Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 2291530, member: 23910"]
*takes another deep breath*

A couple of things:

On the first point, nobody is suggesting for a second that Ivey won his money in poker by cheating.  And I don't think there's any suggestion at this stage that the casino doesn't have the money to pay him either - they're just arguing over whether they should have to give it to him or not, given how the game was played.

I think they did it to him because they thought they had a good case for not having to pay him the money if he won.

On the second point, if you're an ordinary Joe who walks in the door of the casino, plays for a little while, has a decent size win and walks away then that's one thing.

Ivey and other high rollers aren't ordinary Joes though.  High rollers receive indulgences that ordinary players don't get - free suites, meals, private salons to play in, limo transfers, trips in private jets, raised limits on their favourite game and so on.

So you can see the difference - when an ordinary Joe hits and runs the casino couldn't (and shouldn't) care less because they've made no special investment in that player.  But when they've spent thousands of dollars providing a high roller with a range of different luxuries, you can see why they might be upset when that player only plays for 20 minutes, takes them for a few hundred grand and then leaves.

They casino isn't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, naturally.  They just expect some quid pro quo from the player.  Which is why, for example, in the original story in this case Ivey had agreed to play for a "serious amount of time".
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us