I suspect you are saying this sarcastically. But just to be clear, Shufflemaster is not the target. They will claim this all occurs after the machine leaves them. And maybe that is the case. Or maybe there is a wink and a nod and/or backdoor channels involved. Either way they are protected.Originally Posted by regnis
Also, Monet talked about a big payday. There is no big payday involved either. Whoever brings a challenge or is the face of a challenge will have a hard time showing any real damages. Yeah, you can claim you lost x amount of dollars. How do you prove that.
The goal would be for gaming to officially issue a ruling that this can't continue.....just as they did in the Mindplay case. It is only at that point (after such a ruling) that if any casino chose to continue with this practice, they could face significant fines. And let's be clear what significant even means. The fines wouldn't be enough that it would endanger a casinos continued operation, just enough that if they weight the benefit vs cost of this particular action, they would decide it is not beneficial to do so. But it all starts with an initial ruling by gaming that this is against the rules. Until such a ruling, it is sort of a free roll for a casino that decides to do so.
Really the similarities to this and the Mindplay case are striking.
Reply With Quote