|
TightEnd
|
 |
« on: October 23, 2016, 12:22:41 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
|
|
|
|
moustache
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2016, 08:22:08 PM » |
|
Does the CCE agreement state that you have to agree to play at a disadvantage for the gambling to be legal?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUN4FRASER
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2016, 09:28:24 PM » |
|
The House has an Edge........ Never a Problem
The Punter finds an Edge .....The House squeals like a Pig
Pathetic
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DMorgan
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2016, 01:36:27 AM » |
|
If I'm understanding it correctly the judge is saying that theres an implied contract when you sit down to play that you will lose in the long run and the state gets a cut otherwise the game wouldn't be offered, so if you tilt the odds in your favour even if it isn't against the rules of the game you breach that implied contract
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Karabiner
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2016, 01:43:34 AM » |
|
If I'm understanding it correctly the judge is saying that theres an implied contract when you sit down to play that you will lose in the long run and the state gets a cut otherwise the game wouldn't be offered, so if you tilt the odds in your favour even if it isn't against the rules of the game you breach that implied contract
Assume that would apply to card-counters too. Seems a bit daft to me that card-counting might be illegal activity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Golf is deceptively simple and endlessly complicated. It satisfies the soul and frustrates the intellect. It is at the same time maddening and rewarding and it is without a doubt the greatest game that mankind has ever invented." - Arnold Palmer aka The King.
|
|
|
|
moustache
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2016, 08:09:57 AM » |
|
It's an awful precedent to set but it's in the gov't favour, they tax casinos and can't tax us so they want to make sure the house wins! Very manipulative use of the law for the direct benefit of the law makers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
doubleup
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2016, 10:02:11 AM » |
|
It's an awful precedent to set but it's in the gov't favour, they tax casinos and can't tax us so they want to make sure the house wins! Very manipulative use of the law for the direct benefit of the law makers.
actually in the usa they do tax winners, so even that part of the judgement doesn't stack up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
neeko
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2016, 07:23:47 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
arbboy
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2016, 07:56:36 PM » |
|
If someone loses £7.7m edge sorting (and can prove he was edge sorting in the game) and therefore is a cheat and there is effectively no contract between the two parties do they get their original £1m stake refunded and all their losses as well or is the decision simply just results orientated? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/poker-player-loses-appeal-against-london-casino-over-his-77-mill/This is a better article explaining 'edge sorting' in a lot more detail if anyone is unaware what it actually means and the edge created for the player. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 03, 2016, 08:02:32 PM by arbboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
doubleup
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2016, 08:23:50 PM » |
|
not really, two of the judges appear to have said that you can be convicted of criminal cheating even if you think what you have done wasn't dishonest. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
doubleup
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2016, 08:30:11 PM » |
|
as an aside one of the judges also gave some views on other betting angles:
It is possible to think of actions which are neither deception nor interference with the process of the game, which may in some circumstances constitute cheating. For example, someone who has material information (for example, as to whether a star player will play in a particular game) which is not in the public domain may place a bet on the result of the game on the basis of that information. That person may be guilty of cheating because he has used his unequal access to confidential information to make a profit. In this type of situation, Parliament may well have taken the view that it was enough that covert use of confidential information was intrinsically wrong and that it could amount to cheating without any requirement for subjective dishonesty
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TightEnd
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2016, 12:08:07 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
|
|
|
|
|
|
pleno1
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2017, 09:02:48 PM » |
|
Heard a lot of ba stories about him. Apparabtly in very bad place.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Worst playcalling I have ever seen. Bunch of fucking jokers . Run the bloody ball. 18 rushes all game? You have to be kidding me. Fuck off lol
|
|
|
|
Author