3 ms·

That's something entirely different from what ryanwaggoner sketches. The point is whether this is a criminal or a civil case, not whether the casino should get

• sokoloff 17y ago
  I don't think the example is actually that different. My response was to the point of "the casino might actually not be out any money". If the outcome of the wager (that the casino won and "kept" the money) is critical to determining how/whether a case is prosecuted, then you set the casinos up to be free-rolled, which is the point I was making with my coin-flip after loan analogy. The moment Ryan beats me in the coin flip, he's "earned" $1000. If the law differentiates at all whether he's entitled to be paid based on whether I moments earlier borrowed $1000 from him, then I have a free-roll. I borrow $1000 in cash, and bet $1000 in cash on heads. Heads, I win $1000, pay the loan off and walk out with my $1000 profit. Tails, I lose $1000, but I say "well, you have the money anyway, so you're not actually out anything" and walk away with no more and no less money than I started the day. Mathematically, that's the same as Ryan giving me $500 and us making a $500 wager on the coin. I wasn't trying to address whether it should be civil or criminal; I tend to agree it should be civil, but Nevada gets to make the rules for Nevada. I was merely pointing out that whether or not the casino "kept" the money that it beat the guy for is not relevant.