Is taking advantage of operators errors a crime?
"Cheating" is usually defined as a deliberate act, such as altering the criteria of a game, and often also requires the specific intent to cheat. Crimping cards is cheating. If a dealer accidentally flashes his downcards, players are not required to shut their eyes.
The difference for the player is guilt or innocence. For the operator, and maybe even its regulator, it is a question of liability for false arrest.
Michael Russo and James Grosjean were arrested in 2000 after winning $18,000 while playing poker. Russo sat in jail for 12 hours, Grosjean for four days. Charges were dropped, after it became clear the two were simply taking advantage of sloppy dealing.
No one doubts that the casino, Caesars Palace, can be sued. But the Nevada Supreme Court is deliberating whether the State Gaming Control Board and its agents can also be sued for false arrest. It is not always clear where to draw the line. A player in Nevada was convicted for "handle popping," manipulating the handle on a defective mechanical slot machine. But the conviction was overturned on appeal when the state Supreme Court held he had done nothing to damage the machine or change the characteristics of the game, and the statute had not given adequate warning that handle popping was a crime. Some of the law in this area is settled, but lawyers and executives are struggling to find answers for the rest.
The state lotteries are in the best position. They almost always have statutes and regulations clearly stating that mistakes, like misprinted tickets, do not have to be paid.
Casinos are in the worst situation, in part because they have to make up the law as they go along. Often, the statutes and regulations that are on the books are no help, and may even be a hindrance. In New Jersey, for example, casinos are fined for paying off losing bets. This is a good law to prevent cheating by collusion, but it ignores the common situation of a casino executive paying a disgruntled player, once, if the player insists that he won. And the law gives little guidance as to what should happen to the players who are paid for losing bets, either intentionally or by accident.
"Cheating" is usually defined as a deliberate act, such as altering the criteria of a game, and often also requires the specific intent to cheat. Crimping cards is cheating. If a dealer accidentally flashes his downcards, players are not required to shut their eyes.
The difference for the player is guilt or innocence. For the operator, and maybe even its regulator, it is a question of liability for false arrest.
Michael Russo and James Grosjean were arrested in 2000 after winning $18,000 while playing poker. Russo sat in jail for 12 hours, Grosjean for four days. Charges were dropped, after it became clear the two were simply taking advantage of sloppy dealing.
No one doubts that the casino, Caesars Palace, can be sued. But the Nevada Supreme Court is deliberating whether the State Gaming Control Board and its agents can also be sued for false arrest. It is not always clear where to draw the line. A player in Nevada was convicted for "handle popping," manipulating the handle on a defective mechanical slot machine. But the conviction was overturned on appeal when the state Supreme Court held he had done nothing to damage the machine or change the characteristics of the game, and the statute had not given adequate warning that handle popping was a crime. Some of the law in this area is settled, but lawyers and executives are struggling to find answers for the rest.
The state lotteries are in the best position. They almost always have statutes and regulations clearly stating that mistakes, like misprinted tickets, do not have to be paid.
Casinos are in the worst situation, in part because they have to make up the law as they go along. Often, the statutes and regulations that are on the books are no help, and may even be a hindrance. In New Jersey, for example, casinos are fined for paying off losing bets. This is a good law to prevent cheating by collusion, but it ignores the common situation of a casino executive paying a disgruntled player, once, if the player insists that he won. And the law gives little guidance as to what should happen to the players who are paid for losing bets, either intentionally or by accident.