Inside Asian Gaming

December 2010 | INSIDE ASIAN GAMING 39 honest, or the players were better crooks than the operators. But the Governor’s lawyers did find a decision from 1890, in which the Court of Appeals of Kentucky ruled that a loser at poker could sue the partners who ran the card rooms, because they raked the pot. The case, Triplett v. Seelbach , involved a very big loser indeed: He lost $1,905, at a time when a “fine brick house” cost only $2,500. The Court must have wanted to help this big loser, at a time when virtually all gambling was illegal. But in an example of bad cases making bad law, the Court wrote, “We do not understand that the winner, in the sense of said statutes, must be one of the players with cards in his hands; but if he is to receive a per cent. [sic] of the winnings by the actual player, he is, in the sense of the statute, a winner. This per cent., [sic] or ‘take out,’ as it is called, is a part of the loser’s losses.” Today, we know that a poker operator’s interest is not the same as someone who actually plays a hand, whether in poker or a banking game like blackjack. The card club does not care who wins, any more than a lottery or a racetrack cares who wins. But maybe Gov. Beshear’s next suits will be against the Kentucky State Lottery and the Kentucky Derby. ----------------------- © Copyright 2010. Professor I. Nelson Rose is recognized as a leading authority on gambling law and is a consultant and expert witness for players, governments and industry. His latest books, INTERNET GAMING LAW (1st & 2nd editions), BLACKJACK AND THE LAW and GAMING LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS , are available through his website, www. GAMBLINGANDTHELAW.com. But maybe Gov. Beshear’s next suits will be against the Kentucky State Lottery and the Kentucky Derby.