Far from a slam dunk on the details in this thread. I might post more if someone gets a link posed to the recent filings.

I'm too lazy to look for them online.

Which plaintiff?! Aren't they both suing each other?

I think the blog makes them both look bad, albeit the situation kind of accidentally evolved and then perhaps ego, pride and probably some crossed wires of communication came into play.

They have now both blown it out of proportion.

Better to settle it amicably between them, drop all legal action, and release a joint statement that all has been settled amicably and a line has been drawn under the incident.

If someone deliberately gets really drunk before setting out to play table games using optimal strategy against the house (e.g. simple level stakes roulette or level stakes Blackjack), loses a chunk and then sues the casino for a rebate of some/all of their losses, citing negligence/failure of duty of care, is this advantage playing by the player or cheating?

Oh, nice of you to tempt us with your kind offer, but...google it

wow, ok, now it looks pretty bad for both of them, they both appear very petty and trying to mess with the other out of spite. Really curiuos who the mysterious phone speaker is, mb he owes someone and promised to repay them with Leons money?

^^^
Person that staked him or Matt's Mom (or both)

Too bad. It was a pretty good offer, I've been practicing gaming law here for more than 20+ years.

No such thing as a free lunch. Carry on, counselor.

Why didn't you say so!

Somehow can't find the documents on the site this time, but try here...

https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Ano...aseID=11780944

...or PM me an email address and I'll send you pdf's

mystery dropped phone call/person on phone with Matt is 100% Bobby Baldwin not wanting to give a discount on his portion of Matt’s action. Would wager money on this being the case

Rpb's post seems like a really reasonable explanation as it seems to highlight believable parts of both Matt and Leon's accounts...

I'm not a legal expert, but I think this would come down to whether the initial deal, brokered by Rob at the pool is enforceable by Law. A quick google seems to have a bit of a blurred line between deals being binding based on a handshake.

All of the cases where the court ruled in favour of what would be Matt in this case (i.e the person who says it's not a deal) seem to be where the deal was vague and not definitive. I would say the deal Rob brokered seems to be pretty clear.

Obviously everything differs in different places, but I think Leon has a pretty good case here. I don't think Matt can completely agree to a clear deal, and then after a phonecall cancel.

Also be interesting if it goes further to see if the backer was Baldwin and what affect that has with his involvement in MGM resort casinos...

leon suing matt for 10 mill lol

I read Rob's blog post and I am completely confused as to why none of this was not part of the original filings. It basically sounds like the initial complaint was fabricated (at least in part) and I can think of very few reasons why that would be the case. Perhaps to protect the "mystery" phone caller? You can't tell the pool story without the part about the call so maybe that's why it was omitted?

Does this mean we can go to Kings Casino get wasted drop 10k on Roulette and then go back the next day and ask for it back as we were drunk ?

wonderful analogy

Does this mean I can go to the Aria, get drunk as hell, ask Matty for some Millions and have to pay it back the next day.

That would be a sick hangover.

First Donald Trump as President and now we have a Casino owner suing a Casino for losing millions while wasted.

Leon also sold some antique wardrobe to Madeleine Albright in 90' . Man is full of surprises.

hmm

Forced reference is forced.
Please cry more.

Haha.

I known Rob since I was ~20years old, what he says not only sounds incredibly plausible but also coming from Rob I just believe it 100%.

What a totally stupid situation, Kirk basically tried his hardest to not get paid at every point. By all accounts he went from "will pay you $3m cash" to "I'll give you $2m + a freeroll heads up for $1m" to "here's $1m go **** yourself for the rest" to spending 6 figures on a pointless lawsuit and getting counter sued for $10m.

System gone great eh.

they deleted the post that I was saying hmm to, so it's looks weird now, but it fit well when I wrote it.

My thoughts exactly. We can only assume that the phone call was from someone with part of Matt's action, or backing him entirely and they refused the deal outright, leaving his hands tied short of eating the 500k loss on the deal he made himself. He could have anticipated that and just taken the 3 mil, checked with his backer and then offered a freeroll.

Sorry, I should have said fresh air and fragrances, not actual O2. Was everything else grammatically correct for your liking? Glad you focused on the point I was making.......

What I find shocking is the allegation that Leon was falling out of his chair and could not count chips. This may be legal, but IF it happened this is not high stakes poker. I can not imagine this happening in Bobby’s room.

So, if you are a drunk douchebag that is felted, it is ok for me to “loan” you another THREE MILLION DOLLARS to continue losing with?

For me, that is more important than legal handshakes. If Leon was unable to count chips, unable to talk, unable to stand up and walk, then take the money in front of him and stop there.

BUT, none of this came out before? All accounts of the story I heard had Leon able to come and go as he pleased, no mention of total incapacitation.

Mr. Kirk should not have offered up a discount without consulting his backer/s, hand shaking it a done deal without having any idea if he's got authorization for it. No wonder Leon was/is pissed!

If his backer/s changed their mind/s 20 minutes after giving him the go ahead, then that's a different story.