1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Gambler blew $2m in 43 minutes

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by same_old, May 19, 2009.

    May 19, 2009
  1. same_old

    same_old Dormant account PABaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    12th man
    Location:
    Australia
    Harry Kakavas wanted to be a professional gambler when he began borrowing money from friends to bet a few thousand dollars at Crown Casino.

    Eleven years later, the "pathological gambler" ended a 16-month $1.5 billion gambling spree in 2006 by losing more than $2 million in just 43 minutes.

    Driven by an "addiction" to Baccarat, that began not long after Melbourne's first casino opened in 1994, Kakavas suffered losses of $30 million, and according to his lawyers was left broke.

    Mr Kakavas is suing Crown Casino in the Victorian Supreme Court for $20.5 million.

    He claims the casino allowed him to continue gambling despite knowing he was a pathological gambler and that he was banned from interstate casinos.

    Should they lose the case, Crown could be liable not only for the $20.5 million Mr Kakavas claims he is owed, but also for $700 million it is claimed Crown owes Victorian taxpayers for failing to enforce an interstate exclusion order made against Mr Kakavas.

    Mr Kakavas, 42, a Gold Coast property developer, took to the stand on Tuesday describing how he began gambling at about the age of 25 in about 1992.

    He said he would bet on sports matches at a betting agency then located in the Rialto Tower near his job in real estate.

    Intent on a career of full-time gambling he moved the Gold Coast in 1993 where he bet at Jupiters and met Howard Aldridge who would go on to become a senior figure at Crown.

    He followed Mr Aldridge back to Melbourne in time for Crown's opening.

    Mr Kakavas told the court he began by placing "relatively small" bets of up to $20,000, borrowing money from friends to place the bets.

    He quickly found his way to the Mahogany Room where he rubbed shoulders with Crown developer Lloyd Williams and got to know his stepson John Williams, who was then a gaming attendant.

    "By 1995, Your Honour, I became hooked on a game called Baccarat ... quite a simple game to play, really takes no skill at all," Mr Kakavas said.

    That addiction, he said, led him to commit a $286,000 fraud against a finance company, which led to him being jailed for four months.

    Mr Kakavas described "standard operating procedure" during his addiction as going to a casino, gambling and losing all his money.

    He said he eventually sought help and was referred to Bernard Healy, a psychologist who is an expert in dealing with problem gamblers.

    Mr Healy described him as a "classic pathological gambler".

    Earlier, Crown's lawyer Neil Young QC rejected accusations that Crown had taken advantage of a compulsive gambler.

    "There was no effort in any sense of the word to lure Mr Kakavas to Crown," he said.

    The trial before Justice David Harper continues on Wednesday.

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  2. May 19, 2009
  3. silcnlayc

    silcnlayc Just one more spin pleez! CAG MM PABnonaccred PABaccred

    Occupation:
    IT Director of Operations
    Location:
    Left Hungary
    If he should win, that is that much more to blow any way he wants. He should never see a dime. It should be thrown out of court. No one held a gun to his head to make these wagers. When is it the persons responsibility to take an accounting of his own actions?

    Gambling is a drug to some, but that doesn't mean it is anyones fault. You cannot lay blame on others when you know full well you have this addiction and do nothing about. His friends did not help him in this either by enabling him to continue down the path of destruction. Someone had to know about this (in his friends circle) so why in the world did they continue to feed his addiction?

    He does not deserve one penny. He chose to go down this path by not seeking help till it was too late and then wants to be reimbursed by a casino for his own actions??

    Makes no sense at all IMO.

    .
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. May 19, 2009
  5. thelawnet

    thelawnet Dormant account

    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    UK
    FFS, it's always someone else's fault isn't it?

    Blame blame, anything but accept personal responsibility....
     
  6. May 19, 2009
  7. Deeplay

    Deeplay New World Order CAG mm1 webmeister

    Occupation:
    Works For Self
    Location:
    The biG Eu
    Mad story wonder if he will win ? but yes it should be thrown out of court. Im with the casino on this one.
     
  8. May 19, 2009
  9. cmich77

    cmich77 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    customer service
    Location:
    chicago
    I disagree. If the casino knew he was banned and he was a problem gambler, yet they were happily taking his money, the casino should be held accountable to a degree. If not, these type of "bans" are worthless and casinos will simply look the other way when these people come in. The gambler should get something back, although not 20m.
     
  10. May 19, 2009
  11. love2winalot

    love2winalot Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Roulette Player
    Location:
    Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
    Hiya: This happens every once in a while here in Vegas. Player sues Casino. And just like gambling, the Casino Wins.

    Recently, a Player who only played BJ was playing for a long time. He had a set betting pattern, and was betting the lower limits. Then he started drinking........and started winning, and deveated from his betting pattern, and was betting a lot more money, and winning a lot more money.

    He kept on drinking.

    A little after midnight, he started losing. He was betting more money, and not his set pattern/limits that he had started out with. He LOST all the money he had won, and all his money, and then left.

    He Sued the Casino. His case was built around him having a set betting pattern/limits. He said when he was losing, and the Casino could clearly see that he was no longer betting with any type of self control, and had been drinking, that they should have stoped him.

    hehehe, those pesky little camera's all over the place.

    The Casino responed by bringing in the video of him at the table. It verified everything the Player had said. The Judge was a little confused at first, as to why the Casino was using evidence that seemed to support the player?

    At the end of the video, they rewound it back to a few hours earlier. "Here, Right here is where it started". and sure enough it was true, and the player Lost the case.

    Can you Guess why?

    Because the video showed that he had started drinking a little bit from almost the moment he sat down. But later, "Target Starting point on video", he started drinking more, and this is when he started betting much more aggresivly, AND WAS WINNING A LOT OF MONEY.

    So, If his case was, "I lost because i was drunk, and was not betting normally, then it was also true, That I was Drunk, and not betting normally when i was Winning all that Money. is it not?

    It is always the same. No matter what I do, if I Win, it is OK. Buuuuuuuuut, if I lose, then why did not someone stop me?

    PS: Oh yea, if you Stop me, i will also sue you. hehehe, ah hahaha:D
     
  12. May 19, 2009
  13. SlotKing

    SlotKing Experienced Member PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    Building the Best Vehicles On Earth... Ford Escape
    Location:
    Kentucky, ya'll...
    I honestly think anyone who has to borrow money to gamble has a serious psychological problem. This guy deserves to dig himself out of the hole he dug himself into.

    These 2 things are a classic sign of a problem - borrowing money to gamble and passing off blame.

    Not to play devil's advocate here, but even if a casino sees that the person has been excluded from other casinos (and even self-exclusion for that matter), assuming no state/provincial/federal laws are in place to protect him, it has every right to welcome him through its doors and allow him to spend "his" money however he pleases.

    But try something like that here in Michigan and you will get yourself arrested. Once you self-exclude yourself (or a casino does it for you), you are banned from every casino in the state. If any casino (including Indian casinos) recognizes you, they can confiscate your winnings, hold you, and then the police will arrest you for trespassing. I believe you can get up to a year in jail for it.

    He made conscious decisions on what to play, he made a conscious decision to go to the casino, and he made a conscious decision on how much to bet. I see it as his fault, case closed.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. May 19, 2009
  15. cmich77

    cmich77 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    customer service
    Location:
    chicago
    To me, it is just like a bartender cutting off an out of control drunk. Bars are being sued for accidents that result from too much drinking at their establishments. Casinos should be held to the same standard if someone is known to have a gambling problem and are banned allready becasue of it, and they look the other way.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. May 19, 2009
  17. NASHVEGAS

    NASHVEGAS Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,

    Occupation:
    LOL
    Location:
    MERS
    A fair statement until the early 2000's.

    I realize you may be implying in similiar type cases but every case is unique.

    When attorney Bob Nersesian won in the Nevada Supreme Court that casino surveillance(sp) tapes could be subpoenaed from the casinos, the untouchables in LV began to lose or settle case after case.

    Granted, Bob mostly represents AP's and specializes in patron abuse cases but also has taken other types of patron or gambling cases in LV. I know he was battling the trespass law and received one of his rare unfavorable rulings in LV and not sure exactly the status.

    Yet, to this day the casinos,cops,commission and or control board continue to disregard the laws. See prior posts. And I was a client of Bob's, not on a total contingency fee basis as most clients are, ftr.
     
  18. May 19, 2009
  19. Rusty

    Rusty Banned User - repetitive flaming

    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    I think the Casino will win this One.

    Even if it is proved that this Guy suffered from a pathological disorder that caused him to gamble compulsively it would not be reasonable to expect a Casino to diagnose such a condition.
    It would have to be shown that the Casino had a duty to be aware of such a condition and that it was aware the plaintiff suffered from such a condition and willfully failed to act in order to benefit financially from their clients illness.
    Well something along those lines within the framework of the law anyway.

    That said, those of you using the argument, "people should be responsible for their own actions", seem to be unaware or unable to accept that psychological conditions exist that diminish an individuals responsibility.
    Just because this case is about money does not negate that fact even if it is difficult to empathize with this individuals case.


    PS
    Why is there a light-bulb under my Avatar?
     
    2 people like this.
  20. May 19, 2009
  21. Pinababy69

    Pinababy69 RIP Lisa

    Occupation:
    Crusader
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario - Canada
    Because you're so bright my friend. :thumbsup: :D
     
    2 people like this.
  22. May 20, 2009
  23. silcnlayc

    silcnlayc Just one more spin pleez! CAG MM PABnonaccred PABaccred

    Occupation:
    IT Director of Operations
    Location:
    Left Hungary
    I understand gambling addiction. What I find fault here is that the man went on a gambling spree and then sought help after he ran out of avenues to get money and now wants to sue.

    I would have more empathy for him if he chose to get help, and do restitution to the people he borrowed from and stole from. Not sue. How does one justify that when he KNOWINGLY did these things and continued to do them, went to jail, then a spree, then rehab, then ran out of money, and then sue?

    Sounds too pat and planned in the end.

    .
     
    1 person likes this.
  24. May 20, 2009
  25. deltoid

    deltoid Dormant account

    Occupation:
    software
    Location:
    canada
    The casino should lose the case. However this man, who is quite clearly sick, should not get a penny.

    Instead, the casino should be fined the 20.5 million, and that sum should be sent to addiction treatment centers, where this man should have to attend based on a court order. That and he should be in jail for the various frauds he's perpetuated.
     
    1 person likes this.
  26. May 20, 2009
  27. vegetagirl2008

    vegetagirl2008 Mafia Wars Level 472

    Occupation:
    No Job Here..
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York, United States
    And why should the casino pay for his addiction. He played big so the casino thought he had the cash to cover all of his bets. So they let him play. Now he done ran out of money, so he decided to sue the casino so he can do what play it all back again. Not happening. And don't think for one minute them lawyers that represent the casino will be looking at every nook and cranny at this mans gaming history. Please he won't get one dime and why should they pay for his rehabilitation, not in this lifetime. He'll get it for free because the judge will order him to go.
     
  28. May 20, 2009
  29. Rusty

    Rusty Banned User - repetitive flaming

    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    :lolup:

    Haha, I just realised it is one of the icons we can choose for our messages and I must of selected it without knowing.

    I guess that disproves your theory Pina but I thank you all the same :p
     
    1 person likes this.
  30. May 20, 2009
  31. Cassa

    Cassa Dormant account

    Occupation:
    customer service
    Location:
    Victoria Australia
    I heard on the news about this yesterday, it seems this man self excluded himself from the Crown Casino & then started to travel to Las Vegas to gamble. The Crown Casino lured him back with massive offers so he would spend there rather than taking it overseas. As I see it the casino is at fault - he self excluded, went elsewhere & was lured back. Whether he deserves to get his money back I'm not sure but I think the casino should have to pay a massive fine for talking him into coming back to their casino. IMO Anyone with a gambling problem would go back as they would be thinking the travelling fees they use, they could used gambling.
     
    1 person likes this.
  32. May 20, 2009
  33. silcnlayc

    silcnlayc Just one more spin pleez! CAG MM PABnonaccred PABaccred

    Occupation:
    IT Director of Operations
    Location:
    Left Hungary
    OMG, not to derail but I am still lmao on this....Too much you two! :lolup:

    .
     
  34. May 20, 2009
  35. love2winalot

    love2winalot Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Roulette Player
    Location:
    Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
    Hiya: It is funny to me how the Law's of Right an Wrong are based on Gain's or Losses?

    What if this person had WON MILLIONS OF $$$$$$? And the Casino saw he was addicted, and banned him, and kept the money he won, because he should not have been allowed to play in the first place?

    If you are not suppose to be allowed to play, then is not Winning or Losing, null an void, and after the fact?

    If he would have Won, they why not still SUE the casino for allowing him to play?hehehe

    Because it is all about the Money...............:rolleyes:
     
  36. May 20, 2009
  37. AussieDave

    AussieDave Dodgy whacko backstabber

    Occupation:
    Gaming SEO Specialist & Casino Webmaster
    Location:
    Australia
    In Australia we have tough federal & state laws that not only governed by each state & federal levels but also by their associated gaming commissions.

    Crown Casino stuffed up by ignoring these laws. It placed greed ahead of its ethical responsibilities by allowing an excluded player to gamble.

    Whether the guy deserves the $20.5M court case that's another issue. But I favour the player being the winner here!

    Foot note: When PBL (Packer Publishing Limited) gained control of Crown Casino everything turned pear shaped. Lloyd Williams ran that place like a casino is supposed to operate. PBL had no previous casino operations experience. All accept Crown Games their attempt at operating an online casino. Ironically that met with a slow death & closed some 14 months after it opened.


    Cheers
    T
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page