Tiles cheat? How could this be accurate

http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/ex-dealer-sentenced-in-17k-pa-casino-scam/


So I'm sitting trying to figure out how one could move tiles from one losing spot to a winning one. I can think of ways a dealer could cheat but could this story be accurate?

Does anyone ever fact check? Or is this just like the Michael rapaport podcast - we don't fact check

On another note - if anyone ever listens to you can bet on that- I wish they would be accurate even 50 percent of the time and why does one of the cohost finish the sentences for the other one every SINGLE TIME!!!!

I'd think it would be intentionally setting the dealer's tiles against the house way to help the players. I don't know how you'd get a conviction. The "I just suck at dealing this game" defense seems pretty strong to me, unless you have video of the players and dealer exchanging cash in the parking lot after each session.

That description does seem suspect. I'd need to see the video to know what was really going on, but the reporter may just have been paraphrasing what he was told by the casino bosses, like a game of telephone. The level of detail that would satisfy experienced gamblers is probably beyond the scope of such an article, though. CDC didn't write that, it was an AP wire story.

The only thing i can think of is if a player took took two or three spots wagering different amounts and the dealer switched a losing hand with a winning so the larger wager would prevail?

Well max is two spots - if he staggered bets one large one small dealer could switch them around if the large one won and small one lost by switching. Based on the amount of the crime this seems absurd more likely that the author is not accurate

That is a vague description indeed. This article has a little more detail (but not much):

Quote:

Laird ... was accused of helping gamblers ... cheat the casino out of $17,710 by intentionally dealing himself losing hands.

That still leaves open the question of how. It must have been a blatantly conspicuous move, otherwise the small amounts involved would have gone unnoticed.

Quote: JB

That is a vague description indeed. This article has a little more detail (but not much):


That still leaves open the question of how. It must have been a blatantly conspicuous move, otherwise the small amounts involved would have gone unnoticed.

Hmmm if setting losing hands intentionally he could either set his hand against house way for a weak hand or possibly hav used his fingers to read a few tiles post shuffle so as to deal himself the losing tiles

The latter sounds more feasible as he could alert the player accomplice which tiles to start dealing from. If memory serves players can choose from where tiles should b dealt pursuant to a dice roll which distinguishes how the dealer will distribute. This method seems more hard to catch imo