Guy loses 30 million, sues casino

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think the bigger issue is that he obviously had a horrible gambling problem, asked to be barred from the casino, he was, and then the casino tried to get a psychologist to unbar him so that he could make money. its pretty sick imo. they should pay him something, but the fact that he lost like 30m and got millions in gifts and gambled millions away like a retard should def still have some heavy consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]



Notice that it wasn't exactly one or two binges that got him.

"Between 24 June 2005 and August 2006"


This is plenty of time in there for him to wake-up and accept some responsibility for the risk as well as become aware of what the casino is trying to do.

Yeah, the casino acted like slimeballs.

But he's arguing, "In January they took me and my friends to the Australian Open. And they kept giving me $30k in bags in my room. Those bastards!!!!"


There has to be a significant amount of responsibility on this guy also.
What a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob: I don't agree. The guy got a court order to be barred from the casino. The casino knew this.

The casino went out of its way to lure him back. This is like wheeling a bar cart to an alcoholic's house and telling him just to have a drink or two.

The casino deliberately schemed to interfere with this man and to get his money in violation of a court order.

I think he is justified in suing. I think he should win.

Of course, I don't know the laws of Australia, but fairness is a large part of justice. The casino put the man in a position where he could not perform reasoned actions, they cast him back into his admitted illness.

This is not a TOSE situation. Tose never sought an injunction to bar himself.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how did this guy ever get $30 million to begin with?

[/ QUOTE ]not everyone makes a living gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point (joke) was that someone who loses $30 million playing in dumb casino games when it's incredibly obvious he's just being a sucker does not seem like a person who is smart enough to make $30 million in the business world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be very surprised how many lame-brains have some golden touch when it comes to making money in business. Maybe they are just full of charisma and people will buy from them, or maybe they just got lucky by being in the right place at the right time, but I have seen it over and over again. Example: a guy who can routinely blow $3K to $4K playing $15-$30 stud. Once I heard he went through $7K in that game in a day and a half long session. Just a really loose terrible player but full of charisma and a genuinely nice guy. He had made millions in business as had his brothers I think. Some people just seem to have the golden touch. Others have to be really smart or bust their butts for many many years and still make a lot less. The world of business isn't just about smarts and I wish I understood it better. But that might not help all that much because I don't have the same kind of outgoing charisma many of these guys possess. Maybe their charm leads them to more opportunities through people or whatever, but the Midas Touch is not just something of mythology. Some people go through life and nearly everything they touch seems to turn to gold.

[MicroBob]

For over a year he kept going back there.

Notice that he's only suing now probably because he's out of money.

I completely agree that the casino was totally slimy here and never should have taken such actions in the first place.


Without knowing all the details my first instinct here is that perhaps the casino is more responsible for the losses in his first couple of binges.

After that, they are slightly less responsible if he had time to wake-up and bar himself again or go to the authorities to report their activities and simply chose not to do so.

In between the gambling binges I suspect there was plenty of time for him to get rational and ban himself just like he did the first time.

His lawsuit would be far more credible to me if it was just one or two binges after they had relentlessly and inappropriately pursued him. But he kept going back over and over for 14 months.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


You might be very surprised how many lame-brains have some golden touch when it comes to making money in business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can believe this. For one thing, dumb people are impossible to negotiate with.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]

If he loses $200k then when he returns next time they give him $40k in the duffel-bags.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit but I'm pretty sure they would give him the $40k in 100's not 1's [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[mingorama]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
serioosly how the [censored] can u lose with a 20 % rebate

[/ QUOTE ]

You think so? I wish it weren't illegal, or I would invite you to play roulette with a 20% payback on losses at my house. The only way you can have an edge is if you only play short sessions and then demand your payback. If you come out for a week, and play a few hours a day, and then we settle the 20% if you lose, you will still be a long-term loser in this game. Just not as much.

If we pick a game with a lower house edge, like craps, I will still come out ahead in the long run. I just need your sessions to be that much longer before you're entitled to a payback on losses.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I agree with the last statement. Playing longer certainly will flatten out the peaks and valleys (effectively preventing someone from leaving after hitting a hot streak), but playing optimal strategy (max odds on line bet, and staying away from bets with high house edge like Field/Hardways/Horn), the 20% loss payback would not equal a net benefit. With an irrational gambler like this guy, sure it's a good idea... but I don't know that I agree with a blanket statement like that.

[Number27]

[ QUOTE ]
His lawsuit would be far more credible to me if it was just one or two binges after they had relentlessly and inappropriately pursued him. But he kept going back over and over for 14 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it all depends on your views on responsibility and disease. If you believe that degenerate gambling is a disease then I think you have to side with the guy.

It is a disease precisely because you cannot control the urge to do it. If stopping was as simple as telling himself that he should stop then would not have the disease to begin with.

Offering an alcoholic even one drink is bad precisely because they are unable to stop themselves even if they are sober the next day.

Interestingly enough, we all do (or have done) exactly what the casino is accused of doing here. We invite and encourage degenerates to play because that is where a large bulk of our profit comes from.

On high stakes every player at the table offered Mike Matusow $1000 to stay and play because they know how bad he is in long sessions. Are those players (or any of us) any better or worse than the casino?

[MicroBob]

I am not disputing that it's a disease.

But he has already proven that he is aware of his disease by intentionally getting himself banned before.

He knew he was getting killed.

After one binge was done I have a suspicion that he kept telling himself that he has a problem and needs to do something about it. May have even told himself that he's going to have the casino ban him again but he just neglected to do it.

However, if he tried to have the casino ban him again and they talked him out of it or something then that definitely makes the casino even more reprehensible in their actions imo.

[Mitch Evans]

That [censored] doesn't work that way. Once he was unbarred, after a binge or two being stuck let's say, $200k, you go back to get the money. You don't think to yourself, "I'm doing it again, I'd better stop" you go back and get the money.

It is only once you are completely broke that you come to your senses. I'm sure the guy was going frequently in that 14-month period. Being broke is what gives problem gamblers clarity; not being stuck any amount. You gotta be broke. It’s real easy to realize you have a gambling problem when you have absolutely nothing left.

[buckslayer80]

[ QUOTE ]
On high stakes every player at the table offered Mike Matusow $1000 to stay and play because they know how bad he is in long sessions. Are those players (or any of us) any better or worse than the casino?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a pretty good example.