Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
Its not a case of "proving" #3.
FFS, it is. In order to give your argument any validity whatsoever you have to come up with a concrete example and you can't. When arguing you can't just grasp at straws to make a point. And that is what you are doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
...You cited only 2 options and I pointed out that there is a third.
I cited 2 options because there are only 2 options. This is a binary problem. Either Phil Ivey Cheated or he didn't. The reason this is a binary problem is because the only way you can legally withhold Phil Ivey's money is if he cheated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
... I pointed out that there is a third.
No you didn't. You have 100% failed to point out a logical third possibility that encompasses the known facts. GIven the ten cameras, given the casino procedures, given that Phil Ivey didn't even touch the cards, given that there were floor managers, security, dealers, pit bosses, and 2 days worth of play....
You can not come up with a 3rd option that passes simple and basic logic
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
.One example of #3 might be that his companion turned out to be a person with a history of cheating..
Nope, this is not legal grounds to deny payment. Doesn't matter if his companion is an ax murderer. If the companion did not aid him in cheating in this specific instance (as recorded by the ten video cameras) then its not sufficient grounds to deny payment. See, this "excuse" is just that, an excuse, a feeble one, grasping at straws...
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
...Another would be that they used electronic equipment (such as mobile phones) excessively or strangely.
Nope, there is no way they could get away with this with 10 video cameras and security and the floor and the pit and the dealers all watching them. Plus, casinos monitor electronic signals. And lastly, this makes my point because this is an example of cheating. So again, you come back to my binary problem and solution set.
Your so called 3rd reason is just a variation of my #1 reason which is Phil Ivey cheated.
Either he cheated or he didn't. Period.
As far as the law is concerned, if Phil Ivey didn't cheat, then the casino must honor his wagers and wins while they consent to take his action. Period. Doesn't matter if his companion is an ax murdering serial killer transvestite pedophile super cheater. If they have no proof of wrong doing on Phil Ivey's part during his play in this specific circumstance (and the burden of proof is on them to prove it), then they have to pay him.
So, try again.
I'm amazed at how you can't see how wrong you are and how you just aren't making any sense. You are grasping at straws and your straws are nothing more than variations of my #1 which is Phil Ivey cheated. If you can't prove #1, then you have to proceed to #2 which is they have to pay Phil Ivey.