Posted on 10/16/2025 5:57:37 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
One of President Trump’s biggest political adversaries stunned the political world after revealing that he won an unusual amount of money gambling in Las Vegas last year.
As The New York Times reported, Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker released his 2024 tax returns on Wednesday as rumors circulate about him as a 2028 presidential candidate.
The returns revealed that Pritzker and his wife reported $10.7 million in adjusted gross income. But the biggest shock was the fact that he won $1.4 million playing blackjack in Las Vegas in just one trip.
Such an amount is surprising, especially considering Pritzker is not a professional gambler.
Pritzker, though, told reporters Thursday that there was nothing nefarious and that it was just his lucky night at the casino.
“I went on vacation with my wife, with some friends, I was incredibly lucky,” a smiling Pritzer claimed at a press conference. “You have to be in order to end up ahead in a casino anywhere.”
“I like to play cards. I founded a charitable poker match here in Chicago called the Chicago Poker Challenge that has raised millions of dollars for the Holocaust museum,” he said in an apparent attempt to tone down any accusations of cheating.
WATCH:
Social media users were not buying his explanation, however. Many questioned not only whether he actually won that much but also whether there was a more sinister reason no one wanted to talk about.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Well, that’s suspicious. 🙄
Babylon Bee? No?
I suppose he thinks all the peon voters in IL should admire him for his blackjack skills, “playing” with all that money that means nothing to him.
Like Hillary’s commodities prowess? It’s possible but unlikely.
Remember hrc and cackle futures?
Democrat politicians are really good at speculation and gambling
Hillary Clinton was able to turn $1000 into $100,000 investing in cattle futures in less than a year - having never traded futures before!
It’s clear Prickster has the same skill.
Bribery is such an ugly word.
Smells really fishy. Wonder what casino allowed this to happen? Wonder who “owns” that casino? Wonder if the owner(s) have a deal under the table with Pritzker to allow him to win? We’re talking about Illinois and Las Vegas where nothing is as it appears.
Pritzker “won” $1.4 million? How much was he betting?
How much does blackjack pay on $100 bets?
3 to 2 Blackjack Payout Chart
Original Bet Blackjack Payoff
$95 $142.50
$100 $150
$125 $187.50
$150 $225
Has anyone seen Cocaine Quarterback? True story, UCLA Football player gets hooked up with Cartels and laundered money through fake gambling. Guy buys in with a million, plays a little and cashes out. Another way to do it is have accomplices intentionally lose to you. I believe Newsome and Pritzger are backed by the cartels. They certainly are carrying their water.
Winning this much money is rare and requires exceptionally high wagers that few people can afford.
To win $1.4 million, a player would need to make extremely large wagers.
Governor J.B. Pritzker’s $1.4 million blackjack win noted that high-rollers can bet $100,000 or more per hand at private tables.
At this level of betting, a few winning hands could potentially lead to millions in profit, but a few losing hands could also lead to massive losses.
While average players cannot predict their outcome, skilled card counters can overcome the house edge by tracking the ratio of high-value to low-value cards in the deck. This allows them to raise their bets when the deck is favorable.
However, the advantage for a card counter is still small—typically only 0.5% to 1.5%—and casinos actively discourage it. It requires immense skill and discipline, and still does not guarantee a large win.
Attempting to force a large, specific win in a casino can be a costly endeavor. Strategies like the Martingale, where you double your bet after every loss, are destined to fail. They require an infinite bankroll to succeed and eventually hit table limits, causing ruin.
Hillary’s 100kwas 1978 money too. One hundred thousand dollars in 1978 has roughly the same purchasing power as about $492,000 in 2025. This figure is based on U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data showing a cumulative inflation rate of approximately 392% from 1978 to 2025, meaning prices have increased nearly fivefold during that period
Cankles did it, she says by reading the WSJ. How did Pritz do it? We need an explanation!
A true Vegas “Whale”!
Charitable organization, huh? Is that like you put in $ K, we put in $1 million?
It’s funny money.
He’s so sheepish in his explanation. He totally knows he’s corrupt, and he was just getting his money laundering money back.
Hillary’s 100kwas 1978 money too. One hundred thousand dollars in 1978 has roughly the same purchasing power as about $492,000 in 2025. This figure is based on U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data showing a cumulative inflation rate of approximately 392% from 1978 to 2025, meaning prices have increased nearly fivefold during that period
<>
There are cases on record of unscrupulous brokers having unassigned trades, where they reward one customer at another customer’s expense. Maybe this what Hillary’s broker did. Hillary assuredly did not read the WSJ to learn to trade like that. That is just silly!
Did Pritzker do this?
“Cocaine Quarterback” is about laundering illicit money through fake gambling.
<><>buy in with a million, play a little and cash out.
<><>Or have accomplices intentionally lose to you.
oldernittany posted: “I believe Newsome and Pritzger are
backed by the cartels. They certainly are carrying their water.
I was thinking the dealer forgot...several times...that he or she had to stand on 17.
Don Tyson’s general counsel James Blair gave Hillary her cattle futures investment advice. Both he and Don Tyson were close friends of the Clintons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.