TURMEL: #19 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript

JCT: Since the Project Robin Hood raid on Casino Turmel case was
brought up in the Big Five Marijuana appeals at the Ontario 
Court of Appeal recently arguing against judges imposing new 
criminal sanctions, rather than Parliament, I've decided to to 
publish the transcripts of the trial on the biggest gaming house 
raid in Canadian, probably world, history. 28 tables/155 dealers. 
See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/gambler.htm 

EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE: Blackjack rules.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN: Q. Now, Sergeant Fotia, what
is a "hand" at blackjack?
A. What is a good hand?
Q. Yes, what's a "hand"?  Never mind a "good one," but what
does the word mean?
A. A "hand" means that you're given a minimum of two cards. 
That constitutes a hand.
Q. Supposing, just to - I don't want to get into the
complexities of the game - but just to perhaps get some of the
elementary workings of the game, suppose there's a table there and
there's a dealer.  You've indicated there's a shoe.  What's a
"shoe"?
A. A shoe is usually an item made out of plastic where you can
put in up to 10 or 11 decks inside, so when the dealer deals, he
can take one card out at a time and it cannot be seen by anybody -
say if the cards were marked -you can't see them.  Only one card
comes out at a time, and you deal them one at a time from the shoe,
clockwise, until you make a hand.
Q. Okay.  So you have how many people sitting at a table?
A. Well, you can have up to seven spots.  Seven plus the
dealer.  Eight.
Q. Okay, and where are all these people seated?
A. On the stool, the chair, at their own position.  Each
player is sitting in front of a little emblem, a little circle or
square to identify his or her position.
Q. Okay, the dealer's on one side and...
A. The dealer is behind the chip bank.  He has the most
space...
Q. All right.
A. ...because he's dealing clockwise to everyone, to the seven
people.  So he has to have a look at all of these people.  It's
like I'm sitting in the box right here, similar to this, actually. 
Here's the money, the chips, and the players are sitting around
here.
Q. All right.
A. All right, he makes change, he deals, he controls the game.
Q. So the game is starting, players are sitting down, the
table's there, the dealer's there.
A. Right.
Q. Okay.
A. The first thing that happens, everybody must make a bet
before receiving cards.
Q. Okay. So between $5 and...
A. And $200.
Q. ...and $200.  So they make a bet with whom?
A. They make the bet against the house, this person here who
has all the chips.
Q. So everyone gets to make a bet, one after the other?
A. Yes.  Well, you don't have to bet every time; you can just
pass a bet if you want.
Q. Okay.
A. You don't have to bet each time.
Q. So that's the first thing that happens.
A. Right.
Q. What's the second thing that happens?
A. The second thing that happens is the dealer will deal one
card each to everyone, including himself, and another card each to
everyone and not to himself.  The last card, he doesn't deal to himself.
Q. Okay, now, the cards are facing up, or are they facing
down?
A. They're facing up.
Q. Facing up?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, those cards to the players are facing up?
A. That's correct.
Q. How about the dealer's cards?
A. One's facing up, yes.  He only has one card.
Q. Okay.
A. He's playing the English rules.  There's different ways of
playing blackjack.  At Turmel's, they have two cards each and one
card to the house person.
Q. Yes?
A. And then, after he plays everyone, he plays himself.  He
gives himself the second card.  In a lot of other places, everybody
takes two cards initially.
Q. Okay.
A. His is up.  One's up, one's down of the dealer's, normally,
and the players' are both up.
Q. Okay now, what happens next?
A. The dealer goes to the first position and asks the person
if he'd like another card, and the player indicates if he wishes
another card by a hand signal.
Q. Now, what is the purpose of the game?  What is each player
ultimately trying to do?
A. The purpose of the game is for each individual to make more
points than the house without busting.  If the person busts, then
the house takes its money.  Doesn't have to play himself.
Q. Okay, how does a person bust?
A. By getting over 21.
Q. Okay.
A. Anything over 21 is a bust; the money goes to the house.
Q. So a player who's got a card and is asked if he wants
another card, okay, what has to go through his mind?  What's the
consideration?
A. The consideration is, well, the house must stay at 17 and
must hit at 16.
Q. Okay, what does that mean?
A. Well, that means if the player sees that the house has a
six, the player will always assume there's a face, because there's
more faces than anything else in the deck, and will assume there's
a 16.  So at that point, the player makes a decision whether to
take another card and risk busting or stay at a low, or whatever
point he has, and hope that the dealer busts, if he has a bad hand,
or that the dealer has to stay at 17 and the player will have 18 or
more.
Q. Okay.
A. A "push," nobody wins.  In other words, if it's 17-17,
nobody wins.
Q. Now, if there's a bust, what happens to the wager?
A. The money goes to the house.  The money's picked up right
away and put - the chips are picked up and put into the slots.  End
of the game.
Q. Okay, now...
A. For that person.
Q. Okay, now, each part - every parcel of the game is called
a "hand," right?  You'd call that a hand?
A. Well, every time you get two cards, it's a hand, yes.
Q. Okay, were you able to make observations as to how many
hands were dealt per time - well, how fast did these happen, these
hands?
A. Well, pretty fast.  It would take maybe a minute and a half
to two minutes for each hand.
Q. Okay.
A. Approximately.  Depends on the dealers.  Some dealers are
faster than others.  Some dealers are slower.  Now, I have here a
type of a spread sheet I understand was gathered from your
observations, the time of day you went to St. Laurent
establishment, the date, the hours that you observed, the game you
observed, the number of players, the positions, and so on.  Would
you look your notes and confirm whether these in fact are your
observations?
A. I'd have to look at each page, but I think they look like
the ones, because I gave all my notes to the sergeant from the
Ottawa Police Department.  I think he made a chart of all this.  So
I think that's correct.  It looks to be correct.  I hadn't seen
this before, so.....
MR. MARIN: All right, if that could be made Exhibit Two,
please.
THE COURT: What would be the purpose of filing this as an
exhibit?
MR. MARIN: It's because, Your Honour, there's an expert
witness later on that will have some interpretation to make from
the observations of this officer, to build upon it.  That's the
purpose of getting it as an exhibit; it's subject to further
testimony which will shed light on the exhibit.
THE COURT: All right, then.  The document will be Exhibit Two.

EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO: Summary of observations made by Sergeant
Fotia.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN: Those are my questions, Your Honour.
         **********

this particular case it's taken the entire blackjack table by
simply saying the number of players times the average bet - in this
case $10 - times 50 hands per hour equals an hourly betting handle
of $10 times 50 hands, which would be $500.
Q. Now, this particular formula, if you were to give it an
assessment as to whether it's conservative, whether it's generous,
how would you qualify this formula?  On which side does it err?
A. Well, if the average bet size is accurate, it will be
fairly accurate.  The ability of the person watching to identify
the exact amount of money bet, and if the person seeing the amount
of money bet - good example:  Floor staff watching a casino game,
if they're on the job, can come within a very few dollars of the
actual average bet size by a player or by a group of players if
they're betting in the same range.
MR. MARIN: All right, could the next piece of paper be the
next exhibit.  Exhibit 15, are we at?
CLERK OF THE COURT: Exhibit 17.
MR. MARIN: 17, please.
CLERK OF THE COURT: The formula?
MR. MARIN: The formula.
THE COURT: Exhibit 17.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 17: Formula.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN: Q. All right.  Now, you
originally referred to a "percentage of drop" earlier in your
testimony.  Can you tell us what that is?
A. Well, because, in practical terms, in casino operations
it's impossible to establish handle, what is used is what's called
"drop," which is the amount of currency exchanged for chips.  So
that in order to calculate win and hold percentage - hold
percentage being the percentage of currency exchanged for chips
that the house wins, and is characterized as "win-hold percentage"
- that is used rather than the betting handle.  
So, for example, to over-simplify it, on opening a blackjack
game, there is no money in the drop-box; there are chips in the
tray.  The chips in the tray are counted.  That's called an
"opener."  Players arrive at the table and exchange currency for
chips.  The currency is put in the drop-box, the players get the
chips, they begin to play.  
>From time to time during the operation, it's necessary to add
chips to the tray because maybe it's running low.  That's called a
"fill."  
On other occasions, because the house is winning, it's necessary
to take chips out of the tray and take them back to the cage. 
That's called a "credit."  
At the end of the day, when the casino closes, the chips are
inventoried again in the tray.  That's called a "closer."
So in order to calculate the win, we simply take the opener plus
the fills.  Both of those figures represent minus.  The closer plus
the credits are plus figures.  So that the difference between
subtracting the sum of the opener and the fills from the closer and
the credits will equal a plus or minus.  99 percent of the time
it's a minus figure.  That minus figures is what is subtracted from
the drop, the total currency placed into the drop box.
THE COURT: Sorry, could you repeat that last part?  The minus
figure is subtracted from...?
THE WITNESS: The sum of all currency in the drop-box, which is
called drop.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
THE WITNESS: The result of that calculation equals win or
loss.  In the case of a win, you associate a percentage to it by
simply dividing the amount won - win over drop times 100 gives
you the percentage.  Or divide the drop into the win; it's all
the same thing.
MR. MARIN: Q. What I'd like to come back
to, Mr. Sheppard, is this hypothetical percentage of drop that's
used in the industry.
A. The drop is not hypothetical; it is actual currency.  It's
a very precise, exact amount of currency that's counted...
Q. Okay, but do you use a percentage to calculate expected
profits or gain?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes, using the formula I just described will give you the
dollar value of the win or loss, and, in the case of the win, we
calculate the percentage of the drop that the house kept, which, in
the case of blackjack, on average, in the industry is around 15
percent.
Q. Now, moving on to another area, Mr. Sheppard, in operating
a casino, can you tell us if there is any food or drink available
to the players?
A. In all of the casinos that I'm acquainted with, yes.
Q. And can you tell us if there's a cost to those items, cost
to the players?
A. In some casinos, yes, there is; in others, no, there isn't.
Q. All right, and in cases where there is no cost, can you
tell us where you've seen that, please?  Examples of casinos
that...
A. Well, all of the American casinos that I'm acquainted with
provide complementary beverage.  Likewise in Canada, at least the
commercial casinos in Canada.  I'm not familiar with what happens
in the charity casinos.  
Q. Okay.
A. In Europe, the same thing applies, and I emphasize that as
"players."  As far as the food side of it goes, food is not freely
given away.  Food would be given away at no cost through a
complementary program or the house policy on so-called "comps." 
And the value associated with those comps depends on the value of
the player to the casino in terms of how high he bets.
Q. And the complementary drink and the complementary aspect
that you offer to the players:  Why is that offered?  What is
the.....  Your Honour, I can hear - sometimes when I ask questions,
I can hear whispers of answers in the back.  So I would ask that,
whoever they're coming from....
THE COURT: The gentleman in the front row?
MR. MARIN: There's somebody who's answering the questions for
the witness.
THE COURT: Yes, if everyone could stop whispering. 
Particularly, I notice the gentleman in the front row.  If you
have to persist, sir, you'll be asked to leave.
MR. MARIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. MARIN: Q. All right.  Now, the
complementary drink or complementary food in the cases you've seen: 
Why does the industry provide this to players?
A. It's a marketing tool.  There are many forms of marketing,
depending on the type, style, character, whether it's up-market or
down-market in the industry.  It's just another marketing technique
that is used to extend good will and hope for player loyalty at the
property where they're offering more than the next property.
Q. Okay.  Now, in the case of the Casino de Montreal - and as
well using your expertise - when you open up a location, you're
trying to create good will, and what other expenditures would you
normally see associated with that?
A. In terms of marketing?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, there are all the usual things that are stock-in-
trade with any business.  There's advertising, promotional
literature, special events, public events, parties, receptions. 
It's not dissimilar from any other business that is attempting to
attract the public.
MR. MARIN: I believe that's all the evidence, Your Honour.  If
I could just have a moment.
MR. MARIN:  Q. I'm showing you, sir, a
document called "Casino Turmel Blackjack Procedures," prepared June
1993.  I believe you've seen this document before; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. All right, well, if you'll just take a moment to look at
it.
A. Yes, now that I've read this, I have seen this material,
but not in this form.
Q. All right.
A. It's been on a different-looking document, but the
substance of it is much the same.
Q. Right.  Now, the document entitled "Blackjack Procedures,"
various procedures documented on this paper, in your perspective,
how would these procedures correspond to the procedures in the
professional establishment such as the one you run, the Casino de
Montreal?
A. That certainly would be an extremely abbreviated version of
those things that are similar.  The one thing that is unlike what
is in Montreal is those portions of that document that refer to "U-
Bank."
Q. Are you familiar with that?
A. No, I can just read into it, based on what - and this is
only an assumption on my part, that somebody else gets to bank the
game.
Q. Okay.  All right, I see you're a quick reader.  All right. 
Just finally, Mr. Sheppard, has the Casino de Montreal been a
successful enterprise since it opened in October?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the purpose of a casino, in your expertise, sir, what
is the purpose of a casino?  What is the ultimate purpose, the
ultimate goal of a casino?
A. Well, I think there are a variety of reasons that casinos
are operated.  The number one reason is profit, to generate
revenue.
Q. And how is that generated in the game of blackjack?
A. As a result of the house having an advantage over the
player.
MR. MARIN: Thank you, those are my questions.
         **********

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TURMEL:
Q. First of all, I'd like to thank you very much for all this
fine evidence and information.  The two attorneys seated here are
both card-counters and they were nodding all the way, so your
expertise hasn't diminished in any way from 1977.  I do have a
couple of questions, though, and the first one has to do with that
U-Bank table.  In your casino in Montreal, do you allow the players
the opportunity of taking the bank?
A. No.
Q. Now, if you'd had a solid, strong card-counter on your
staff, with the very generous rules that I have where - the point
is, if you'd had someone, a solid card-counter who could beat the
game, would you be prepared to then open up a U-Bank table, would
you think, and allow your card-counter to play against people who
wish to be the bank?  Would you see that as being in any way a
disadvantage, if you let them be the bank?
A. No, we wouldn't permit it.
Q. So you don't allow them to have the bank whatsoever?
A. No.
Q. Would you say that the ability of the players to have the
bank would change the information and numbers that you've given us
here today?
A. Well, if the players became the house, in effect...
Q. Yes?
A. ...they would have the advantage that we now have.
Q. That's right, so if it were shared back and forth - well,
let's take a hypothetical situation, then.  You do come to my
Casino Topaz, which is a private games room - call it a casino if
you will, or not - but you come and, at that point, we sit down to
a card game, blackjack, independent of the rules.  Now, you did
state earlier that there's a substantial advantage from the dealer
going bust and playing last, correct?  Which only he has and the
player doesn't have.  Would you say that it's a substantial
advantage for the player to be able to double down...
A. Well...
Q. ...as an option?
A. ...in certain circumstances.
Q. That's right, but I mean, if the house barred that
option...
A. One cannot say, carte blanche...
Q. But on average, the average player knows his double downs
pretty well, doesn't he?
A. Most do.
Q. Therefore, you would be able to say that it is an advantage
that goes to the player to be able to double down.
A. In certain circumstances.
Q. Which is not available to the dealer, correct?
A. That's true.
Q. Okay, now, I'm trying to compare that with the advantage
the dealer has in going last, compared to a whole bunch of
advantages the player has that the dealer doesn't have.  I have to
show some balance here.  Splitting:  Splitting a pair of eights
from a lousy 16 into two different eight-hands:  Would you say that
is a good option for the player to have?
A. Well, of course, all of the strategy...
Q. Granted.
A. ...of play is contingent upon what the dealer is showing...
Q. Well, no, always split aces and eights, correct?
MR. MARIN: Well, Your Honour, the witness should be allowed to
answer the question.
MR. MARIN: Surrender on a 16, if they'll let you.  But you
don't have surrender at your casino.
MR. MARIN: Your Honour....
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Turmel...
MR. TURMEL: Oh.
THE COURT: ...when you ask a question, it's a good idea to let
the witness finish.
MR. TURMEL: Okay, but he didn't want to make my point.  The
point is...
THE COURT: Well, ask the question and then wait.
MR. TURMEL: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: Q. The pair of eights, the
ability to split that pair of eights is of advantage to the player.
A. Yes.
Q. The dealer doesn't have that advantage.
A. That's true.
Q. Okay, the ability to split - oh, I've done splits, I've
done doubles - the ability to surrender, okay:  Is that, would you
say, of advantage to the player also, an option that the dealer
doesn't have, which can be used to the advantage of the player, but
can't be used to the advantage of the house.
A. Depending upon the skill of the player.
Q. Again, it's an advantage that only the player has, though. 
Surrender.
A. A skilled player.
Q. Fine.  And insurance:  Now again, for the skilled player,
it's still an advantage that the player has that the house doesn't
have.
A. That's correct.
Q. And so my point is, therefore, that you've mentioned one
advantage that the dealer has that the player doesn't have, and
you've now acceded to four or five advantages that the player has
that the dealer doesn't have.
MR. MARIN: He actually said two, Your Honour.
MR. TURMEL: Double down, split, surrender.....
MR. MARIN: The advantage of the dealer.  He pointed to two.
MR. TURMEL: ...and insurance.
MR. MARIN: He's quoting the witness as saying the dealer would
have one advantage.  He actually gave two in his examination in-
chief.  He talked of the skill, as well.
THE COURT: Skill and the bank.
MR. MARIN: And the odds of the game being in favour of the
bank.
THE WITNESS: I think there's just two things, Your Honour,
that I made reference to:  One was the fact that the player must
play first.
THE COURT: Yes?
THE WITNESS: The other goes to the rules of the game.  The
rules of the game for the average player, even the basic
strategy player, still favour the house.
MR. TURMEL: Q. In other words, if one took
the combination of options available to the player and this big
option available to the house, your statement is that the average
player is still .88 percent down.
A. A basic strategy player would be, yes.
Q. Yes, right.  But the point is, there are still - there's
only one advantage...
A. And that's theoretical.
Q. Right, right.  No, empiric.  You know, the computers have
done it.  They've tested basic and said, "This is the disadvantage
if the computer plays it.  So it's absolutely empirical, right?  
A. Well, I don't agree with that.
Q. Wait a minute, now.  Are you saying that the actual
mathematical determination...
A. Oh no, not at all.
Q. ...of basic strategy hasn't been - well, that's all I
asked.
A. No.  
Q. Okay.
A. All I'm saying is the difference between theoretical and
empirical, in my view, is that empirical, to me, is something we
can quantify by seeing happen.  The computers simulate, for
example, a million hands.  We're not going to see a million hands
sitting there in one table.
Q. But we will know its number is absolutely quantified
properly, won't we?
A. That is so.
Q. That's my point.
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So my point is, that's empirically determined.  Okay.  Now,
this advantage, now, that the house has:  It could be a little bit,
it could be a lot, and that's against an unskilled player.  Now you
have the opportunity, you come into my casino in Ottawa, my games
room, which is different from yours, and at that time nobody else
is in the room, by the way, just you - you're the first person in
the door - and we sit down to play blackjack, and I tell you, "By
the way, let's take turns playing blackjack; you take it half the
time and I'll take it half the time, the bank."  Would you say our
game between us - are you getting what I would call a fair game
between us?
A. Sure.
Q. Independent of how big the advantage, even if instead of a
bank we had a gun and the guy with the gun wins, as long as you get
the gun half the time, it's a fair game, right?  Okay.  And
obviously, now, if more people come into the game and they are also
given the same opportunity that you were to play with me - not with
you, now; you must remember that they bring that up that the rules
are funny.  You can play with me and I play with everybody, but you
can't play with everybody.  I was convicted of allowing people to
bank the rest of the table in 1977.  That's why this here.  But
again, my point is that as long as you are getting your chance to
bank me back, do you state that you were getting a fair game?
A. Well, as soon as...
Q. You and me, heads on.  You can be the bank half the time
and I can be the bank half the time.  Are you getting a fair game?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  Same rules apply to everybody else in the room.  Are
they getting a fair game too?
A. Providing it's one-on-one in your description.
Q. That's right.  It's always a contest between myself or one
of my agents and you.  Now, my point is, independent of how many -
like a chess master - independent of how many other people I play
with, are you still getting a fair game?
A. If, for example, seven players sit at the table and you're
the bank, that is not the same as one person playing with one other
person.
Q. So that means that if you're playing with me heads on and
you're getting a fair game...
A. M'hm.
Q. ...and now, all of a sudden, I start playing craps with
somebody else at the same time as I'm playing blackjack with you,
does that change your odds of winning?
A. Not on blackjack.
Q. Okay.  We're playing blackjack and I start playing poker
with someone else, a third person.  Does that change your odds of
winning?
A. No.
Q. And finally, I start playing blackjack with a fourth
person.  Does that change your odds of winning?
A. Are you playing the same hand against them that you're
playing against me?
Q. Does it matter?
A. Yes.
Q. No, it - well, tell me why.
A. Well, because the advantage that the house has is now, for
example, not against one person but against two, three, six, seven,
however many you're...
Q. How does the fact...
A. ...playing against collectively...
MR. MARIN: Let him finish.
MR. TURMEL: Q. How does the fact that
another...
THE COURT: Mr. Turmel...
MR. TURMEL: I thought he had finished.
THE COURT: No.  Please go ahead, sir.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, what's the...
MR. TURMEL: Okay, you had finished.  
MR. MARIN: Well, I don't believe he...
THE COURT: I don't believe he had either.  The question was,
in what way the odds favour the house when you increase the
number of players that are playing the same hand against the
dealer.
THE WITNESS: Well...
THE COURT: I think that was the last question.
THE WITNESS: Well, the advantage of the house against seven
bets is seven times, assuming everybody has bet a dollar.  You
have seven hands.  One of the characteristics is that players
must play before the house.  So you're playing seven players
against one dealer, versus his first example where there was
only one other player playing one hand against one hand, back
and forth.  As soon as the implication arrives where there are
seven players, then there are seven players that now have to
play their hand first, against one hand, rather than against
seven other hands.
MR. TURMEL: Q. So you're playing in first
base, and let's assume that you're a fine basic player.  You're
playing basic.  You're at your .8 percent disadvantage.  Now, the
house has a .8 percent advantage over an average basic player. 
Now, let's assume there are five players instead of just one
player.  What is the house's advantage over the table now?
A. The same for each player.
Q. You just said, a minute ago, it was five times greater, to
the judge.
A. In terms of dollars.
Q. Well, the point is, when a dealer loses, does he not lose
seven times as much?  So that it's not that the advantage to the
house has changed - am I correct? - or is it that the volume, the
size of the bet, has changed?
A. You're correct.  Volume.
Q. But the actual advantage to the house hasn't changed.
A. It's dollars I'm referring to, because...
Q. And I'm referring...
A. ...when I talk about advantage, I talk about profit.
Q. I was talking about the .8 percentage.
A. That doesn't change.
Q. Okay, that's my point.  Now, so you are playing a basic
game with me at a .8 percent disadvantage, if you're basic.  If
you're counting, it'd go the other way.  And we take turns being
the bank, if we wish.  Now, I'm saying, is the fact that another
guy is sitting at the same table as you going to affect your
percentage?  That's my point.  Not...
A. Percentage, no.
Q. So in other words, it doesn't matter how  many people are
sitting at the table with you, it doesn't affect your game
whatsoever.
A. It doesn't affect percentage.
Q. Of your game.
A. Right.
Q. Right, so therefore, in a sense, whether there's another
person playing is mutually exclusive of your results, correct?
A. That's true.
Q. All right, well, that was it.  The point was, therefore,
that if you were getting a fair game with me, heads on, and you're
still getting the identical odds with another guy sitting beside
you, are you then getting the identical odds with a full table
sitting beside you?
A. In terms of odds, yes.
Q. Correct; that's all I'm looking for.  Not money.  Because
if that table of one person has a hot night, I lose so much, but if
the table of seven has a hot night, I lose seven times as much.  So
we both agree that the volume is bigger, but the percentages don't
change; therefore, if you were getting a fair game with me, heads
on, and you were getting a fair game with me with another guy at
the table, and you were getting a fair game with me and a full
complement of people at the other table, my point is, were you
getting a fair game at all times?
A. Based on percentage, yes.
Q. Thank you very much.  And every other person, every other
player in the room, given the condition there was a U-Bank table
where they could go and say, "I want to be the bank against
Turmel," and they'd sit there all night and play me, you know, as
much as they want, given those conditions, that there was really a
U-Bank table there where you could be the bank if you wanted to
have the time, would you therefore say that everybody in the room,
under those conditions, was getting the same fair game that you
were?
A. Providing all things were the same, including the limits.
Q. Thank you very - well, see, the point is, if I gave you the
option of setting your own limits - a poor guy can't afford to fade
me at $30 a shot.  Therefore, in 1977, a judge convicted me because
he said the poor guy can't afford to.  But now that I say only you
and me are playing heads on at stakes that you can pick and afford,
is it not fair to say that you have not only the opportunity to be
bank but you have the financial opportunity to be the bank?
A. Yes, but in terms of bank, one has to take limits into
account.
Q. If you have a $1,000, set a $10 limit.  You can bet $10
against me when I'm bank.  You say, "I can bet $10 against you when
you're the bank."  That's in the rules by the way.  You set your
maximum bet when you're the bank against me.
A. Then it's the same.
Q. So therefore, you were getting a fair game, as was
everybody else in the room.
A. Yes.
MR. TURMEL: Okay, then, sir.  Thank you very much.  I have no
further questions to ask you here.
--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics