So, no proof? Hollow threats. Gotcha.

Good luck at small claims court with no evidence.

As an attorney I always find it laughable when people blather about how their lawsuit is gonna work.

If beating a clown in small claims court is "embarrassing the Borgata in any way you can" your quest may be a complete success.

So, no proof, correct?

Did Lusardi play 1c along with 1b? I'm curious if new official information has come out that he played more than just the 1b flight.

Perhaps you should have spent a little MORE time in English class, and a little LESS time making empty threats.

I'm pretty sure there were two real shades of 5k chips (just not three). when you go to court they don't really care about facts though.

Anybody who thinks that everyone in Event 1 should be entitled to a refund should seriously quit playing poker and take up knitting!

... unless, of course, it does.

If everyone gets a refund, a whole new can of worms will be opened.

Not sure why anyone thinks RFID chips would make a difference. Even if casinos went to the expense of RFID chipsets (and it would be a lot cheaper to buy multiple sets of chips that were less easily counterfeited), there'd be no way to tell if someone slipped duplicate non-RFID chips into their stack without electronic readers at each table that read chips as they were put out for bets. Even with built-in monitors at each player position, you'd need to constantly verify that the number of chips read by the sensor tallied with the number of physical chips.

It'd be a lot cheaper to get rid of chips entirely and use electronic betting devices of some sort. That would have the added benefit of eliminating the infernal sound of chip shuffling.

^^

Have a large monitor and a mouse for each player at the LIVE tables.

The remaining players have fake chips which begot more chips which in turn begot more chips and so on....how can they (who conceivable received the greatest albeit inadvertent benefit) receive the spoils? I know that is harsh...but that is the truth.

He does have a valid point about the dealers
some were pretty clueless lol

The Borgata is in a tough position. They have to reduce potential liability to a minimum. I believe the best way to do that is the following: with the exception of those who have been paid out and the 27 remaining, pay everyone their money back. This reduces the number of potential lawsuits down to 27. Of the remaining 27, the only thing they can be guaranteed of is 27th place....anything else is speculative and a Court cannot award speculative damages. Pay each of the remaining 27 players 27th place money.

If you apply math to your "solution," the Borgata would not minimize its liabilities, it would voluntarily maximize the exposures.

Nor do I believe the 27 players damages are mere speculation. If the 27 all pursue claims together, as a group they would be entitled to the remaining prizepool.

I would tend to believe that the remaining 27 would have a much better claim than those who busted. If they give refunds to everyone, it does raise the question of how much cheating is enough cheating to corrupt a tournament as a whole. Its a really sticky wicket unfortunately. I think Borgata can provide comps to everyone, and chop what's left for the final 27...and that's it.

Multiple non-RFID chipsets would be more expensive than a set of RFID chips.

They wouldn't need built-in monitors and constant verification. Announce pre-tournament that chip stacks are going to be checked by employees with hand-held devices. Then send them out on breaks to randomly check stacks with special attention paid to bigger stacks.

Think of it like traffic cops. There isn't one on every corner, but most people don't speed because they know they're out there somewhere and they don't want to face the consequences of running into one.

Buying electronic betting devices and running electrical power to each table would be way more expensive.

I'm with you here.

This is where I respectfully disagree. Players with fake chips begot more chips which in turn begot more chips, and so on, and so on. Thus, if anything, by being in a position to maximize the leverage afforded by these fake chips, the remaining 27, albeit unbeknownst to them, benefited more than anyone else because they proportionally used more of these fake chips in greater concentration. Giving them each 27th place money buys freedom.

I personally feel that this trade has nothing new to offer. i just see all this pointless bickering. Do you guys really think anyone is going to take your input or your say in the NJDE or Borgata? i highly doubt. Quit throwing out suggestions cuz no one is listening. I feel like this thread should be shutdown!

Then why are you reading it?

Pdmcc, my point is that paying out another 2.2 mil in addition to the 1.2 mil (est) already paid out is not a method of reducing the potential exposure. It creates a million dollar loss for them voluntarily and immediately. Depending on the facts, they may not ultimately have this large of an exposure. If they tried this, the 27 should and would sue.

Finally, you chip value theory fails. The chips are now worth much less than they were day 1 and 2 when concentrated in one or more cheaters stack(s).

A refund to everyone would set a dangerous precedent. This means anytime anyone cheats in a tournament the entire field receives a refund? No way any casino ever holds a large field tournament again if that precedent was set.

Or would if just be if it was a really big cheat? lol. If a large stack doubles up via an angle, should the tournament be cancelled and refunds issued? where do you draw the line?

Tournaments are put on by casinos to collect a rake. If you introduce the potential of a million dollar liability exposure should they not catch every cheat they would need to charge MUCH greater rakes to offset that potential risk. Casinos exist because they are guaranteed to have a mathematical advantage. Introduce this precedent and there really isn't a reason for them to run tournaments.

@ 12bigworm81
You need to distinguish between a cheat that affects everyone, like introducing counterfeit chips into multi days of play, and a cheat that affects only one opponent or table.

Given all the butterfly affect theories in this thread aren't they the same?

I agree there are different levels of impact, but the question remains: where do you draw the line? My guess is the casino draws the line at something their people were involved with. Such as dealers/floor adding chips to bags, or pocketing rebuy money.

I fully get the casino's staff could have had better security. The players could have also caught this cheater. Just my opinion that I don't think a large casino is going to set a subjective precedent that opens them up to millions of dollars in liability should they not stop large cheats. AND, if they do accept this liability then MUCH greater rakes will be charged to run these events.

Just an opinion.
Once again...I hope everyone gets a refund. More money in the poker community.