After reading the whole article i’m left unclear what the defect in the cards had to do with anything? His technique was to dupe the dealer into bending cards one direction or another… Where did the misprinting of the cards mentioned in the first segment of the article come into play on the actual con? It doesn’t mention, unless he was just combining two techniques for even better advantage? Perhaps I missed something.
Even the tone of the article sounds like a persausive essay; the author must’ve known most readers would find the casino’s claims dubius. To me, this seems like ex-post-facto casino-law… months later, they finally realize how they got hosed, then sue him to recover losses.
Cheaters should certainly be charged with a crime, but the casino slipped on this one. How was the dealer they assigned to such a high roller so obtuse that he didn’t realize the bending of the cards was a tactic? The code words were ‘good card’ and ‘bad card’… could it be more obvious?
