Online Casino Transfer: News - Bad Beat Case Closed

05/07/2010		Online Casino Style: News Bad Beat Case Closed
Home History Games News Dictionary		Apparently the State of California’s lawbooks differ greatly from that of Kentucky’s as a final ruling hits the online gambling news presses in regards to a case of bad beat poker jackpot this week. The case, initiated by two land poker players against five poker-hosting casinos from around the Los Angeles area, was closed this week with a final decision being made by the judge that California law does not, in fact, allow gamblers to pursue their losses from betting in court. At the very least, the case was difficult to decide, and most representatives from the internet gambling community agree that appeals are more than likely. The judge, too, made his ruling outside of the realm of the two sides’ arguments, ruling instead that regardless of the validity of the claim, the two poker players did not have the right to sue for their lost monies, because they were spent on gambling. Bad beat poker games, both in land- and in online casinos, take a nominal fee in addition to each bet, contributing with every hand to the ‘Bad Beat Jackpot,’ which will pay out in special circumstances (when players with excellent hands still lose, beat out by bad luck that another player delivers with a better hand). Casinos and poker rooms in California, however, are mandated by law to offer a ‘no purchase necessary’ option to players who request it. Though rare, poker players Dennie Chae and Jeff Kim did request such an option, asking the five defendant casinos to play the poker game without surrendering the $1 Bad Beat fee for the jackpot. According to them, Bicycle, Commerce, Hustler, Hollywood Park and Hawaiian Gardens casinos refused, violating state law. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Emile H. Elias, who ruled on the case, did not argue with the casinos’ need to comply with request, but refused to rule for Chae and Kim, saying that they had no right to pursue lost monies from gambling. "Plaintiffs chose to play the games despite the knowledge that they would be charged" the $1 jackpot fee, the judge wrote. The LA Times confirmed they existing statute, that requires jackpot poker to be advertised as a no-purchase-necessary game, like sweepstakes. The mandate came into effect in 1989, after the attorney general found that jackpot poker was illegal.

05/07/2010

Online Casino Style: News
Bad Beat Case Closed

Apparently the State of California’s lawbooks differ greatly from that of Kentucky’s as a final ruling hits the online gambling news presses in regards to a case of bad beat poker jackpot this week. The case, initiated by two land poker players against five poker-hosting casinos from around the Los Angeles area, was closed this week with a final decision being made by the judge that California law does not, in fact, allow gamblers to pursue their losses from betting in court.

At the very least, the case was difficult to decide, and most representatives from the internet gambling community agree that appeals are more than likely. The judge, too, made his ruling outside of the realm of the two sides’ arguments, ruling instead that regardless of the validity of the claim, the two poker players did not have the right to sue for their lost monies, because they were spent on gambling.

Bad beat poker games, both in land- and in online casinos, take a nominal fee in addition to each bet, contributing with every hand to the ‘Bad Beat Jackpot,’ which will pay out in special circumstances (when players with excellent hands still lose, beat out by bad luck that another player delivers with a better hand). Casinos and poker rooms in California, however, are mandated by law to offer a ‘no purchase necessary’ option to players who request it.

Though rare, poker players Dennie Chae and Jeff Kim did request such an option, asking the five defendant casinos to play the poker game without surrendering the $1 Bad Beat fee for the jackpot. According to them, Bicycle, Commerce, Hustler, Hollywood Park and Hawaiian Gardens casinos refused, violating state law. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Emile H. Elias, who ruled on the case, did not argue with the casinos’ need to comply with request, but refused to rule for Chae and Kim, saying that they had no right to pursue lost monies from gambling.

"Plaintiffs chose to play the games despite the knowledge that they would be charged" the $1 jackpot fee, the judge wrote. The LA Times confirmed they existing statute, that requires jackpot poker to be advertised as a no-purchase-necessary game, like sweepstakes. The mandate came into effect in 1989, after the attorney general found that jackpot poker was illegal.