2 gamblers take NJ casino for more than $11 million. (1 Viewer)

[culdeus]

The first guy was vague with his strategy but repeatedly alluded to a big bankroll being key. I guess he's running some form of martingale which is obviously easier with high stakes

I'm a MG fan myself. Just for hit-and-run purposes. Make $500 or a grand and hit the road before the inevitable run of seven or eight losses in a row

happens. Anyway, though the spread at this high stakes table would make it almost impossible for a MG bettor to not win money in the short term, I seriously doubt that was this guy's strategy. It would take forever to pull $5.8M that way.

To make $1000 in a quick hit, you'd need to bring $25k in cash every time to withstand 8 bad rolls. You saying that you do this often?

"Hit and run" was probably a poor choice of words. I don't walk in and put $500 or $1000 on the first hand, then leave if I win. It's a grind. It can take a few hours. But my point was I won't stay long enough to give it back. Also, don't use the $1,000 as the measuring stick. $500 is normally my goal. If it happens quickly, I might go double-or-nothing on one hand if the mood strikes me. Win, go home. Lose, start all over again.

I normally start with a $25 wager. If you don't have the stomach for big swings, you can employ a stop-loss

strategy, where you go back to square one after four losses in a row. You will be out $375 and will need to play catch-up, but if you have a deep enough bankroll this prevents crushing losses.

People laugh at progression systems. I get it.

But I have fun with it and I'm not bringing the mortgage money with me, so who is it hurting?

My understanding of the system is that it is the opposite of grinding, it is designed to work in the short term which is typically an hour or less.

There is no time range to the MG. Most casinos min/max limits are pretty circled so you would have to pre-arrange large bet swings and for BJ that will come with a insta-shuffle or something like that.

 

[Sarnoff]

Another nightmare for a New Jersey casino: The Golden Nugget lost $1.5 million after 14 bacarrat players won 41 consecutive hands... because the casino accidentally put 8 unshuffled decks in the shoe.

 

[bagger]

The first guy was vague with his strategy but repeatedly alluded to a big bankroll being key. I guess he's running some form of martingale which is obviously easier with high stakes

pretty sure it was an onslaught.

 

[bagger]

i.rivered.some.donks.with.the.sixteen.of.octogons.playing.cali.holdem.

+10000000000would read again

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another nightmare for a New Jersey casino: The Golden Nugget lost $1.5 million after 14 bacarrat players won 41 consecutive hands... because the casino accidentally put 8 unshuffled decks in the shoe.

Jeez.I don't think the casino should win its lawsuit against the card manufacturer. Maybe the cards should have been pre-shuffled, but the casino needs to double-check. It wasn't reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer that the casino would wager $1.5 million without shuffling. The card manufacturer should reimburse the casino for the cost of the defective cards, but not for the casino's gambling losses. If the casino effectively wants a $1.5 million insurance policy against its consequential losses from using unshuffled cards, it's not going to get it automatically included in the ordinary price of a deck.

Whether the casino should be able to recover against the players is a more interesting question. Once the players discovered that the game was unintentionally rigged . . . I don't know. Interesting.

 

[Arizona Ron]

i.rivered.some.donks.with.the.sixteen.of.octogons.playing.cali.holdem.

 

[Abraham]

Another nightmare for a New Jersey casino: The Golden Nugget lost $1.5 million after 14 bacarrat players won 41 consecutive hands... because the casino accidentally put 8 unshuffled decks in the shoe.

Jeez.I don't think the casino should win its lawsuit against the card manufacturer. Maybe the cards should have been pre-shuffled, but the casino needs to double-check. It wasn't reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer that the casino would wager $1.5 million without shuffling. The card manufacturer should reimburse the casino for the cost of the defective cards, but not for the casino's gambling losses. If the casino effectively wants a $1.5 million insurance policy against its consequential losses from using unshuffled cards, it's not going to get it automatically included in the ordinary price of a deck.

Whether the casino should be able to recover against the players is a more interesting question. Once the players discovered that the game was unintentionally rigged . . . I don't know. Interesting.

While it wouldn't hold up in court, the card manufacturer could actually say the cards were shuffled. Having them come out in one sequence is no more or less likely than any other random sequence. I do wonder how the casino didn't notice - don't they have to remove the jokers?

 

[Sarnoff]

Does the casino use a deck once and once only? I'd think in most games, you'd always reshuffle at the start just out of habit. Perhaps because it was baccarat they expected to get the decks pre-shuffled (isn't it "legal" to mark/deface/rip/throw/etc. the cards in baccarat only? So the casino does in fact expect only one run out of each deck?)?

 

[Mario Kart]

I hope the casino is forced to pay lawyer costs for the gamblers.

Now I want to go play some poker.

 

[dparker713]

Another nightmare for a New Jersey casino: The Golden Nugget lost $1.5 million after 14 bacarrat players won 41 consecutive hands... because the casino accidentally put 8 unshuffled decks in the shoe.

Jeez.I don't think the casino should win its lawsuit against the card manufacturer. Maybe the cards should have been pre-shuffled, but the casino needs to double-check. It wasn't reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer that the casino would wager $1.5 million without shuffling. The card manufacturer should reimburse the casino for the cost of the defective cards, but not for the casino's gambling losses. If the casino effectively wants a $1.5 million insurance policy against its consequential losses from using unshuffled cards, it's not going to get it automatically included in the ordinary price of a deck.

Whether the casino should be able to recover against the players is a more interesting question. Once the players discovered that the game was unintentionally rigged . . . I don't know. Interesting.

Can't see how the players owe the casino any duty. And the casino's claims that it wasn't being given fair odds is somewhat silly. They could have shut the game down earlier, but they wanted to prove malfeasance of the players - turns out it was just their stupidity,

 

[culdeus]

if they were unshuffled were there a ####load of ties?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

How hard was this to spot? After dealing As kS As j And 10s to the table you'd think a dealer or pit boss/clipboard holder might say this seems wrong. EIGHT DECKS? Lmfao

 

[Rick James]

Another nightmare for a New Jersey casino: The Golden Nugget lost $1.5 million after 14 bacarrat players won 41 consecutive hands... because the casino accidentally put 8 unshuffled decks in the shoe.

Jeez.I don't think the casino should win its lawsuit against the card manufacturer. Maybe the cards should have been pre-shuffled, but the casino needs to double-check. It wasn't reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer that the casino would wager $1.5 million without shuffling. The card manufacturer should reimburse the casino for the cost of the defective cards, but not for the casino's gambling losses. If the casino effectively wants a $1.5 million insurance policy against its consequential losses from using unshuffled cards, it's not going to get it automatically included in the ordinary price of a deck.

Whether the casino should be able to recover against the players is a more interesting question. Once the players discovered that the game was unintentionally rigged . . . I don't know. Interesting.

I'm not familiar with bacarrat, as I mostly play blackjack, 3-card poker, or Craps...but whenever the dealers have to switch decks (which is way too frequent, imo) they fan the cards out on the table face-up and count them. They're always unshuffled, or in sequential order in other words. I've never seen a fresh-out-the-box deck of cards be pre-shuffled.

 

[Arizona Ron]

Another nightmare for a New Jersey casino: The Golden Nugget lost $1.5 million after 14 bacarrat players won 41 consecutive hands... because the casino accidentally put 8 unshuffled decks in the shoe.

Jeez.I don't think the casino should win its lawsuit against the card manufacturer. Maybe the cards should have been pre-shuffled, but the casino needs to double-check. It wasn't reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer that the casino would wager $1.5 million without shuffling. The card manufacturer should reimburse the casino for the cost of the defective cards, but not for the casino's gambling losses. If the casino effectively wants a $1.5 million insurance policy against its consequential losses from using unshuffled cards, it's not going to get it automatically included in the ordinary price of a deck.

Whether the casino should be able to recover against the players is a more interesting question. Once the players discovered that the game was unintentionally rigged . . . I don't know. Interesting.

While it wouldn't hold up in court, the card manufacturer could actually say the cards were shuffled. Having them come out in one sequence is no more or less likely than any other random sequence. I do wonder how the casino didn't notice - don't they have to remove the jokers?

In AC, they order the cards from the manufactuer with specific specs (i.e. suffled, no jacks etc.). There is no way casino's consequential damages holds up in this one. I've been on baccarat tables where the pitboss comes over and watches when the players are on a run of 5+ wins or more. 41 hands??? that's just stupid.

 

[johnnycakes]

at the casino not shuffling the "pre-shuffled" cards before putting them in play. Casino should pay the gamblers and sue the card manufacturer instead.