151–160 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd question whether that is actually what happens when you open casinos, but I suppose it's beside the point, legally speaking.
Considering that this is in Atlantic City, it hasn't really happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the "fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" is for the house to always win. Is this controversial? I assumed everyone knew that the casinos have an edge on every game they spread?
It can't be controversial for anyone who is even barely informed. I mean, how do they afford to build the fancy casinos, pay the employees, etc.? There's no way it's a loss leader for the hotels or restaurants.
The casino operators need to think about the law of large numbers. If you have an edge, what you want is for a bunch of little guys to bet against you. Your certainty of winning against a million little bets is enormous, if you have an edge. And you do, because those games are made that way. What you don't want to do is bet a few big bets. You might be smarter than me at guessing the outcome of an election, or a coin…
You significantly underestimate the sophistication of the casino operators. Those few huge fish aren't each making a single bet. They're making many many bets. Enough that the house edge is extremely likely to manifest itself except in cases like this one where the house edge had been manipulated.
So essentially one of them cracked and admitted it? Or they bragged to someone? I can't understand how they would have otherwise found out about the scheme. It seems as if they just kept tight lipped about it, stuck to their requests being a superstition, they would be fine.
Once that's done, Ms. Sun's criminal record would be easy to track down. Inquiry to figure out what she had in her cell with her.
Then it's a matter of asking them, under oath, to confirm these conclusions. They either have to plead the 5th (which I don't think one can in England) or acknowledge what they did.
A good casino lawyer and investigator could get 90% of this.
As a game designer, I find casino "games" frustrating, because they are designed to not only mitigate skill, but also luck, in favor of the house. The fact that the casinos have roped in John Law to steal back their winnings after they were taken fair and square is especially galling. If they were grown-ups, they would take their beating, ban Ivey and Sun for life, and change their processes to avoid being beaten aga…
Gambling has always been a tax for the mathematically illiterate. Casino gambling has always been a scam and this proves it--whenever someone too clever comes along, they run right to the muscle to get their money back.
Even if you 100% know the odds are nowhere near your favor its possible to get pleasure from the act of putting down a bet, even if you lose. It can be a form of entertainment.
I, personally, don't get this pleasure but I can understand other people like different things than me.
Whether or not it should be legal, its additive potential is too much of a burden on society, or is ethical is a different question entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2) is about operating or exposing a game with marked cards. So it forbids the house to use those cards, I don't read it as a criminal act for the player to play against a house which uses such cards. Also I think b. is about the house: it is about owning or using such cards. The cards where not Iphy's, the casino was the owner and the one that was using them. But apart from that, just imagine what the implications ar…
There was no criminal ruling in this case. The ruling is that the implicit contract of the game was voided, according to the Casino Control Act. Returning the funds is just unwinding the executed contract. You'll note that there are not even any punitive penalties being applied. Only the money earned during the game is to be returned.
And proceeds that were gained using the winnings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should only keep track of the baccarat winnings/losses. If he won $9.6M in baccarat and lost $500k in craps, they should still ask for $9.6M, not $9.1M. That said, they agreed to the rules, they should eat the loss anyway. The government has no role in protecting businesses from their own stupidity.
The argument (which I don't agree with, but which has some merit) is that he and his accomplice used knowledge available only to them which constituted a fraud against the casino. The reason I don't agree with it is that the fact that the cards were printed in a manner which made it possible to do this does not mean they defrauded the casino, it means the casino shouldn't have agreed to use those cards because their…
This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advantage. I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his characte…
I mean, that's a pretty important thing to know before forming an opinion on this matter.
In essence, the part of the contract that the judge is leaning on is that any manner of manipulation, by either party, invalidates the game and any winnings that came as a result of that game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2) is about operating or exposing a game with marked cards. So it forbids the house to use those cards, I don't read it as a criminal act for the player to play against a house which uses such cards. Also I think b. is about the house: it is about owning or using such cards. The cards where not Iphy's, the casino was the owner and the one that was using them. But apart from that, just imagine what the implications ar…
There was no criminal ruling in this case. The ruling is that the implicit contract of the game was voided, according to the Casino Control Act. Returning the funds is just unwinding the executed contract. You'll note that there are not even any punitive penalties being applied. Only the money earned during the game is to be returned.
Hopefully he has his assets protected and can file for bankruptcy. Worse than having to pay back his winning, which he probably has paid some taxes on and spent some. He's probably ruined and most places will not allow him to play at their tables. How he is ever going to make back the money to play?