Here We Go Again: Unshuffled Baccarat at Golden Nugget AC...
August 24th, 2012 at 3:30:31 PM
permalink
Quote: RonCDon't players track the shoe all the time?
Not with a stacked deck.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 3:49:41 PM
permalink
Paigowdan,
Have we established the morality of Vegas casinos allowing what they perceive to be losing players play while barring AP players on a game they offer to the public? Does that seem fair? There seems to be a wide divide in opinions on this one which is fine.
Have we established the morality of Vegas casinos allowing what they perceive to be losing players play while barring AP players on a game they offer to the public? Does that seem fair? There seems to be a wide divide in opinions on this one which is fine.
August 24th, 2012 at 4:07:41 PM
permalink
I differ from PaiGowDan only to the extent that I don't really get into should/should not. I tend to look at things like this in terms of can/cannot, and then whatever anyone wants to do within those confines is fine with me.
That said, any business can refuse service to any person for any non-discriminatory reason they choose, or no reason at all. Why do some Casinos suggest that the AP play Craps or Roulette? If the AP were to choose to do so, it benefits the casino. There are certain frequent guests here that I either will/will not rent to on a given night, it just depends on whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits.
The cost of an AP at your table never outweighs the benefits. You butter your bread with the HE, so when the HE becomes a PE, you're screwed.
That said, any business can refuse service to any person for any non-discriminatory reason they choose, or no reason at all. Why do some Casinos suggest that the AP play Craps or Roulette? If the AP were to choose to do so, it benefits the casino. There are certain frequent guests here that I either will/will not rent to on a given night, it just depends on whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits.
The cost of an AP at your table never outweighs the benefits. You butter your bread with the HE, so when the HE becomes a PE, you're screwed.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
August 24th, 2012 at 4:11:00 PM
permalink
Quote: bigpete88Paigowdan,
Have we established the morality of Vegas casinos allowing what they perceive to be losing players play while barring AP players on a game they offer to the public? Does that seem fair? There seems to be a wide divide in opinions on this one which is fine.
No, we didn't actually establish that. The opposite was established. Look:
The reason why this thing is a whole big mess was because the $1.5M was paid off without a hitch until later review more than 24 hours later. The players were indeed paid - and not denied! - even though it was later established that they were clearly and perfectly navagating a stacked deck AND got paid, of all things. Wow...the casinos are so evil here, eh? ! (Clearly not bright, at least on this one.)
And if the surveillance review had later shown that the players were not taking advantage of a clearly ordered (stacked) shoe, then the whole thing would have been fine and dandy, and not an issue at all.
The only reasons why this is an issue is:
1. The players utilized a stacked shoe to their advantage AND
2. They were paid!
Now, big Pete, which of the above is false: taking advantage of the stacked deck, - or being paid! I would say that AP players were neither barred or denied payment here! - would you say otherwise??!!
The players did BOTH, to get dirty money, the money in question, AND were paid, which was the problem upon later review - and you question the morality of the casinos?
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 4:15:33 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan
The only reason why this is an issue is:
1. The players utilized a stacked shoe to their advantage AND
2. There were paid!
And that should be the end of it. Casinos take advantage
of players every minute of every day. They take the money
of drunks, of people who are too ignorant to stop playing,
of people who are too lazy to learn the games they play.
Once in a while the tables are turned and a player can take
advantge of the casino. Good for him..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 24th, 2012 at 4:18:10 PM
permalink
It should not be the end of it, and is precisely WHY it is not the end of it.
If you don't see navagating stacked decks and getting paid as a problem, then may you open "Bob's casino" - so we can send teams in to you. By the way, I recommend you buy some of "Jim's certified and pre-shuffled decks" for your live games, and not check them out before putting them on a live money game. Nothing against any playing card manufacturer, but it is not a bright idea.
If you don't see navagating stacked decks and getting paid as a problem, then may you open "Bob's casino" - so we can send teams in to you. By the way, I recommend you buy some of "Jim's certified and pre-shuffled decks" for your live games, and not check them out before putting them on a live money game. Nothing against any playing card manufacturer, but it is not a bright idea.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 4:29:34 PM
permalink
Paigowdan,
I clearly stated Vegas in my post as I know the laws in NJ and Nevada on this issue.
You seem to have a problem with AP which is fine. That is your opinion, not mine.
Also, you "loosely" use the word stacked which would intimate a cold deck (as cheating) and not card sequencing. There is a clear legal difference.
You go ahead and be a good company man and I will spend another 10,000 hours improving AP.
By the way, nice talking with you. This will be my last post on this thread.
I clearly stated Vegas in my post as I know the laws in NJ and Nevada on this issue.
You seem to have a problem with AP which is fine. That is your opinion, not mine.
Also, you "loosely" use the word stacked which would intimate a cold deck (as cheating) and not card sequencing. There is a clear legal difference.
You go ahead and be a good company man and I will spend another 10,000 hours improving AP.
By the way, nice talking with you. This will be my last post on this thread.
August 24th, 2012 at 4:47:52 PM
permalink
Quote: bigpete88Paigowdan,
You seem to have a problem with AP which is fine.
Well, let me put it to you guys this way: Casino Loss Prevention does seem to be an issue, - and it seems to be immoral and unreasonable for casinos to do, as a reasonable business practice, - in the opinion of both casino cheats and AP players (and making the distinction here).
Quote: bigpete88That is your opinion, not mine.
yeah: me and a few hundred thousand gaming industry workers worldwide who happen to deal with gamblers.
Quote: bigpete88Also, you "loosely" use the word stacked which would intimate a cold deck (as cheating) and not card sequencing. There is a clear legal difference.
Between what?:
1. taking advantage of a ordered deck, knowing exactly how the cards will come, to take advantage of that - versus:
2. taking advantage of a ordered deck, knowing exactly how the cards will come, to take advantage of that.
Doesn't matter who stacked the deck.
So, it is:
"Cold stacked deck" = A deck stacked by the team;
"Sequenced deck" = deck stacked by someone or some event outside of the crew.
Legal Difference? There is a legal difference between Statutory Rape and Forcible Rape, too, for that matter, I would assume. This case will play out.
Quote: bigpete88I clearly stated Vegas in my post as I know the laws in NJ and Nevada on this issue.
I've heard it said that if one is not a real lawyer, then one is a jailhouse laywer. IANAL is a good title for us all who are not lawyers. Let this case play out in the press. Sure, we all have our opinions, fine, and we enjoy the juice of a debate, but every case is different, and anything can happen in court. At the very least, anyone who is vindicated is not really vindicated, there is a lot to taking that position.
Quote: bigpete88You go ahead and be a good company man and I will spend another 10,000 hours improving AP.
Best of luck on this endeavor. Study hard, you'll need it to succeed. Do reflect on it after a few years to see if it were the wisest use of anyone's life's limited time. I look back at my career and am thankful for the side of the table that I am on.
Quote: bigpeteBy the way, nice talking with you. This will be my last post on this thread.
Very fine, ciao.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 5:04:10 PM
permalink
In the article linked earlier (theaustralian.com.au) it was stated that the casino was aware of the situation as it happened and made a cost/benefit decision to observe rather than intervene. They must have thought they could learn the cheat and prevent it in the future. They made that choice and should have to pay the price.
I think that it really comes down to, "did the players do anything to create this situation or were they just in the right place at the right time?"
It might be that the lawsuit is a strategic one to use as leverage with any potential lawsuits for false imprisonment.
I think that it really comes down to, "did the players do anything to create this situation or were they just in the right place at the right time?"
It might be that the lawsuit is a strategic one to use as leverage with any potential lawsuits for false imprisonment.
August 24th, 2012 at 5:12:54 PM
permalink
Quote: kulinIn the article linked earlier ([link url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/casino-wont-accept-the-hand-its-dealt/story-e6frg6so-1226455099288]theaustralian.com.au) it was stated that the casino was aware of the situation as it happened and made a cost/benefit decision to observe rather than intervene. They must have thought they could learn the cheat and prevent it in the future. They made that choice and should have to pay the price.
Then the casino may pay with a little blood for that decision. Executives and managers make errors in judgement, they're human, sometimes to great cost and humiliation.
Quote: kulinI think that it really comes down to did the players do anything the create this situation or were they just in the right place at the right time.
Great point. But one has to consider the opportunistic actions taken by each individual and their role in the matter - as a response to a situation regardless of "creation" of a situation, now. It's a little like having your wife's sister pass out on your bed when your wife is away on a business trip. Now you didn't cause her to pass out, as sis likes eating Valiums sometimes. You say to yourself, "Hmmm....her @ss does look good...quite an opportunity!....let me think about this one...." - Right place at the right time? this has a "POV element" to it.
Quote: kulinIt might be that the lawsuit is a strategic one to use as leverage with any potential lawsuits for false imprisonment.
There is a case for both false imprisonment and a reasonable right to examine for malfeasance. Will be curious as to how the balance plays out.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 5:19:55 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan
If you don't see navagating stacked decks and getting paid as a problem,
I have no more problem with it than the casino
does in fleecing drunks. They just shrug and say
its not their problem the guy can't play when he's
drunk. Therefore we shrug our shoulders when
the casino makes a mistake and gets fleeced.
Turnabout is fair play, Dan.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 24th, 2012 at 5:25:23 PM
permalink
If I was a player I'd take the winnings and then sue the casino for offering a game without fair odds.
August 24th, 2012 at 5:25:56 PM
permalink
Funny...I love it!
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 5:37:08 PM
permalink
It is possible that this was a genuine honest mistake on Gemaco's part. And it's possible that these weren't the only 8 decks affected. Perhaps these unshuffled decks were sent to hundreds of casinos around the U.S. and thousands of gamblers didn't notice the pattern. It sounds unlikely, but the dealers, pit bosses and surveillance at Golden Nugget didn't notice. Maybe the gamblers at Golden Nugget were just exceptionally observant...
August 24th, 2012 at 5:45:11 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanNo, we didn't actually establish that. The opposite was established. Look:
The reason why this thing is a whole big mess was because the $1.5M was paid off without a hitch until later review more than 24 hours later.
Some players cashed out before the shoe ended and left. $1.5 M was NOT paid. I am friends with Mike Cho who was in the article. He did not get the money. Like I said before in an earlier post, the casino locked up the money and did not pay him. He was able to pay off his marker with this but was not able to cash out. If you read the article, the casino said that they want their chips back that the players have. The $5000 chips were switched. Anyone holding the old ones will not be able to cash them.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
August 24th, 2012 at 6:21:23 PM
permalink
Quote: AceCrAAckersQuote: PaigowdanNo, we didn't actually establish that. The opposite was established. Look:
The reason why this thing is a whole big mess was because the $1.5M was paid off without a hitch until later review more than 24 hours later.
Some players cashed out before the shoe ended and left. $1.5 M was NOT paid. I am friends with Mike Cho who was in the article. He did not get the money. Like I said before in an earlier post, the casino locked up the money and did not pay him. He was able to pay off his marker with this but was not able to cash out. If you read the article, the casino said that they want their chips back that the players have. The $5000 chips were switched. Anyone holding the old ones will not be able to cash them.
If that is the case, - and this may sound strange, even offensive to some gamblers, - but good - relieving - to hear! There needs to be a pause on this mess, and a sort out. A disgrace to both the gamining industry and to all involved, it's a dirty mess.
For that matter, and forgive me - it is also insane - utterly shameless, galling - that these players would demand to be paid for openly trying to run down a known stacked and ordered shoe, - and claim it was all clean gambling luck, because it just wasn't. Everyone can see.
Friends with Mike Cho or not, if he KNEW - even by discovery - that the deck was in a stacked order, and he honestly altered his play (which can be determined from the tapes), may he get on with a happy and successful life by walking away from this can or worms. I run from any table game where there is ANY shenanigans or dirty play going down.
All that needs to be done is a probability analysis on the shoe's ordering versus the bets made by people, and calculate the chances of it being random play, and things become known in determining what people's actions and intentions really were.
Disagree with this? - fine.
Come to believe it is best to run away from? Even Better!
people will take a look a few years out with a different eye.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 6:54:13 PM
permalink
Quote: RoncDon't players track the shoe all the time
Quote: PaigowdanNot with a stacked deck.
Of course they track the shoe all the time, with or without a stacked deck. That is if they are more intelligent/observant than the "flood of dealers, pit bosses, floor supervisors and security personnel" who stood around for a couple of hours watching this debacle with their thumbs in their . . . , ahem, ears.
August 24th, 2012 at 6:57:51 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanCasino Loss Prevention does seem to be an issue, - and it seems to be immoral and unreasonable for casinos to do, as a reasonable business practice
In this instance, it was clearly not in effect at all, despite the alleged "flooding of the zone." So "Loss Prevention" is moot for the purposes of our discussion.
August 24th, 2012 at 7:07:52 PM
permalink
Fine.
You know, my wife had a fascinating take on this whole mess:
This entire thing is a complete setup by the Laughing Buddha for people to chase dragons and hang themselves with.
No one involved should go near the money or the situation. It avails no one anything. Drop and run.
I can't falsify this.
You know, my wife had a fascinating take on this whole mess:
This entire thing is a complete setup by the Laughing Buddha for people to chase dragons and hang themselves with.
No one involved should go near the money or the situation. It avails no one anything. Drop and run.
I can't falsify this.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 24th, 2012 at 7:21:57 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanAmazing! "Randomly making all the right bets" - GREAT quote, by the way - is what gambling is all about, but the "randomness" is clearly in question on this one - AND for the tune of $1,500,000 in 2 hours and 40 minutes - on a stacked deck! No, it was not random!
How are you still not getting this? The randomness is not in question: not random!
Quote: PaigowdanYes, it indeed sound like they were knowlingly "making all the right bets," - but it ain't random if you know what cards are going to come out, now is it?!
No! It isn't! No one said it was! Stop acting like anyone has!
Quote: PaigowdanLike I said, a simple statistical analysis can determine the true randomness of their betting patterns as to how it matched the deck's known ordering! One standard deviation? Two?..... 99.99% ?
We know! We all know!
Quote: PaigowdanAnd they got exactly the cards they expected at full table max bets! - which makes it NON-random, now, - doesn't it?
Yepperoonie!
Quote: PaigowdanHow does that matter? It doesn't matter if the deck was "inadvertently" stacked or "deliberately stacked" - it matters if it WAS stacked. AND it doesn't matter who stacked the deck.
It's the difference that so often eludes you, that between cheating and AP. One is capitalizing on an attempt to defraud the casino, and so making yourself an accomplice; the other is capitalizing on a mistake by the casino, so making yourself only a weasel. The former is what cheating is, legally: fraud, not just dirty pool. If you have a reasonable belief that the deck was not stacked in an effort to defraud the casino, no, it is not fraudulent to make the non-random string of bets that will lead to the most gain from the deck's patterns. I know you've "corrected" me on this before, but I refer to my previous point that your knowledge of gaming law seems to be slanted heavily in favor of the casino, and yes, this is a matter of law.
Quote: PaigowdanAnd as to whether "they did think that [this is all good and legal]," is another of an argument that relates to "ignorance of the law as an excuse to get away with having broken the law." The old "I didn't know that THAT was illegal - so that gets me off the hook, - right?"
No.
The maxim is "ignorantia juris non excusat." If you didn't know something was illegal because you didn't know the law, time to get used to cuffs. If you didn't know something was illegal because you thought you were doing something other than what you were, yes, that does get you off the hook. (Regardless, I'm not totally sure they were factually wrong if that's what they thought.)
Quote: PaigowdanGemaco's quality is generally very high. A horrible one-off thing - if it were them.
"Were"? Oh, bull. It's just a coincidence both these heistmasters stacked decks your buds provided, and it's pure gullibility on the part of both legal teams that they're both suing these upstanding tradesmen and not charging a single employee - sure.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 24th, 2012 at 8:01:28 PM
permalink
Hypothetically, consider a blackjack game where the cards are dealt thus.
The innocent but observant players suspect that the deck in unshuffled, and the dealer has an Ace of Hearts as his down card. The first player expects a 2 of hearts as the next card so he takes doubles a soft 19, to get 21. The hand plays out as follows:
In this scenario for the casino it is -4, 2 push, and +2 so the casino has lost twice the initial bet. Presumably if the dealer or the pit boss are not both cabbage dolls, they insert a new deck of cards making sure that it is shuffled.
I guess my point is that just knowing what order of cards is coming may not result in a massive windfall for the players in only 41 hands. It could take more than that to win $1.5 million. The cards probably have to be not only in a known order, but arranged so that most (if not all ) of the players win.
It is also conceivable that a player would have to sacrifice himself so that the casino losses are greater. Presumably a player would not sacrifice unless everyone was in collusion. In the above scenario the players would play as follows to maximize casino losses. Of course such non standard play as standing on an 11 would practically set off the fire alarm.
If the cards were arranged well enough, no one would have to sacrifice or to make alarming non-standard moves.
| player 1 | player 2 | player 3 | player 4 | player 5 | player 6 | dealer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ace spades | 2 spades | 3 spades | 4 spades | 5 spades | 6 spades | 7 spades |
| 8 spades | 9 spades | 10 spades | Jack spades | Queen spades | King spades | downcard |
The innocent but observant players suspect that the deck in unshuffled, and the dealer has an Ace of Hearts as his down card. The first player expects a 2 of hearts as the next card so he takes doubles a soft 19, to get 21. The hand plays out as follows:
| player 1 | player 2 | player 3 | player 4 | player 5 | player 6 | dealer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ace spades | 2 spades | 3 spades | 4 spades | 5 spades | 6 spades | 7 spades |
| 8 spades | 9 spades | 10 spades | Jack spades | Queen spades | King spades | downcard |
| 2 hearts | 3 hearts | 5 hearts | 6 hearts | |||
| 4 hearts | ||||||
| double | push | push | double | lose | lose |
In this scenario for the casino it is -4, 2 push, and +2 so the casino has lost twice the initial bet. Presumably if the dealer or the pit boss are not both cabbage dolls, they insert a new deck of cards making sure that it is shuffled.
I guess my point is that just knowing what order of cards is coming may not result in a massive windfall for the players in only 41 hands. It could take more than that to win $1.5 million. The cards probably have to be not only in a known order, but arranged so that most (if not all ) of the players win.
It is also conceivable that a player would have to sacrifice himself so that the casino losses are greater. Presumably a player would not sacrifice unless everyone was in collusion. In the above scenario the players would play as follows to maximize casino losses. Of course such non standard play as standing on an 11 would practically set off the fire alarm.
| player 1 | player 2 | player 3 | player 4 | player 5 | player 6 | dealer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ace spades | 2 spades | 3 spades | 4 spades | 5 spades | 6 spades | 7 spades |
| 8 spades | 9 spades | 10 spades | Jack spades | Queen spades | King spades | downcard |
| 2 hearts | 3 hearts | 5 hearts | 6 hearts | |||
| 4 hearts | ||||||
| double | lose | win | double | double | lose |
If the cards were arranged well enough, no one would have to sacrifice or to make alarming non-standard moves.
August 24th, 2012 at 8:19:26 PM
permalink
This situation is similar to a keno incident at a Canadian casino:
(source)
Quote: WikipediaIn April 1994, Daniel Corriveau won $600,000 CAD playing keno. He picked 19 of the 20 winning numbers three times in a row ... the keno machine was reset every morning with the same seed number, resulting in the same sequence of numbers being generated. Corriveau received his winnings after investigators cleared him of any wrongdoing.
(source)
August 24th, 2012 at 8:31:57 PM
permalink
Quote: 24BingoIt's the difference that so often eludes you, that between cheating and AP.
No, I get the difference:
Quote: 24BingoOne is capitalizing on an attempt to defraud the casino, and so making yourself an accomplice; the other is capitalizing on a mistake by the casino, so making yourself only a weasel.
A dealer error does NOT make the money yours, and that's the issue.
Example: On Three Card Poker, You bet $5 on the pair plus, and get a straight (6:1 worth $30). Dealer pays you for a straight flush (40:1, or $200).
You know it's wrong, but you take it. No surprise from a gambler here. Floorman comes over and says "Sorry Sir, surveillance called, and verified that the dealer mispaid you, please return $170 from the Pair Plus Payout, you should have gotten $30 and not $200 - due to a dealer casino error.
You do not get to keep the money, AND if you were not yet paid, you don't get that money. Similar situation here.
...
Ever seen the table sign "Misdeal voids all pays and plays?"
That may be an arguement here, and it is not unreansonable.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 25th, 2012 at 4:03:53 AM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan
...
Ever seen the table sign "Misdeal voids all pays and plays?"
That may be an arguement here, and it is not unreansonable.
I'm not sure of the legal definition of 'misdeal', but it is possible that dealing an unshuffled deck would qualify. I am guessing it would not. THIS may be the point the courts get to decide, if they can't prove collusion.
August 25th, 2012 at 6:21:51 AM
permalink
Paco,the big difference here is that it was on bacc not blackjack. In blackjack you can`t bet on the dealers hand in bacc obviously you can bet on the winning side
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
August 25th, 2012 at 8:40:27 AM
permalink
Quote: JBThis situation is similar to a keno incident at a Canadian casino
I think that is probably the keno incident I was referring to in my post a few pages back. I could not remember whether he really got to keep the money, as your Wiki article states.
August 25th, 2012 at 9:50:43 AM
permalink
Quote: DocI think that is probably the keno incident I was referring to in my post a few pages back. I could not remember whether he [Daniel Corriveau] really got to keep the money, as your Wiki article states.
Corriveau got to "keep the [Keno Slots] money after investigators cleared him of any wrongdoing." (quote wiki)
Key words are "cleared of any wrong doing."
If that slot machine situation had occured in the U.S., he may have had a more uphill battle; machine faults and errors, including software errors, may certainly nullify a slot payout. Taking advantage of, and "working around" a slot machine design faults and weaknesses (physical or software-based) may be/has been viewed as a basis to nullify a payout.
The funny thing is (and it isn't so funny), is that when things hit the courts it is more of a gamble than the original gambling game in question, especially if the original game in question was seen as "not gambling when it was supposed to have been gambling."
Handing off a case to a court or a jurisdictional review panel can be an "any decision is possible" scenario. You end up in court precisely because the correct resolution for the parties were indeterminant or too difficult to call, resolve or umpire. Risk/reward calculations go out the door. All parties may spend more on legal processing than it was worth to their positions.
--------
In card play, when you're looking at what may be considered both "non-gambling stacked deck play" on top of a reasonable misdeal, you're looking at an extremely difficult claim for the entitlement of the winnings. Pay back the players' buy-in amonts - and they got their full refunds on that misdeal, especially when they committed stacked-deck play, MO. And the Golden Nugget could say that the misdeal was the result of the playing card supplier's lack of quality control, much like a faulty slot machine they relied on. The card company can say it was due to the lack of internal live-game controls at the casino because it was a live table game where the real-time error sirens were obvious, yet allowed to continue to horrific levels. I would not say this is a lock for any party involved.
I will also say that when a casino or gambling hall ever places uninspected or unverified cards on a game without shuffling or randomizing, you may not get truly random results.
When a casino counts on external controls for its internal controls on its table games, they've lost control of its games.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 25th, 2012 at 10:48:56 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanWhen a casino counts on external controls for its internal controls on its table games, they've lost control of its games.
If the New Jersey authorities have any integrity, they ought to severely reprimand a casino not in control of its games. If they hadn't filed the lawsuit, they could have avoided publicity and scrutiny.
August 25th, 2012 at 11:16:01 AM
permalink
They run a restaurant, I'm sure they are good at that.
August 31st, 2012 at 2:59:08 PM
permalink
Aw, I missed this while I was having a TERRIBLE time in Baltimore. Now I don't feel so bad.
August 31st, 2012 at 8:26:32 PM
permalink
Looks like GN has just folded as of tonight. Kudos to Tilman for taking his lumps and moving on.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/golden-nugget-says-it-will-not-appeal-judge-s-order/article_216c7dac-f3a3-11e1-b708-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/golden-nugget-says-it-will-not-appeal-judge-s-order/article_216c7dac-f3a3-11e1-b708-001a4bcf887a.html
August 31st, 2012 at 8:41:42 PM
permalink
As MIke Cho stated, they were not cheating! The judge agreed and the owner has conceded. As a player, you are trying to win money from the casino, as a casino you are trying to win money from the players. Casino has the house edge on their side so in the long run, the casino always win.
Players are not required to point out flaws in the system. AP is not cheating. If the only thing you are using is your brain to take advantage of a situation, then the casino has no legs to stand on. There has never been 1 person who has been convicted by the court of law for cheating when the only tool he used was his brains.
Players are not required to point out flaws in the system. AP is not cheating. If the only thing you are using is your brain to take advantage of a situation, then the casino has no legs to stand on. There has never been 1 person who has been convicted by the court of law for cheating when the only tool he used was his brains.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
August 31st, 2012 at 8:44:55 PM
permalink
" There has never been 1 person who has been convicted by the court of law for cheating when the only tool he used was his brains. "
Does that mean Bernie Madoff was wrongfully imprisoned ?
Does that mean Bernie Madoff was wrongfully imprisoned ?
August 31st, 2012 at 8:57:01 PM
permalink
Quote: AceCrAAckersThere has never been 1 person who has been convicted by the court of law for cheating when the only tool he used was his brains.
Pass posting. Capping. Chip exchanges.
(Though as I've said many times, I agree they weren't cheating, in a legal sense, and were owed, if this was an error, or they thought it was.)
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 31st, 2012 at 8:58:39 PM
permalink
Quote: 24BingoPass posting. Capping. Chip exchanges.
(Though I agree they weren't cheating, if this was an error, or they thought it was.)
Guys that do any of the above three have never been accused of using their brains.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:10:12 PM
permalink
So he ends the bad publicity, probably would not prevail anyway ... and forces them to drop their civil actions relating to back rooming or goon takedowns.
September 1st, 2012 at 5:14:24 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffHe forces them to drop their civil actions relating to back rooming or goon takedowns.
Not quite "forcing." More like paying off: "His offer includes paying the gamblers if they agree to drop their countersuits against Golden Nugget."
September 1st, 2012 at 5:40:27 PM
permalink
I'd like to hear more details on this part, but I suspect it won't be made public. Unless it stays in court until a verdict, but I imagine the two companies might settle at some point in an undisclosed agreement.
Quote:There was a mistake made at the Gemaco facility, which we freely admitted, Mazzola told Isman over a speaker phone. This was a one-time, isolated mistake, but it occurred. Its supposed to be a game of chance. It changed from a game of chance to a windfall for the individual players.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
September 1st, 2012 at 7:02:38 PM
permalink
Any Jounalist, or anyone for that matter, should be able to get copies of the Court filings in this case. I doubt this case is sealed as public access laws are pretty strong. The requests for admissions and interrogatories would be intersting reading as well as the transcripts of the depositions. Who knew what?
If someone wants to contact the local hack, have the Reporter do a follow up article. I would love to read an update after some of the documents are filed in Court.
If someone wants to contact the local hack, have the Reporter do a follow up article. I would love to read an update after some of the documents are filed in Court.
September 1st, 2012 at 7:27:20 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI'd like to hear more details on this part, but I suspect it won't be made public. Unless it stays in court until a verdict, but I imagine the two companies might settle at some point in an undisclosed agreement.
I still suspect we don't know everything. I just can't believe the pattern was so obvious that a bunch of unconnected players could all pick up on it immediately, but everyone who works in the casino was so stupid that they didn't just stop play and shuffle cards.
It may be that the GN figured they had a better case suing the card manufacturer.
September 1st, 2012 at 7:35:57 PM
permalink
I don't know if it's been mentioned in the media or here, but I think the casino picked up on the pattern as well (probably a few hands after the players figured it out), but when they saw every player betting max, assumed that there was a scam in progress, and let the game continue as they "gathered evidence."
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
September 2nd, 2012 at 12:22:35 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIt may be that the GN figured they had a better case suing the card manufacturer.
I wonder what they are going to get from Gemaco if the cards really came out in suit order. Can you see it now:
While simultaneously playing the surveillance tape and calling to the stand the Floor Supervisor seen watching the game on the tape, Gemaco defense counsels asks:
Did you notice any unusual card patterns after this 4th hand?
No, I didn't
What about after this 8th hand? It seems pretty apparent at this point to a non casino professional such as myself that the cards are coming out suited and in number order. Did you notice anything unusual at this point that would cause you to halt the game play?
No.....No I didn't
We're now on hand 15....at this point have you noticed anything unusual?
No.....I didn't notice anything unusual
Can I ask you sir, what exactly is your job as you stand here next to the mini-bacc table?
I am suppose to ensure that the game is running without any irregularities.
GN has significant contributory negligence in this case that substantially added to their losses. I bet the jury in deliberation (if it gets that far) says something like "At hand 8 or 10 or at some point, the casino needed to have figured out the cards weren't shuffled". And I bet the losses incurred through hand 8 or 10 are a small fraction of the $1.5M.
September 2nd, 2012 at 2:25:06 AM
permalink
"The cards did not come out of the chute in numerical order, such as 2-3-4-5. Rather, they came out in a predetermined pattern that the manufacturer lists as a proprietary secret, the attorneys said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/golden-nugget-casino-says-it-will-pay-winners-in-15m-in-winnings-in-unshuffled-cards-case/2012/08/31/faaee56a-f3b6-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html
I found this interesting because it shows why the casino personnel might not have caught on to the pattern as quickly as they should have. While the cards I have seen come out of the box are broken down in order of suit and value, these apparently are not in that order at some point in the process. I am assuming that they are in the "proprietary sequence" BEFORE the shuffle occurs at the factory that normally leaves them in a random, shuffled pattern just as if they were shuffled at the table.
This is even more troubling to me and should be a red flag to the gaming folks in New Jersey--the Golden Nugget regularly put in play decks of cards that they did not verify as complete (the 52 correct cards in each deck of the shoe). How is that even possible? All the stuff about suspected cheating, etc. seems to be a cover-up for incompetent procedures. It is hard to believe that the whole staff would have allowed play to continue if they simply looked at the beginning of the shoe and noticed that no verifying, mucking, and shuffling was done to all the involved decks.
Whatever the reason, they let play continue. There was no "cheating" involved; just a pattern in the cards that continued for 41 hands and was picked up on by the players and not the casino staff. They wanted to let it go to see if anyone cheated but they didn't want to pay when it was found that there was no cheating. They took a risk of that by not stopping the game when they suspected wrongdoing.
It appears that the casino will get there money back from the manufacturer (since they already admitted an error) and the gamblers will get paid. That sounds like the right outcome to me.
Lessons learned? Verify and shuffle the darned cards yourself!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/golden-nugget-casino-says-it-will-pay-winners-in-15m-in-winnings-in-unshuffled-cards-case/2012/08/31/faaee56a-f3b6-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html
I found this interesting because it shows why the casino personnel might not have caught on to the pattern as quickly as they should have. While the cards I have seen come out of the box are broken down in order of suit and value, these apparently are not in that order at some point in the process. I am assuming that they are in the "proprietary sequence" BEFORE the shuffle occurs at the factory that normally leaves them in a random, shuffled pattern just as if they were shuffled at the table.
This is even more troubling to me and should be a red flag to the gaming folks in New Jersey--the Golden Nugget regularly put in play decks of cards that they did not verify as complete (the 52 correct cards in each deck of the shoe). How is that even possible? All the stuff about suspected cheating, etc. seems to be a cover-up for incompetent procedures. It is hard to believe that the whole staff would have allowed play to continue if they simply looked at the beginning of the shoe and noticed that no verifying, mucking, and shuffling was done to all the involved decks.
Whatever the reason, they let play continue. There was no "cheating" involved; just a pattern in the cards that continued for 41 hands and was picked up on by the players and not the casino staff. They wanted to let it go to see if anyone cheated but they didn't want to pay when it was found that there was no cheating. They took a risk of that by not stopping the game when they suspected wrongdoing.
It appears that the casino will get there money back from the manufacturer (since they already admitted an error) and the gamblers will get paid. That sounds like the right outcome to me.
Lessons learned? Verify and shuffle the darned cards yourself!!
September 2nd, 2012 at 2:44:08 AM
permalink
. Okay so that settles the "everyone being asleep" assertion but lets face it. If a group of ten dollar immigrant gamblers can discern this "proprietary order" then so should expert Suits and Cameramen.Quote: RonC"The cards did not come out of the chute in numerical order, such as 2-3-4-5. Rather, they came out in a predetermined pattern that the manufacturer lists as a proprietary secret, the attorneys said.
The whole idea of using shoes pre-shuffled and shipped from Kansas City is to avoid the time spent verifying and shuffling.Quote: RonC--the Golden Nugget regularly put in play decks of cards that they did not verify as complete (the 52 correct cards in each deck of the shoe). How is that even possible? All the stuff about suspected cheating, etc. seems to be a cover-up for incompetent procedures. It is hard to believe that the whole staff would have allowed play to continue if they simply looked at the beginning of the shoe and noticed that no verifying, mucking, and shuffling was done to all the involved decks.
>Lessons learned? Verify and shuffle the darned cards yourself!!
Yes. In sight of the players!
There was a poster here who kept referring to his amazing bad luck, I think at Revel, ... perhaps they too are using preshipped and perhaps short, decks.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:00:05 AM
permalink
Quote: RonC"The cards did not come out of the chute in numerical order, such as 2-3-4-5. Rather, they came out in a predetermined pattern that the manufacturer lists as a proprietary secret, the attorneys said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/golden-nugget-casino-says-it-will-pay-winners-in-15m-in-winnings-in-unshuffled-cards-case/2012/08/31/faaee56a-f3b6-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html
This is confusing...."a proprietary secret" that players could discern easily. So if it isn't 2-3-4-5, it must be something like 2c-2d-2h-2s-3c-3d.....bottom line is it may not have been numerical order, but it might as well have been if the Average Joe figured it out.
Regardless of what the "proprietary secret" order was, the deposition of the floor supervisor or any onsite GN employee is going to be pretty embarassing and be incriminating in their case against Gemaco as there incompetence is 100% responsible for the losses after hand 10. I am not an attorney but I believe that "contributory negligence" is a factor on how responsible another party is even if they have clear liability.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:54:33 AM
permalink
Very interesting and the article hit the Associated Press. Defemdants smart lawyers probably filed a Temporary Motion asking for monies paid and WON.
I wonder if defendants are going to drop the counter claim? They might. They might not if they are really angry. They guy that they went into his room is one that might not, but then again, who likes long drawn out lawsuits and attorneys charging 100k?
This whole BIG mess could have been avoided by paying the players.
I wonder if defendants are going to drop the counter claim? They might. They might not if they are really angry. They guy that they went into his room is one that might not, but then again, who likes long drawn out lawsuits and attorneys charging 100k?
This whole BIG mess could have been avoided by paying the players.
September 2nd, 2012 at 11:54:01 AM
permalink
I can only assume that Gemaco employees manually sort the cards into some arbitrary start sequence.
Trademark secret? Nah, they just don't want to release it.
If immigrants who bet at the ten dollar level can figure this Secret Sequence out but dealers, Floor Men, Pit bosses and surveillance people can not figure it out, I wonder what is up? Haven't even learned "No Tickee, No Shirtee" yet but they've figured out a trade secret? Yet dealers who stand there all day long can't do it? Not to mention the suits!
GN's response was to assume that there were aces up the sleeves of the Heathen Chinee but instead "and the floor it was strewn like the sands of sea" it escalated to egg being strewn on the GN's executives as the story achieved great press distribution and the casino got bad publicity for being not only bad sports but heavy handed thugs. I mean North Dakota is bad enough, but this story got press activity in Australia too! That is a far way to go to get a casino's name sullied!
Now they are trying to "settle" their way out of the lawsuits for violence and intimidation.
I wonder if other ACY casinos are ashamed of the GNs actions or not. Will Pennsylvania take out ads saying We Play Fair and Square and only beat up the truly guilty!
Trademark secret? Nah, they just don't want to release it.
If immigrants who bet at the ten dollar level can figure this Secret Sequence out but dealers, Floor Men, Pit bosses and surveillance people can not figure it out, I wonder what is up? Haven't even learned "No Tickee, No Shirtee" yet but they've figured out a trade secret? Yet dealers who stand there all day long can't do it? Not to mention the suits!
GN's response was to assume that there were aces up the sleeves of the Heathen Chinee but instead "and the floor it was strewn like the sands of sea" it escalated to egg being strewn on the GN's executives as the story achieved great press distribution and the casino got bad publicity for being not only bad sports but heavy handed thugs. I mean North Dakota is bad enough, but this story got press activity in Australia too! That is a far way to go to get a casino's name sullied!
Now they are trying to "settle" their way out of the lawsuits for violence and intimidation.
I wonder if other ACY casinos are ashamed of the GNs actions or not. Will Pennsylvania take out ads saying We Play Fair and Square and only beat up the truly guilty!
September 2nd, 2012 at 12:12:27 PM
permalink
Arranged according to a "proprietary secret"???? Why wouldn't they just shuffle them? Anyway, if they're arranged, they are NOT RANDOM. Where in the world are those who call themselves the strictest regulators in the gambling world?
September 2nd, 2012 at 2:22:40 PM
permalink
Please post updates on this case until everything is resolved.
Will all defendants drop their counter-claims? They seem to be in a pretty good position at this point. Also, I wonder if the counter claim included fraud. I.E. casino accepted a bet and refused to pay. That claim, if won, can result in triple damages. Ouch!! ha ha ha
My opinion is that would be a perfect ending to the stiffs (Golden Nugget) that refused to pay a bet. Plus, worldwide press on this case.
Will all defendants drop their counter-claims? They seem to be in a pretty good position at this point. Also, I wonder if the counter claim included fraud. I.E. casino accepted a bet and refused to pay. That claim, if won, can result in triple damages. Ouch!! ha ha ha
My opinion is that would be a perfect ending to the stiffs (Golden Nugget) that refused to pay a bet. Plus, worldwide press on this case.
September 2nd, 2012 at 3:15:10 PM
permalink
Several defendants have very strong cases for brutal treatment, kidnapping, etc. (3 to 5) of them.
The rest probably consider it mainly a money dispute rather than a damages claim about pain and suffering and possible punitive damages.
No longer are all represented by the same attorney.
The rest probably consider it mainly a money dispute rather than a damages claim about pain and suffering and possible punitive damages.
No longer are all represented by the same attorney.
