The casinos should pay up. Few people can beat the house. When one guy wins, it makes all of the suckers think they can win too, when they don’t put in the time and are just compulsive gamblers. Not paying is very bad advertising. If people think the casino won’t pay them if they win, marginal gamblers won’t gamble.
You’re allowed to lose all you want. Just make sure you don’t figure out how to win.
The casinos accepted the bets, therefore they must pay off when they lose. It’s awfully convenient for them to say, after they lose, that he broke the rules. But if he lost all of his bets, they wouldn’t have said a word about any rules.
.
Maybe he tried to skirt taxes somehow. Lots of small bets that don’t require reporting.
I could see the potential ‘money laundering’ angle, and maybe he did break the house rules. But they should pay up. They took the bets.
If he has a good case, a good lawyer will rep him on contingency.
...
Caesars maintains McPeek's betting activity was an attempt to circumvent their rules, and as a result, they voided the wagers. Caesars adds McPeek can get his money back that he used to place the bets, including the losers.
I was going to say that they didn't mind keeping his losing bets when they voided his winning bet. Then I read the last paragraph where it said the casino would refund ALL of his bets as if he never wagered at all.
This reminds me of all the stories of casinos refusing to pay out progressive slot machine jackpots, claiming that the slot machine "malfunctioned." I would demand to have all my money that was put into the slot machine refunded, arguing that how do I know that those losing bets weren't also malfunctions?
-PJ