Golden Nugget Casino’s “unshuffled” Cards Game Legal Says State Regulators

Two years ago, there was an incident at the Golden Nugget Casino in the Atlantic City where players won $1.5 million with unshuffled cards. Just recently, the issue has been cleared by the New Jersey casino regulators saying that neither the casino nor the players violated any rules. This decision could affect the ongoing court battle on whether or not the 14 gamblers should be paid out by the casino. The statement was released through The Associated Press on September 23 after the extensive investigation following the incident on April 30, 2012. The investigation results showed that there had been no cheating of any form that happened during that day whether on the side of the players or any of the casino personnel.

The official statement said that based on the New Jersey Casino Control Act, the game at table MB-802 that took place on April 30, 2012 at the Golden Nugget Casino was deemed valid and legal. There was no evidence of any sort of manipulation or collusion that could have affected the result of the game. Cards were just coming out of the chute without being shuffled, and the players noticed the specific pattern and based their bets on it. The investigators reviewed the surveillance tapes, and it was determined that the only error the dealer committed was very minor that it wouldn’t be possible to affect the card patterns being dealt. It was when the time the dealer failed to discard the right amount of cards when the game started.

Even the casino management was monitoring the game both from the surveillance cameras and the floor personnel. They did not see any obvious strategies that could make one question the game’s integrity. Another failure at the part of the casino is that they should have used their power to stop the game play should there be doubts about the game. They could have changed the deck of cards. However, they let the game to move on. Unfortunately, the ruling only led to a lot of questions and criticism. According to the company’s attorney, Louis Barbone, the case needs legal conclusion and the ruling should be considered as only an opinion with no binding authority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *