A group of gamblers in Atlantic City, New Jersey have been sued by the Golden Nugget casino after they won $1.5 million in a game of mini baccarat. The hotel claims that the gamblers won only because of a deck of unshuffled cards, which is against the rules. The gamblers are yet to receive their payment and the hotel continues its stand on the illegality of the unshuffled cards, even after the manufacturer ensured that the cards would be pre-shuffled prior to use.
The incident occurred at a low-stakes mini-baccarat game, where the players predict their chances of winning against the banker depending on the hand they are dealt. However, in this particular case, the players kept witnessing the same cards being dealt time and again. This led them to progressively increase their bets. Reports indicate that the players started with $10 per hand and quickly went up all the way to $5000 per hand, forcing the management to take note.
Once the management took note, security guards were sent to monitor the gamblers. However, nothing could be proven and the casino is still making claims based on assumptions.
Gamblers fight back
The suspected gamblers have taken the case to court and fighting for their earnings which they claim, has been earned fair and square. According to their lawyer the gamblers have nothing wrong and deserve every penny of the $1.5 million. He also went onto state that there was no law in New Jersey under which the gamblers could be punished for playing with an unshuffled deck of cards.
Nevertheless, the casino is claiming exactly that in their lawsuit against the 14 gamblers and is citing state gambling regulations on fair-odds.
3 of the gamblers even blamed the casino for racial prejudice and claimed that they were being harassed for their Asian ethnicity.
However, justice leaned on the casino’s side as the judge ruled in their favor. The gamblers have been asked to return their winnings. The judge supported the ruling by stating that the dealer clearly did not shuffle the cards prior to the commencement of the game, which is mandatory under the Casino Control Act. Nevertheless, the ruling may still be appealed.