpt event but I think he has been on 6 final tables. Someone please check and confirm.

blondepedia

Hi, I run a site called blondepedia which includes player bios and databases for players like Phil Ivey.

To see it, please use the link below...

http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=709

I was just wondering if I could be granted permission to link these kind of pages to the pages of various poker players on wikipedia. I feel it adds a lot to the page, especially in terms of photography which is lacking here.

Please let me know, thx.

You can do what you did here and suggest the link be added, but you shouldn't go to a series of articles and spam the link. In this case, the Ivey page has almost no information, except photos which are readily available everywhere including his official site so there is no need to add any photo-only type links. 2005 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

blondepedia2

Hi, I tried your suggestion on this page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mads_Andersen

However, I don't seem to be eliciting a response. Am I doing something wrong, perhaps in my formatting of the message, or is it simply a case of waiting longer for a member of your team to respond? Thank you for your assistance and apologies for being a pain. snoops

It not being added is a response. In general your pages don't merit a link. they have almost no text and just some photos which add nothing to what can be fouind on official sites. 2005 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

other Philip Ivey

Hi, there's another Philip Ivey who was an anti-apartheid activist; and is famed for climbing an armoured vehicle and turning a police cannon which had purple dye in it on the apartheid police on 2 September 1989 (there's a memorial in Cape Town about it called the Purple Rain Memorial). The following day Cape Town was covered in graffiti saying "The purple shall rule".

http://www.southafrica.to/history/Apartheid/apartheid.htm

Phil Ivey from Edison, NJ?

I reverted these edits made by IP address 67.85.246.10 which claims Phil Ivey went to Edison High School and played Varsity Basketball and graduated in 1995. The only thing I found for "edison high school" "phil ivey" was a classmates.com site but anyone could have technically signed up as Phil Ivey on that site. Is there a source for this?

Also Hendon Mob lists him as being from Absecon, NJ which seems to go against this. (Maybe from Absecon, went to Edison High School?) Strongsauce 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

dice

Hey Phil. I dealt to you on numerous occasions on a crap table-my name is Sven-and I only wanted to tell you the respect I have for you not only as a poker player but as a human being. I think you carry yourself in an extrodiany manner and I like to think I would only replicate your behavior if I was in the same position. I never felt it was appropiate to tell you this across the table so I present myself now. Dont ever change. I wish you continued good fortune and I hope we cross paths again. god speed. Sven-svenout777@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.74.5 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss before changing the format of the article

An IP editor recently came on and edited the article by creating massive subsections. He or she created a section Poker followed by Live poker followed by massive subsection that only makes the article more jumbled and confusing. All these sections are redundant and the current version is cleariest. Please discuss before reverting. Valoem ^talk 14:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for further subsections; it muddles things up further. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the format war is back on. I've seen this format on a few other poker pages and in general I like it better than some of the more muddled poker pages. Looks to me like the original IP editor was trying to standardize the poker page format. Maybe that works, maybe not. Either way, after reviewing the history of these changes I don't really think that Valoem's changes were or are far superior to the IP editor's format. I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert any of the format edits on this page but I wonder if the issue of a more standard format deserves some discussion on the general poker discussion page.Kanapapiki (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Why is there a section entitled "Philanthropy" that comes before the information about his career? Is it more important to learn how Ivey has given away his money, or how he has earned it? Jrule (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheating against Andy Beal

Some portals in internet had accusions that PI and "corporation" used videocamera at dealer when play $50k/$100k game vs Andy Beal. It is true? PI is cheater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.64.45 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there is any evidence of this having happened. There are many things said in many portals of the Internet; it doesn't make them true! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheating in the lead

Given that the lead is supposed to summarise the article, I am somewhat surprised that it contains no mention of cheating. In today's unanimous judgement, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Ivey had cheated at Crockford's in 2012 and that "his conduct was dishonest". [4] I appreciate that great care must be taken as this is a BLP, but the Supreme Court's opinion is very clear and the source for it is about as reliable as you can get. I propose to include mention of the ruling in the lead but thought I would seek other views before doing so. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the court is splitting hairs but, also perhaps in typically English fashion, it said that while Ivey "cheated," his conduct was not "dishonest." What it said, in its penultimate paragraph, was (emphasis added):

``For the same reasons which show that Mr Ivey’s conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, cheating, the better view would be, if the question arose, that his conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, also dishonest.

Ivey's advocates specifically mentioned this in their reaction to the ruling. I'd guess it's important to him and probably should be important to the article about him. I was about to make, or at least suggest, an edit to the current text to make it clear that the UK court did not call Ivey "dishonest." 156.98.118.115 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is complex, as one would expect - indeed I still can't fully understand what Ivey did - but I actually think the Supreme Court did call his conduct "dishonest", as per the quote. KJP1 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

To be super-accurate, as we should be, I think the SC said that, had the question of honesty arisen, then Ivey's conduct would have been dishonest. The full quote is below:

"Therefore in the present case, if, contrary to the conclusions arrived at above, there were in cheating at gambling an additional legal element of dishonesty, it would be satisfied by the application of the test as set out above. The judge did not get to the question of dishonesty and did not need to do so. But it is a fallacy to suggest that his finding that Mr Ivey was truthful when he said that he did not regard what he did as cheating amounted to a finding that his behaviour was honest. It was not. It was a finding that he was, in that respect, truthful. Truthfulness is indeed one characteristic of honesty, and untruthfulness is often a powerful indicator of dishonesty, but a dishonest person may sometimes be truthful about his dishonest opinions, as indeed was the defendant in Gilks. For the same reasons which show that Mr Ivey’s conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, cheating, the better view would be, if the question arose, that his conduct was, contrary to his own opinion, also dishonest."

That said, by all means suggest an alternative wording if you think the current can be improved upon - which it probably can! KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Supreme Court decision can be quoted, but regardless of the ruling, that doesn't mean he cheated or was dishonest. All that can said is what their opinion/decision was. However, this is a relatively minor aspect of Ivey's notoriety, and should be treated as such. It's likely that a year from now having this in the lead will seem oddly WP:UNDUE. 2005 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

On your first point, I'm afraid I disagree. Ivey brought the case seeking a verdict that he hadn't cheated, the SC decided that he had. There are many instances of individuals maintaining their innocence in the face of a court decision as to their guilt, but that doesn't make them innocent. An individual's view of their own actions and a court's view don't carry equal weight. As to your second point, we shall have to wait and see. But I personally doubt that a Supreme Court ruling on the actions of a professional gambler in a £7m cheating case will come to be seen as "minor" anytime soon. Even if you're right, however, the lead should contain some mention of the controversy surrounding Mr Ivey which, as of the day before yesterday, it didn't. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing several issues. Ivey brought the case wanting to be paid the money he won, not to adjudicate the rules of a card game. It's not up to the courts to decide the rules of card games. The court's finding is the casino doesn't have to pay him for the same reason they don't have to pay when a slot machine is broken. The court viewed his action as cheating, but it would be both obtuse and a violation of the WP:BLP policy for the Wikipedia to say he was cheating. Instead, the article should say the court called his actions cheating. He was not found guilty of anything; he wasn't convicted of violating any laws. He failed to prevail in a lawsuit in the opinion of a court. 2005 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A few points. You say I am confusing several issues. But you don't at all specify what they are. Please do so, as I don't actually think I am. On the court's jurisdiction as to the rules of card games, they certainly can, and do, determine whether the rules have been followed. In this case, Ivey's actions turned what is a game of chance into a game that was not one of chance. The courts can, and did, make a determination on this point. Your analogy of the broken slot machine is just wrong - in such a case the player would have had no impact on the machine's failure. In this case, Ivey's actions, and those of his colleague, deliberately skewed the odds. On the substantive point, as to whether or not Ivey cheated, you seem to be saying that his assertion that he did not weighs equally with the determination of three courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, that he did. While you are, of course, entitled to your view, that is not actually how the legal systems of, amongst others, those of the UK and the USA, work. KJP1 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You confusing issues yet again. I said a court doesn't make card game rules; you then said they can judge whether rules were followed. That is a completely different thing. "In this case, Ivey's actions turned what is a game of chance into a game that was not one of chance." No they didn't! That's a wild assertion, and completely false. The broken slot machine argument is exactly on point. In fact, it is the entire point. Ivey took advantage of defective gaming equipment. He did not break the gaming equipment himself, but he was aware of the broken equipment, and the court viewed that as cheating and dishonest. "While you are, of course, entitled to your view, that is not actually how the legal systems of, amongst others, those of the UK and the USA, work." Your argument gets even more confusing since you on the one hand agree with me, but then ... I can't even tell what your eventual point is. To make the point again: this is a ruling of a UK court. That doesn't mean what he did would be cheating in Monte Carlo or Macau or Mississippi. Their opinion carries no weight or truth for any other jurisdiction. Additionally, the court was ruling on whether Ivey should be paid. They ruled he should not be, for the reasons they stated. They could have ruled against him for other reasons. Finally, the wording of the article is fine, because it states the courts opinion and ruling, which you added. If that is what you intend to add to the article, fine, there is no issue. 2005 (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

As I suspected, you clearly haven't read the judgement. Paragraph 50 states:

"The judge’s conclusion, that Mr Ivey’s actions amounted to cheating, is unassailable. It is an essential element of Punto Banco that the game is one of pure chance, with cards delivered entirely at random and unknowable by the punters or the house. What Mr Ivey did was to stage a carefully planned and executed sting. The key factor was the arranging of the several packs of cards in the shoe, differentially sorted so that this particular punter did know whether the next card was a high value or low value one. If he had surreptitiously gained access to the shoe and re-arranged the cards physically himself, no one would begin to doubt that he was cheating. He accomplished exactly the same result through the unwitting but directed actions of the croupier, tricking her into thinking that what she did was irrelevant. As soon as the decision to change the cards was announced, thus restoring the game to the matter of chance which it is supposed to be, he first covered his tracks by asking for cards to be rotated at random, and then abandoned play. It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."

That is, Ivey's actions improperly influenced the game, which constitutes cheating. Anyway, as you say, we're in agreement on the article's wording. That we completely disagree on everything else about the case doesn't actually matter. KJP1 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I read the above but you are not understanding it, which is the point of only stating the facts not your opinion of them. 1) Punto Banco normally is a game of chance in the house's favor. 2) By reading the back of the flawed cards, Ivey turned it into a game of chance in the player's favor. (Think of it like a game going from a 55h-45p edge to a 40h-60p edge.) 3) The court determined, as the passage you quote says, that while Ivey didn't mark the cards himself, he knew the cards were marked and took advantage of the defect. 4) It is common, though not always 100% the case, that when an equipment flaw alters the intended nature of a game, the results of the game are void./// The bottom line, it still was a game of chance, but the odds were altered by flawed equipment that the player was aware of. A player could win in a normal game via luck, but the odds are against him. In this case, the casino could have won via luck, but the odds were against them. 2005 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's you that doesn't understand, just as it was you who hadn't read the judgement when you decided to offer your opinion on it. I won't continue this discussion, as we're not disagreeing on the article content. One suggestion - you might find your Wikipedia experience to be less stressful if you assumed good faith on the part of other editors. That someone disagrees with you, doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand the issue. KJP1 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting opposite man argument. Next time, remember that you have to assume good faith, that when other people disagree with you and explain their position in detail that the burden is on you respond to disagreements with something other than arm-waving. The above clearly shows you did not fully understand the issue, nor the nature of the game involved, nor how actions impacted the game. That's fine, but when things are explained to you, a simple "thanks for explaining" really all that is called for. 2005 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

However hard you try, you can't get round what is perfectly clear, to you, me and any reader of this exchange. You misunderstood this case, Ivey's actions, how those actions improperly influenced the game, and the Supreme Court's ruling. Now I'll let you have the last word, but it won't change a thing. KJP1 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

fwiw the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court in regards to the similar Borgata case, recently settled out of court, may be illuminating. That court did not rule whether Ivey's edge sorting was cheating or not; it ruled that, by changing the game to one that favored the player over the house, Ivey was no longer playing a casino game allowed by New Jersey law. Under that law, all casino games must favor the house, since the state collects taxes on all casino gaming profits and no profits mean no cut for the state. (Many "advantage players" might argue that, if Borgata, and by extension Crockford's, were "cheated," then they were "cheated" with what should have been their entire knowledge.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.115 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)