Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbleBoy 
If the stacks where not cut down and spread so the cameras would be able to see them, then the supervisor would ask the dealer.
If they both couldn't tell how much was left over then the 'loser' would get the 2000 he said he had.
If it was something different to this, then its a bad ruling.
|
That's the whole point!
They DID count the stacks down, got to the point where they matched that
amount and then (at that moment) there was no point counting any more as
the initial winner had the initial loser covered. That was when it was noted that
there were "about 600" chips left over, which everyone watching saw to be so,
and moments thereafter the real winner and the reversal was realised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbleBoy
Some supervisors do act differently to players, but isn't that the same in any business? Any person that has been going to the same place for years is going to grow some sort of relationship.
|
A relationship is one thing, this is another thing altogether.
The problem is that when you run a cafe or pub, and slip a mate a coffee,
a sandwich, or a beer or two, it doesn't matter too much to the rest of the
participating community. The same can be said about lots of businesses.
However, when you run a publically owned Casino and one group of people
who do the same thing as another group of people are then treated differently,
then that is a form of CORRUPTION and some would argue that there are
other legal considerations as well. Both the participants AND the shareholders
are put in a position of disadvantage that cannot be justified by the "mates"
factor. RULES were broken and ignored by those tasked to uphold them.
Its just NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
BFB