[FONT="]
Robert Hannum** (Archive copy)
[/FONT]
[FONT="]From the following, note the lawyers' citation of Zengrifter Interview and the opinion that my tactic was illegal. zg
---------------------------------
Anthony Cabot* (Archive copy)
Robert Hannum** (Archive copy)
EXCERPT -
Legality
As scienter or fraudulent intent is an element of cheating,[FONT="][FONT="][358][/FONT][/FONT] (Archive copy)[FONT="]should the law criminalize activity where the player simply acts upon information exposed where he or she did not enter the casino with intent to fraudulently obtain and act on this information? The latter is the case where a typical player sitting at the table learns of the value of the dealer's hole card because the dealer makes an error in exposing the card.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]
Hole-carding professionals and teams are much different than where a player, without fraudulent intent, learns the dealer's hole card because of “a dealer's unintended revelation of his cards.”[FONT="][FONT="][359][/FONT][/FONT] (Archive copy)[FONT="]Here, cheaters play the game with the intent of learning the dealer's hole card by undertaking some act to either learn the hole card where the dealer is properly protecting it or by using the hold card techniques that accentuate poor dealing. Note, for example, this quote from an interview with a hole carder:[/FONT][/FONT]
Another cute ruse, I used a few times in the `80s, is posing as a wheelchair-ridden muscular-dystrophy victim during the week of the Jerry Lewis telethon. I'd roll up to the table, eyes level with the felt. Using spasmodic movements and twisted posture I announce in a strained voice that I was the 1964 Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy “poster boy.” Of course the primary reason for the act was to have my eyes level with the felt to be able to see the dealer's hole card flashing with each round.[360] (Archive copy)
[FONT="] Therefore, attempting to acquire knowledge not typically or readily available to other players that provides an advantage in determining or predicting what was intended to be a random event should be illegal and unenforceable if the player uses any artificial or deliberate means to gain the advantage such as mirrors or spotters.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
An argument can be made that a typical player that learns of the dealer's hole card because of a dealer's error is no less of a thief than a person who cashes a $100 check and knowingly keeps the extra $900 when the bank clerk mistakes it for $1000. In theory, the player that uses such information forms a fraudulent intent when he or she uses the information to gain the advantage created by the mistake. Moreover, using a person's mistake to that person or his or her employer's disadvantage is unethical.
XXX
[/FONT]
Last edited:
