The Gambler Who Blew $127 Million | Hacker News Reader

The Gambler Who Blew $127 Million

online.wsj.com

16 pointscwan19 comments

I found it interesting that the wynn decided that he was on a self destructive path and decided to ban him from their casino:

> In 2006, Mr. Watanabe resided primarily at Wynn Resorts' Wynn Las Vegas casino. But, he says, his heavy betting drew the attention of Chief Executive Steve Wynn. After meeting with him in June 2007, Mr. Wynn concluded that he was a compulsive gambler and alcoholic, and barred him from the casino, according to a letter to the Nevada Gaming Control Board drafted by Mr. Watanabe's attorney, Pierce O'Donnell.

> Ms. Jones, the Harrah's vice president, says, "It was not our understanding that he was kicked out of Wynn because of problem gambling."

Whereas at Caesars:

>Mr. Kunder and Mr. Deleon say they both voiced concerns to managers that Mr. Watanabe was too intoxicated, and were told not to get involved. "Nobody wanted to be the one to cut him off," Mr. Kunder says. "We were afraid of what upper management would do if he left because of our actions."

I think that its the moral responsibility for any company to not sell products that harm their customers; they should refuse to do business with those who are throwing their life away. Now this is not a legal responsibility, but merely doing what is ethical.

For instance: 1. Bar or Package Store that refuses to sell alcohol to alcoholics 2. McDonalds refuses to sell unhealthy foods to the morbidly obese 3. Firearm dealer refuses to sell weapons to the suicidal.

Also, can credit be extended to an intoxicated person? Do they have footage of when the credit was extended?

Sadly, in our society, that's often not possible. McDonald's would almost certainly face class action litigation in your 2nd example.

Found this the most interesting part of the article:

> Nevada treats unpaid gambling debt as a criminal matter handled by the District Attorney's bad-checks unit. Most defendants agree to pay the debt through a payment plan before charges are filed, with around 10% tacked on to fund the D.A. unit. Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas, prosecutes roughly 200 cases involving gambling debts a month, says Bernie Zadrowski, who runs the bad-checks unit.

Unpaid gambling debts seems like it'd be a civil matter to me - pretty crazy that it's criminal, and defendants pay an additional 10% to the state on top of it.

That is quite amazing that it wouldn't be treated in civil court or as a bankruptcy -- I wonder how many senators had to be bought to make that happen :).

Gambling is a such giant part of the Nevada economy, it's not even necessary to "buy" legislators in any backroom way -- voters and legislators can internalize casino preferences because they all prosper together.

Agreed, just came here to post that. What's particularly amazing is that the casino might not actually be out any money, depending on what you were playing. In any other state, you can borrow $1000 from a bank, burn it, and then face the consequences to your credit score, bankruptcy, etc. But apparently in Nevada, if I borrow $1000 from the casino, pour it down their slot machines, and then walk out without paying, they can have me prosecuted and jailed, even though they got their $1000 back. Bizarre.

If you lent me $1000, and then offered me a fair coin flip for $1000, would the fact that you "won" the coin flip and I stiffed you for the $1000 I borrowed be adequate consolation?

If so, can I borrow $1000 and do you have a quarter on you?

That's something entirely different from what ryanwaggoner sketches. The point is whether this is a criminal or a civil case, not whether the casino should get their money back.

I don't think the example is actually that different.

My response was to the point of "the casino might actually not be out any money". If the outcome of the wager (that the casino won and "kept" the money) is critical to determining how/whether a case is prosecuted, then you set the casinos up to be free-rolled, which is the point I was making with my coin-flip after loan analogy.

The moment Ryan beats me in the coin flip, he's "earned" $1000. If the law differentiates at all whether he's entitled to be paid based on whether I moments earlier borrowed $1000 from him, then I have a free-roll.

I borrow $1000 in cash, and bet $1000 in cash on heads.

Heads, I win $1000, pay the loan off and walk out with my $1000 profit.

Tails, I lose $1000, but I say "well, you have the money anyway, so you're not actually out anything" and walk away with no more and no less money than I started the day.

Mathematically, that's the same as Ryan giving me $500 and us making a $500 wager on the coin.

I wasn't trying to address whether it should be civil or criminal; I tend to agree it should be civil, but Nevada gets to make the rules for Nevada. I was merely pointing out that whether or not the casino "kept" the money that it beat the guy for is not relevant.

Casinos are an actuarial business. The relevant number is the weighted sum over all possible outcomes -- or similarly, the sum over all customers offered the same terms.

So the casino is definitely "out the money" in your situation, because at some other table, they offered the eaxct same deal, aad there, the other customer won $1800, paid back the $1000, and walked out with $800. If the casino can't collect from the person who lost, their loan couldn't have been offered in the first place.

Guy gambles away $127 million and turns around to sue the casinos - only in America!

I don't think gamblers suing casinos for millions lost is purely an American phenomenon. There have been similar cases (perhaps a less substantial magnitude) in at least France, England, Australia, and South Korea.

No sympathy for him.

Some people have persistent decisionmaking flaws that make them engage in compulsive, self-destructive behavior. Sometimes these bad decisions cascade in a self-reinforcing cycle -- as with intoxication and intoxicant addictions.

Are these people fair game for however much profit can be extracted as they self-destruct? Should competing firms race to break them first?

A lot of businesses make their money by making it as easy as possible or those people to make these sorts of bad decisions. Video poker in bars?

To look at it another way, bars in general. On some level most services you can provide will be detrimental to some of the people consuming them. It's hard to say where to draw the line. But I think based on how heavily regulated gambling is even in Nevada, as a society we've decided that is about as close to the line as we want to get.

You are wrongly assuming you are immune to this kind of lapse. A friend of mine was recently admitted to a psychiatric institution, while there has been no previous indication whatsoever that she wasn't completely sane. Being addicted is being halfway there: you have lost the capacity to think in a sane, self-preserving, way. Everyone faces that risk and I would damn well like if people helped me when that happened.

Someone like Watanabe should be helped, instead of abusing his shortcomings. Everyone that allowed him to continue gambling is morally responsible. What would you have done if it was a friend? Your father? That is the criterion you should use to judge these cases.

And he's now facing up to 28 years in jail. Way to blow it, dude.

haha, he's the heir to oriental trading. that's a lot of noise makers down the drain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com