RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[caruso]

OK: $25,000,000 a week for 6 years.

Expected loss on C21: $10,000 per week.

Expected loss over six years (big breath): $3,200,000.

In short: in order to cashin your winnings, the casino originally required that you wager an amount necessary to lose over twice that amount. You would have lost on average over half a million a year.

Every aspect of this fit-up job con trick is utterly nauseating.

[caps]

This $25M activity requirement (whether per month, per week, or per millenium) is amazing, and to my mind casts the whole thing in an entirely different light. If I'm following the chronology correctly, the casino imposed this requirement -- completely without basis under its own published Ts & Cs -- BEFORE the Pirate commenced his ill-advised postings, and therefore BEFORE, by the casino's own account, it had reason to suspect the use of a robot. This suggests that the casino had every intention, then, from the get-go, of imposing a requirement that would have, over time, guaranteed either avoidance of the debt or a substantial recoupment of it through additional play. Smelly.

Did the payments that the casino actually make carry this requirement?

[jyde]

Did the payments that the casino actually make carry this requirement?

No - I think RTG got them back on track before that.

[caruso]

Without wishing to go off track here but for the record anyway, it's worth pointing out that this clearly UNDISCLOSED "extra activity" clause is not unique to Hamptons; other RTGs also employ it. The simple rationale is that to guarentee that winners end up losers you hold them to a given amount of extra wagering. The amount - which in Pirate's case was set initially at 25 million a month - can be however much you need to wager in order to lose everything back to the casino, or until such a time as the win has been reduced to the satisfaction of the casino.

I've heard of several cases of this, and I'm currently in one such situation myself. I daresay it comes from the M. Staw handbook for licensees "How To Screw The Suckers To The Maximum".

Imagine going into a B & M casino, sitting down to play, racking up a nice win - and then finding yourself surrounded by a bunch of goons who tell you that in order to leave the building with your winnings you need to carry on playing untill such a time as the casino is satisfied!

Not ALL RTGs impose this ripoff requirement, but a few most definately do. Hampton, evidently, is one.

[caps]

Also not going off track here . . . but BLYEECCH! This is effectively a compulsory double-down requirement, with crappier odds. A perfect heads-I-win, tails-you-lose deal. God love (and have mercy upon) these schnooks.

[cipher]

>>STING you're not referring to SCORE SPORTSBOOK and the infamous VIRTUAL CASINO are you? I might know just a little bit about that action having brought that case forward and ultimately winning the case. If that's the case you're referring to you're wrong STING the best option turned out to be exactly the way I played it by going after the Casino, the Sportsbook and the Software Provider. <<

Nope Cipher, this was a recent case that never made the boards and it involved a more legit operation than the infamous Score Sports. If you got paid by one of Score's affiliated casinos, consider yourself one of the luckiest people in the world. I've dealt with numerous complaints about Score in the past but admit haven't heard anything in a year or so and they're still functioning.

Then STING, I see that yet another "more legit" R T G operation continues to carry forward in the best traditions of Realtime Gaming et al. "if you can't beat them, cheat em." Makes em kind of look all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

As for my case against the "TRIO" (Virtual, Score Sportsbook and Realtime Gaming) and their attorneys. There is no IF, they paid. Nor was there any LUCK about prevailing. "LUCK" is the residual of thorough and painstaking planning. We went in with volumes of information related to PRIOR BAD ACTS and those (3) words will PROVE to be huge factor should this case find it's way to trial.
Have a good one.

[SFeagleAgain]

As for my case against the "TRIO" (Virtual, Score Sportsbook and Realtime Gaming) and their attorneys. There is no IF, they paid. Nor was there any LUCK about prevailing. "LUCK" is the residual of thorough and painstaking planning. We went in with volumes of information related to PRIOR BAD ACTS and those (3) words will PROVE to be huge factor should this case find it's way to trial.
Have a good one.

Cipher is exactly on the money here. You have to do your homework and you only have one shot at it. Hell, I would have been so intimidated (even being in the legal field) that I most likely would have posted and said some things I shouldn't have also. Intimidated and so damned furious you could cook an egg on my ass! RTG and Hamptons have dug their grave and have PLENTY of past history (not good) in favor of the player. Hell, they buried themselves so deeply with that taped mess and now the revelation of their further wagering requirements. It is the equivalent of saying "We will only pay you after you have lost sufficient amounts. You MAY see some return only after we deem your losses sufficient". In other words, get this down to about $500 and we will pay! Unethical at best. Even I am speechless at this. But like I said earlier, an EXPERIENCED litigator would make hash browns out of them almost instantly. Even a first year law student could have a field day with this one.

SIDENOTE TO BRYAN: You have handled yourself extremely ethically and fairly in this situation and the fact that you continue to look into the matter and have re-evaluated your stance proves this to all. Kudos!

[jetset]

I've gotta say that having spent much of this debate trying to take a balanced viewpoint, these last few posts starting with Portia's analysis of The Wiz's stats and going on through Bryan's excellent precis to the allegations regarding the retroactive WT have pushed me decidedly to the player's side of the fence in the absence of other evidence.

Seeing the background laid out so well gives a better perspective on both the facts and the personalities involved here.

[SFeagleAgain]

I've gotta say that having spent much of this debate trying to take a balanced viewpoint, these last few posts starting with Portia's analysis of The Wiz's stats and going on through Bryan's excellent precis to the allegations regarding the retroactive WT have pushed me decidedly to the player's side of the fence in the absence of other evidence.

Seeing the background laid out so well gives a better perspective on both the facts and the personalities involved here.

Jet, we may have had our differences in the past, but I totally agree with you here. There is no longer ANY doubt in my mind that the player should prevail. If Hampton had a leg to stand on, they would have posted those player's logs immediately, if not sooner. It certainly explains a lot of the pirate's earlier ramblings. I would have been rambling too!

[gamblinboi]

Jet, we may have had our differences in the past, but I totally agree with you here. There is no longer ANY doubt in my mind that the player should prevail. If Hampton had a leg to stand on, they would have posted those player's logs immediately, if not sooner. It certainly explains a lot of the pirate's earlier ramblings. I would have been rambling too!

wow. the recent post by Casinomeister makes it clear .. the casino in no way intended to pay this winner. The 25 MILLION (!!!!!!!!) wagering clause they wanted to put on him *clearly* shows this.. simply amazing, just when you thought Hamptons couldn't go any lower, they do.

Not a scintilla of doubt in my mind now - this player is legit and deserves to be paid.