[Optional]

Originally posted on 09/29/2012:

In other words, "We think it's our right to target problem gamblers and exploit their degeneracy - pilfering as much money from them as we possibly can. Anyone that shows any signs of competency will be shown the door." What other business makes their own rules to specifically exploit addiction? Drug dealers? Is that the level of dignity that Heritage is going for?

Mediation would not have been required had you been proactive rather than reactive. You would have been able to legitimately collect a profit. Nevermind that though. Let's try to cancel wagers instead.

Thought you were better than this Monkey. You're just being unreasonable.

Maybe things would have been different if all those things you say should have happened did happen. But they didn't. So we are dealing with what did happen.

Wanting to enforce a player ban is entirely reasonable. No matter how poorly Heritage might manage their risk in your opinion, refusing service is still a perfectly reasonable way to act. And if this was a banned player it's also entirely reasonable for Heritage to try and enforce that ban when they detected it. Just because a shop lifter got away 52 times does not give him automatic immunity on the 53rd because of the stores earlier incompetence.

Sure there is questions over whether Heritage share some responsibility for not detecting it earlier. If there is enough evidence to support their opinion that Helena was a Cory beard. And how much money Cory should get either way.

But demanding that only your opinion on the answer to those questions is right is ridiculous for an intelligent guy like yourself. Look at hutennis in the tank to get a clue what you look like.