Golden Comps decision: Why I voted as I did


Dormant account
Dec 12, 2000
*Firstly, I ask of the reader that since evidence was in short supply my vote was cast on the basis of internal logic arising from such facts that were presented as undisputed by both parties.

*Both parties were given the opportunity to provide additional evidence or explication to support their positions.

In my analysis, the following facts were agreed to by both parties:

1.Player X had a valid Golden Comps account, had played in the past, had deposited and won a sum of money now in dispute. They were in agreement on the sum.

2.Player X has valid accounts at other casinos, including unidentified Casino Y.

3.The rules of the Golden Comps casino specifies that the registered player is to be the only player at Golden Comps.

4.Mrs. Player X also enjoys online gambling and sometimes plays her husband's accounts at other casinos.

5.On a date unspecified, Golden Comps management was made aware that there was simultaneous play at the X household of video poker on Player X's Golden Comps casino account and his account at another casino, unspecified.

5.Both members of the X family play video poker.

6. Mr. X's Golden Comps account was locked for security review.

7.Mr. X contacted casino management and an impolite discussion was conducted. Mr. X allowed the possibility that either himself or Mrs. X could have been playing at Golden Comps at the time an question; he was not sure.

8.Because there was a possibility that Mrs. X may have played on her husband's account at Golden Comps, management revoked the winnings.

9.Mr. X did not think this was a fair decision and filed an OPA complaint.

10.OPA committee reviewed what we had to this point and requested further information, especially the identity of Casino Y in order to determine what the rules were there.

11.Management offered to abide by OPA ruling.

12.Management did not send the OPA committee copies of Golden Comps rules; did not reveal Casino Y; did not send copies of Casino Y rules.

The committee now has to consider two possible scenarios concerning the simultaneous play.

A. Player X was playing on his Golden Comps account. Mrs. X was playing at another casino.
<,We know that Player X playing on his Golden Comps account is not a violation of their rules.
<,Assuming that the other casino is a Realtime Gaming casino on the same server, we reviewed the rules of other RTG sites and found that they did not have this same rule. Thus, a strong possibility existed that Mrs. X was not breaking any rules in her play. This is substantiated by the absence of a second casino manager alleging rule-breaking on his/her side. We also noted that Golden Comps management did not provide evidence of rule-breaking at the second casino.
<,Because there is no evidence of rule-breaking at both casinos simultaneously, it becomes important to know exactly who is playing on which account.

B.Mrs. X was playing at Golden Comps and Mr. X was playing at the second casino. This would have been in violation of Golden Comps' rules.

<,At the request of the committee, Player X reviewed his records and talked with Mrs. X. His statement was that it was not likely that she was playing on his Golden Comps account.
<,Here we have a credibility issue. And here is the "hinge of the case" I think; because it matters who is playing on which account.
At this point, the conduct of the parties involved during the deliberations becomes important to me in my evaluation.
*Player X had readily admitted to casino management facts that were detrimental to his relationship with them, for example, that he had been backed off as a blackjack player in lad casinos. Player X had readily admitted the possibility of simultaneous play in his household.
*In contrast, casino management did not provide requested information.

<,Also to be considered was did the casino's "punishment fit the crime"? Was it a $4,000 crime for Mrs.X to play on Mr.X's account?

As this wasn't even a rule in many RTG sites, and is tolerated widely throughout the industry, I felt not.

It was my conclusion therefor that it was within Golden Comps's rights to close Mr. X's account but not to take his winnings.

Some allegations that I considered but decided were not issues were:

1.There was a "four second crossover interval" between hands on the play records of the two casinos together.

2.Mr. X has been backed off in land casinos for legal play.

And so, that is why I, as a committee member, voted as I did.


I voted the way I did because after ten or so emails and a telephone conversation with Mr. Paul, he indicated that we had all the information that we needed.

He never named this other casino, He never provided any type of logs.

He just wanted us to take his word for it. Then he told me that he would abide by our decision. Even after the ruling came down he said the player would be paid.

That makes him a little less then truthful.


Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Jun 30, 1998
I voted the way I did because I did not see any evidence that any rules were broken. Furthermore, let the punishment fit the crime. As Mary stated above, was this a $4,000 crime (if there was a breach in the rules)? I think not.

Mr. Jenkins made the statement that he would abide by our decision. It's a shame that he would reneg on his position and do otherwise.



Dormant account
Sep 3, 2003
I voted the way I did because Casino Y was never named and had nothing to do with the play at casino X.

Golden Comps didn't provide any evidence to substantiate their claim that the player had broken any rules.