Mission, a couple more points about this case since I’ve now probably read this article at least 15 times. Each time, I pick up something new I didn’t see the last time.

First, the writer says they were given the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, meaning the option to testify against each other for a reduced sentence. When you read the offer both were given, this was no “prisoner’s dilemma”. Any lawyer would have advised them not to take this offer. If one of them would have taken it, they would have had to admitt guilt and had a criminal record, even though they wouldn’t have spent any time in jail. Most people wouldn’t have taken this offer, since they did nothing wrong, or at least nothing the courts would see as wrong. Them not taking this offer had nothing to do with either one carrying about the other person. This was not a “Prisoner’s Dilemma.”

My other comment is on the double up function. The article said on May 25th, a slot manager at the Fremont had this function turned off because he figured it had something to do with Kane’s frequent wins. Kane knew it was turned off and when he played the game again he could no longer win. If the slot manager figured it without even playing the game, don’t you think Kane would have immediately understood the role double up played? He won when it was on, and couldn’t win when it was off? That’s a pretty easy correlation to understand.

Nestor’s version is Kane didn’t put it together until he called him that evening and Nestor explained it to him. Come on now. That makes no sense. Nestor is the dumb one of the two, living on welfare.

There’s a couple other things here and there. I also liked the part where Nestor said they tried to be honest when it first happened but the slot person wanted to pay them anyway. Yeah, right. Lol