original passage: In the early 1990s, Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo believed that casino roulette wheels were not perfectly random, and that by recording the results and analysing them with a computer, he could gain an edge on the house by predicting that certain numbers were more likely to occur next than the 1-in-36 odds offered by the house suggested. This he did at the Casino de Madrid in Madrid, Spain, winning 600,000 euros in a single day, and one million euros in total. Legal action against him by the casino was unsuccessful, it being ruled that the casino should fix its wheel.
original sentence: Legal action against him by the casino was unsuccessful, it being ruled that the casino should fix its wheel.
sentence2: Does it sound like the court have decided this case in a manner similar to the way that insider-trading cases are decided, that is, under the principle that as long as information is publicly available, however arcane it might be, it is fair to use it to one's advantage?
sentence1: In the early 1990s, Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo believed that casino roulette wheels were not perfectly random, and that by recording the results and analysing them with a computer, he could gain an edge on the house by predicting that certain numbers were more likely to occur next than the 1-in-36 odds offered by the house suggested. This he did at the Casino de Madrid in Madrid, Spain, winning 600,000 euros in a single day, and one million euros in total. The casino succeeded in legally banning him from any future roulette games due to his unfair advantage after the casino proved to the court that a physical wheel can never be made perfectly random.