Quote:
Originally Posted by Suit
This.
Very rarely will you see me post that the casino is liable to cover anyone's loss, but in this situation I think the Borgata should pay you what you lost in this hand. This could have been handled by the floor supervisor that was called to the table and IMHO it was that floor supervisor's fault that this wasn't resolved. Yes, the dealer should have waited to deal the next hand, but if you explained that you tried to stop the dealer then the floor should have listened and looked into it. An accusation that a player cheated to win a pot is a serious matter and the floor should have checked into it.
This is the rare thread, indeed. Usually, an OP says, "I was wronged!", and the longtime posters who are dealers and floors say, "TS, it's on you to protect yourself at all times, don't cry to us..."
...but this time, none of those long-time posters/cardroom employees are doing that. Suit didn't do that, and I won't, either.
I agree with his assessment that the casino should cut the check in this spot--but I realize fully how easy it is for me to spend other people's money. I also realize that my (our) motivation is to right a wrong. But businesses don't cut checks to right wrongs, they need a reason that helps their bottom line (don't be mad about that, that's a business' whole reason for existing). Our passions have been inflamed by the egregiousness of this affair, but a business has no passion to be inflamed.
So I'll only point out that this check should be cut to help the bottom line. That number at the bottom of the page is going to get smaller and smaller, as long as this thread with your name next to the word "cheating" is prominently featured on a page belonging to what I believe is the largest poker community on the internet. "Cheating" is a very inflammatory word around here. It is ROUTINE to take it down when used improperly (ie, "the dealer mucked my hand, I was cheated by Casino X!", is not allowed to fly, and if the author won't retract it, the moderators will remove it). No one has suggested yet that the C-word has been used improperly here,
and that speaks volumes. I thought you should know that.
This is NOT the usual case. Short of coming in here and disputing the facts laid out by OP, it would be a mistake to handle it the usual way.