Cash Game Bizzzzzare angle at WYNN (1 Viewer)

WedgeRock said:
The examples are so much different than the hypothetical that they really don't support the number. And the legal fees?

I'm not (intentionally) taking shots at you... It's just an attempt to rain in the speculation in this thread, which is out of control.
Click to expand...

You’re worried about legal fees after a $10 million payout??

Legal fees are usually a percentage of the financial penalty awarded. But after paying out $10,000,000 to settle a stupid assault claim, the legal fees would probably be the least of a casino’s concern.
 
justsomedude said:
Hell, a woman sued McDonalds for millions when I was in high school (and won) because the coffee she voluntarily purchased was too hot (in her opinion) and caused burns to her skin when she spilled it.
Click to expand...

I hate seeing this case come up in discussions like this. This was not a frivolous lawsuit.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

The coffee was purchased at the drive-thru, and it spilled after they parked and she attempted to add cream and sugar in a car without cup holders. The documentary shows the extent of the injury. She received 3rd degree burns to her legs, requiring skin grafts. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Yes, she voluntarily purchased it, but that doesn't absolve the company of responsibility. The lawsuit was filed after attempts to settle for lower amounts (approx $20k to cover medical expenses) were refused by the company.

It wasn't just her opinion that it was too hot...the coffee was hot enough (180-190deg F) to cause 3rd degree burns within 3-7 seconds, as confirmed by medical experts. McDonalds admitted that they were aware that it was too hot for safe consumption. The company policy required franchisees to serve coffee at that high of a temperature for drive-thrus to keep it hot at the end of a commute. However, they were also aware that it was too hot for safe consumption, and that customers tended to drink it during the commute. There were 700 other injury complaints made to McDonalds during the 10yrs prior to this. They ignored the complaints and maintained the policy.

She did not win not millions...the judge reduced the amount recommended by the jury for punitive damages.

(sorry for the sidetrack)
 
^that was informative. I just know that I would not even think to blame a company that sold me the coffee if I accidentally spilled it on myself. Just the litigious society we live in.
 
justsomedude said:
Legal fees are usually a percentage of the financial penalty awarded.
Click to expand...

What?! Do you have any support for this position?

Generally, unless there is a statute that authorizes the award of attorney fees, each side pays its own attorney fees. So are you saying the casino is going to be responsible for$ 250,000 in plaintiff's attorney fees, or the casinos attorney fees?
 
WedgeRock said:
What?! Do you have any support for this position?

Generally, unless there is a statute that authorizes the award of attorney fees, each side pays its own attorney fees. So are you saying the casino is going to be responsible for$ 250,000 in plaintiff's attorney fees, or the casinos attorney fees?
Click to expand...

For f*ck's sake dude... are you really this obtuse?

http://lmgtfy.com
 
CdnBeerLover said:
I hate seeing this case come up in discussions like this. This was not a frivolous lawsuit.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

The coffee was purchased at the drive-thru, and it spilled after they parked and she attempted to add cream and sugar in a car without cup holders. The documentary shows the extent of the injury. She received 3rd degree burns to her legs, requiring skin grafts. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Yes, she voluntarily purchased it, but that doesn't absolve the company of responsibility. The lawsuit was filed after attempts to settle for lower amounts (approx $20k to cover medical expenses) were refused by the company.

It wasn't just her opinion that it was too hot...the coffee was hot enough (180-190deg F) to cause 3rd degree burns within 3-7 seconds, as confirmed by medical experts. McDonalds admitted that they were aware that it was too hot for safe consumption. The company policy required franchisees to serve coffee at that high of a temperature for drive-thrus to keep it hot at the end of a commute. However, they were also aware that it was too hot for safe consumption, and that customers tended to drink it during the commute. There were 700 other injury complaints made to McDonalds during the 10yrs prior to this. They ignored the complaints and maintained the policy.

She did not win not millions...the judge reduced the amount recommended by the jury for punitive damages.

(sorry for the sidetrack)
Click to expand...
Plus she had initially only asked for help to over the medical bills.
 
JustinInMN said:
I would argue the chips transfer ownership as soon as the showdown, regardless of where they are sitting on the table.
Participating in game isn't an implied agreement to lend players money rightfully won in hopes of getting paid.

I think debt argument is a non sequitur here. All the chips wagered belong to the winner on showdown, even if they haven't yet been moved to the winners stack.
Click to expand...

Who the chips “belong to” is irrelevant. It’s who has them in their possession. Until they are physically given to the winner of the wager, they are owed the winner, now owned by the winner. If I owe you $100, do you own the $100 bill in my hand? No, I own it. You are owed it. Until you have it, you do not own it. Therefore, it’s all about debt.

(And who said anything about lending money???)
 
Gobbs said:
Who the chips “belong to” is irrelevant. It’s who has them in their possession.
Click to expand...

If the house is using an all in button, they are showing these chips are wagered and belong to the pot.

Gobbs said:
If I owe you $100, do you own the $100 bill in my hand? No, I own it. You are owed it. Until you have it, you do not own it. Therefore, it’s all about debt.
Click to expand...

If you owe me 100 I have consented to you incurring the debt. A poker game should not require such consent. If you take 100 out of a pot I have won without my consent, then it is theft.

If the loser of the hand asked the winner "can I borrow 1200" and the winner agreed, then it's a debt.

A poker game is no such agreement.
 
JustinInMN said:
If the house is using an all in button, they are showing these chips are wagered and belong to the pot.

If you owe me 100 I have consented to you incurring the debt. A poker game should not require such consent. If you take 100 out of a pot I have won without my consent, then it is theft.

If the loser of the hand asked the winner "can I borrow 1200" and the winner agreed, then it's a debt.

A poker game is no such agreement.
Click to expand...

Again, the pot is owed that money. Were they in the pot? No...they were owed to the pot. Again, “belong to” is irrelevant. It’s possession. The chips are mine until I give them to you or the pot. Until that time, the chips are owed, not owned.

Who took money out of a pot? Where did that come from. If it’s never in the pot, how can you take it out? Again, lending has nothing to do with anything, either. A debt does not mean money was lended, just owed.

So, to bring home the original point, this is different than stealing. Stealing is taking something that somebody else possessed and owned. This is a debt issue and why the casino handles it differently than stealing.

(NOTE: It’s still despicable. My only point in the original post was it’s ludicrous to compare it to taking somebody else’s chips.)
 
On the lighter side, what is everyone's favorite ice cream flavor?
 
Gobbs said:
(NOTE: It’s still despicable. My only point in the original post was it’s ludicrous to compare it to taking somebody else’s chips.)
Click to expand...

You are basically saying a player has a right to retain duely wagered chips because they weren't scooped to the pot. That this player is somehow entitled to incur a debt to the winner instead of paying off the winner without his consent.

Or at the very least you are somehow making the argument one action is somehow more moral than the other even though neither action involves the consent of the winner.

In short, no, it's not that ludicrous.
 
davin said:
worst ice cream ever that should have never been created is mint
Click to expand...
You have clearly never enjoyed the finer points of licorice or pickle ice cream. And yes, they both exist, and are both disgusting. Mint shines in their presence.
 
JustinInMN said:
You are basically saying a player has a right to retain duely wagered chips because they weren't scooped to the pot. That this player is somehow entitled to incur a debt to the winner instead of paying off the winner without his consent.

Or at the very least you are somehow making the argument one action is somehow more moral than the other even though neither action involves the consent of the winner.

In short, no, it's not that ludicrous.
Click to expand...

No, I never said any of those things. Both are deplorable. All I’m saying is, to use this to say a casino would have to allow players to steal other people’s chips is ludicrous. Please read my original post.
 
davin said:
cookies n creme

and worst ice cream ever that should have never been created is mint
Click to expand...

I too am a cookies n' cream man. Although Breyers had a Chips Ahoy Blast flavor that became my favorite, until they discontinued it. They sometimes release it in a mashup, mixed with their Oreo ice cream, but it just doesn't work (I think they just wind up skimping on both the oreos and chips ahoys)

My wife is also a fan of Mint chocolate chip, ick. Although I would argue Black Rasberry is worse.
 
Anthony Martino said:
I too am a cookies n' cream man. Although Breyers had a Chips Ahoy Blast flavor that became my favorite, until they discontinued it. They sometimes release it in a mashup, mixed with their Oreo ice cream, but it just doesn't work (I think they just wind up skimping on both the oreos and chips ahoys)

My wife is also a fan of Mint chocolate chip, ick. Although I would argue Black Rasberry is worse.
Click to expand...
My wife buys chocolate mint everything, including Hershey Syrup. I don’t understand it.
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

doublebooyah85
New Tourney Chips at Wynn and WPT
Replies
28
Views
2K
Defarse
D
doublebooyah85
Tourney Club WPT
Replies
4
Views
624
bernielomax
bernielomax
Hotus777
  • Locked
Found Wynn Housemold $1-$20
Replies
3
Views
180
Okku
Okku
doublebooyah85
Tourney WPT Championship @ Wynn
Replies
19
Views
1K
isthisevencreative
isthisevencreative
Thomacetti
Las Vegas trip report - Goodbye Tropicana (3/4 - 3/13)
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
KHarp1
K
Back
Top Bottom