Cash Game Bizzzzzare angle at WYNN (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter davin
- Start date
That is, in fact, exactly what we were told. If two players started fighting or if one were robbing the other, cover the float and wait for security to arrive. The floor supervisors have alert buttons to summon security.
And don't try to stop or physically restrain a thief grabbing chips, as an injury to a dealer could cost the casino far more than the theft. Injury to a patron could cost millions.
What am I missing here? I've not seen any physical suggested posts, I've asked why the f would you cash out chips for a guy who just stole from a customer of yours? I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not asking the Wynn to Billy club a dude, I'm asking for common sense approach of when he takes the chips to the cage, why can't the dealer get off their ass and tell the cage he can't cash chips that aren't his. (If security in the sky hasn't already informed them) They keep them and return them to the player after bonehead is escorted off the property.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
My take - after reading through this winding post - is that the house/casino has no legal authority over bets placed among players in a poker game they host. The reason being that, in other table games (roulette, craps, etc.) you are engaging in a "contract" of sorts with the house when you wager a bet (over which they have complete control/authority). When you place bets in poker, you are engaging in said contract with other casino guests, over which the casino has no control. And you are putting a hell of a lot of faith in those other players. Sounds crazy, for sure, but it seems that is how Nevada law interprets it.
I think this definitely casts casino poker into a bit of a shady area that no one previously thought existed, which is probably not what casinos are wanting from a PR standpoint. As has been previously stated, the only way to avoid this is to make players commit their wagered chips to the pot before another player can act. It may slow down the game, but it should significantly reduce the potential for this kind of chicanery in the future.
Did you miss the posts with the lawyer posting actual law debunking the pages of posts supporting this theory?
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Well that certainly seems to make it a valid reason to engage in boycott.
Right, the law supports them "to" engage them and work it out or hold them until authorities get there. They choose to be railbirds, even with the law on their side to protect the game and customers
justsomedude
Straight Flush
The law doesn't require them to get involved.
Seems similar to how major retailers deal with thieves... "we know that theft is wrong, but we don't want a lawsuit for strong-arming a guest where a potential injury with said guest or staff could occur."
In a nutshell: don't intervene, let the cops/lawyers sort it out.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
When the room sets out rules and insists on consent to a decision making process in which the floor decisions are final, are they not contracting with every player to provide this in consider of rake?
If not, then they deserve at a minimum to take the PR hit you describe.
3rd time saying this, we don't need someone to strong-arm anyone. What I'd like to see is the cage NOT pay the idiot. Keep the chips until he is gone and give the victim his chips back. I understand why establishments are weak and disgusting, bc of lawsuits but how is not cashing him out open them up to lawsuits? How many times do you read about "the slot machine was broken" when someone hits jackpot and yet no recourse to the casino for not paying out. People know they can't afford to fight a casino. The thief would never go to trial over this
justsomedude
Straight Flush
I honestly don't know the law at all, but from the little I've read the only thing I've been able to determine is:
1) Casinos in Las Vegas may detain some one they suspect of having committed gaming fraud.
2) There is no statute (that I've yet seen/found) that requires casinos to make any players who may have been victims of said fraud, whole again.
Sucks for sure. But that's the law.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Right, but I think if the victim wants to sue, it would be on the order of this. Casino promises to enforce rules, including the requirement to consent to a decision making process. Casino did not force player to subject to the decision making process. Casino is neglegent and therefore responsible for my harm to the tune of 1300 + attorney fees because they didn't do what they represent.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
I agree 100%. I just don't see where they have the legal authority to do this.
Who knows... there are a lot of nutjobs out there looking for a chance to slap a massive casino empire with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Legally speaking, I think the Wynn made the right choice... it's better to comp some one out $1,200 than to pay a lawyer $250,000 for some frivolous lawsuit... and potentially $10,000,000 more in the event that the nutjob wins.
I'll say it again, this is SOP. Also I don't really understand all the fuss over something that is so incredibly rare.
Then again, maybe I don't have to understand
Then again, maybe I don't have to understand
And what is a large part of the gaming community seeing this article how they treat customers, then not coming back worth?
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Do we know they have done this?
Again why couldn't the victim sue? Wouldn't the Wynn worry more about not protecting the game over protecting a scum bag who is in the wrong and can easily provide evidence of his theft?
justsomedude
Straight Flush
No, I'm completely speculating. Some one previously posted that the casino can't payout to cover the fraud, but they have other options available to them to compensate casino guests. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if some one there was running the math on the risks of trying to enforce a $1,200 bet, over helping out the defrauded player by other means.
I already stated this could be a complete PR disaster for them, as it makes their game look shady as hell.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
The victim can certainly sue. But...
Who's he going to sue?
What's the claim?
Was there a posted rule stating "verbal all-in bets are legally binding"?
What are the Wynn house rules for No Limit Texas Holdem?
Do they use Robert's Rules of Poker? Other?
Are the rules publicly posted in the card room?
Are those rules legally binding under the NGC?
Can you round up all the other players/witnesses?
Did they all see/hear the same thing?
Can you get them all to go on record?
Can you subpoena the Wynn security videos?
Can you get the dealer to go on record?
Who was working the floor that night?
What is the floor staff's official recollection of the incident?
etc.
etc.
Good luck filing that lawsuit over a $1,200 bet. The invoice for your first meeting with your lawyer will be more than that.
That said, I'll certainly be rooting for you.
Do you go into casino's thinking man I hope the other players pay me when I win. Or do you feel confident there is assurance you will get paid? I'm curious
Again, I don't want to hold myself out as an expert on this, but there is also a section of the Nevada statutes on gaming that governs disputes between patrons and casinos that involve "Alleged winnings, alleged losses or the award or distribution of cash, prizes, benefits, tickets or any other item or items in a game, tournament, contest, drawing, promotion or similar activity or event." That statute is NRS 463.362, and I won't get too deep into it because it gets into pretty mundane areas of administrative law. But the gist of it is that the casino has an obligation to report any dispute with a patron to the Nevada Gaming Control Board, which then appoints an agent to investigate the dispute. The agent has to issue a decision within 45 days, which then the patron or the casino can appeal. Assuming the NGCB agent decides the customer is right, the casino has to pay on the claim within 20 days of the decision becoming final.
So there is a procedure through which the aggrieved player here may ultimately get paid, without having to actually file a suit.
So there is a procedure through which the aggrieved player here may ultimately get paid, without having to actually file a suit.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
Indeed... I think 3betpanda did a followup post saying that the NGC was already involved.
If you want to make a generalization about the entirety of casino poker based on this single and rare instance, that's fine. The casino has their own policy and guidelines for handling this stuff as set forth by the NGC, and it appears they are acting/responding accordingly.
I'd rather they follow security and NGC protocols than not cash out a player after a heated dispute, potentially putting staff and other patrons at risk of physical harm, and all over what... a $1,200 bet?
But if the Wynn's actions makes you stop playing poker in casinos entirely because you think you won't get paid out on your winning bets, that is certainly your prerogative.
The size of the bet is irrelevant. What if it's a $100k bet does it make a difference?
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I generally agree with your post, hut I will say yes, if this becomes something dishonorable gamblers exploit and the casino offers nothing more than hiding behind their own policy, then yes, I am out.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
You tell me... do you see the high stakes players and low stakes folks in the same room? With the same attention and service?
From a principal-ed standpoint, no, it should not make a difference. From a casino business/cost/risk/benefit standpoint, you can bet your ass that it makes a whole hell of a lot of difference whether they're dealing with low-stakes regs, or high stakes VIPs.
BukNaked36
Straight
If he stole the casino's money, security would stop him.
If he stole the casino's chips, security would stop him.
If he stole a woman's purse, security would stop him.
If he shop lifted from a store in Caesar's mall area, security would stop him.
If it's OK for him to cash out those chips, then any player could just buy in max at the biggest game, and go all in every hand.
If you win, get paid.
If you lose, grab your chips and cash out.
If this was the way the law truly worked, it would be the end of poker. There's plenty of people willing to get banned from a casino for a few grand.
If he stole the casino's chips, security would stop him.
If he stole a woman's purse, security would stop him.
If he shop lifted from a store in Caesar's mall area, security would stop him.
If it's OK for him to cash out those chips, then any player could just buy in max at the biggest game, and go all in every hand.
If you win, get paid.
If you lose, grab your chips and cash out.
If this was the way the law truly worked, it would be the end of poker. There's plenty of people willing to get banned from a casino for a few grand.
It’s not okay. Lots of misinformation is floating around based on that Instagram post. My guess is that the NGC will do an investigation, order Wynn to pay the player shorted, and if the cheating player is reachable he will be criminally cited, banned and fined. Everyone needs to calm down.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Last edited:
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Where the fuck are these numbers coming from?!
Let's say the cage improperly held the thief's $1200 (I don't think it would be determined improper, but let's assume). How does the thief make a claim for $10m in damages?! How are his damages anything more than $1,200?! And how does the casino incur a quarter million in legal fees?!
You guys have been watching too many lawyer TV commercials.
Last edited:
I'm laying in bed laughing, bc I thought I was alone.... Thanks for the chuckles sir
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
