I don't think we can make a perfect analogy with a video poker bet to
the Wiz's sports bet since when we're playing vp we're actually in the
casino, and if someone says you have to go to the cashier in a certain
amount of time, it's not a big deal to do so. With a sports bet, it's
possible that the bet was made before the event and the bettor wasn't
even in the casino following the game.
I believe that part of this issue depends on what the distraction was.
For example, what if you hit a royal, got your ticket, walked outside
to call someone and report the big hit, and got mugged (maybe even
went into a coma for 4 months), or had a heart attack (maybe even died
and the ticket was found by the spouse 4 months later). Would that be
a sufficient distraction?
So it may have been the big Absolute Poker scandal that the Wiz was
working on, the home burglary that he had on 11/20/07, or some other
personal tragedy that he chooses not to share with his readers, that
got him distracted. That's why I would cut him some slack.
Or maybe he was even at the end of the year and didn't want to pay any
taxes on the win? 
The Wizard of Odds: Las Vegas Casino Blacklist
Now that you have clarified that one point, would you
care to respond to any of the other comments I made?To refresh your memory, I said....
Re: Your "$3,000/60 days" argument
If I didn't agree to the terms, I wouldn't have made the bet.
If I did agree to the terms, I would have honored them.
If I failed to honor the terms, I would be S.O.L.Re: Your argument that the time restriction would be valid
if it were EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED to the customer BEFORE
the wager was placed and accepted
I'm not as sure as you are that sports books do not inform
customers of their policies before processing wagers.Re: Your questioning if welshing (and saving three grand) is
worth the ill will that doing so engenders
Apparently, Stratosphere thinks it is. But, if I owned a casino,
I would not.Maybe you didn't respond because you know I'm right and
you're wrong?
out that I misunderstood one sentence?LOL!
Yeah, like I said before, this is FUN!
Curtis
Well, in the midst of all your LOLing, and the great fun you seem to
be having, I almost hate to point out that you misread my post YET
AGAIN.
LOL.
I never expressed the idea that casinos "do not inform their
customers"....blah blah. I simply referred to a notice on the
RECEIPT that did not have the force of contract because it was
tendered to the customer AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS AGREED TO, AND ONE
OF THE PARTIES HAD EXECUTED HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT (the bettor had
handed over his money). The question of whether a given sportsbook
does an adequate job of informing its customers is moot; I'm sure
that varies from book to book, but I personally have NEVER been told
face to face that my sports betting ticket had to be cashed within a
certain period of time, and such an EXPLICIT EXPLANATION of a
crucial part of the contract is necessary, in US commercial law, to
make that provision of the contract valid.
Re: what you would or would not have done: an unreasonable clause in
a contract is also void. So is one not spelled out at the time the
contract is made. The 60-day clause fails both tests. You, or anyone
else, are protected from such contract provisions by contract law.
Whether you wish to waive this protection is up to you, HOWEVER,
I'll make a wild surmise that if we moved out of the realm of the
theoretical and into the real world, and you had been shafted for
three actual thousand dollars, you wouldn't be so acquiescent.
Re: if you owned a casino: I would hope that you would have the good
sense to pay the ticket.
Re: "Right and wrong": well, I'm sick of this argument, as I can't
believe that you, or anyone else, could possibly be defending the
casino on this issue. Theft and fraud are, uh, WRONG-- even
PERFECTLY LEGAL theft and fraud, so the legal discussions are
somewhat beside the point.