|
|
I've been keeping up with this case casually since it began and have mixed views on it.
From what I've read, the overwhelming opinion of consumers is that the casino should have paid out the £7.7m and done as Renton suggested. From a casino industry viewpoint, you can all imagine how that opinion is reversed and how reps feel that the correct ruling was made.
There's one friend I have who is somewhat of a liaison to both the consumer-based and industry-based sides of this argument, and his argument has consistently been in support of the casinos in these cases. His argument is that (a) the negative-expectation odds associated with casino games are readily made available to all casino patrons who care to access such info, and (b) Ivey could better use his talents in the game of poker, where he clearly has a positive expectation without the need to participate in "edge-sorting."
Ivey argues that going into a casino creates an "adversarial" type of environment between patrons and the casino. I'm not much on negative-expectation situations from a consumer standpoint, but I could definitely see how this mentality to become prevalent for patrons who consistently lose funds in casino games, at which some point they most definitely begin to feel that the lost funds do not accurately represent a worthwhile "entertainment value" in their minds.
There are also the arguments about addiction in general, but I personally have an issue with labeling habits (even if they're bad) as an addiction per-se. Although I'm not a regular casino patron, I do smoke a mean pack of Marlboro's per day. Many would argue that this is an "addiction" of mine, but I see it as something that is my responsibility, which I am free to "decide" to quit at any time I so choose.
Of course, my description above is pretty much the mainstay of what can be defined as an "addiction," when one person claims he/she can quit at any time, but there is definitely something to be said about taking responsibility for one's actions. In my opinion, once you use the word "addiction" for a smoking habit (or a casino habit), you completely release yourself from any responsibility and become a "victim." Are these actions ultimately performed using one's own "free will" or are they actually out of one's control at some point. That is highly debatable and I think there are valid arguments to both sides.
Casinos are all over the place (as are other forms of -EV gambling such as lottery tickets), so it is something that consumers as a whole will continue to contemplate. Of course, consumers of -EV gambling apparatuses will constantly argue for higher-percentage payouts. However, having been involved in the online poker industry for a decade, I can attest that all profit-based businesses have their own overhead, payroll and other expenses to meet which require a certain percentage of profit-after-revenue in order to successfully fulfill.
It's a tough situation on both ends for sure, but the business model is definitely obvious for industry-reps and consumers alike. -EV gambling for consumers is just one of the many "vices" available within our society. I personally know more than a couple of highly-talented poker players who make huge donations in the pits. It makes me sad to see the end result of this, but I'm not entirely convinced they are "victims." It seems more feasible to me that they are receiving entertainment at a price (albeit high) that fills some need, instinct or impulse.
This post kind of got away from the Ivey ruling. I am glad that the judge declared him to be a "truthful witness" at least, which I believe is accurate.
|
london casino does not have to pay phil ivey
Reply With Quote
