I’m all for suspending disbelief and assuming the facts of a complaint are true to analyze whether a suit is warranted, which is what this site pushes us to do by reporting on filed cases. But while doing so, we really need to keep in mind these are just allegations.

I am not sure that rule would apply. The players had exactly the same information as the pit crew(unless there was a change in staff along the way and even then, the had the same information as the casino did in aggregate). So I cannot see it as being unfair.

As for whether the casino is unfair to do so here, I simply don’t know. I see scenarios consistent with the reporting that cut in both directions for the reasons stated above.

In response to ras’s question, the answer is “maybe.” I would suspect that it is near impossible to do without detection, however.

Is it also possible for the dealer, had he (she?) been colluding w/the players, to have “unshuffled the deck?” That could hypothetically be part of a strategy, making the results seem more believable as a straightforward oops rather than as a collaboration. But I don’t know if a dealer can have access to a deck beforehand, or if he can have surreptitiously switch it. Any casino-familiar readers know?

Losing money makes people angry, anyway.

NOT paying off winners? It’s about as stupid a move a casino can do. Given that there will be long term consequences.

And, yes. Their gambling license should be removed for failure to pay off debts. This story went VIRAL!

This highlights an asymmetry in business litigation that actually favors the business: the cost of litigating against the deep-pocket casino is so high in comparison to the sums at issue that the customers may well have to settle for less than they are owed.

This is one of those rare cases where one party’s behavior – the casino’s – is so egregious and abusive that it is basically impossible not to sympathize with any legal tactics by the victims. It’s really quite rare to see a business trying to take advantage of the American rule in a cut-and-dried contract case against consumers, but this seems to be the case here. Anyway, the victim’s almost have to assert civil rights claims in order to recover their legal fees here, which they ordinarily ought to get.

I’m surprised, though, that the casino’s license is not under review: you can’t just refuse to pay players when they win and claim you’re running at fair odds.

Secondly, it looks like the players may have been communicating with each other in a language unknown to the security staff. It is situations like this that many casinos, and virtually all poker parlors require all table chat to be in English, regardless of the nationality of the players. Again, if this rule existed and was not enforsed by the floor men, it should not be held against the players.

Finally, with respect to card counters in baccarat or blackjack, it takes about a quarter to a third of the shoe being played to shift the odds appreciably. A casinos best defense against a suspected successful card counter is simply to increase the frequency with which they shuffle or replace the decks so there is never the chance for a shoe to go strong or weak.

The gamblers may well have a cause of action against the casino if there wasn’t collusion or dealer misconduct. If nothing else, they haven’t been paid; they may have been held against their will improperly when they were being questioned.

If the casino wasn’t provided with pre-shuffled decks, and the contract called for such pre-shuffling, that would seem to be a straightforward breach of contract.

No. They had no way of knowing 100% certain that the next cards dealt were going to continue to be in order.