Bob Nersesian guest again
Quote: WizardWhy is everybody suddenly saying "dilly dilly?" Is it a reference to Cinderella?
-snip-
Bud Light marketing campaign:
Quote: NokTangI listened to the podcast last night. I came out of it unimpressed with everyone's favorite attorney. Unimpressed because of the manner in which he dismissed the idea of a person paying for his time to ask questions and saying it's "$20,000.usd" for each question and on another issue "the attorney will have to pay me $5000.usd for my briefs" etc.. It's a sad day IMHO when an attorney becomes one with an attitude like this. The attempts at humor were also very childlike IMHO but that's me. He's the one laughing all the way to the bank I suppose and well, that's that. The silly attack of Caesars Palace were also childlike IMHO.
The 20k amount is actually pretty standard. I learned about this when I was in the process of starting this skill gaming business venture with a friend. We soon learned that there is a grey area surrounding the gambling laws in this country and that the federal statutes are a bit vague about what constitutes 'unlawful gambling' and don't really differentiate what is lawful and what is unlawful gambling. We then learned that on the state level, many states actually do differentiate between 'gambling' and 'skill gaming', but on the federal level it doesn't. This caused a problem with getting a bank account because they all recited the same Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. We then contacted several attorneys about this and they said for a 'legal opinion' and a survey of the states gambling laws it was going to be around 25k.
You have to understand these attorneys take a lot of legal risk in their legal opinions especially if it's a grey area topic. I will say this though, many lawyers just want to cash in on you. I didn't end up paying the 25k because it was way overpriced and I'm glad I didn't because I still think the banks wouldn't have opened an account especially after further researching the 2006 act. Turns out, skill gaming for what we were doing actually might have been illegal due to the 'consideration' aspect of the entry fees under the 2006 act. I think these lawyers knew that the whole time, but were ready to try and cash in and try anyway.
Quote: rdw4potusLegal risk? It's just multiplication, dude... $300/hr for 80 hours of work on the survey/research...
That's part of it as well, but a lot of lawyers don't like to give out these 'opinions'.
Quote: ZenKinGThe 20k amount is actually pretty standard.
Standard of not, I just didn't like the attitude expressed by him(the attorney) orally on the show. It doesn't matter now, I've not been trespassed ever that I can recall. Perhaps at the Barbary Coast many years ago due to a long monster roll at the craps table and my invitation to the eye in the sky to come on down...which they did.
Quote: ZenKinGAlso the thing about preferential shuffling, i just dont understand how a court can say it doesnt violate the cheating statute on the books for each state, especially Nevada, and claim the casinos can countermeasure you. Thats a complete contradiction. Are we a country of laws or not? The Nevada statute clearly says you cannot alter the odds of the game and the frequency of payment. In a hot shoe youre doing both of those by shuffling up.
I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't CSMs be unlawful using your argument? If a casino wanted to host a six deck game, and re-shuffle after every hand, would that be unlawful, based on your interpretation?
I don't know if preferential shuffling is illegal or not, but it should be.Quote: IndyJeffreyI'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't CSMs be unlawful using your argument? If a casino wanted to host a six deck game, and re-shuffle after every hand, would that be unlawful, based on your interpretation?
What you described doesn't really show any preference, it's fair to all.
Quote: IndyJeffreyI'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't CSMs be unlawful using your argument? If a casino wanted to host a six deck game, and re-shuffle after every hand, would that be unlawful, based on your interpretation?
Notice the word 'preferential'. Reshuffling after EVERY hand is not preferential. Using a CSM is not preferential. It is the casino's decision to reshuffle SPECIFICALLY when there is a player advantage that ZK is challenging. It is a non zero chance that ZK could win a class action lawsuit. Is it worth the cost, time, and effort to pursue such a lawsuit? That's up to ZK and whatever lawyer would be assisting him.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't know if preferential shuffling is illegal or not, but it should be.
What you described doesn't really show any preference, it's fair to all.
All shuffling does is bring the odds of the game back to where they were originally. It can never make the game worse then it is at the start of any shoe.
Are you saying that you’re entitled to play at whatever odds the game is at after some small cards have been used up? I disagree.
If a blackjack game offered has rules that let’s say equate to a .025 house edge , then as long as the casino doesn’t do anything to make the odds worse than that , then they have not broken any laws imo.
Quote: michael99000All shuffling does is bring the odds of the game back to where they were originally. It can never make the game worse then it is at the start of any shoe.
Are you saying that you’re entitled to play at whatever odds the game is at after some small cards have been used up? I disagree.
If a blackjack game offered has rules that let’s say equate to a .025 house edge , then as long as the casino doesn’t do anything to make the odds worse than that , then they have not broken any laws imo.
Imagine if a casino had an eye in the sky keeping count of s BJ game, and called down to the floor to shuffle anytime the count became favorable to the player.
Are you saying that would not change the HE of the game?
Quote: michael99000All shuffling does is bring the odds of the game back to where they were originally. It can never make the game worse then it is at the start of any shoe.
Are you saying that you’re entitled to play at whatever odds the game is at after some small cards have been used up? I disagree.
If a blackjack game offered has rules that let’s say equate to a .025 house edge , then as long as the casino doesn’t do anything to make the odds worse than that , then they have not broken any laws imo.
Blackjack is as played today not a game with a set house edge
If its offered with enough to make it .25 -ev that is only based on perfect basic strategy play.
Unskilled players may have a 2% or worse house edge
Furthermore you make the assumption that card counting raises the ev only during a positive count
Technically it is always +ev to a counter ie at the beginning of the shoe. That is why some games offer rules a counter would refuse to play (the game is not +ev) the counter is only taking advantage of those moments when the deck composition is in his favor not that the rules making the game +ev have been altered
So let me ask you if the composition of the deck made the count heavily - or against the player would you feel the casino should shuffle then as well to bring the game back to its original composition? If not then you are for preferential shuffling
Those who listened this time noticed a lot of the questions posed on this forum made it to the show. That will likely continue to be the case in the future
Bob
Look at Ken Uston's lawsuit against Atlantic City casinos. He successfully reversed a New Jersey Casino Commission regulation that allowed casinos to exclude card counters--casinos could not ban someone simply for counting cards at blackjack . He won, and what did the casinos do? They half-shoed and flat-betted the skilled players, and they changed the rules of the game to increase their house edge.
You can't win by bringing a legal case against preferential shuffling by the casinos, because even if you win the battle you'll lose the war. Let the few casinos that use preferential shuffling have their way. Quietly move on. It's a lot better than forcing them to change the rules of the game to the point that a skilled player can't win. The object of blackjack is to Beat the Dealer, and this can't be done if the game is unbeatable.
Quote: GreasyjohnEven if a suit against preferential shuffling is successful it wouldn't help the skilled player, because casinos would just introduce more 6:5 games and CSMs; they would drop their DD games for 6D games, not offer S17, not allow DAS, etc. The casinos will always make sure that their blackjack game is profitable.
Look at Ken Uston's lawsuit against Atlantic City casinos. He successfully reversed a New Jersey Casino Commission regulation that allowed casinos to exclude card counters--casinos could not ban someone simply for counting cards at blackjack . He won, and what did the casinos do? They half-shoed and flat-betted the skilled players, and they changed the rules of the game to increase their house edge.
You can't win by bringing a legal case against preferential shuffling by the casinos, because even if you win the battle you'll lose the war. Let the few casinos that use preferential shuffling have their way. Quietly move on. It's a lot better than forcing them to change the rules of the game to the point that a skilled player can't win. The object of blackjack is to Beat the Dealer, and this can't be done if the game is unbeatable.
I agree.
Perhaps someone needed a follow-up suit which argued preferential flat-betting is illegal
I mean setting a table min-max and pointing to one player and saying "oh not you" sounds completely illegal
The equivalent of having a buy 2 get one free sale and then pointing to one customer and saying "not you cause you use too many coupons"
(Or "not you we heard you used coupons at our competitor across the street so no sale items for you. Better get out of town your bargain hunting days are over)
Quote: darkozI agree.
Perhaps someone needed a follow-up suit which argued preferential flat-betting is illegal
I mean setting a table min-max and pointing to one player and saying "oh not you" sounds completely illegal
This will make you zero for two on your legal guesses. I would think most APs would have invested some time and at least learned the basics from Bob N book
Quote: HomelessnycThis will make you zero for two on your legal guesses. I would think most APs would have invested some time and at least learned the basics from Bob N book
If youre the one keeping score then I am clearly 6 for five
Quote: darkozIf youre the one keeping score then I am clearly 6 for five
As usual can't fight the facts so you make up nonsense.
Love it
Quote: HomelessnycAs usual can't fight the facts so you make up nonsense.
Love it
Huh boy once again you demonstrate no sense of humor. What a horrid life you must live. Come on laugh a ljttle
Anyway your legal acumen does not mean anything nor does your scorekeeping
Feel better now?
EDIT: and since you didnt recognize the "nonsense" reply it was a blackjack reference. My score is 6 for five. Get it? 6:5?
But jokes are hard to fathom when you have no sense of humor
Quote: darkozHuh boy once again you demonstrate no sense of humor. What a horrid life you must live. Come on laugh a ljttle
Anyway your legal acumen does not mean anything nor does your scorekeeping
Feel better now?
EDIT: and since you didnt recognize the "nonsense" reply it was a blackjack reference. My score is 6 for five. Get it? 6:5?
But jokes are hard to fathom when you have no sense of humor
I get a laugh everytime you pull this, get owned and say I'm making a joke. I get it, trust me, all your post are jokes and we all get a good laugh from you.
Quote: HomelessnycI get a laugh everytime you pull this, get owned and say I'm making a joke. I get it, trust me, all your post are jokes and we all get a good laugh from you.
I didnt get owned unless you now claim to be my pimp
(P.s) since you will now believe you are pimping me that was a joke
Poor guy with no sense of humor needs every joke spelled out to him in advance
Quote: darkozBlackjack is as played today not a game with a set house edge
If its offered with enough to make it .25 -ev that is only based on perfect basic strategy play.
Unskilled players may have a 2% or worse house edge
Furthermore you make the assumption that card counting raises the ev only during a positive count
Technically it is always +ev to a counter ie at the beginning of the shoe. That is why some games offer rules a counter would refuse to play (the game is not +ev) the counter is only taking advantage of those moments when the deck composition is in his favor not that the rules making the game +ev have been altered
So let me ask you if the composition of the deck made the count heavily - or against the player would you feel the casino should shuffle then as well to bring the game back to its original composition? If not then you are for preferential shuffling
I would not say I’m “for” preferential shuffling ..
ZK stated in an earlier thread that it was illegal for the casino to do this because it changed the odds of the game sand made them worse. I’m just saying , what it does is it resets the odds for the next hand to whatever the house edge is under that given games rules. It cannot make the odds of the next hand worse than that.
Put it this way , a player has the ability to start out playing a new shoe and then stop playing and walk away to a new table that’s starting a new shoe as soon as the count has gone negative. Ok so the casino electing to shuffle when the count goes positive is basically the mirror image of that move on their end. Both sides have a decision they can make that allows them to not play the game under certain conditions.
Why should a player be able to walk away after 1 hand or 5 hands or 10 hands into a shoe if he doesn’t like the count, but the casino has to play out the entire shoe regardless of how they feel about the count ?
Quote: darkozI didnt get owned unless you now claim to be my pimp
(P.s) since you will now believe you are pimping me that was a joke
Poor guy with no sense of humor needs every joke spelled out to him in advance
Wow someone needs to teach you how to use a dictionary. Own has more than one meaning...
Please keep going watching you try and fail is making my morning.
I'll check back later for some more laughs
Quote: HomelessnycWow someone needs to teach you how to use a dictionary. Own has more than one meaning...
Please keep going watching you try and fail is making my morning.
I'll check back later for some more laughs
Wow smh once again proof you have no sense of humor even with the joke spelled out for you
As trump would say: so sad
That seems like a good point to me.Quote: michael99000Why should a player be able to walk away after 1 hand or 5 hands or 10 hands into a shoe if he doesn’t like the count, but the casino has to play out the entire shoe regardless of how they feel about the count ?
Quote: michael99000I would not say I’m “for” preferential shuffling ..
ZK stated in an earlier thread that it was illegal for the casino to do this because it changed the odds of the game sand made them worse. I’m just saying , what it does is it resets the odds for the next hand to whatever the house edge is under that given games rules. It cannot make the odds of the next hand worse than that.
Put it this way , a player has the ability to start out playing a new shoe and then stop playing and walk away to a new table that’s starting a new shoe as soon as the count has gone negative. Ok so the casino electing to shuffle when the count goes positive is basically the mirror image of that move on their end. Both sides have a decision they can make that allows them to not play the game under certain conditions.
Why should a player be able to walk away after 1 hand or 5 hands or 10 hands into a shoe if he doesn’t like the count, but the casino has to play out the entire shoe regardless of how they feel about the count ?
Its a good argument. Not sure I up to challenging that one
Are there not games where the player is allowed an advantage at some point in game play?
After a point is made in Craps the player is allowed to remove his Dont Pass bet because its advantageous to him. Could the casino not utilize your argument. Why should they be forced to play when the dont come player has an advantage over them but the player is allowed to walk away
I feel like im grasping here with this argument though. I reserve the right to a better comeback if it occurs to me
I need time dammit!!!!
Quote: darkoz
After a point is made in Craps the player is allowed to remove his Dont Pass bet because its advantageous to him. Could the casino not utilize your argument. Why should they be forced to play when the dont come player has an advantage over them but the player is allowed to walk away
If each bet is in fact independent of the others, how can this be true? Asked another way, how can removing a DP wager after the point is established be "advantageous" to her? Thanks
Quote: NokTangIf each bet is in fact independent of the others, how can this be true? Asked another way, how can removing a DP wager after the point is established be "advantageous" to her? Thanks
Ibeatyouraces explained it. The odds at that moment are in favor of The player
The casino allows you to remove the bet because they are happy if someone is stupid enough to drop their action when its favorable to the player
But it is still at player discretion not the casino
Which brings us back to the subject of preferential shuffling
But it makes me think of two questions, suitable for his next apparance on the show.
Regarding preferential shuffling:
I get what Bob says that the casino should have that option if the dealer (or whoever) is also a card counter and determines that the count it too high, just as an AP can opt to lower their bet (or not play) when the count gets too far negative. Each side of the war should have the same options.
But what about situations where the casino is using an electronic device to count the cards? Shouldn't the AP also have the option to use electronics to count?
Regarding suing Indian casinos:
I also get what Bob says about suing the employee, not the tribe. But what if the employee is also a member of the tribe?
Quote: ZenKinGDuring the whole spat I had with the casino and when gaming arrived, I forgot to bring that up of where in the law does it say you can hold onto my chips if I request it back?
Please tell us this story.
Quote: ZenKinGAsk Bob the next time when he's on when you hand over chips to the cashier and you ask for your chips back because you do not want to show ID to them or the pit manager, etc if they have a RIGHT to hold your chips.
I'm not an attorney, but I think they do. Here in Nevada, the laws are very casino-friendly. As I understand it, the casino owns all chips, even those in your pocket and right in front of you at the table. I don't think they can demand your identification, but I don't think they are breaking any laws if they seize your chips and offer you a deal to give them back if you produce proper identification. I'm not saying I like it, but think that is the way it is in Nevada. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Quote: WizardI'm not an attorney, but I think they do. Here in Nevada, the laws are very casino-friendly. As I understand it, the casino owns all chips, even those in your pocket and right in front of you at the table. I don't think they can demand your identification, but I don't think they are breaking any laws if they seize your chips and offer you a deal to give them back if you produce proper identification. I'm not saying I like it, but think that is the way it is in Nevada. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
That would be theft. You can't just seize someones money at will. They accepted a wager and are required to pay me out regardless of ID. If they didn't ID me before I played, that's a major fine for the casino if I am indeed under 21, but it has nothing to do with me after the fact.
When I got gaming involved at one casino, i quickly saw who they favor, which is nice to know that gaming is corrupt here. I forgot to ask the question of can I get my chips back, but every other question about me not having to produce ID and them having to pay me out, gaming quickly shot all of it down and said I have to be 21 and citing regulation 13 etc, etc. and then kept pressuring me to the point they said they will take me down to the CCDC to find out who i am. They even threatened to cite me for gambling as a minor, which is completely ludicrous. I told them if that's the case, the casino would get fined heavily, not me and they quickly changed the subject LOL.
I might as well go play at an indian casino. It's like I initially thought, casinos run this town and I bet the courts are even more corrupt. Too much tax revenue to ever be lost for a casino to lose their license, etc. For something like theft though, they wouldn't be able to get away with it in federal court.
Quote: WizardI'm not an attorney, but I think they do. Here in Nevada, the laws are very casino-friendly. As I understand it, the casino owns all chips, even those in your pocket and right in front of you at the table. I don't think they can demand your identification, but I don't think they are breaking any laws if they seize your chips and offer you a deal to give them back if you produce proper identification. I'm not saying I like it, but think that is the way it is in Nevada. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Nersessian would disagree with you
He almost never takes on cases where gaming law is against him
However he has taken on these chip confiscation cases
Here are just 2 hes representing currently
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/advantage-gambler-sues-hard-rock-hotel/amp/
Quote: darkozQuote: WizardI'm not an attorney, but I think they do. Here in Nevada, the laws are very casino-friendly. As I understand it, the casino owns all chips, even those in your pocket and right in front of you at the table. I don't think they can demand your identification, but I don't think they are breaking any laws if they seize your chips and offer you a deal to give them back if you produce proper identification. I'm not saying I like it, but think that is the way it is in Nevada. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Nersessian would disagree with you
He almost never takes on cases where gaming law is against him
However he has taken on these chip confiscation cases
Here are just 2 hes representing currently
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/advantage-gambler-sues-hard-rock-hotel/amp/
That hard rock case sounds eerily similar to what happened to me at this other casino. They waited for me to go to the cage. I know, you should never go to the cage after playing, but it was a short session, never raised my bets and I had no heat so they caught me by surprise. Now, before I cash out, I always make sure there's no manager in sight as well as any manager in the cage getting a phone call or looking at me suspiciously.
The difference between mine and the hard rock case is that the casino manager first requested I give ID after chasing me down and not the cashier. Too bad security and management was too afraid to handcuff me and injure me after I threatened them first that I'd call gaming on the spot, which I did as well as inform them of the Wilkinson Case LOL. I guess it helped that I also didn't give a rats ass what they were telling me, i nearly fell asleep laying on the cashier counter while 6'7 security guard was trying to intimidate me.
Ended up only showing my ID to Gaming by the end of it, but the problem is surveillance most likely got a shot of the ID while he looked at it.
Quote: WizardI'm not an attorney, but I think they do. Here in Nevada, the laws are very casino-friendly. As I understand it, the casino owns all chips, even those in your pocket and right in front of you at the table. I don't think they can demand your identification, but I don't think they are breaking any laws if they seize your chips and offer you a deal to give them back if you produce proper identification. I'm not saying I like it, but think that is the way it is in Nevada. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
The laws can only be casino-friendly if they maintain public trust. People gamble all the time without ID. If they insist that I show my ID to get paid, I am taking the chips with me. They need to give me assurance that they will honor their bet and the only way for them to do that is by having me produce the chips along with my license.
Quote: ZenKinGThat would be theft. You can't just seize someones money at will. They accepted a wager and are required to pay me out regardless of ID. If they didn't ID me before I played, that's a major fine for the casino if I am indeed under 21, but it has nothing to do with me after the fact.
Your problem was that you went way off script. You stopped trying to beat them at cards and were trying to beat them with a better knowledge of the law. That's not a battle that can be won on a casino floor. Gaming Commission will favor the house, because the laws favor the house. Any corruption only goes as far as your own idiocy allows it to go. The more you fight over your ID, the more reason you give them identify you. Millions of people play casino games without an ID and it isn't a problem. You made it into one.
Quote: TomGYour problem was that you went way off script. You stopped trying to beat them at cards and were trying to beat them with a better knowledge of the law. That's not a battle that can be won on a casino floor. Gaming Commission will favor the house, because the laws favor the house. Any corruption only goes as far as your own idiocy allows it to go. The more you fight over your ID, the more reason you give them identify you. Millions of people play casino games without an ID and it isn't a problem. You made it into one.
How did i create a problem? I just simply tried to cash out and the casino manager followed me and started it. Hes the one that asked for ID. The only thing i shouldnt have done is go to the cage, but because i got no heat and it was a short session, i took my chances as i dont like to collect chips really.
The casino refused to pay because they had received my name and pic from another casino that I am an advantage gambler i.e. I was not trespassed in this particular casino but they still tried to rob me
They were forced to pay me when I called The gaming commission on them
Most casino employees do not know the law and believe they have autonomy to do what they want to protect the casino
Often they smile when in power (suit and badge and a bunch of big guys behind them) but i can tell you now they sweat when under deposition and suddenly realize how powerless they really are
Quote: darkoz
However he has taken on these chip confiscation cases
Here are just 2 hes representing currently
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/advantage-gambler-sues-hard-rock-hotel/amp/
These sound like illegal detention lawsuits and not chip confiscation. I really doubt Bob would take a case solely for chip confiscation related to not showing ID.
Quote: darkozNersessian would disagree with you
I'll believe that if it comes directly from him. Even the Gaming Control Board, which is generally casino friendly, will not stand for chip confiscation for no other reason that advantage play, on principle alone, which seems to be the case with your example. However, I still maintain that, legally, all chips belong to the casino.
Quote: WizardI'll believe that if it comes directly from him. Even the Gaming Control Board, which is generally casino friendly, will not stand for chip confiscation for no other reason that advantage play, on principle alone, which seems to be the case with your example. However, I still maintain that, legally, all chips belong to the casino.
I believe you are correct in that all chips belong to the casino
That is the case with many types of business
An apartment rental belongs to the owner landlord however he cannot kick out on his own a tenant. They have rights to the premises and their security deposit that are inviolable
Casino chips are fiduciary (loans tokens sorry thats not the word but something that establishes they have your money in their coffers so you can perform transactions on their property the correct terminology isnt coming to me) and are considered bearer instruments so must be cashed by whomever presents them
But casino employees are worse than advantage players. The employees actually have no qualms about breaking the law
Quote: darkozCasino chips are fiduciary (loans tokens sorry thats not the word but something that establishes they have your money in their coffers so you can perform transactions on their property the correct terminology isnt coming to me) and are considered bearer instruments so must be cashed by whomever presents them
They are not bearer instruments. If the casino believes there are any shenanigans involved, they can refuse to cash the chip and even confiscate it. Chips are basically a way of keeping score.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this until a better legal mind comes along.
Quote: WizardThey are not bearer instruments. If the casino believes there are any shenanigans involved, they can refuse to cash the chip and even confiscate it. Chips are basically a way of keeping score.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this until a better legal mind comes along.
Thats actually the casino breaking the law
Query: If you lose a casino chip does the casino guarantee its backing. Ie can you claim you lost it and a block is put on that chip so no one can cash it?
Or do they reply that its your responsibility and whomever has it can cash it
If the casino claims its your responsibility and has no remuneration for lost chips then they are bearer bonds
Quote: darkozIf the casino claims its your responsibility and has no remuneration for lost chips then they are bearer bonds
I don't get that logic jump. I had the Red Rock refuse several $1,000 chips in my possession. They would have laughed in my face if I said they were bearer bonds.
Quote: WizardI don't get that logic jump. I had the Red Rock refuse several $1,000 chips in my possession. They would have laughed in my face if I said they were bearer bonds.
Okay then i am not certain about vegas but most tito i have seen says directly the tickets are bearer bonds at least here on the east coast
Can you confirm thats true in vegas?
If so i see no difference between a $1000 tito and a $1000 chip
Do las vegas casinos refuse to cash out titos for lack of proof of ownership?
I see the new game is to sue the employees of the Indian Casinos. I LIKE IT. :)
Quote: KeyserA casino refusing to cash chips is considered bad faith, unless they can prove that the chips didn't belong to the person that's trying to cash them.
I see the new game is to sue the employees of the Indian Casinos. I LIKE IT. :)
I'm reminded of that poker player, don't recall his name, that tried to cash in some chocolates at a casino and the casino confiscated the chips because they didn't think he had ontained them while playing there (in fact he didn't, he was given the chips as repayment of the loan by another poker player). I think Bob N took up that case, but in any event I know that the poker player made a legal challenge about it. I don't know what the outcome ever was.
Edit: Nolan Dalla. Casino, MGM
