Quite a winning streak for Phil Ivey, but it may be just that. Hard to see -- from the write-up -- how he could have "gamed" the system.

Some rough calculations -- He played 7 hours and the hands last less than a minute each, according to the article = 420 total hands (probably more).
His bet limits were 50,000 pounds, then increased to 150,000 pounds. Call it an average bet size of 100,000 pounds per hand.
So total volume of bets was 42 million pounds. (420 x 100,000).

Let's assume the long-term house advantage is 1/2 of 1%. (Depends on specific rules, and negotiated commission rate or rebate).
So expected loss would have been L 210,000. Instead, he won L 7,300,000 -- a swing of L 9,400,000.
As a percentage of the total amount bet, that's 9.4 million / 42 million = +22 % win for an essentially even-odds game.
Pretty lucky, but 420 hands is definitely short-run, subject to deviation from the norm.

A 22% swing would be like flipping a coin 100 times and getting a heads/tails result of 60/40 (the difference being 20).
Doesn't happen very often, but certainly can happen. I'm guessing it was a lucky streak.

Kerry Packer hit Caesars for big wins occasionally during his big playing days. Caesars paid him ... and waited for him to come back next time. . Of course, Ivey is a much more disciplined gambler. Crockfords won't likely get another shot at that money.