Bob Nersesian was the guest again, and it was REALLY good! One of the best shows in my recent memory.
GWAE - Super good show this week!
Wish Bob could have elaborated on his claim that cases end up looking quite different "on the back end than they do up front", seeming to imply that what appears cut and dried initially turns out to be not so much after the facts come out. Love to have heard some concrete examples.
TC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
···
On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:14 PM, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob Nersesian was the guest again, and it was REALLY good! One of the best shows in my recent memory.
Tabbycat wrote: Wish Bob Nersesian could have elaborated on his claim that cases end up looking quite different "on the back end than they do up front", seeming to imply that what appears cut and dried initially turns out to be not so much after the facts come out. Love to have heard some concrete examples. I suppose I could have followed up on that one but it seemed pretty obvious to me what he was talking about. In most areas of life, when you get information from a second source it almost always is in variance to some degree with what you heard from the first source --- ESPECIALLY if one or both of the sources has good incentive to twist the facts, consiously or not, to help his position. Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Also, people tell stories, that's what we do. The court case is another story, but it has to be mostly fact based. People do a lot of bayesian inferencing and oftentimes just faulty inferencing, but those kinds of conclusions are generally not admissible in court. As Sgt. Friday used to say: "Just the facts".
wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
Tabbycat wrote: Wish Bob Nersesian could have elaborated on his claim that cases end up looking quite different "on the back end than they do up front", seeming to imply that what appears cut and dried initially turns out to be not so much after the facts come out. Love to have heard some concrete examples. I suppose I could have followed up on that one but it seemed pretty obvious to me what he was talking about. In most areas of life, when you get information from a second source it almost always is in variance to some degree with what you heard from the first source --- ESPECIALLY if one or both of the sources has good incentive to twist the facts, consiously or not, to help his position. Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I thought the most informative part of the show was Mr Nersesian's take on the use of smartphones and tablets in casinos to assist in playing video poker. Under Nevada law, he pretty much said he saw no legal defense for a player IF a casino wanted to press felony charges. Not only did he think hand analysis programs would be a violation, but
went so far as to suggest that consulting a strategy card saved on an electronic device would be a violation too.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
Bob Nersesian was the guest again, and it was REALLY good! One of the best shows in my recent memory.
I just can't understand that some people don't comprehend that "any electronic device" means any electronic device.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vegasvpplayer" <vegasvpplayer@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> Bob Nersesian was the guest again, and it was REALLY good! One of the best shows in my recent memory.
>I thought the most informative part of the show was Mr Nersesian's take on the use of smartphones and tablets in casinos to assist in playing video poker. Under Nevada law, he pretty much said he saw no legal defense for a player IF a casino wanted to press felony charges. Not only did he think hand analysis programs would be a violation, but
went so far as to suggest that consulting a strategy card saved on an electronic device would be a violation too.
like the flight attendant will say on the plane before takeoff "if it has an on button".........
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote:
I just can't understand that some people don't comprehend that "any electronic device" means any electronic device.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vegasvpplayer" <vegasvpplayer@> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > Bob Nersesian was the guest again, and it was REALLY good! One of the best shows in my recent memory.
> >
>
>
> I thought the most informative part of the show was Mr Nersesian's take on the use of smartphones and tablets in casinos to assist in playing video poker. Under Nevada law, he pretty much said he saw no legal defense for a player IF a casino wanted to press felony charges. Not only did he think hand analysis programs would be a violation, but
> went so far as to suggest that consulting a strategy card saved on an electronic device would be a violation too.
>