Dice Control -- for the 37th time.

None of you guys get; do you, they were not charged with anything. That should tells you the whole story! You could debate this until you are all blue in the face, without seeing the video nobody knows what happened.

You can presume that they are guitly if you want to, but I think I would go along with a DA on this one.

It will come as no big surprise if a good lawyer takes this case, and makes money for all those involved. That does not mean that the casino will be the winner in this case. We all know that Wynn has deep pockets, maybe when this is all over with they won't be as deep as they were before they players were arrested.

You got to love it when you have someone saying dice setting is cheating when the DA doesn't think so! They must have went to law school, and they have a law degree, to funny!

Quote: superrick

You got to love it when you have someone saying dice setting is cheating when the DA doesn't think so! They must have went to law school, and they have a law degree, to funny!

Earth to superrick, earth to superrick ...

The issue is not dice SETTING, it is dice SLIDING.

Sheesh.

You can always tell a Patrick follower, but you can't tell him much.

Quote: MrV

Earth to superrick, earth to superrick ...

The issue is not dice SETTING, it is dice SLIDING.

Sheesh.

You can always tell a Patrick follower, but you can't tell him much.

Actually, one of the issues is whether the two are legally equivalent vis-a-vis NRS 465. Setting the dice and then haphazardly flinging them down the table won't do anything. But setting the dice and throwing them in a carefully repeated motion may alter the probabilities in the same way that setting the dice and sliding them may alter the probabilities. If it's a matter of degree and not kind, either both are legal or both are illegal.

Well excuse me MrV but this thread has taking in dice setting as cheating too, time to go back and do some more reading.

Quote: MathExtremist

Actually, one of the issues is whether the two are legally equivalent vis-a-vis NRS 465.

Of course.

I explored that issue in depth already, on the related thread.

But the arrest wasn't because of dice setting, it was for dice sliding.

Wynn called the cops, saying "we caught some cheaters!"

An arrest was made, but no charges were filed, and they most likely won't be.

The dice setting / dice sliding issue arose to contrast the two, the first being deemed "legal," the second not "legal."

I raised the issue that the applicable Nevada law is too ambiguous.

So yeah, the issue is dice SLIDING.

I took supperick to the woodshed for his harebrained claim that they were arrested for dice SETTING, i.e. "You got to love it when you have someone saying dice setting is cheating when the DA doesn't think so!"

WGAS whether the DA thinks dice setting is cheating?

That ain't the point at all.

The point is whether dice SLIDING is cheating.

Please, make a note of it.

Whats the odds this will be settled out of court, with a non-disclosure statement ? Odds-On !

It will never go to trial.

They will keep the money.

They will be trespassed from Wynn / Encore.

End of story.

Well I often that I'm not the best writer there is that's for sure. I also have a buddy that worked as a cop on the strip, that told me that he would be called into the casinos many times to arrest some on for cheating that did nothing wrong.
He was one of the better one that knew what cheating was, and one of the things that he got calls for was card counting.

Anybody can be arrested for anything, but proving they did something wrong can become a problem for those that arrested them, when it come to anything that happened in a casino! A good book to read my anybody that plays in the casinos would be,.. Beat The Players

By Bob Nersesian

Bob Nersesian is one of the lawyers that take cases like this one and make the casinos pay, for their wrong doing!

The law says dice sliding is cheating, but the casinos have to prove you were sliding the dice!
I don't think we will ever know the truth about this case. All I can say about it, if the DA didn't think they had a case maybe the lawyers like Bob Nersesian will think they can make a case for the players that got arrested!

Quote: thecesspit

Why not? The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case (after all, OJ wasn't successfully prosecuted for murder, but ended losing the civil case...).

In a civil case, the defendants must spend lots of money on lawyers to defend themselves; and they'll pay whether they win or lose. They can counter-sue the Wynn, of course, and maybe the lawyer would then take the case on contingency (ie he gets paid noly if he wins). I don't know if they can claim the Wynn owes them anything, though.

Anyway, merely making the defendants pay for legal representation could be enough to deterr future cases.

Quote: Nareed

In a civil case, the defendants must spend lots of money on lawyers to defend themselves; and they'll pay whether they win or lose. They can counter-sue the Wynn, of course, and maybe the lawyer would then take the case on contingency (ie he gets paid noly if he wins). I don't know if they can claim the Wynn owes them anything, though.

Anyway, merely making the defendants pay for legal representation could be enough to deterr future cases.

Sure, but that doesn't explain the original comment that was if there's no charge, a civil case can't be won. In fact, the cost for defence might make it EASIER for WynnCore to sue the dice sliders in a civil court for the return of the money.

Let's not forget the fact that the players are Argentine citizens; even if they lose a civil suit in Nevada, "good luck" trying to collect the unpaid judgment in Argentina.

But, assuming they plan to stay in the states to pursue their seemingly mediocre careers as poker players, they'll then be motivated to defend the charges with vigor.

As for Nesarian, see ... whoyagonnacall

I called it, five days ago.

They'll hire him: at least, they should!

Bob will rock Wynn onto his heels.

Quote: thecesspit

Why not? The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case (after all, OJ wasn't successfully prosecuted for murder, but ended losing the civil case...).

Because the player has no obligation to the casino. They did not sign any contract or otherwise promise to behave in a certain way.
If their actions do not violate an existing law, the casino does not have a leg to stand on.

OJ is a different story. He was charged with a criminal offense and acquitted.
The standard of proof in civil case is lower than that for a criminal conviction. But filing criminal charges does not require that much proof at all. If DA decides not to file the charges that means that in their opinion either the crime has not occur or the case is completely unprovable.

I still think the key questions revolve around the table crew. did they fail to call "no roll" because they were distracted, didn't know better, or were in on it?

Quote: thecesspit

Sure, but that doesn't explain the original comment that was if there's no charge, a civil case can't be won.

A criminal charge related to the actions that brought on the suit, and better yet a conviction, makes it easier for the plaintiff to win. but, no, it's not necessary.

Quote:

In fact, the cost for defence might make it EASIER for WynnCore to sue the dice sliders in a civil court for the return of the money.

Yes. It's often cheaper to settle than to litigate.

In any state other than Nevada, a civil suit by Wynn to recover the money would not survive the defendants' motion for summary judgment, let alone go to trial.

But, as it happened in Nevada, where the casinos rule: it could survive summary judgment and go to the jury.

Hopefully the defendants will file a counterclaim, e.g. for malicious prosecution, or for violation of the Consumer Protection Act, or something else creative like that.

Maybe a substantial judgment against Wynn will finally cause Steve to mellow out; then again, he might go careening off into another Picasso.

Let the Legal Games Begin!