Note that the lawsuit says that he gambled on 11 July, and yet the suit was filed today. The not-giving-change thing, though, is definitely problematic.ĮDIT: This is definitely a plaintiffs' lawyer fishing. The regulations do specify some additional procedural rules for 6:5, but I'm not sure that amounts to a cause of action here. I'm not sure if this is just idiotic lawyering or there's something else I'm missing, but in addition to that section, the regulations refer to 6:5 blackjack throughout. The part of the regulations they cite, 3(e), do say that blackjack 'shall be paid at 3 to 2', but omits the rest of the sentence, which says, 'or at odds of 6 to 5 for the 6 to 5 blackjack variation'. I don't have the whole thing memorized but quickly pulled it up.
