Bad Beat Jackpot controversy at The Lodge (2 Viewers)

[DrStrange]

The victim isn't getting paid if they do nothing.

I would be fine with a result that destroys the card room and I still don't get paid. But the owners of the Lodge likely feel otherwise. Risking the entire business model to a decision from a Texas court / jury vs paying out a promotion they are eventually are going to pay seems like a bad business decision. And even if the Lodge wins, they still get an on-going stream of bad publicity.

Think of this strategy as the victim upping the ante. Let's put the Lodge and its ownership group with some real skin in the game. What is there for the victim to lose?

 

[Lovejoyz]

The victim doesn't deserve to get paid. They played at a game, with the rules posted. Don't play if you don't like the requirements. The hand didn't meet the qualifications.

You want to take the card room down with you, because you are ignorant to the posted rules? This is a very Karen mentality.

 

[upNdown]

Risking the entire business model to a decision from a Texas court / jury vs paying out a promotion they are eventually are going to pay seems like a bad business decision.

You might be right that it would be smart to extort the Lodge, which would rather settle than face public/legal scrutiny. But you’d be wrong with your suggestion that it could ever get in front of a jury. Did you read the rules? The rules are clear and he didn’t qualify for the jackpot. It’s what lawyers would call a 12b6 - failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I suppose you could still turn it into a game of chicken, but I can’t imagine how anybody could possibly think there’s actually a case.

 

[drdr]

The article makes it pretty clear that there’s a rule that applies. You can argue it isn’t fair, you can argue that it’s moving the goalposts, but I don’t see how there’s any dispute here.
View attachment 1376056

Cooler jackpot rather than bad beat jackpot?