Must a Casino Take Your Bet?

Say you're at MGM, and they have a $10K max bet limit.
You've just had a lucky streak and are up $40K. You
want to bet $9K on red. Does the casino legally have
to take your bet? I've heard of them shutting tables
down to get out of it, but can they say "Nope, here's
your money back, we won't take your bet."

Quote: EvenBob

Say you're at MGM, and they have a $10K max bet limit.
You've just had a lucky streak and are up $40K. You
want to bet $9K on red. Does the casino legally have
to take your bet? I've heard of them shutting tables
down to get out of it, but can they say "Nope, here's
your money back, we won't take your bet."

Sure. Isn't that what happens to card counters every day when they're backed off?

Quote: EvenBob

but can they say "Nope, here's
your money back, we won't take your bet."

Absolutely!
Hell, I only wanted to lay $25.50 (The pay is $17) against a point of 5 at craps, and they refused to book the bet.
With table games in a casino, you have to remember, those are THEIR games.

Of course a casino can refuse to book your bet... whether they would or not is a different story, and I think it would be different for each supervisor/pit boss/manager etc.

In your hypothetical, a guy's feeling "lucky" and wants to place a 9k bet where the max is 10k. There will be supervisors who are out there who are just as superstitious and will say "no bet" because the guy has been lucky. There will be others who will gladly take the bet, no questions asked, since they know they have a 5% edge on the bet (assuming a double-zero wheel).

Unless they have reason to believe there is cheating going on, or the chips are fake or there is something that doesn't seem right, I believe it's in the casino's best interest to allow the bet. Some casinos claim this proudly (like Horseshoe), while others see 9k as a mere drop in the bucket (like Bellagio). But walk into Casino Royale and try it, even if they had a 10k max, and chances are they will say "no deal."

Edit: Since you said MGM, I would believe they would allow it, unless they had reason to believe you were cheating or something else.

Quote: rdw4potus

Sure. Isn't that what happens to card counters every day when they're backed off?

Kind of, but they don't usually slide your bet
back to you. They may tell you to only bet
the table min, but thats different. What I'm
asking is if the bet has been placed, and its
a legal bet, can they slide it back to you. I
don't think I've ever seen it happen.

I know they can refuse to pay a bet. Richard
talks about in his book how he was refused
payment several times because cheating was
suspected.

Quote: EvenBob

Say you're at MGM, and they have a $10K max bet limit. You've just had a lucky streak and are up $40K. You want to bet $9K on red. Does the casino legally have to take your bet?

I believe that casinos operate under the same principal that any business is allowed to choose their customers as long as they don't operate according to racial, ethnic, or gender rules (with certain exceptions on gender). Legally they are not throwing you out for card counting, they are just exercising their rights.

But in the situation you are describing, the casino would be operating under superstition. I can't imagine any sensible organization blocking you out for a winning streak. On the contrary, most place want you to keep on playing so that when you lose the money it isn't to one of their competitors.

A casino can at anytime push your bet out of the circle and refuse you service. And its all legal.

It kind of doesn't make sense. If I'm at Best Buy
& pay $2000 cash for a TV, a manager can't come
up & give me my money back and tell me I can't
buy a TV there. Can he? If you're not cheating in
a casino, how can they tell me I can't place a legal
bet, it has to be some kind of discrimination.

Quote: pacomartin

But in the situation you are describing, the casino would be operating under superstition. I can't imagine any sensible organization blocking you out for a winning streak. On the contrary, most place want you to keep on playing so that when you lose the money it isn't to one of their competitors.

As I mentioned in my post, I don't think the ORGANIZATION would be superstitious... however I've seen PLENTY of supervisors sweat the money because somebody is on a hot streak. As a result, a SUPERVISOR or PIT BOSS might make that decision.

Quote: EvenBob

It kind of doesn't make sense. If I'm at Best Buy
& pay $2000 cash for a TV, a manager can't come
up & give me my money back and tell me I can't
buy a TV there. Can he? If you're not cheating in
a casino, how can they tell me I can't place a legal
bet, it has to be some kind of discrimination.

No he cant because in your description the transaction has already taken place. However if you go into best buy to buy a tv, at any time before the transaction a manager can decide to not do business with you as long as its not for the obvious race gender etc..

Quote: rainman

No he cant because in your description the transaction has already taken place. However if you go into best buy to buy a tv, at any time before the transaction a manager can decide to not do business with you as long as its not for the obvious race gender etc..

Thats a slippery slope. I don't know under what circumstances
BestBuy would refuse to sell you something if you had the money.
If they did refuse you, it seems to me you would have some kind
of legal recourse. It has to be the same in a casino. They can't
just pick and choose who they let gamble, without some kind of
legal ramifications, if the person isn't breaking any of the rules.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats a slippery slope. I don't know under what circumstances
BestBuy would refuse to sell you something if you had the money.
If they did refuse you, it seems to me you would have some kind
of legal recourse. It has to be the same in a casino. They can't
just pick and choose who they let gamble, without some kind of
legal ramifications, if the person isn't breaking any of the rules.

BestBuy could deny a sale as long as it wasn't discriminatory against a protected class. They very rarely would choose not to. Card counters, or gamblers in general, are not a protected class, so they can be discriminated against, or in this case not served.

Quote: winmonkeyspit3

BestBuy could deny a sale as long as it wasn't discriminatory against a protected class. They very rarely would choose not to.

This is very true, but it takes a LOT of documentation to prove that it wasn't based in discrimination. I work for a retail company, and the only people we bar from our stores (outside of thieves) are people who have a history of bad returns, phony returns and consistently ripping us off. Even then, it takes about 30-40 reports with proof before they issue the banning notice. Once they do though, you step foot inside the store and you go to jail...

Quote: Tiltpoul

Even then, it takes about 30-40 reports with proof before they issue the banning notice. ...

That I can understand. But you're sitting there, put nine $1K
chips on red, the dealer calls it out and the pit comes over
and says "Nope nope nope,we won't take that bet. Sorry."
You ask why and they say what? We don't have to tell you
why? Its true we have a $10K max bet, but thats really
meaningless, we don't have to take any bet if we don't
want to. Sounds like discrimination to me, against lucky
players.

Quote: EvenBob

I don't know under what circumstances
BestBuy would refuse to sell you something if you had the money.

My story has to do with Wal-Mart. I was in the market for a television after my house got broken into and my previous television stolen. I went to Wal-Mart to purchase a new TV. Because of the situation, I was somewhat desperate to have a TV NOW as I'm a TV junkie and can't live without it. (Sadly, that's actually partially true.)

Anyway, the first Wal-Mart was "out of stock" on all televisions. "Out of stock" is in quotes for a reason. I had the representative call another Wal-Mart store and they confirmed that they had televisions in stock. I drove to the second Wal-Mart. A nice female representative there went back into the back of the store, and came out with the television I wanted on a cart. At this point, a manager appeared and informed me that they could not and would not sell me the television.

I won't get into the huge amount of discussions that carried on at this point. The core of the matter was that Wal-Mart was having a sale starting on Sunday. That particular day was a Friday. As such, all the televisions that they had would be going on sale on Sunday, and so none of them were available for purchase on Friday, even at pre-sale prices.

In other words, Wal-Mart did intentionally choose to not sell me something, even though I had the money, and was prepared to pay in cash.

Ultimately, any business can choose to not do business with an individual, for almost any reason, other than those protected by law (such as discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity). "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service." Why should I be denied service just because I don't like to wear shoes?

As a business owner myself, I have on occasion refused to do business with someone. I had one lady call the cops because I told her she was not welcome and her business was not wanted. The police were nice enough to show up and explain to her that I wasn't required to take her business for any reason. In other words, I don't have to sell things to her just because she wants to buy something. (Incidentally, I hear the card counter stories of being read the trespass act and barred from a casino. How do I go about finding out what the "trespass act" is so that I can use it on people I want to leave my establishment?)

Ultimately, however, I'm in the business of selling things in order to make money, so arbitrarily barring customers makes no real amount of sense. I only do it with a person is particularly bad for my business anyway, and so I see no harm in making them leave. A casino should have the same outlook: all bets are great bets, since all bets carry a house edge. However, I can also see where a casino might just be afraid of that guy on a lucky streak and tell him to hit the streets.

Quote: Tiltpoul

This is very true, but it takes a LOT of documentation to prove that it wasn't based in discrimination.

In my experience, it's the opposite. In a previous job, I worked for a private investigator, and he was hired a lot by an attorney that liked to sue companies who purportedly did something that was based in discrimination. It became obvious that it was exceedingly difficult to prove that somebody was doing something discriminatory. That it took LOTS of documentation to prove discrimination.

It seems to me that if a casino chose to not accept bets from, say, Hispanic people, then the casino would have to refuse all bets from all Hispanic people in order for there to be "proof" that the casino was performing discrimination. On the other hand, if the casino chose to not accept bets from a few Hispanic people, and their reasoning for this action was not based on the fact that they were Hispanic, I would think the onus of proof would be on those few Hispanic people to make a claim that their bets were denied based upon their ethnicity.

Likewise, if, as in the OP, the casino was selectively choosing to not accept bets from "lucky" people, then this would have to be the case for ALL lucky people ALL the time. If even one person came forward and said, I'm a lucky person and the casino took my bets, then you couldn't state definitively that the casino was discriminatory against lucky people.

Now, you could state that the casino did in fact choose to not accept that one particular bet from that one particular lucky person. But that's not discrimination. That's just a stupid casino.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats a slippery slope. I don't know under what circumstances
BestBuy would refuse to sell you something if you had the money.
If they did refuse you, it seems to me you would have some kind
of legal recourse. It has to be the same in a casino. They can't
just pick and choose who they let gamble, without some kind of
legal ramifications, if the person isn't breaking any of the rules.

It depends on the point at which a contract to sell you something (goods or services) is made.

Under UK law (very different, I know) the price marked on a TV in a shop is "an invitation to treat". This means it's not binding that must sell you, but that they are offering the good for sale at that price (inviting offers). Until money is offered to the seller and accepted, the seller can decide to remove the sale. With the sale of goods act, the seller has to sell at the labelled price or less IF they sell it at all. Thus mislabelled goods at a too cheap price do not have to be sold at a wrongly labelled price.

Promotional advertising material though is different, and you can't as easily withdraw the offer. Plus online transactions have the legal binding at the point of the company accepting your money, even with an error in the price.

Functionally, most companies will honour the price on the good, unless it a egregious mistake. However, I worked for one record store and had stand up arguments with one customer insisting on his right to buy a 24.99 CD box set for the labelled price for 4.99. He lost that one. I refused his money. If I had taken his money, then too bad, so sad for me.

So... it depends at which point the bet is "booked". Is it on placement? On "no more bets"? On the spin starting?

But companies CAN pick and choose who they sell something too... they are normally in their best interests not to play silly buggers. I'm not sure there is any legal ramifications for a casino that refused your 9 grand bet... if it was done straight away. Of course if they said no more bets, let the ball settle THEN decided they weren't taking it, it would appear they accepted the 'contract'. In between.... I am Not a Lawyer....

" But in the situation you are describing, the casino would be operating under superstition. "

I have seen a casino shut down a 3CP table after 2 big hits. they were afraid another big hit would look bad on the monthly
report. Table was kept close 5 day including a weekend.

Quote: buzzpaff

I have seen a casino shut down a 3CP table after 2 big hits. they were afraid another big hit would look bad on the monthly report. Table was kept close 5 day including a weekend.

I've not seen that, but I did see a situation at Rhythm City in Davenport, IA on 3CP. There was ONE guy at the table, he was playing table max of $50 on the PP and the Ante/Play (this was before 6-card bonus and progressive and stuff). The paytable was the 40-30-6-3-1 table. He hit a straight flush. It took a call to surveillance, then a supervisor verification to pay it out ($2000 + 50 + 50 + 250 for 2350). Again, he was the ONLY person at the table and it was dealt from a Shufflemaster machine (old school).

They changed BOTH sets of cards after the hit. After about 10 minutes, they started play up again, still him by himself. Within 30 minutes, he hits ANOTHER straight flush, same amounts (which he was flat betting). SAME EXACT PROCEDURE. Call surveillance, call supervisor, pay out, change cards! 30 frickin' minutes later!!!

THAT is a superstitious casino. There was virtually no way he was cheating, and they only change cards out on big bets, not tiny ones. I'm pretty sure that would be the type of casino that wouldn't book that big bet.

Quote: Tiltpoul

SAME EXACT PROCEDURE.

I can't speak for that place, but that's also procedure for here. It doesn't matter if it hit 8 times in a row, or hasn't hit for 8 years, every time it hits there must be a review, verification, sometimes card change if we want to, etc. It's not sweat or superstition, it's just procedure.

Quote: Face

I can't speak for that place, but that's also procedure for here. It doesn't matter if it hit 8 times in a row, or hasn't hit for 8 years, every time it hits there must be a review, verification, sometimes card change if we want to, etc. It's not sweat or superstition, it's just procedure.

Okay, I actually get the verification part through surveillance, but the changing cards thing is purely superstition. If they had reason to believe the guy is cheating or marking cards and that it would make a difference, then maybe... but the size of a bet shouldn't make a difference about changing cards. Sure, it may be a written procedure, but it's written with a fear of superstition.

" Okay, I actually get the verification part through surveillance, but the changing cards thing is purely superstition. I"

John Scarne once put 6 decks of cards on a table and dared a group of poker players to pick out the deck that was marked.

After several hours the players were mad at John Scarne as they were sure not one deck was marked.

He then proceeded to read all 6 decks by looking at the back of the cards.

So changing cards after a big hit is not superstitious. Just good business practice.

Quote: buzzpaff

" Okay, I actually get the verification part through surveillance, but the changing cards thing is purely superstition. .

In roulette they change dealers and ball sizes. At Hard Rock
I saw them change dealers and balls three time trying to
stop a guy on a run. It didn't work. They finally closed the
table and the guy cashed out and left. He was pissed & went
to another joint to play.

"They can't
just pick and choose who they let gamble, without some kind of
legal ramifications, if the person isn't breaking any of the rules."

EvenBob they do this all the time.They come over push your bet out of the circle and say we don`t want your action.They don`t tell you why they just say it`s a management decision.The only rule we were breaking was that we were winning,they had no clue as to how we were winning.