The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
If u don't side w/ Phil Ivey on his "cheating" case, ur a romney-voting cuck
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 26th, 2026 3:27 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) I bet sealclubber was happy to see the casinos win that case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5838691&forum_id=2#49697339) |
Date: February 26th, 2026 3:42 PM Author: Like Clavicular but maxing annoying screeds (gunneratttt) it's an interesting case. ivey said he wanted to use a specific brand of cards because of superstition or something, but the truth is that they contained defects that allowed him to edge sort. courts void all sorts of contracts that appear to be negotiated in good faith but one party has an advantage.
i agree that phil should have won. its the casinos job to use cards that can't be identified face down. plus they can refuse to play at any time. this isn't much different than a casino looking to recoup loses because their dealer was tipping their hole card too high in blackjack. however, i dont think someone that agrees with the outcome is necessarily some sealclubber gc bootlicker |
 |
Date: February 26th, 2026 3:50 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) Oh wow yeah, well given that it is the player's right/obligation to supply the cards, you've got a point; that is a contract "negotiated in good faith but one party has an advantage"--which is indeed the standard for a voidable transaction, particularly in the context of a casino game where it's understood going in that NEITHER side should "ha[ve] an advantage."
---
Hey don't forget you need to drop your wife off at my hotel at 8:00 p.m. sharp. If she's late again I swear to god I will squirt a tablespoon of ipecac up her pussy right before I push her into her uber home and you'll be throwing up your Burger King all night long. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 3:56 PM Author: Like Clavicular but maxing annoying screeds (gunneratttt) nigger calm your ass down, i said i agree with you.
if you and i made a bet on a coin flip and it turned out i was using a weighed coin, you'd cry foul. now, i agree with you for the exact reason you're stating -- its the casinos job to ensure what theyre using is fair and they have superior bargaining power and can refuse. im just saying someone who has the opposite opinion isn't necessarily are gc bootlicking kike.
what phil did would be unfair of both parties were similarly situated. the only reason why it isn't imo is because it's not his job to ensure fairness. but it *was* unfair. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 4:11 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) I am literally playing d12's Fight Music and swinging my elbows around right now, seriously considering going over to the office 2 suites down where there's fucking british guy (ie., cuck) working, who has MS but I will beat his faggot-ass face in anyway while screaming antiSemitic slurs.
This is a fucking line in thsand.
Where the fuck is sealclubber? I want sealclubber ITT. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 4:13 PM Author: Like Clavicular but maxing annoying screeds (gunneratttt) damn i have a sudden urge to blast some purple pills, that i will indulge in imminently. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5838691&forum_id=2#49697468) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 4:13 PM Author: Mr. Content (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5838691&forum_id=2#49697469) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 5:24 PM Author: Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle (πΊπΈ π΅π±) I look at the casino's duty differently: They have the duty to ensure that they're not inadvertently disclosing more information than they'd like. For example, bad dealers will sometimes show the card as it comes out of the shoe; that dealer will get trained or replaced. It's not *cheating* to use that information. I see this as no different: The defect in the cards is like a bad dealer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5838691&forum_id=2#49697703) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 5:30 PM Author: Like Clavicular but maxing annoying screeds (gunneratttt) cr. they are the casino. they are offering a service. they are required by law to be fair to the consumer, but the law should not protect them from being unfair to themself.
this is like buying something worth more than it's priced from a dealer. sucks to suck. if i convinced a casino to let me play blackjack with the dealers hole card revealed they shouldn't be able to recoup the loss. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 3:43 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) I've been reading the ruling--
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/67.html
--and getting MAF. Not only makes me want to suicide bomb a casino, but TRUMP should start another war with Britcucks. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 3:48 PM Author: Mr. Content "casinos" are all inherently criminal enterprises and i support anyone who beats them at their own game, including mr. ivey (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5838691&forum_id=2#49697393) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2026 5:14 PM Author: Ted Nougat What prompted this thread all of a sudden? Is it back in the news or something?
I think it's a bogus ruling in that they agreed and Ivey didn't play or do anything in a way that was outside the rules of the game or their agreement.
Secondly, they make it sound like Ivey guaranteed himself victory as if he rigged a slot or used loaded dice. That's absolutely not true. It's still gambling. The house has an edge in blackjack, but any retard could sit down and play a couple of hot shoes and walk away a winner. That's the short term risk that casinos face. Ivey could've gotten soaked despite his deal. |