Phil Ivey pauses during a hand at the final table at the 2009 World Series of Poker at the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Nov. 7, 2009. 
 
 Phil Ivey pauses during a hand at the final table at the 2009 World Series of Poker at... Read More 
 
 Phil Ivey pauses during a hand at the final table at the 2009 World Series of Poker at the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Nov. 7, 2009. Close 
 
 Professional poker player Phil Ivey’s use of edge sorting to win 7.7 million pounds ($12.4 million) at a form of Baccarat was tantamount to cheating, a London judge ruled today. 
 
 Judge John Mitting, who said Ivey was an honest witness, ruled against the 38-year-old gambler’s bid to recoup money a Genting Bhd. (GENT) casino had withheld. While he might not have realized it was cheating, Mitting said Ivey and a companion influenced a croupier to deal the cards in certain ways. 
 
 Ivey, a 10-time winner of the World Series of Poker tournament, won the money playing Punto Banco at Genting’s Crockfords casino in London. He argued that edge sorting was a legitimate tactic to gain an advantage over the casino. 
 
 “He gave himself an advantage which the game precludes,” Mitting said today following a week-long trial. “This is in my view cheating.” 
 
 Genting is Southeast Asia’s largest casino operator with a market capitalization of about $35 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Last year it bought a Las Vegas site, once home to the Stardust resort, for $350 million. 
 
 “We attach the greatest importance to our exemplary reputation for fair, honest and professional conduct and today’s ruling vindicates the steps we have taken in this matter,” Crockfords said in an e-mailed statement after the verdict. 
 
 2012 Game 
 
 Both sides agreed at trial that Ivey was in the casino in August 2012 and that he won the money. “The issue is whether it amounted to cheating,” Christopher Pymont, Genting’s lawyer, said in documents filed at London’s High Court. 
 
 Edge sorting is a way a card player can gain an advantage by working out the value of a card by spotting flaws or particular patterns on the back of some cards. 
 
 Ivey and a companion unfairly influenced a croupier to move and deal the cards in certain ways without her knowing what she was doing, the judge said. 
 
 Ivey cheated “by using the croupier as his innocent agent or tool,” Mitting said. 
 
 Ivey has career earnings of more than $21 million from live tournaments alone, according to his website. The judge described him as one of the “world’s finest poker players.” 
 
 Ivey describes himself as an “advantage player,” someone who is highly skilled at trying to tip the odds in his favor. 
 
 “It is not in my nature to cheat,” Ivey said through a spokesman after today’s ruling. “I believe what we did was nothing more than exploit Crockford’s failures. Clearly the judge did not agree.” 
 
 Judge Mitting turned down Ivey’s permission to appeal his verdict. 
 
 To contact the reporter on this story: Jeremy Hodges in London at jhodges17@bloomberg.net 
 
 To contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net Peter Chapman 

 Top poker player Phil Ivey has lost his high court case against the owners of Crockfords Club in London over his £7.7m ($12.5m) winnings. 
 
 The 38-year-old American sued over a version of baccarat known as Punto Banco that he played at the Mayfair casino over two days in August 2012. After four sessions, Ivey was told the money would be wired to him and he left for the US, but it never arrived, although his £1m stake was returned. 
 
 Genting Casinos UK, which owns more than 40 casinos in the UK including Crockfords, said the technique of “edge-sorting” Ivey used – which aims to provide the customer with an element of “first card advantage” – was not a legitimate strategy and the casino had no liability to pay him. 
 
 Its lawyers told Mr Justice Mitting in London that Ivey’s conduct defeated the essential premise of the game of baccarat so there was no gaming contract, or constituted cheating. 
 
 A spokesman for Crockfords said later: “Crockfords is pleased with the judgment of the high court today, supporting its defence of a claim by Ivey. 
 
 “It is our policy not to discuss our clients’ affairs in public and we very much regret that proceedings were brought against us. We attach the greatest importance to our exemplary reputation for fair, honest and professional conduct and today’s ruling vindicates the steps we have taken in this matter.” 
 
 Speaking through a spokesman, Ivey said: “ I am obviously disappointed with this judge’s decision. As I said in court, it is not my nature to cheat and I would never do anything to risk my reputation. 
 
 “I am pleased that the judge acknowledged in court that I was a truthful witness. 
 
 “ I believe that what we did was a legitimate strategy and we did nothing more than exploit Crockfords’ failures to take proper steps to protect themselves against a player of my ability. 
 
 “Clearly today the judge did not agree.” 
 
 Lawyers for Ivey were refused permission to appeal although they can renew their application to the court of appeal directly. 
 
 Ivey’s counsel, Richard Spearman QC, told the court that edge-sorting involved nothing more than using information that was available to any player simply from viewing the backs of the cards that the casino chose to use and making requests of the casino – which it could accept or refuse – as to the manner in which play was conducted. 
 
 The casino’s counsel, Christopher Pymont QC, said that Ivey, who lives in Las Vegas and is described on the World Series of Poker website as “arguably the best poker player in the world”, was not a well-known advantage player at the time of his visit but was, in their eyes, an old VIP customer and they trusted him accordingly. 
 
 It argued that edge-sorting was not a widely known or practised way of playing baccarat in the UK. 
 
 Ivey, who was accompanied at Crockfords by another professional gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, who introduced him to edge-sorting, said cheating was anathema to advantage players like him. 
 
 “We observe the unwritten doctrine: how do I find a legal way to beat the house? Any method that could amount to cheating would breach the doctrine and cause you to be ostracised by your fellow players – we are all very careful to stay the right side of the line and we discuss advantage play strategies at length.” 
 
 He said he was very angry when he heard the casino would not be paying out his winnings: “I was upset as I had played an honest game and won fairly. 
 
 “My integrity is infinitely more important to me than a big win, which is why I have brought these proceedings to demonstrate that I have been unjustly treated.” 
 
 In his ruling, the judge said that the case turned on whether there was cheating: “If Mr Ivey cheated, he is not entitled to recover his winnings. If he did not, he is. 
 
 “What Mr Ivey and Ms Sun did was to persuade the croupier to turn some of the cards in the dealing shoe to permit them to know that they were or were very likely to be sevens, eights or nines, and in circumstances where she did not realise she had done so – and, if she had, would have immediately stopped play. 
 
 “The fact that Mr Ivey was genuinely convinced that he did not cheat and that the practice commanded considerable support from others was not determinative of the question of whether it amounted to cheating. 
 
 “Mr Ivey had gained himself an advantage and did so by using a croupier as his innocent agent or tool. 
 
 “It was not simply taking advantage of error on her part or an anomaly practised by the casino, for which he was not responsible. 
 
 “He was doing it in circumstances where he knew that she and her superiors did not know the consequences of what she had done at his instigation. 
 
 The judge concluded: “This is, in my view, cheating for the purpose of civil law.” 
 
 Dismissing the case, with costs, he said it was immaterial that the casino could have protected itself by simple measures.
– A London judge ruled yesterday that a professional poker player used a croupier "as his innocent agent or tool" to cheat a London casino out of $12.4 million, Bloomberg reports. Phil Ivey—described on the World Series of Poker website as "arguably the best poker player in the world" and winner of 10 WSoP tourneys—and a companion influenced the croupier to "move and deal the cards in certain ways without her knowing what she was doing" during a baccarat game at Genting's Crockfords casino in August 2012, according to Judge John Mitting. Mitting said the technique Ivey used during the game of punto banco "gave [Ivey] an advantage which the game precludes," while Ivey insists it was a perfectly legitimate way to "exploit Crockford’s failures." Ivey never got the money wired to him after he returned to America, the Guardian reports, so he sued for it. Edge-sorting, the tactic in question, involves carefully studying the backs of cards for any unique markings or flaws to gain an advantage in the game. Ivey reportedly asked for a specific brand of cards to be used, then had his female companion ask the croupier to turn the cards a certain way, "effectively sorting the deck to make the design flaws stand out," ESPN reports. An upset Ivey insists he's no cheater and that he won fair and square. "We observe the unwritten doctrine: How do I find a legal way to beat the house?" he says. "Any method that could amount to cheating would breach the doctrine and cause you to be ostracized by your fellow players—we are all very careful to stay [on] the right side of the line, and we discuss advantage play strategies at length." An Atlantic City casino has also accused Ivey of using the same trick. (John McCain was caught playing online poker during hearings on Syria.)