Quote:
Originally Posted by Professionalpoker
Given the ridiculous amount of time it is taking for a resolution I've reopened.
It's not that ridiculous when you consider all the competing interests at play.
(1.) A lawsuit has already been filed - with the prospect of more to come.
(2.) The final 27 players have an interest - as in a [potential] $372,000 interest that was subverted by Mr. Lusardi and the cancellation decision by the NJDGE. If the eventual "resolution" handed down by the NJDGE and the Borgata is not considered "fair" by any of the 27, that's another lawsuit.
(3.) This case will likely set precedent as new regulations imposed on the operators to prevent cheating - or make cheating much more difficult to get away with - will surely follow. Such new regulations will not only affect the Borgata and New Jersey operators, but will likely be adopted in Nevada, California, Mississippi and all the other states where brick & mortar poker rooms are legal.
(4.) Business insurers may be balking. Large corporations such as Borgata carry liability policies that protect them against multi-million dollar judgments which could arise from a case like this. If insurers are unable to quantify the degree of risk and their [potential] exposure, they'll withdraw from the market. If operators are unable to obtain protection, they'll be forced to discontinue large-field MTTs. That decision would be forced on them as part of their fidicuary duty to their shareholders.
(5.) The operators and their licensing authority (the state) have both mutual interests and competing interests in this matter.
You can bet that intense discussions are going on between lawyers and executives representing the operators and regulators representing the state of New Jersey. The operators primary interest is in keeping the cost of added security as low as possible while the state of New Jersey is greatly interested in assuring gambling patrons, especially "casual" gaming patrons, that the games are fair. The state of New Jersey wants to protect the stream of tax revenue coming from the tables. Cheating scandals like this shake public confidence that regulators are doing their job. If the perception takes hold that regulators (and operators) are not doing their job, the stream of tax revenue going to the state will dry up. If that were to happen, politicians would either have to raise taxes or cut services to their constituents - a very unappealing prospect to the pols. From the perspective of the politicians and the regulators, this is the kind of thing that has to be nipped in the bud.
The primary issue will boil down to: "How much [additional] game security is appropriate - and at what cost?" The dilemma in adding costly new game security measures is: "At what point do you kill the goose that layed the golden egg?" If new security measures wind up doubling tournament entry fees from 10 percent to 20 percent, how many players will conclude that entering large-field MTTs is no longer worth the risk?
If the NJDGE gets this wrong, they could wind up destroying large-field MTTs - not to mention the tax revenues that derive from such. That's why this is taking so long.
Last edited by Alan C. Lawhon; 03-28-2014 at 02:37 PM.
Reason: Minor edit.
