It's pretty standard for a trusted third party to arbitrate a bet, not someone with a vested interest.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111@yahoo.com" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:
>
> There really is no question: Revel must admit to something that makes no sense whatsoever: to doing what you claim they've done. Having some gaming lawyer confirm via the media something a disgruntled gambler filed, is no more proof than reading what a collection of anonymous posters on WoV opine or create.
>
> BTW, my friend who played in the promo returned home today with an $8300 profit. He loved the place, said it was beautiful with great dining and is very well run, and he was treated with respect at the slot club & by the suits he regularly badgered (thanks to my bugging him) about these alleged claims. He didn't get to test them on the rebate, but who wants to?
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "vpplayer88" <vpplayer88@...>
> To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 9 JUL 2013
> Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 5:36 pm
> I already said how the bet would be resolved. If you have another suggestion, go ahead.
>
>
>
> Casinos are very reactionary institutions. We just saw the palms change their bingo promotion after they lost too much money. We see stuff like this every month. The removal of high denom vp was most likely a reaction to the Internet analysis of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (10) |
