- Apr 29, 2020
- Reaction score
- Humble, TX
If what you are saying is the way the law is written, and you are sure of that, then that's completely different. Still wrong, and a bad law that ought to be lobbied to be changed, but different from what I was responding to.You're not understanding this unfortunately. I'm not giving the casino a pass, the casino isn't shirking any duty. They have zero legal standing to do what you want them to do here. Your issue is with the letter of the law, not with the casino.
In the blackjack scenario, you are stealing directly from the casino. They have jurisdiction to protect themselves in that instance.
In the scenario that happened today, the aggrieved party would have to try and take the scumbag to small claims court to recoup their money. The Casino does not have the legal right to enforce gambling debts or disputes between 3rd parties.
Believe me, I get what you're saying. To an average person looking at this, both examples look like THEFT. But the legal system doesn't always operate in a manner that meshes with common sense, there are a lot of intricacies that come into play based on wording, intent, etc.
And unfortunately the laws are written in a manner that prevent the Casino from having any authority to do more than ban the individual who is welching on the bet. The guy who got screwed lost $815, as the scumbag did put a lot of chips forward, but ran with the single 1k chip and didn't pay the full all-in to the other player.
You said above, that:
The problem here is everyone could then scam the casino if they were forced to "make it right"
You and a buddy go in and plunk down 30k each. Get it in, one of you walks, refusing to pay and now the casino has to "make it right"
That scam would happen all over
So my reply to that was - if they can stop the blackjack player, then they can stop the poker player. They just choose not to, because they don't feel that he is stealing from them.