Any comments on the Gambler that lost $500,000. at the Grand

I am interested in different views on the story of the man that took out a half million in markers at the Grand Hotel Downtown. As for my self I am curious to see what will take place in the judicial system. Nevada has a set of rules and regulations to protect the integrity of their Gaming . If in fact The Grand were in violation it will be interesting to see where this story goes and how it plays out.

I hope the debt is upheld.

My fun in Las Vegas is premised on stupid gamblers losing lots of money to casinos. It's great fun to make casinos think that I too may be a stupid gambler, so that they give me all sorts of free stuff. But the joke's on them because I'm not in fact a stupid gambler, I'm actually pretty good at it. And so I can trick the casinos into giving me lots of cool free stuff with none of the risk of losing lots of money.

If it wasn't for stupid gamblers losing lots of money, Las Vegas would be a lot more like Yuma. Praise be to stupid gamblers!

Maybe they should change the name to The Downtown 500 Grand.

How about a picture of the donkey stealing the elephants wallet.

I suspect there's comparable fault attributable to both parties.

Look, if the allegations are true that he was so intoxicated that his last marker he signed for was with an "X" and not his signature, that's the fault of the casino.

If, on the other hand, he was just a drunk trying to show off to those around him and/or was chasing his loses, the fault rests purely at his feet.

My guess is it was a combination of the two and the casino will likely resolve the litigation by settling at some number in between $0 - $500K. If I were the attorney for the casino, I'd offer to settle the debt at whatever the drunkerd owed before he took out his last marker of the night.

My point: I don't think either side has "Clean Hands" in his matter.

If both sides are culpable, then shouldn't the casino return half his money asnyder?

I saw an interview with the gambler in question on Los Angeles television last week and he said that he is willing to go with some kind of settlement (which sounds to me like it's that he'll pay the casino some of that claimed $500,000, but not all of that amount) arrangement with the casino.

He said himself that there is a point in time where they should have not accepted his requests for more money since he was so impaired at that time.

And right now, this minute on "The Doctors" TV show here in Los Angeles, they had a segment about this guy but they just piled on him and said "Don't drink when you play if you want to conserve your money" but at least one of them also seemed to think that both were at fault and that the casino should not have allowed him to continue to bet and ask for more money. The episode is called "Breaking Medical News: Treating Severe Eczema; Funeral "Selfies" Trend; Spray Away Nasal Allergy Symptoms; Deadly Health Mistakes" and the piece was in the segment called "Friday News Feed."

RecVPPlayer

In AC I have been cut off from a Bac game while I was winning. I was taken to my room or should I say helped to my room. After a shower and some sleep I went back down and finished what I started. OH! I won a heavy 5 figures. In Biloxi MS a dealer "Renee" ask me to stop playing and go to my room. I knew her well. The next morning I had my pockets full of yellow $1000 chips. I did tip her well for the advise. My point for this is that as long as I behaved myself in Biloxi they would have let me play no matter how drunk I got. In AC they don't. As for Las Vegas I have never been cut off, win or loose.

Well, if it went to trial, a jury would have to determine whether either side was at fault. If they deem one side at fault, but not the other, then one person wins 100% and the other loses 100%. If, on the other hand, if the jury determines both sides are at fault, then the jury gets to compare the degree of fault as it relates to the gambler's negligent behavior versus the casino's negligent behavior. It doesn't have to be 50/50 fault. Maybe the gambler was 90% at fault and the casino was 10% at fault. To a certain extent, it's a completely capricious percentage--but that's what the jury gets to choose.

Also, I don't know that there's any "giving money back" to the gambler, it's my understanding the bulk of this $500K is debt incurred via markers.

He sounded like a rich jerk. No one ever takes accountability for their own actions anymore. It's always someone elses fault. He likened it to being robbed, except he had a chance to win, and wasn't just robbed of his money.

I many times have drank too much while gambling. I never blame anyone but myself. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. It's called gambling. Be accountable.

Gambling while getting and becoming drunk is the sole responsibility of the one getting drunk. Would he be crying if he had won $500,000.00? I doubt it. He should pay his debt and shut up.