Cash Game Bizzzzzare angle at WYNN (2 Viewers)

[ReallyGoodUsername]

@ReallyGoodUsername so here is a question for you, if he pushed his chips in middle then lost and was grabbing his chips out of middle would they cash him out?

Not the casino so I can't say but personally I think that would make it easier for them to stop him because he made a conscious action of putting them in the pot.

If he didn't move all his chips in he could claim he only bet $100 and didn't see the All-In chip - complete BS? Yep! But could it be fought in court? I'm sure some trolling lawyer would say yes and take the case.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

I think @toynoob you have to stop looking at it through the eyes of right and wrong. Unfortunately corporations don't act on things based on whether it's right or wrong they do it if it's legal(-ish) and in their best interest and that's the only reason I can think of that they'd allow it to go down like it did.

 

[toynoob]

Not the casino so I can't say but personally I think that would make it easier for them to stop him because he made a conscious action of putting them in the pot.

If he didn't move all his chips in he could claim he only bet $100 and didn't see the All-In chip - complete BS? Yep! But could it be fought in court? I'm sure some trolling lawyer would say yes and take the case.

Lol, I thought he bet $100, I wasn't sure why we flopped our cards over and the dealer ran 5 cards. I didn't say wait a minute I just let them keep going until I seen I didn't like the decision. The college I went to had safe spaces for me and now I want to go home to mommy.

 

[toynoob]

I think @toynoob you have to stop looking at it through the eyes of right and wrong. Unfortunately corporations don't act on things based on whether it's right or wrong they do it if it's legal(-ish) and in their best interest and that's the only reason I can think of that they'd allow it to go down like it did.

And people like me will protest going to places that do that. And hopefully in the long run they have to close their doors bc they care about green more than the people giving them the green. Don't bite the hand feeding you.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Businesses sell products they know will kill people, and determine the profit after settling any claims and are fine with selling products that people will die from, as long as there is profit in it.

Big business doesn't care about YOU, they care about themselves and protecting themselves in an extremely litigious environment.

Getting involved in settling a matter of debt between two parties just opens them up to a whole host of a mess.

I doubt much will change in the way this is handled by the casinos moving forward. This has happened before, it'll happen again. It's such a rare occurrence that it'll be a blip in the poker worlds consciousness for a very short time before we forget and move on, or are distracted by the next Kardashian story in the news.

 

[toynoob]

@ReallyGoodUsername I totally know and agree with you. My comments are not directed at you personally. I feel for the poor bastard who did absolutely nothing wrong and gets shafted. While a billion dollar casino sits on the sidelines and watches.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Lol, I thought he bet $100, I wasn't sure why we flopped our cards over and the dealer ran 5 cards. I didn't say wait a minute I just let them keep going until I seen I didn't like the decision. The college I went to had safe spaces for me and now I want to go home to mommy.

Maybe he was tapping his hand and assumed the other guy was just calling really quick?

It's stupid as heck but people have made crazier claims in court and won. Maybe he was with a big roller they didn't want to upset or afraid it would be spun as "Wynn steals money out of a player's hand".

And people like me will protest going to places that do that. And hopefully in the long run they have to close their doors bc they care about green more than the people giving them the green. Don't bite the hand feeding you.

Hopefully this is the case and they recognize and correct.

 

[Anthony Martino]

@ReallyGoodUsername I totally know and agree with you. My comments are not directed at you personally. I feel for the poor bastard who did absolutely nothing wrong and gets shafted. While a billion dollar casino sits on the sidelines and watches.

Usually the billion dollar casino is actively plying people with free alcohol and games of chance that are mathematically in their favor. You think they give two shits about losing poker business? They barely give two craps about their poker rooms, their money is made on slots.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

@ReallyGoodUsername I totally know and agree with you. My comments are not directed at you personally. I feel for the poor bastard who did absolutely nothing wrong and gets shafted. While a billion dollar casino sits on the sidelines and watches.

Nothing taken personally here I like to play devil's advocate and talk things out.

 

[toynoob]

Businesses sell products they know will kill people, and determine the profit after settling any claims and are fine with selling products that people will die from, as long as there is profit in it.

Big business doesn't care about YOU, they care about themselves and protecting themselves in an extremely litigious environment.

Getting involved in settling a matter of debt between two parties just opens them up to a whole host of a mess.

I doubt much will change in the way this is handled by the casinos moving forward. This has happened before, it'll happen again. It's such a rare occurrence that it'll be a blip in the poker worlds consciousness for a very short time before we forget and move on, or are distracted by the next Kardashian story in the news.

Bc no one says "hey that's wrong let's talk about it" we as a society say o that's just business. Move along nothing to see here sheeples

 

[toynoob]

Usually the billion dollar casino is actively plying people with free alcohol and games of chance that are mathematically in their favor. You think they give two shits about losing poker business? They barely give two craps about their poker rooms, their money is made on slots.

I can't talk to anybody who sees slots the same as a guy sitting at a poker table and someone walking away with their chips and getting cashed out. There's nothing I can say that would even rattle a spark of sympathy for the dude

 

[fieldsy]

Easy solution: No more saying "All-in" and the dealer tossing an All-in button. All chips have to be counted and put in the pot. Yes, it may slow down the game, but it will stop this bullshit from happening again.

I don't think that is an easy solution. I think that would be a wild overreaction and disruption to games that normally proceed fairly. It would be detrimental to players who prefer to announce their action to avoid potential physical tells as they put out stacks of chips. Think of how many tens of thousands of verbal "all-ins" happen without incident every day. This situation is an outlier. The solution to me would be much simpler, for Wynn and other casinos to make and clearly post a rule saying we will not cash out poker players if they are involved in a pending, unresolved floor challenge. Or if such a rule already exists they need to enforce it.

 

[toynoob]

I don't think that is an easy solution. I think that would be a wild overreaction and disruption to games that normally proceed fairly. It would be detrimental to players who prefer to announce their action to avoid potential physical tells as they put out stacks of chips. Think of how many tens of thousands of verbal "all-ins" happen without incident every day. This situation is an outlier. The solution to me would be much simpler, for Wynn and other casinos to make and clearly post a rule saying we will not cash out poker players if they are involved in a pending, unresolved floor challenge. Or if such a rule already exists they need to enforce it.

Yuup

 

[Anthony Martino]

I can't talk to anybody who sees slots the same as a guy sitting at a poker table and someone walking away with their chips and getting cashed out. There's nothing I can say that would even rattle a spark of sympathy for the dude

I'm not unsympathetic for the guy that got screwed, we can both agree it sucks. I just understand the casino doesn't have a duty in that situation to intervene, and if they do intervene they open themselves up for liability.

Why would a billion dollar casino risk opening themselves up to significant litigation over a debt, that to them, is not significant and that they are not an interested party in? Especially in a part of their business that is considered the black sheep with lower profit margins than their other offerings.

We live in a society where a fucking good Samaritan can be sued for trying to save someones life because they broke the persons ribs in the process, THAT is the reality of the world we live in. So people are reluctant to get involved and help because they open themselves up to victimization.

 

[toynoob]

I'm not unsympathetic for the guy that got screwed, we can both agree it sucks. I just understand the casino doesn't have a duty in that situation to intervene, and if they do intervene they open themselves up for liability.

Why would a billion dollar casino risk opening themselves up to significant litigation over a debt, that to them, is not significant and that they are not an interested party in? Especially in a part of their business that is considered the black sheep with lower profit margins than their other offerings.

We live in a society where a fucking good Samaritan can be sued for trying to save someones life because they broke the persons ribs in the process, THAT is the reality of the world we live in. So people are reluctant to get involved and help because they open themselves up to victimization.

Yuup, I'm here for discussion. I know and agree with you. So they fear being sued by a thief but don't fear being sued by the innocent victim? I don't understand why that guy can't get lawyers involved?

 

[Anthony Martino]

Yuup, I'm here for discussion. I know and agree with you. So they fear being sued by a thief but don't fear being sued by the innocent victim? I don't understand why that guy can't get lawyers involved?

Anyone can get lawyers involved, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean they'll win.

 

[toynoob]

I mean would that not be an easier case to prove then vise versa? "The casino tossed a all in button dealt the cards and let my money walk away" they don't fear that lawsuit?

 

[toynoob]

Anyone can get lawyers involved, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean they'll win.

I'm saying by them not doing what's right don't that open them up to the same issue they fear?

 

[Anthony Martino]

Hmmm, not an attorney but maybe this explanation will make more sense?

When two players go all-in at the poker table and one of them loses their stack, most of the time that player willingly hands over the chips to their opponent. In that instance, the casino is just a middle-man, hosting the game. But the agreement to pay the debt owed (the all-in) is between the players. Since both parties at the conclusion of the hand amicably agree to the debt being resolved, play resumes with no legal issues coming to the forefront.

The players, in that instance, are the ones settling the debt owed, the casino is not an active or interested participant.


When someone in that instance refuses to pay up and honor the debt, the casino does not have the legal authority to enforce the collection of the debt owed, it is outside their jurisdiction/powers. If they attempt to intervene, they open themselves up to litigation, potentially from both sides (the criminal who can show that the casino doesn't have the authority to intervene, and the victim who can say that the casinos intervention made the situation worse)

 

[toynoob]

Hmmm, not an attorney but maybe this explanation will make more sense?

When two players go all-in at the poker table and one of them loses their stack, most of the time that player willingly hands over the chips to their opponent. In that instance, the casino is just a middle-man, hosting the game. But the agreement to pay the debt owed (the all-in) is between the players. Since both parties at the conclusion of the hand amicably agree to the debt being resolved, play resumes with no legal issues coming to the forefront.

The players, in that instance, are the ones settling the debt owed, the casino is not an active or interested participant.


When someone in that instance refuses to pay up and honor the debt, the casino does not have the legal authority to enforce the collection of the debt owed, it is outside their jurisdiction/powers. If they attempt to intervene, they open themselves up to litigation, potentially from both sides (the criminal who can show that the casino doesn't have the authority to intervene, and the victim who can say that the casinos intervention made the situation worse)

Anthony you sure you're not a drive by lawyer? Your mind is perfect for it I fold to your raise.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Anthony you sure you're not a drive by lawyer? Your mind is perfect for it I fold to your raise.

I'm like a jack-of-all-trades master-of-none actually. Dealt with unscrupulous landlords in the past who thought I wasn't familiar with the laws they were governed by and smacked em in court when needed (glad to own my own home now though)

But reading legalese makes my eyes roll back into my head. They've designed our laws to be complicated so that only a minority can decipher them and wield power (similar to our tax codes, lol)

 

[fieldsy]

For what it's worth, I am a lawyer (though certainly not a gaming lawyer or expert in this area), and I do think Wynn could have done more here than they did. Nevada law lets casinos detain people suspected of cheating:

NRS 465.101  Detention and questioning of person suspected of violating chapter; limitations on liability; posting of notice.
1.  Any licensee, or the officers, employees or agents of the licensee may question any person in the licensee’s establishment suspected of violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No licensee or any of the officers, employees or agents of the licensee is criminally or civilly liable:
(a) On account of any such questioning; or
(b) For reporting to the Nevada Gaming Control Board or law enforcement authorities the person suspected of the violation.
2.  Any licensee or any of the officers, employees or agents of the licensee who has probable cause for believing that there has been a violation of this chapter in the licensee’s establishment by any person may take that person into custody and detain that person in the establishment in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time. Such a taking into custody and detention does not render the licensee or the officers, employees or agents of the licensee criminally or civilly liable unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the taking into custody and detention are unreasonable under all the circumstances.

And to be clear, this player's alleged action is a "violation of this chapter," which would entitle Wynn to detain him. For example, NRS 465.070 says in part "It is unlawful for any person:
...
2.  To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome.
3.  To claim, collect or take, or attempt to claim, collect or take, money or anything of value in or from a gambling game, with intent to defraud, without having made a wager contingent thereon, or to claim, collect or take an amount greater than the amount won.
...
6.  To reduce the amount wagered or cancel the bet after acquiring knowledge of the outcome of the game or other event which is the subject of the bet, including pinching bets.

So I think it wasn't accurate to say they couldn't do anything. They should have held the guy and resolved the dispute. But in my experience the Wynn runs a good room. My guess is they made a mistake and they'll learn from it.

 

[toynoob]

For what it's worth, I am a lawyer (though certainly not a gaming lawyer or expert in this area), and I do think Wynn could have done more here than they did. Nevada law lets casinos detain people suspected of cheating:

NRS 465.101  Detention and questioning of person suspected of violating chapter; limitations on liability; posting of notice.
1.  Any licensee, or the officers, employees or agents of the licensee may question any person in the licensee’s establishment suspected of violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No licensee or any of the officers, employees or agents of the licensee is criminally or civilly liable:
(a) On account of any such questioning; or
(b) For reporting to the Nevada Gaming Control Board or law enforcement authorities the person suspected of the violation.
2.  Any licensee or any of the officers, employees or agents of the licensee who has probable cause for believing that there has been a violation of this chapter in the licensee’s establishment by any person may take that person into custody and detain that person in the establishment in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time. Such a taking into custody and detention does not render the licensee or the officers, employees or agents of the licensee criminally or civilly liable unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the taking into custody and detention are unreasonable under all the circumstances.

And to be clear, this player's alleged action is a "violation of this chapter," which would entitle Wynn to detain him. For example, NRS 465.070 says in part "It is unlawful for any person:
...
2.  To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome.
3.  To claim, collect or take, or attempt to claim, collect or take, money or anything of value in or from a gambling game, with intent to defraud, without having made a wager contingent thereon, or to claim, collect or take an amount greater than the amount won.
...
6.  To reduce the amount wagered or cancel the bet after acquiring knowledge of the outcome of the game or other event which is the subject of the bet, including pinching bets.

So I think it wasn't accurate to say they couldn't do anything. They should have held the guy and resolved the dispute. But in my experience the Wynn runs a good room. My guess is they made a mistake and they'll learn from it.

@Anthony Martino I'm grabbing my cards out of the muck now and raising

 

[Anthony Martino]

I'm not sure, but that may only apply to games where the casino is a betting party (i.e. table games) rather than where the parties involved in going into debt with one another don't involve the casino?

 

[fieldsy]

I'm not sure, but that may only apply to games where the casino is a betting party (i.e. table games) rather than where the parties involved in going into debt with one another don't involve the casino?

Not to get too deep into the weeds, but I don't think so. They can detain anyone who they have probable cause to believe is cheating in a "game" or "gambling game." Chapter 465, which sets forth the crimes of cheating and allows licensees to detain cheaters, incorporates the definitions in Chapter 463 of the Nevada Statutes. And that chapter (at NRS 463.0152) includes the following definition:

“Game” or “gambling game” means any game played with cards, dice, equipment or any mechanical, electromechanical or electronic device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, faro, monte, roulette, keno, bingo, fan-tan, twenty-one, blackjack, seven-and-a-half, big injun, klondike, craps, poker, chuck-a-luck, Chinese chuck-a-luck (dai shu), wheel of fortune, chemin de fer, baccarat, pai gow, beat the banker, panguingui, slot machine, any banking or percentage game or any other game or device approved by the Commission, but does not include games played with cards in private homes or residences in which no person makes money for operating the game, except as a player, or games operated by charitable or educational organizations which are approved by the Board pursuant to the provisions of NRS 463.409.​

 

[Anthony Martino]

Well I concede it appears based on this evidence they do have the ability to get involved. However, the law does state "may" not "must", so the establishment may be choosing as a matter of their own internal policy to not intervene in such matters, and instead to allow the private parties to sort it out?

 

[fieldsy]

“Game” or “gambling game” means any game played with cards, dice, equipment or any mechanical, electromechanical or electronic device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, faro, monte, roulette, keno, bingo, fan-tan, twenty-one, blackjack, seven-and-a-half, big injun, klondike, craps, poker, chuck-a-luck, Chinese chuck-a-luck (dai shu), wheel of fortune, chemin de fer, baccarat, pai gow, beat the banker, panguingui, slot machine, any banking or percentage game or any other game or device approved by the Commission, but does not include games played with cards in private homes or residences in which no person makes money for operating the game, except as a player, or games operated by charitable or educational organizations which are approved by the Board pursuant to the provisions of NRS 463.409.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'll go back to lurking here and being an active poster over on the big injun chip forum.

 

[abby99]

A Nevada casino supervisor told me that they are not permitted by gaming to give a customer chips or cash in order to make them whole. They can, however, give the player a comp.

Regarding robberies where the person is or might be armed, not doing anything seems correct to me. Mixing guns and crowds doesn't always work out well.

 

[toynoob]

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'll go back to lurking here and being an active poster over on the big injun chip forum.

Thanks for your very hard work and input I appreciate that!

 

[justsomedude]

I'm not unsympathetic for the guy that got screwed, we can both agree it sucks. I just understand the casino doesn't have a duty in that situation to intervene, and if they do intervene they open themselves up for liability.

I seriously don't understand this aspect.

If some one enters a gaming establishment, gets casino checks in exchange for their cash, sits at a gaming table with said checks in said establishment, and says "I bet it all." How the f*ck is that person not only allowed to grab their checks and leave, but also cash them out on their way to the door?!?!

I am dumbfounded.

The only thing I can conclude through the recent posts is that casinos have no legal authority over the poker games they offer; they are just providing the venue, chips, chairs, and dealers, and don't control the "contractual" aspects of the game, because... technically you are engaged in play with other casino visitors, and not the casino itself. I think... ???