says it all about cancellations prior to tourney start, yes

This is interesting:
This tournament was canceled after the dealing of the first hand. I realized that it has already happened. But how is this legally possible?

Well actually, there's two statements, which could be taken separately.

Statement #1: Borgata reserves the right to cancel the tournament ... prior to the dealing of the first hand.

Statement #2: If cancelled, all monies paid as entry fee and buy in will be returned and neither party shall have any liability to the other.


So it seems like #1 doesn't come into play, because the Borgata didn't cancel the tournament... the NJDGE did. However, #2 could come into play because the tournament was still cancelled, but Borgata did return the entry fees and buy ins as promised and as ordered by the NJDGE.

Players who couldn't possibly have been affected by the cheating didn't get their buyins back. If this had been a true cancellation, there would have been no prizes, and everyone would have gotten their buyins back.

Yup. IMO everyone should of got their money back. They had to pay the 27 cuz they knew they would have a hissy fit. They got 19k and still threw a tantrum.

Six of the remaining 27 players have filed a lawsuit against the Borgata:

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/0...gata-18251.htm

Good for them; hope they get more money.

There is always room for interpretation. Just because Borgata or any other entity, for that matter, stipulate something in the fine print of a contract that doesn't make it an iron clad binding stipulation. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a lot of lawsuits in a lot of court rooms throughout the US.

Just what the over burdened court system needs, another frivolous lawsuit. Hopefully it is immediately tossed out.

Great precedent. Provides plenty of motivation for casinos to keep offering live poker tournaments so they can be both cheated and sued by poker players.

Pretty ridiculous statement. The Borg and other like them profit millions every year on their tournaments and they will not stop them over a 240K ish lawsuit.

How about the lawsuit will provide motivation for well run efficient tournaments with fast and fair decisions when something does go wrong?

Laughable in it's stupidity. Nobody had a reasonable expectation of a 27 way equal chop for $53,079 here. Damages are, at best, the ICM value at the time the tournament was suspended.

ICM's from ohsnapzach some time ago:

Haughton's ~$45k
Sneideman's ~$28k
Tran's ~$52k
Vatanavan's ~$55k
Korres ~$15k
Phung ~$38k

Let's assume liability is on Borgata for the moment. Based on an ICM model, which is the true measure of damages, the players are damaged as follows:

Haughton's ~$25,800 ($45.1-$19.3)
Sneideman's ~$9,700 ($28.7-19.3)
Tran's ~$33,000 ($52.3-19.3)
Vatanavan's ~$35,200($54.5-19.3)
Korres Got more than his ICM, is he free rolling? (if he's paying a lawyer he's not)
Phung ~$18,600 ($37.9-19.3)

I peg the total damages for these plaintiffs at $122,600. That, in my view, is the best they can possibly do after a trial so if there is a settlement, it will be nowhere near that number. So let's look at some realities (all of this assumes contingency fees - if these guys are paying hourly, that's a -EV proposition):

1. Lawyers will need to get paid. Assuming this is on a contingency, is the contingency on the total recovery (i.e. including the $19,323 they're already getting) or only on a recovery in excess of $19,323. If the lawyers are getting paid a contingency fee on the total recovery, then all plaintiffs are risking $6,831 each; money they would get without any legal assistance. I'd be shocked if this is the scenario.

2. More likely, if the players are smart, they are not risking $6,831 each and they are only paying a contingency fee on the amount of recovery in excess of $19,323. Thus, their lawyers are looking at a best case scenario payday of just over $40,000. And that's after a year or more of motion practice, depositions, and a trial, which is not a great payday if they are going to do that much work.

The lawsuit may be seeking attorney's fees, but I can't see a way for the players to prevail on that claim. The law in New Jersey is clear that you can't get attorney's fees for breach of contract or negligence and those are the two causes of action.

3. The case will have some nuisance value I suppose. But if any of these guys net more than $15,000 from this I'd be surprised.

4. There are divide and conquer problems for the plaintiffs as well. They may think they are united now but if Borgata offers a couple of these guys $15,000 they might take it. They can slam the door on the bottom two chip stacks and offer them nothing (exposure is less than $10,000) and leave the lawyers with two minimally damaged plaintiffs. That's a nightmare scenario for the lawyers - lots of work for little money.

Of course, the depositions, if it ever gets that far, would be fun:
Q: Mr. Vatanavan, your ICM was $54,500. Are you saying you would have agreed to a chop that would have given you and Mr. Korres, whose ICM was $15,500, the same amount?

Q: Do any of you plaintiffs believe that the chip leader, with an ICM of $152,000 would have agreed to a chop for about $100,000 less than that?

Disclaimer: Though I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

hey how about running a tournament legit not over crowded and under manned besides what happened to the fool who declared lusardi the chip leader

What casinos earn on live tournaments is a pimple on the bottom line's ass.

sounds like a ridiculous suit. not seeking much. I would of thought they would shoot for the moon and work down from there. well anyway more power to them for getting anything.

The interesting question is whether negligence can be proven. Since the Borgata tourneys are pretty much run at least as well as anyone else's, the best chance could be how they reacted when told about the fake chips.

Looking forward to watching this unfold.

If anyone reputable is willing to escrow, ill take any bets up to 1k at 1-1 that this lawsuit either gets settled or the plaintiffs win (in other words, it doesn't just get tossed out).

Go plaintiffs!

After they settle or win that further reduces the 912K the Borgata saved. It's already been reduced for the "secret" payments that they have been making to the chipleaders.

In the end, the little that they have saved doesn't seem like it was worth the tarnished reputation imo

Players sue casino for following New Jersey Division Of Gaming Enforcement ruling. How can they lose?

IMO it's far less frivolous than the poker lawsuit my office just defended in the same state.

lol lawyers

if that was the case there would be no lawsuit. for one, the mtt started with 4,812 players and is left with 27 remaining and is than cancelled. therefore the mtt is 99.5% complete than cancelled, all players who placed between 450 - 28 get their proper equity value based on a 2.4 mill prizepool and the 1/2% of the remaining (27) have lost 62% of their equity value (911k) thru no fault of their own. the 27 have refunded the bustouts when the borgata should have taken the responsibility. the 27 were robbed and want justice.

Hopefully this lawsuit stops them from being able to hide behind this ruling. And let's face facts this ruling was put together behind closed doors with the DGE and Borgata in bed with each other. What an ugly fooking couple btw

another lawyer bruce li causi has filed a lawsuit also for some of the other 27. any of the other bustouts who did not receive a refund can contact him at 908 725 1403.

I am a little confused as to how they are asking for the same damages for each of the plaintiffs, when each plaintiff had different equity. As I read the article it says "The complaint alleges four counts against the Borgata — Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Contract, and Negligence Per Se — and seeks damages of $33,756.44 for each of the plaintiffs."

Why would the chip leader consent to join in this suit where he would not be realizing his equity, and why does a short stack get an equity freeroll in this suit? Maybe I am reading it wrong, but shouldn't the damages sought for each plaintiff here be different?

I need to read the actual complaint, which might be more detailed.

I think $33,756.44 is an equal chop for the final 27, based on what was left in the prize pool. They're basically claiming if the tournament was stopped, they should chop what was left; as opposed to all of the people earlier in the tournament getting their buy-ins back.

As for why they'd do it; I'd assume the answer is something close to "it's easier than trying to describe to a judge and jury what cEV and equity is".