Regarding various challenges, nobody has asked the most obvious questions. A forum packed with AP luminaries, and yet the following basic questions have gone unaddressed.
1) When a casino prints a won/loss statement, is there any law that requires the person receiving it to read it?
2) When a casino prints a won/loss statement, is there any NGCB regulation requiring the person receiving it to read it?
Be patient.
3) When a casino prints a person's won/loss statement, is there any law that requires that person to sign off on it as accurate and a matter of legal record?
4) When a casino prints a person's won/loss statement, is there any NGCB regulation that requires that person to sign off on it as accurate and a matter of legal record?
5) Is there any federal or state law precluding a casino as a corporation from providing a partial (thereby inaccurate) won/loss statement to an individual upon that person's request?
6) Is there any NGSB regulation precluding a host from providing a partial (thereby inaccurate) won/loss statement to an individual upon that person's request?
Bear in mind that (A) casinos often publicly announce large sports wager winners, with the winners' permission, without framing the overall won/loss situation of the gambler and (B) the WSOP uses "WSOP winnings" as a public metric that often accompanies a person's name during broadcasts and does so without referencing the person's true overall WSOP net winnings. Yet "gross winnings" is not the printed phrase accompanying names.
To continue:
7) Is there any motivation for a corporation to NOT provide partial (thereby inaccurate) won/loss statements that feature the absence of certain losses to individuals upon their request? What is the downside?
8) Is there any motivation for a host to NOT provide partial (thereby inaccurate) won/loss statements that feature the absence of certain losses to individuals upon their request? What is the downside?
Motive, means, opportunity.
In 1973 or thereabouts, Sports Illustrated published a full-page article regarding a real estate agent turned handicapper who, a writer and the agent solemnly claimed, had managed to win about 85% of his wagers ATS for a season. A year later, after following said real estate agent for a season, SI published what amounted to a worthless retraction stating that the guy, despite occasionally "dreaming results," had won less than half his games. The "retraction" was worthless in that the first article had garnered all kinds of attention and made the guy wealthy overnight. The "update" a year later had no effect on what had already transpired. I bring up this example as a lesson to certain forum owners who allow odds-against claims wall-to-wall for five years, then decide that maybe I'll have someone else take a statistical look while keeping a Pontius Pilate distance from whatever the result. After five years of allowing nonsense, the forum owner should be shot. But everyone knows this.