Phil Ivey. Did he cheat?

Though it's definitely growing, professional poker, particularly at its highest levels, almost has a cult type following. Either one is really into it or one likely knows, or cares, very little about it.

But aficionados definitely know who Phil Ivey is. Some claim he's the best poker player in the world. Like many other high-profile players in other games (sports), whether or not he's the best of the best is certainly debatable, but few would doubt he's world-class.

So when a player of Ivey's status gets caught up in not just one, but two alleged "cheating" scandals at casinos, this is big news in the poker world. One involves a casino in England, and the other is in Atlantic City. Actually, both these events happened in 2012 and may never have to come light at all, except the latter casino recently filed suit to recover the almost $10 million Ivey took them for. The former case still pending in the UK is quite the opposite. Ivey sued them for millions he won, but they wouldn't pay, though, strangely enough, they gave him a receipt for his winnings.

Yet both instances involve the same technique, or modus operandi, if you will. It's something called "edge sorting". This is when a deck, or decks of cards are flawed in the manufacturing process. Basically, to the highly trained eye -- they're "marked", to a certain degree. One edge of certain values of cards is ever so slightly different than those of other numerical values. While it's not a slam dunk guarantee to success like x-ray vision would be, even tipping the odds a few percentage points in the favor of a world-class player like Ivey is a recipe for disaster -- for the house.

But the question is -- did he cheat, or merely take advantage of an opportunity the casino itself afforded him?

After all, Ivey didn't make those cards. The card company did. Nor did he bring them with him. The casino bought them from the card company and provided them. A dealer employed by the casino shuffled and dealt them. In that respect, it's tough to accuse Ivey of cheating anymore than it is a player with a good memory (card counter) having an advantage in blackjack.

And let's face it -- folks trying to "cheat" the system in sports to their own advantage is certainly nothing new. In baseball alone, players and coaches routinely try to steal the other team's signs. Catchers "frame" pitches for strikes they know are not, infielders pretend they tagged out a runner on a close play when they know damn good and well he beat the tag. Outfielders will hold up the ball like they caught it, when they also know full well they short-hopped it, etc, etc.

Much the same sort of shenanigans go on in football. In basketball, hockey and soccer, players routinely flop on phantom fouls trying to draw calls from the refs. They know what they're claiming is a lie, but they do it anyway, just to see it they can get away with it. And sometimes they do.

Yet somehow all this has been tacitly condoned as just part of the game over the years. Get away with whatever you can, because nothing matters more than winning, even if you had to run a scam here and there to pull it off. It's probably even coached, but that doesn't make it righteous.

Even in poker, world-class players probe their opponents for "tells". Anything from a hand gesture, to tone of voice, to an eye movement, and beyond, can yield "information" when one is being "scanned" by a top-notch professional. Besides their computer brains constantly remembering the actions of past hands and recalculating the odds of the present one as it progresses, that's what makes world-class players what they are. All of this is accepted as the norm as well. Just part of the game.

It seems only in professional golf will a player call a foul on himself when he knows he broke a rule, even if unintentionally, and willingly accept the penalty.

But back to where this started. Phil Ivey. Where should he stand in the whole scheme of where the line is between gaining a competitive advantage and cheating?

According to reports, at the Atlantic City casino, Ivey was accompanied by a female Chinese companion. They had gamed for one night and said they would only come back if the same deck of cards was used the following night. Red flag #1. Ivey wanted his per-hand betting limit doubled. Red flag #2. His lady companion requested a Chinese dealer so she could speak in Mandarin to him, which the pit boss wouldn't understand. Red flag #3. She allegedly requested the cards be shuffled in a certain way. Red flag #4.

In that respect, it can certainly be argued Ivey was cheating indeed, though it was the casino itself that presented him the opportunity to do so through their own incompetence.

So what would be a fair and equitable solution to this whole mess? Elementary, my dear Watsons.

Ivey says the Brits owe him $10 million and won't pay, even though he has a receipt. Atlantic City wants their $10 million back from Ivey. So have the Brits pay Atlantic City the same $10 million, give or take an ante or two, and call it a draw.

Plus a couple other details just to tidy things up in the future. First, find a new company to supply the cards. Second, have pit bosses that can understand whatever language is being spoken at their tables.

And lastly, if a guy like Phil Ivey wants the same deck of cards with double the betting limit the following night -- get a freaking clue that something might just be wrong with the picture......