December 5, 2006

I just finished reading Bob Nersesian’s new book Beat the Players.  He is a lawyer who represents gamblers – particularly card counters and other guys who try to beat the house at their own game -- in disputes with casinos.  He recently won a huge judgment for two players who were caught peeking at a sloppy dealer’s hole card (completely legal), manhandled, arrested, and jailed.  The book is mostly a summary of Nevada gaming law with a few excerpts from cases thrown in.  I like to know my rights under the law so I read it with interest. 

One thing that jumped out at me was that Nevada, like most places, still does not enforce gambling debts.  There is a law requiring the payment of a winning bet, but the common-law doctrine that gambling debts are unenforceable is still in force in Nevada. 

I suspect this means that, regardless of the merits of his claim, Crispin Leyser is out of luck trying to collect half of Jamie Gold’s $12 million first prize in the 2006 World Series of Poker. 

2 comments:

I don't know if this was in the book, but unpaid gambling debts are written off by the casino as "bad debt" and therefore untaxable.  I believe in New Jersey unpaid gaming debts are taxable, which is why gambling debts may be prosecuted there. 

Is Leyser claim a gambling debt or is it a contract?  Based on his claim, he said Gold promised him in advance to give half for helping him find celebrities to wear Bodog, since Bodog would only pay for one entry. 

I am not going to pretend I know what was said between Gold and Leyser.  To me it sounded like Gold promised Leyser something he could not provide, a seat at the WSOP.  When he found out he couldn't get the seat, he promised money for a job Leyser did. 

To me this is a contract and not a debt.  A debt to me would be, Gold wants to bet $10 on the Bears to be the Rams Monday night.  The Bears lose, Gold does not pay, Leyser goes to court.  The court would not make Gold pay.