If You Were a Juror In P. Ivey Case How Would You Vote
Poll
 | 34 votes (82.92%) | ||
| | 7 votes (17.07%) |
41 members have voted
July 12th, 2014 at 12:35:11 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearReally? I'm biased AGINST Ivey. His actions are costing the casino money. They'll have to replace that money somehow and that hurts all the other patrons.
Well said. I voted against. But mainly because I feel the "swindling" law covers his and his cohort's actions. And if the judge that took care of the Golden Nugget presides, he and his cohort are in HUGE trouble.
July 12th, 2014 at 3:26:07 AM
permalink
I would most likely be excused from jury duty as soon as I answered the question asking what I thought of casinos.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
July 12th, 2014 at 4:03:13 AM
permalink
Casinos are great. Unfortunately some people run them poorly. Over all I would say I'm happy with the casinos.Quote: 1BBI would most likely be excused from jury duty as soon as I answered the question asking what I thought of casinos.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 12th, 2014 at 4:12:10 AM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneAnd if the judge that took care of the Golden Nugget presides, he and his cohort are in HUGE trouble.
And here's an interesting quote from the Associated Press article on the AC Golden Nugget case:
"A preliminary court ruling two years ago went against the casino, which said it would appeal. But hours later, owner Tilman Fertitta overrode his lawyers and said the casino would pay the remainder of the disputed winnings. That deal fell apart days later when some of the gamblers refused to dismiss their claims against the Golden Nugget".
All around me are familiar faces / Worn out places, worn out faces / Bright and early for their daily races / Going nowhere, going nowhere - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdCLnwIkkps
July 12th, 2014 at 10:41:41 AM
permalink
Players should boycott Borgata. It's Bovada time.
July 12th, 2014 at 12:13:05 PM
permalink
I can't vouch for the percentage advantage,,, but the idea is that PRIOR to placing his bet he decides to bet LOW or HIGH, based upon his seeing the card that is about to be dealt from the shoe. This information is the basis of the cheating.
July 12th, 2014 at 1:28:00 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffI can't vouch for the percentage advantage,,, but the idea is that PRIOR to placing his bet he decides to bet LOW or HIGH, based upon his seeing the card that is about to be dealt from the shoe. This information is the basis of the cheating.
+$6,000,000. The amount he owes FULL TILT players.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 12th, 2014 at 1:30:06 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 12th, 2014 at 1:54:13 PM
permalink
I don't know about owing online players.. it seems ALL those famous faces endorsed the various websites and then only later claimed ignorance of what was going on. Females claimed they were hired for cleavage, males claimed they were hired for reputation, but nobody never knew nothing about suitcases full of cash or those debit and credit things.Quote: Buzzard+$6,000,000. The amount he owes FULL TILT players.
July 14th, 2014 at 11:17:12 AM
permalink
There is one thing I do not understand at all in in the Ivey case.
The whole purpose of a casino is to get money out of gamblers. In order to do that, ie convince a gambler to hand over his money, Variance is used (gambler can win in the short run), marketing (promises of riches) etc. Also the thrill of putting one's money on the line with the possibility of a win in the short run, for some people is 'entertainment'. That's basicly the casino operting strategy and reason for existence.
Advantage players (APs) go against this basic principle (ie everyone hands over their money and get in exchange his 'entairtement') and are persona non grata in a casino. So the casino puts some resources (expense) to identify these APs by monitoring players games and keeping databases and other info about APs.
And it should also be very probable that if someone is AP in a game then he is probably an AP in another game he is playing (especially if he is playing it for high stakes) even if the casino does not know what method the AP is using (unless the AP is playing for small stakes for cover).
This guy, Ivey, is a well knownn Professional Poker player, you cannot get more AP than that. It's like he has a big sign on his forehead 'AP'.
The casino not only allows him to play another game for high stakes, but they agree to every weird demand he makes about changing the rules of the game.
It is beyond me, the stupidity of the casino manager who agreed to that.
Somehow they believed that this AP (with the sign in his forehead) has suddenly become a gambler and they found the fat cow to milk
Based on the above, I can also see a defence strategy for Ivey in court.
Your honour, I am a professional Poker player and professional gambler. By that I mean that I only play in games that I have a statistical advantage to win (like the casino does). As a pro, I find statistical weaknesses in casino games that the casino has overlooked and exploit them (exactly like the casino does against an average gambler). Not only that, but this fact that I am Pro is well known and publicized and for the sure the casino is aware of that. The casino knew that I am a Pro and I did not misrepresented this at any time. Since they allowed me to play, they knew (or should have known - a reasonable man would have known) that since I am playing this game especially for significant amounts, then I was using my skills as a Pro to find a statistical advantage and I was playing with an advantage. And since they allowed me to play, they agreed to this (even if they did not know how I gained this advantage)
The whole purpose of a casino is to get money out of gamblers. In order to do that, ie convince a gambler to hand over his money, Variance is used (gambler can win in the short run), marketing (promises of riches) etc. Also the thrill of putting one's money on the line with the possibility of a win in the short run, for some people is 'entertainment'. That's basicly the casino operting strategy and reason for existence.
Advantage players (APs) go against this basic principle (ie everyone hands over their money and get in exchange his 'entairtement') and are persona non grata in a casino. So the casino puts some resources (expense) to identify these APs by monitoring players games and keeping databases and other info about APs.
And it should also be very probable that if someone is AP in a game then he is probably an AP in another game he is playing (especially if he is playing it for high stakes) even if the casino does not know what method the AP is using (unless the AP is playing for small stakes for cover).
This guy, Ivey, is a well knownn Professional Poker player, you cannot get more AP than that. It's like he has a big sign on his forehead 'AP'.
The casino not only allows him to play another game for high stakes, but they agree to every weird demand he makes about changing the rules of the game.
It is beyond me, the stupidity of the casino manager who agreed to that.
Somehow they believed that this AP (with the sign in his forehead) has suddenly become a gambler and they found the fat cow to milk
Based on the above, I can also see a defence strategy for Ivey in court.
Your honour, I am a professional Poker player and professional gambler. By that I mean that I only play in games that I have a statistical advantage to win (like the casino does). As a pro, I find statistical weaknesses in casino games that the casino has overlooked and exploit them (exactly like the casino does against an average gambler). Not only that, but this fact that I am Pro is well known and publicized and for the sure the casino is aware of that. The casino knew that I am a Pro and I did not misrepresented this at any time. Since they allowed me to play, they knew (or should have known - a reasonable man would have known) that since I am playing this game especially for significant amounts, then I was using my skills as a Pro to find a statistical advantage and I was playing with an advantage. And since they allowed me to play, they agreed to this (even if they did not know how I gained this advantage)
