Whether or not the dealer should confirm ... it is still substantially different from theft.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Well sure, from a legal perspective it's different - the dealer is never getting charged with a crime here. But from a "is the dealer a scumbag" perspective, I don't make a distinction between the two - yes, he is.

I'm going to call it "bicycle".

It's definitely not theft and scummy is probably too harsh of a word. Still, the dealer should have said something, as it's just the right thing to do.

would everyone think the same if the amount was different. say a 500 dollar chip.

That tipping between a player and a dealer is none of my business, well, yes. Just like tipping a waitress , or a cab driver, or anyone else. The amount does not change my opinion at all. Maybe the reciever of the tip should clarify the intent of an oversized tip out of courtesy. That's the moral thing to do I guess. The question was whether a person outside of the transaction should speak up about it. I say I would not , because I think it is none of my business (repeat) and I don't care if it is not poker related.

Yes, if the dealer noticed, they should have said something.

I think that's a personal decision, to speak up or not. I'm not saying anything before the dealer makes their decision about it. Depending on the person, I still may or may not comment.

"Damn, you just gave him enough to buy NYC!"

If you're a person, you speak up. If you are like me, you don't.

Wanna be more like me?

this^

No. Unjust enrichment is a civil offense, not criminal, so the standard of "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" is not required. The standard here is that a preponderance of the evidence show there was unjust enrichment.

This standard is interpreted legally as "greater than 50% chance the offense occurred". All one's attorney would have to show is it's more likely than not that the tipper intended $2. And absent contravening evidence, all you'd need for that is this player's word.

Taking this tip is not legally criminal theft but where not a civil offense in many jurisdictions, it is still super scummy.

Wrong. The prove would need to show that the dealer knew or should have known the intended tip was $2. The tipper claiming that was his intent is not alone enough evidence that the dealer knew it was the intent. Is it enough for the 'or should have' piece, that would be the question to resolve. But in he said vs he said, in a vacuum would not meet the perponderence.

Close...the actual question is whether the dealer should reasonably believe the green chip was intended as a tip (not that he should divine the correct tip amount). My point was that it should be incredibly easy for an attorney to argue the dealer should not reasonably believe such, given the very low civil standard of preponderance of evidence, which translates as "more likely than not" or the 50%+1 standard.

All the plaintiff need do is prove (and prove is a strong word in a civil trial) to the jury that more likely than not, the dealer should not reasonably believe the green chip was intended for him.

To prove this, one could simply look at databases of tipping patterns and determine that this tip is highly aberrational for such a small pot. Therefore, the dealer should reasonably have viewed it as aberrational and more likely than not, it was not intended for him.

A straightforward application of Bayes Theorem using the database results would show the probability the tip was intentional given the aberrational amount (plus obvious color mixup) is extremely low, far less than .5

That would be enough in a civil trial. The standard of proof is super low.

Obviously nobody is suing for $25, but let's look at a similar kind of mistake that could end up in court.

An employer pays a former employee $4000 a month in disability payments. One month there is a clerical error and they pay $400,000. They contact the former employee seeking restitution. He refuses, arguing they may have done it on purpose. Who do you think will win this case? And would you think it shady for the former employer to just pocket the $400000 checks, or should he contact his employer?

And haven't you seen Family Guy? This exact kind of thing happens in the pilot and Peter is charged with welfare fraud. LOL.

Let me conclude by asking this--Is there anyone here who believes the dealer more likely than not actually believed the green chip was meant for him? Not that he *might* have believed it intentional, or didn't notice, etc., but that more than half the time, a dealer sees a white chip + green chip as a completely normal tip in a $30 pot?

Let me keep the reply short and simple. Please do not represent yourself in court, neither criminal nor civil (you do realize you switched those don't you). It would not go well for you. The process is more complicated then simply tallying up points on some scale you devise.

Btw your employer analogy is also completely different. That relationship is all contractually defined including the expected amount of compensation AND the employer's right to recover accidental over payment. That is why employer wins. It is also why it would never reach a court case, no rational lawyer would file for him. And the employer would not ask for the money back. They would just take it back unless he withdrew and hid it.

Just because you see the large tip as an aberation does not resolve the issue. I never said the dealer should keep the tip. But once he does, all of those other factors you want to ignore are put of the case were you to take the issue forward.

Wouldn't and I'm not an attorney, but nice way to imply I'm stupid. Congratulations. Do you feel better?

Pretty sure I didn't get civil and criminal offenses backward. A lot of states don't have specific unjust enrichment statutes but for those that due like North Dakota it's a civil offense. If I confused the two please tell me where. But I'm 99% sure you have it backwards, not me.

FindLaw on civil vs. criminal:

"A civil case begins when a person or entity (such as a corporation or the government), called the plaintiff, claims that another person or entity (the defendant) has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are also referred to as "parties" or "litigants." The plaintiff may ask the court to tell the defendant to fulfill the duty, or make compensation for the harm done, or both. Legal duties include respecting rights established under the Constitution or under federal or state law."

"A person accused of a crime is generally charged in a formal accusation called an indictment (for felonies or serious crimes) or information (for misdemeanors). The government, on behalf of the people of the United States, prosecutes the case through the United States Attorney's Office if the person is charged with a federal crime. A state's attorney's office prosecutes state crimes."

This is clearly a civil issue, not criminal.

"Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:

1) Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.

2)Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.

3)The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe."

I guess you don't get analogies. They're analogous to the situation in some way, not in every way. The point is not whether there's contractual obligation. Unjust enrichment can occur without it. I was keeping things simple. Liability is independent of provable wrongdoing for the defense.

Do you think it's not an aberration? His decision to keep the tip when he almost certainly knows it's aberrational is what creates the situation.

You continue to confuse a civil offense which is prosecuted and a civil suit which is a dispute between two parties. For this discussion, if the dealer were tried for unjust enrichment, it would be a kind criminal trial. The state case would be presented by a state prosecuter. A civil suit, which you also bring in, would involve the player and the dealer. They would or could hire their own attorneys to represent them. The state is not a party to the suit and there is no prosecuter. You have been switching between these very different kinds of cases.

Any prosecution of a defendant even for a misdemeanor requires the state to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And also extremely important, the defendant has NO required level of proof. He need not prove anything, simply raising questions in the prosecutions case is more than enough. In a civil suit, the burden of proof is peponderance but the burden rests on both parties.

Btw, in a civil suit the case is not about punishment. It is about righting damages and maybe future deterrent. Once you claim a crime even a misdemeanor like unjust enrichment, the punishment becomes the issue and the burden of proof raises accordingly.

Shai a fun exercise is to search for the term "civil offense" within the quotes you used to demonstrate what a civil offense is.

As I said, unjust enrichment is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor. A case is brought by a plaintiff against a defendant and remuneration is made (or not). This is civil law. The burden of proof in civil law is preponderance of the evidence.

I did use the phrase "civil offense" which I thought meant "breach of civil law" or to be more technical, "civil wrong providing the basis for a tort," when technically "civil offense" is a legal term of art synonymous with municipal offense or administrative offense. To be clear, I didn't confuse "civil offense" with "criminal offense" (as Fore accused). I confused "civil offense" with "civil wrong providing the basis for a tort" (an extremely common use of the phrase "civil offense", so common FindLaw even used it this way). I don't know what the term of art for "civil wrong providing the basis for a tort" is, but that's what unjust enrichment is.

Here's an article about unjust enrichment and the related concept of quantum meruit.

https://marbvjffr.files.wordpress.co...enrichment.pdf

But we're getting bogged down in the weeds here. The point is that the burden of proof for this offense (technically a civil wrong, not a "civil offense") of unjust enrichment is extremely low--preponderance of the evidence, i.e,. the "more likely than not" standard.

The dealer is scummy for taking this tip, and in the hypothetical situation the player realizes his mistake and asks for restitution, the dealer is extremely scummy for not complying, as this kind of behavior can be a civil wrong providing the basis for a tort.

You know why your line is wrong? Hint, it has nothing to do with if it is theft or not.

Everyone arguing about if it is theft or entitlement are missing the point. It isn't even about the fish who accidentally threw in the green chip.

The dealer's income is directly correlated to tips from ALL 9 players at the table. Chances are there are at least 5 regs at the table. It only takes 1 or 2 of regs at the table to see the new dealer take ths tip withoit acknowledging it or saying anything.

Those regs talk to other regs, next thing you know, all the regs think this dealer is a douche. You think those regs are going to tip him as much as they do the other dealers?

He is shooting himself in the foot by taking the money. It doesn't matter if it is theft or not, thats moot.

Yeah, I think he's a douche and I wasn't even there! The guy thought nobody would notice or care but now half of 2+2 thinks he's shady.

Say thank u very much I appreciate you and move on. Nobody knows if the guy meant to give $26 or not.
And who cares!

On a 30$ pot ??? Lol obvious accident . greedy dealer absolutely should of asked and or gave back . I actually seen this . Never has dealer just auto dropped toke . now if pot was say at leastover 100.00 people have been generous but c'mon 26$ on 30$ pot ...smfh

First over time I have seen all kinds of tips. Including ones where tipper was net loser after tip for that hand but up big for the down.

Also while remote and senseless at this level maybe player and dealer in cahoots an player is using tipping to rathole.