Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
...The way many people talk itt doesn't make sense .
The reason is because it just doesn't add up.
Phil Ivey won several weeks ago..... Everything was caught on ten video cameras.... This is a game the casino has run for decades. .... This casino is a high roller's casino.... Casino has a billion procedures in place to ensure fair play...
So it just doesn't add up.
This is more or less a binary solution set here. Either
#1 Ivey cheated
or
#2 The casino doesn't want to pay him
We know that #1 is damn near impossible.
We know that #2 is true regardless of #1, I mean, casinos never want to pay.
Basically, I just don't see that there are a lot of other options here. You keep mentioning logical facts for why the casino doesn't want to take a PR hit...
Well, they have a 7.3 million pound reason to try to welch here. I'm not saying its smart, but they do have motive to try everything in their power not to pay... Hell, maybe they think that they could settle for less like 6 million pounds... And if you throw in the ego and arrogance of people thousands of miles away making the decisions... and this whole thing turns into a cluster f***
Or put this another way. You can't tell me the casino hasn't had enough time to "investigate" this matter. Seriously, ten video cameras, and several weeks later they are still "investigating"????
Yeah, right.
What is more likely is that they have a team of lawyers looking for loopholes and any excuse to not pay so that when they go to court they can settle for less than the 7.3 million pounds. Wouldn't surprise me if the lawyers find some loophole in the Britain's constitution that has some arcane link to the Magna Carta that allows them not to pay