Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/02/20) */ We are in receipt of this complaint regarding the incident that occurred on January 17, 2015. Several things need to be set straight: (1) The individual's accusation that he was "cheated" is inaccurate and untrue. The dealer was... following long established house rules and procedures regarding the setting of hands. (2) This individual refuses to accept any responsibility for his own actions in the matter, including failing to read the rules and regulations guide prior to making a wager and failing to stop the dealer if he did not wish his hand set "top 2". (3) Established rules must be followed by Lucky Chances for all parties involved. The rule that takes precedent in this case is as follows: "Players are responsible for the final setting of their hands. A player's request for setting a hand "house way" will be honored only if the player has not yet touched the cards". A ruling in this individual's favor would have, in essence, been a ruling against the other player(s) (acting as banker) when they did nothing wrong. (4) While this individual's interpretation is that he "lost" $600 due to his failure to set his own hand, in fact his hand was a "push". There is no record of how much the other player(s) wagered as Player-Dealer (banker) and therefore it is unknown how much of his wager would have been covered (paid by the guest wagering as Player-Dealer). (5) It was due to this individual's actions of being extremely disruptive to other guests, loud, argumentative and unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner that resulted in him being asked to leave.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/02/20) */
We are in receipt of this complaint regarding the incident that occurred on January 17, 2015. Several things need to be set straight: (1) The individual's accusation that he was "cheated" is inaccurate and untrue. The dealer was...
following long established house rules and procedures regarding the setting of hands. (2) This individual refuses to accept any responsibility for his own actions in the matter, including failing to read the rules and regulations guide prior to making a wager and failing to stop the dealer if he did not wish his hand set "top 2". (3) Established rules must be followed by Lucky Chances for all parties involved. The rule that takes precedent in this case is as follows: "Players are responsible for the final setting of their hands. A player's request for setting a hand "house way" will be honored only if the player has not yet touched the cards". A ruling in this individual's favor would have, in essence, been a ruling against the other player(s) (acting as banker) when they did nothing wrong. (4) While this individual's interpretation is that he "lost" $600 due to his failure to set his own hand, in fact his hand was a "push". There is no record of how much the other player(s) wagered as Player-Dealer (banker) and therefore it is unknown how much of his wager would have been covered (paid by the guest wagering as Player-Dealer). (5) It was due to this individual's actions of being extremely disruptive to other guests, loud, argumentative and unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner that resulted in him being asked to leave.
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/02/20) */ We are in receipt of this complaint regarding the incident that occurred on January 17, 2015. Several things need to be set straight: (1) The individual's accusation that he was "cheated" is inaccurate and untrue. The dealer was... following long established house rules and procedures regarding the setting of hands. (2) This individual refuses to accept any responsibility for his own actions in the matter, including failing to read the rules and regulations guide prior to making a wager and failing to stop the dealer if he did not wish his hand set "top 2". (3) Established rules must be followed by Lucky Chances for all parties involved. The rule that takes precedent in this case is as follows: "Players are responsible for the final setting of their hands. A player's request for setting a hand "house way" will be honored only if the player has not yet touched the cards". A ruling in this individual's favor would have, in essence, been a ruling against the other player(s) (acting as banker) when they did nothing wrong. (4) While this individual's interpretation is that he "lost" $600 due to his failure to set his own hand, in fact his hand was a "push". There is no record of how much the other player(s) wagered as Player-Dealer (banker) and therefore it is unknown how much of his wager would have been covered (paid by the guest wagering as Player-Dealer). (5) It was due to this individual's actions of being extremely disruptive to other guests, loud, argumentative and unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner that resulted in him being asked to leave.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/02/20) */
We are in receipt of this complaint regarding the incident that occurred on January 17, 2015. Several things need to be set straight: (1) The individual's accusation that he was "cheated" is inaccurate and untrue. The dealer was...
following long established house rules and procedures regarding the setting of hands. (2) This individual refuses to accept any responsibility for his own actions in the matter, including failing to read the rules and regulations guide prior to making a wager and failing to stop the dealer if he did not wish his hand set "top 2". (3) Established rules must be followed by Lucky Chances for all parties involved. The rule that takes precedent in this case is as follows: "Players are responsible for the final setting of their hands. A player's request for setting a hand "house way" will be honored only if the player has not yet touched the cards". A ruling in this individual's favor would have, in essence, been a ruling against the other player(s) (acting as banker) when they did nothing wrong. (4) While this individual's interpretation is that he "lost" $600 due to his failure to set his own hand, in fact his hand was a "push". There is no record of how much the other player(s) wagered as Player-Dealer (banker) and therefore it is unknown how much of his wager would have been covered (paid by the guest wagering as Player-Dealer). (5) It was due to this individual's actions of being extremely disruptive to other guests, loud, argumentative and unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner that resulted in him being asked to leave.