4 ms·
As I mentioned in another reply, the particular clause referenced above is not what was used. However, your interpretation that the game was "invalidated" is co
by gizmo686 10y ago
As I mentioned in another reply, the particular clause referenced above is not what was used. However, your interpretation that the game was "invalidated" is correct.
This is not exploitable because it is within the casinos power to not use marked cards. Further, if the casino did use marked cards, and the player won; then the casino could invoke the same law and invalidate the winning.
This is essentially what happened in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco (the main precedent cited in this case); where the casino lost big as a result of using non-shuffled decks. Despite the fact that this was clearly the casino's fault, the court ruled that (regardless of fault) because the game was no longer authorized under the Casino Control Act, it was illegal, and any contract based on it was void.
- asher_ 10y agoI don't understand how it's not exploitable. The casino can't control whether cards get marked. They get marked all the time during regular gameplay.
- evgen 10y agoIf the cards are damaged or marked during play the deck is punched and disposed of. After a certain small number of uses, where normal card handling by dealer or players might mark there cards, there deck is punched and disposed of. I would be surprised if a big Vegas casino does not go through a shipping container of card decks every night.
- grzm 10y agoShipping containers are pretty big compared to a deck of cards, even a 20-footer. Looks like an average casino goes through on the order of 1,000 decks of cards a night. https://www.quora.com/How-many-new-decks-of-playing-cards-does-Las-Vegas-go-through-each-year https://www.quora.com/How-many-new-decks-of-playing-cards-do... A thousand decks is about 4 cubic feet, if my math holds up. A 20' container is about 1360 cubic feet.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]