4 ms·
The judge had a very odd interpretation of the contract and "maneuvered", it appears one sided to me. " “By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order t
by dm3730 10y ago
The judge had a very odd interpretation of the contract and "maneuvered", it appears one sided to me.
"
“By using cards they caused to be maneuvered in order to identify their value only to them,” the judge wrote, “Ivey and Sun adjusted the odds of Baccarat in their favor. This is in complete contravention of the fundamental purpose of legalized gambling as set forth by [New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission.] Ivey and Sun’s violation . . . constitutes a breach of their mutual obligation with Borgata to play by the rules” of the state’s law.
"
That interpretation is equivalent to saying you can't do anything that improves the odds in your favor in any game. By this judge's reckoning, you have to just be a robot that sits passively and accepts all the hand exactly as dealt and not use any strategy to play the game to your advantage. That's fundamentally un-American if you ask me.
- nstart 10y ago> By this judge's reckoning, you have to just be a robot that sits passively and accepts all the hand exactly as dealt and not use any strategy to play the game to your advantage. That's basically gambling. Which is exactly what the game they were playing was supposed to be. Pure chance. In fact gambling can be distilled down to that. Passively accepting your hand in the game and hoping for the best. That doesn't sound very appealing, but throw in human nature and biases and you get something quite addictive out of what is essentially a lopsided passive engagement.
- Dylan16807 10y agoYou know you're talking about a poker player, right? That's not pure chance at all.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago> By this judge's reckoning, you have to just be a robot that sits passively and accepts all the hand exactly as dealt and not use any strategy to play the game to your advantage. That's baccarat -- the only interactivity is adjusting your bet.