For those who haven't heard about this, poker superstar Phil Ivey was denied payment of an $11.7 million win at Crockfords casino in London. Crockfords is part of the Mayfair casino group and the oldest private gambling club in the world. Ivey was playing punto banco, which is a variation of baccarat. He won the money playing with a female partner over a two-day period during which he played two sessions encompassing about seven hours total.
According to the reports we've seen, the casino hasn't refused to pay the money indefinitely, but is holding it pending an investigation that will include reviewing tapes and interviewing dealers, pit personnel, surveillance, and others who were in any way connected to the play to try to ensure there was no cheating involved. While it might sound bad, this is actually a prudent course of action on the part of the casino and apparently it's allowable under gaming law in the U.K.
One reason the casino is skeptical is that cheating at punto banco (and other baccarat-type games) has been discovered in the past, often involving collusion between employees and players or the use of high-tech equipment to ascertain and convey the value of cards before they're dealt. In this case, the subject himself may have played a role in raising the casino's suspicions. It's not that Ivey is considered a cheat, but he's known as a gambler who is unlikely to play with anything but "the best of it," even when it looks like he is. As far as we can surmise, Ivey's techniques have always been on the up-and-up, involving things like loss rebates and outside backing (this was alluded to in a fascinating article by Michael Kaplan in the March/April 2010 issue of Cigar Aficionado, which featured Ivey on the cover), but any casino losing that amount to a gambler would want to make sure. Also, one account we read indicated that his female companion had recently had her Mayfair membership suspended, so her presence could have set off alarms.
From indications, it appears that if the investigation comes up negative, Ivey will be paid, which is the most important consideration. The onus will be on the casino to prove that there was cheating involved, and if it can't, actions by the gaming regulators there, as well as Crockfords' need to preserve its reputation as a gambling house, should result in payment.
Could this happen in a United States casino? Absolutely, and it recently did when the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City withheld payment to players who'd won about $1.5 million on mini-baccarat when they discovered that cards were appearing from deck to deck in the same order. The circumstances were suspicious and various lawsuits -- players vs. casino, casino vs. card manufacturer, etc. -- were filed. The case has not yet been completely settled. There are also numerous histories of casinos withholding payments of jackpots won on machines that they claim have malfunctioned.
Most of the big disputes that can't be settled wind up in court. But the first move if a casino refuses to pay should always be to contact the gaming authorities in whatever jurisdiction you're in. They act with greatly varying vigor and effectiveness, but it's usually the best first step, and sooner is always better than later.
