Quote:
|
Originally Posted by golfer
If the "right" thing to do is to pay the guy, then why does the rule say they don't have to? Is it unreasonable for a bettor to asssume when he walks away from a window or betting machine with a written record of a wager, that he has placed a bet? I sure hope not.
|
What amazes me is all the legislation to protect the "HOUSE", but the lowlybettor is left out in the cold. It seems only fair if the "HOUSE" accepts a bet and the patron has proof of the acceptance, someone should be responsible for paying the winners. Im sure the "HOUSE" keeps the proceds of the losing tickets. If the current gambling establishments arent willing to accept these terms, Im sure others will line up to make application. How Travis can feel that Harrahs did the right thing only reflects that he works for them. The only thing that harrahs need to do was to verify the ticket wasnt a forgery. Harrahs only paid after the bad pub and not because the wanted to do the right thing. They probably took in more money for the affected races than the paid on the one ticket they ended up paying . They still probably made a profit on the affected races.