Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 2464821, member: 23910"]
*great big 'obviously I'm not a lawyer' disclaimer on the following*

As or3 mentions, they're two different countries with two different legal systems, so I don't think there's any chance this sets any kind of binding precedent for the Borgata case.

I'm sure it'll be referenced during the proceedings, but there's no reason it should be binding, or that the judge in the Borgata case should have to take it into consideration.

I'm of pretty much the same opinion - your house, your rules.  If you don't want to give advantage players action then don't.  But don't try to have your cake and eat it too, letting them play and keeping their money if they lose, but not paying them if they win.

As I've said time and time again, it seems to me that's exactly what Crockfords was trying to do to Ivey in this case, since they denied his payment immediately (and at the time he did it, game security teams should have been well aware of edge sorting as an advantage play method).

I know where you're coming from, but I think there's a couple of things wrong with that.  First, it's kind of like saying that you shouldn't have the right to sit out or leave a poker table when a known shark joins the game.

Second, if they didn't have the right to ban advantage players then before long there simply wouldn't [I]be[/I] any more casinos - DUCY?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us