- Affiliate Programs
- Affiliate Networks
- Advertising Networks
- Articles
- Blogs
- Tools
- Social Media Accounts
- Advertising
Phil Ivey's case is dubbed the "card-shirt case" because that's exactly how the poker player pulled off his scam: he identified the card suit using flawed decks and executed the scheme multiple times.
Before the scam was exposed, Ivey walked away with a staggering $9.4 million from the Bogarta casino. In total, he won $10.13 million from them before Bogarta took legal action. Today, let's delve into what happened and how it all ended.
If you're keen on delving into more real-life stories about earning money, come join us on our Telegram channel. You'll discover loads of captivating content waiting for you there!
Who Was Phil Ivey Before the Bogarta Incident?
By the time of the scandal, Ivey was already renowned and celebrated. He's still considered one of the best poker players on the planet. Phil Ivey proved his skills, earning ten World Series of Poker bracelets and numerous other poker accolades. Throughout his career, he's estimated to have earned around $23 million.
Ivey earned a reputation as a composed and cool-headed individual in the game. However, he wasn't just into poker; he also had a weakness for baccarat. In 2008, for instance, during the Aussie Millions championship, Ivey lost $6,586,000 playing baccarat over two nights, adjusted for today's currency rates.
In baccarat, the player faces off against the casino one-on-one. The rules involve shuffling and splitting the deck into two piles — "player" and "banker". Bets are placed on one side or a tie, and cards are revealed alternately from each pile, with their values compared. It's believed that baccarat is entirely dictated by probability theory, and predicting the outcome is impossible — until one incident.
Ivey's System: How the Player Scammed Various Casinos on His Own Terms
Known for his weakness for baccarat, Ivey seemed like an easy target for casino owners. Thus, when in 2012 he proposed to London's Crockfords casino to play "player and banker" with additional conditions, the casino representatives agreed.
The conditions were odd but feasible and didn't contradict the casino rules:
Ivey promised to play for a long time and, as proof of his serious intentions, transferred a deposit of $1,274,300 to Crockfords' account. To prevent fraud, the game was recorded by dozens of video cameras.
Initially, things went smoothly for the casino. They started with a bet of $63,715 per hand, and Phil Ivey managed to lose $637,150. Then the player increased the bets to $191,145 per hand. Unexpectedly for everyone, luck smiled upon him. After that, Ivey didn't lose a single hand. In two days, he cleaned out Crockfords for $9,302,390.
The casino's security team raised the alarm. They assured the player and his companion, Cheung Yin Sun, that the winnings would be paid out and started an investigation. Ivey's winnings were frozen, and the Gambling Commission was notified. All video recordings were reviewed, dealers and game participants were interrogated, and other casino staff who interacted with Phil and his companion were questioned. No dirt was found: the investigation concluded that the winnings were fair. However, a suspicious fact emerged — from April to June, Ivey and the same companion used the same scheme to beat Bogarta in Atlantic City. And the conditions of the private games were the same.
Crockfords' security team refused to pay out Ivey's winnings, suspecting his system of being fraudulent. So Phil went to court to claim his winnings legally. There, Ivey disclosed his plans and the scheme of his winnings in detail for the sake of the case.
Attention to Detail — and No Luck Involved
Ivey outplayed casinos thanks to a flaw in the card backs. He discovered that casinos mainly used decks from the Gemaco company. Moreover, in a large batch of decks from that time, a defect had crept in. Card backs of different denominations had distinguishable differences in appearance. And if you knew where to look, you could accurately determine the card's denomination:
So, Cheung and Ivey would appear in casinos where Gemaco cards were used. They also asked to replace the deck if they realized they had received an unflawed batch. Without the Chinese woman, the scam wouldn't have been as extensive and grandiose: Cheung Yin Sun increased the odds of winning. When crucial cards for the game — sevens, eights, and nines — were revealed, she asked the dealer to turn the cards over without flipping the backs. This was explained by Chinese superstition.
After flipping the cards, both Ivey and Sun found it easier to identify defects and accurately determine the flipped cards' exact denomination. With this setup, the accomplices played against the casinos on their own terms, with a 20% advantage. Casino staff usually didn't refuse strange requests. Firstly, because Phil Ivey was a significant VIP client. Secondly, because the Chinese were indeed known for their superstitions.
Is Phil Ivey a pawn?
There's an interesting theory that in the duo of Cheung Sun and Ivey, the mastermind of the operation and the villain was Cheung Sun herself. It was from her that Ivey learned about the flawed decks, and she devised the plan. Moreover, the Chinese woman had several partners like Phil. And she gradually cheated casinos owned by the Genting Group with each of them.
The motive was personal.
Cheung Sun suffered from gambling addiction and often lost. And when in 2007 the Chinese woman owed — around $100 000 — Genting Group sued her and she was imprisoned.
Since then, the Chinese woman swore to pay them back for the shame. How she learned about the flawed cards is unknown. But according to the New York Times, since 2011, she has won around $20 million playing baccarat.
Ivey’s Legal Battles, Career and Financial collapse
After Phil's confession and honest disclosure of his playing system, the court unexpectedly sided with Crockfords casino and refused to pay out the winnings. But that wasn't the end of Ivey's troubles because several more Bogarta casinos, and then the Gemaco company, filed counterclaims.
Bogarta decided to reclaim their $10 million. They managed to prove that Ivey's actions misled casino staff. But Gemaco only won $27 — the cost of one flawed deck of cards.
As for Bogarta's demands to return $10 million, they were approved by the court. But Phil had no intention of doing so. He deliberately dragged his feet, despite the court's decision in favor of the casino, and asked for at least a postponement. Then Bogarta filed another lawsuit, this time for $36 million.
The second lawsuit included moral damages for harm, the theoretical amount that Ivey, according to the casino's calculations, should have lost over the entire course of the game, and the cost of personalized service.
In 2019, the court decided to freeze all of Ivey's known assets. By that time, the poor guy probably regretted his audacity and principles a thousand times over. Ivey disappeared from almost all social radars. There are rumors that he fled the United States and now plays unofficially in closed games with Asian tycoons.
Currently, Ivey is neck-deep in debt, unable to pay the casino compensation, and from 2016 to 2018, he wasn't accepted into any poker competitions. It's also said that he was excluded from the WSOP 2019 competition an hour after registration — also due to legal proceedings.
How Did Ivey's Story End?
Because of his overconfidence and greed, Ivey failed. If he hadn't insisted on receiving his winnings from Crockfords and personally disclosed his scheme, he might have peacefully lived off the money he had already won.
In Ivey's case, the law of karma worked effectively. Casinos didn't tolerate Phil's audacity and wiped out both his wealth and career. And when a movie about Ivey and Bogarta was planned in Hollywood, his character was cut to a minimum from the rough plot — to prevent him from gaining any publicity.
So the unreleased film awaits its time under the code name "Baccarat Queen," but this version is unlikely to see the light of day either — apparently, casinos don't want to promote Cheung Sun either.
What Can We Learn from This?
Not every scammer's success story against casinos ends with the player's triumph. It's not like a battle of wits, as in the case of Don Johnson.
Phil Ivey shamelessly tried to cheat the system and didn't even hide it. He used someone else's scheme and allowed himself to be turned into a pawn — for which he paid the price.
This story can serve as a lesson for other gambling addicts. Don't be greedy. And in attempting to outsmart the casino, be prepared for the fact that casinos will fight back.
