One thing that jumped out at me was that Nevada, like most places, still does not enforce gambling debts. There is a law requiring the payment of a winning bet, but the common-law doctrine that gambling debts are unenforceable is still in force in Nevada.
I suspect this means that, regardless of the merits of his claim, Crispin Leyser is out of luck trying to collect half of Jamie Gold’s $12 million first prize in the 2006 World Series of Poker.
By the way, what ever happened with that investigation Harrah's was doing into the extra chips I discovered added to the main event?
I don't know if this was in the book, but unpaid gambling debts are written off by the casino as "bad debt" and therefore untaxable. I believe in New Jersey unpaid gaming debts are taxable, which is why gambling debts may be prosecuted there.
Is Leyser claim a gambling debt or is it a contract? Based on his claim, he said Gold promised him in advance to give half for helping him find celebrities to wear Bodog, since Bodog would only pay for one entry.
I am not going to pretend I know what was said between Gold and Leyser. To me it sounded like Gold promised Leyser something he could not provide, a seat at the WSOP. When he found out he couldn't get the seat, he promised money for a job Leyser did.
To me this is a contract and not a debt. A debt to me would be, Gold wants to bet $10 on the Bears to be the Rams Monday night. The Bears lose, Gold does not pay, Leyser goes to court. The court would not make Gold pay.
Post a Comment