Ben Affleck backed off at Hard Rock for counting

Ben Affleck Booted From Hard Rock For Counting Cards

I bet I'll spot him here in the Detroit casinos soon as he'll be here all summer filming Batman.

I winder how much his press agent paid security to 86 him. Remember in today's world, it's only bad publicity if they spell your name wrong.

lol -- security arranged for a car service to take him back to his hotel. That is a pretty polite back-off.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

lol -- security arranged for a car service to take him back to his hotel. That is a pretty polite back-off.

Lol! I missed that part the first time I read the article. God forbid if they piss off a celeb.

Quote: TMZ

Counting cards isn't technically illegal, but it can get you kicked out of a casino

I hate this typical, misinformed sentence. They say it's not "technically illegal," implying there is something immoral about it. There are a lot of things that aren't "technically illegal" -- like walking down the street.

Ben should come to Atlantic City, where a more enlightened judicial system has ruled that casinos can't discriminate on the basis of having a brain.

Quote: ams288

Lol! I missed that part the first time I read the article. God forbid if they piss off a celeb.

Heck, getting him off the premises and away from cameras or microphones where the background shows the Hard Rock is what they would want. Let him call the Papparazi from his hotel, not from their casino. They ain't fools.

Was it a stunt? I doubt it. I think they just wanted to bounce him for winning.

Hard Rock has some sweaty piggies up in that surveillance room..

He was put in OSN about a week before this. Hardrock is a heavy OSN property.

Affleck should file a lawsuit. He's certainly got the money and the fame to have a chance at winning. Imagine if in a few years, advantage play is protected by the Nevada Supreme Court, all because of this incident.

deleted

Quote: sodawater

Affleck should file a lawsuit. He's certainly got the money and the fame to have a chance at winning. Imagine if in a few years, advantage play is protected by the Nevada Supreme Court, all because of this incident.

And then all non-shoe games suddenly become "shuffle after each hand", with every table having two (or more) decks at the ready.

Even if they were to change the rules to "ties go to the house" (and bring back 3:2 or even 2:1 for blackjack "to make up for it"), I doubt that most of the people who play blackjack in Vegas would turn away.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The only way the law will change is if the voters decide on it.

Couldn't the state's supreme court take the case and rule on it?

Quote: ThatDonGuy

And then all non-shoe games suddenly become "shuffle after each hand", with every table having two (or more) decks at the ready.

Even if they were to change the rules to "ties go to the house" (and bring back 3:2 or even 2:1 for blackjack "to make up for it"), I doubt that most of the people who play blackjack in Vegas would turn away.

Everyone always brings the doom and gloom when this issue comes up. The fact is, winning at blackjack is difficult. Most people can't do it. Any countermeasures taken against counters that slow up the game will almost always cost the house more money than it saves.

I think a huge case legalizing advantage play in Nevada would be a boom to business. Every half-smart, half-dedicated player would try his hand at it, and most of them will be losers longterm.

Advantage play has been explicitly legal in AC for decades, and AC's blackjack games still make plenty of money. Blackjack has been the most profitable table game in AC every single year since the Uston decision.

Wonderful thoughts that will NEVER happen.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

And then all non-shoe games suddenly become "shuffle after each hand", with every table having two (or more) decks at the ready.

Yeah, exactly.

I say, let them back off who they want, and keep the games good. Let them catch me if they can. Game on!

Quote: Hunterhill

He was put in OSN about a week before this. Hardrock is a heavy OSN property.

What does OSN stand for?

deleted

Quote:

FYI, Affleck is a well-known card shark -- back in 2001, he reportedly amassed $800,000 in blackjack winnings (at the Hard Rock no less) by playing three $20,000 blackjack hands at once.

Ben Affleck is a rich guy for sure. $800,000 is a lot of money to many of us but looking at the ratio, ($800,000/($20,000x3)) = 13 max bets, which is not very impressive at all.

Quote: Pokeraddict

What does OSN stand for?

Oregon Surveillance network. It started out with tribal casinos in Oregon. Now it is used by over 300 casinos. It basically took the place of the Griffin agency.

Do they really need the OSN to recognize Ben Affleck?

He wasn't backed off, he was banned from bj activity at Hard Rock for life.

Potato, potato i know ;)

Quote: sodawater

Affleck should file a lawsuit. He's certainly got the money and the fame to have a chance at winning.

Not in Nevada, or most states other than New Jersey. He's got no basis for a suit. Nevada casinos can kick out winning gamblers, or anyone really.

Quote: MathExtremist

Not in Nevada, or most states other than New Jersey. He's got no basis for a suit. Nevada casinos can kick out winning gamblers, or anyone really.

Well, yes, but the only reason that they can is because no court has ever found that they can't. Anything not prohibited is allowed, after all!

However, I think that it is better for skilled players in general if casinos continue to be allowed to do so. I would rather have good games that I can beat until I'm kicked out than bad games that I am free to play.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Well, yes, but the only reason that they can is because no court has ever found that they can't.

Actually, yes they did. Everyone is aware of the New Jersey case brought by Ken Uston vs. Resorts International, but Uston also filed a case in Nevada against Hilton for a similar blackjack backoff. He was represented by Oscar Goodman, and he lost in summary judgment because the court found no affirmative requirement that a casino allow anyone to play:

Quote: Uston v. Hilton Hotels, 448 F.Supp. 116 (1978)

Uston has asserted that the omission by the State of Nevada to take any affirmative action to alleviate the discrimination against card counters, in light of Nevada Revised Statutes 463.151, is akin to approval of same, and therefore state action. NRS 463.151 requires the exclusion from gaming establishments of certain persons named on a list compiled by the Nevada Gaming Commission for various reasons, one of which is not card counting.2 In essence, Uston argues that since the State of Nevada has enacted measures that require the exclusion of a limited class of undesirable persons, of which Uston is not a member, it thereby undertook the affirmative duty to compel the admittance of all persons, such as Uston, who were not named on the list compiled by the Nevada Gaming Commission. Such an argument strains logic. It is the judgment of this Court that NRS 463.151 gives rise to no affirmative obligation by the State of Nevada to compel gaming establishments to admit persons thought to be card counters. Since no duty exists, the failure to prohibit private action is not state action.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1978564448FSupp116_1537.xml/USTON%20v.%20HILTON%20HOTELS%20CORP.

Added, for Dan's benefit, that the court held card counting is perfectly fine:

Quote: id., footnote 1

With respect to the game of "21", a card counter is a person that attempts to know every card both in and out of the deck, thereby enhancing his chances of placing a favorable wager. This practice is not considered cheating, nor is it illegal.

:)

Quote: MathExtremist

Actually, yes they did. Everyone is aware of the New Jersey case brought by Ken Uston vs. Resorts International, but Uston also filed a case in Nevada against Hilton for a similar blackjack backoff. He was represented by Oscar Goodman, and he lost in summary judgment because the court found no affirmative requirement that a casino allow anyone to play:

I'm aware of this. It's a summary judgement. It was never appealed. It doesn't form precedent. Technically, it's still an open legal issue which can be settled by case law.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I'm aware of this. It's a summary judgement. It was never appealed. It doesn't form precedent. Technically, it's still an open legal issue which can be settled by case law.

The ruling is certainly precedent for any case brought on a similar theory. Why wouldn't it be? And if a backed-off card counter (Affleck or someone else) were going to sue, but weren't going to sue under the theories brought by Uston, what theories would you suggest would have a chance at surviving summary judgment? If you were in Affleck's shoes and you were dead-set on finding a reason to sue the casino on the grounds that your banning was improper, what would be your argument(s)?

Foxnews says that he was spreading up to 100k. The balls.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/05/02/source-ben-affleck-banned-from-playing-blackjack-at-las-vegas-hard-rock-hotel/

deleted by author (error due to being drunk at the time)

Quote: MathExtremist

The ruling is certainly precedent for any case brought on a similar theory. Why wouldn't it be? And if a backed-off card counter (Affleck or someone else) were going to sue, but weren't going to sue under the theories brought by Uston, what theories would you suggest would have a chance at surviving summary judgment? If you were in Affleck's shoes and you were dead-set on finding a reason to sue the casino on the grounds that your banning was improper, what would be your argument(s)?

The NJ case is precedent too. The issue was never really settled in Nevada or elsewhere. Uston just gave up the issue and unfortunately died young.

I reject the idea that Nevada casinos can throw anyone out for whatever reason they want. That's not how public businesses should operate in the United States. If you are open for business to the public, you shouldn't be able to practice intellectual discrimination -- i.e. you only want dumb customers. The matter has not yet been settled by a high court in Nevada and is ripe for a good case to come along.

The argument I would use is intellectual discrimination, which is explicitly illegal in NJ and many European gambling jurisdictions.

If you're Affleck, you're in a perfect position to challenge the casinos on this basis. You're rich, famous, a movie star, beloved. No one can push him around, and he could probably turn the entire case, win or lose, into a movie if he wanted to.

Quote: ahiromu

Foxnews says that he was spreading up to 100k. The balls.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/05/02/source-ben-affleck-banned-from-playing-blackjack-at-las-vegas-hard-rock-hotel/

"Hollie McKay" is doing a heckuva journalism job here:

Quote: Hollie McKay

The high-rollers tables where Affleck was playing blackjack was reportedly infiltrated by security after he was caught “counting cards” – a gambling strategy that often refers to obtaining a sufficient count on the number, distribution and high-card location of cards in trick-taking games such as contract bridge or spades in order to optimize the winning of tricks. It’s not technically illegal, but heavily frowned upon by casinos.

and

Quote: Hollie McKay

According to Radar Online, an all-points bulletin has been issued to Las Vegas’ most prominent casinos in the region accusing the passionate gambler of using “perfect basic,” a common introductory term for card counting.

How do these people get these high-profile journalism jobs without the ability to perform the most basic research?

It seems that the head of Game Protection for Wynn/Encore allowed Affleck to continue playing despite his playing perfect Basic Strategy and his bet spreads from 100 dollars on one spot to playing two spots at ten K each. This was on April 22nd so he must have been playing elsewhere as well but only the Hard Rock took any action much less the ultimate action of a lifetime ban.

I've briefly watched Ben play a couple of times. His basic strategy was very good but I wouldn't call it perfect. I have no idea what his betting spread was because, as reported, he would jump his bet from one modest hand to three hands at table max. The casino had no problem with that.

Quote: 1BB

. The casino had no problem with that.

Shows how whimsical it can be. Different policies per shift, different interpretations, different actions taken. I'm sure nobody but a top executive made the decision to ban him, but it seems top executives at other casinos made decisions too and failed to take any action against him at all.

He was in the high roller room but his mere presence in the casino probably brought in and retained some of the players.


NOTE: The recent purchase of a large slice of the locals market by the casino may indicate a change in their perceived demographics. The casino recently contracted with the PT pubs and will be rewarding PT customers with points and PT related events at the casino.

deleted

Quote: sodawater

The NJ case is precedent too. The issue was never really settled in Nevada or elsewhere. Uston just gave up the issue and unfortunately died young.

I reject the idea that Nevada casinos can throw anyone out for whatever reason they want. That's not how public businesses should operate in the United States. If you are open for business to the public, you shouldn't be able to practice intellectual discrimination -- i.e. you only want dumb customers. The matter has not yet been settled by a high court in Nevada and is ripe for a good case to come along.

The argument I would use is intellectual discrimination, which is explicitly illegal in NJ and many European gambling jurisdictions.

If you're Affleck, you're in a perfect position to challenge the casinos on this basis. You're rich, famous, a movie star, beloved. No one can push him around, and he could probably turn the entire case, win or lose, into a movie if he wanted to.

The court rejected the NJ case as precedent and found the facts different. NJ is so highly-regulated, they reasoned, that failure to regulate card counting was a tacit admission thereof. That same logic fell in NV because the statute regulating the exclusion list was held to be not the sole means by which a casino could exclude a patron.

If you want to initiate suit, however, I'm not sure Affleck's is the best case for doing it. He, like Uston, was simply counting cards and betting with the count. In order to definitively answer the question, I'd think you would need to set it up differently. This whole process is going to cost some money, both in legal fees and in the setup below:

Step 1: You sit down to play in the seat next to 3rd base with an obvious spread of (say) $5-$100, no cover, and an inverted count. An "inverted count" is simply flipping the sign on the count, so 2-6 = -1 and T-A = +1. This will have the effect of making the player's theoretical results significantly worse than normal. You'll be betting $100 in strongly negative situations, and only betting $5 in positive situations. You can use the "poker-player" persona, serious and concentrating, to make it obvious that you're counting.

1st hypothesis: the casino will recognize you're the world's worst card counter and not back you off. If they're on top of it, they'll recognize you're not a threat. They'll probably be laughing in the pit thinking how badly you've mixed things up.

Step 2: Your friend sits down next to you at 3rd base. He doesn't act as if he knows you just to avoid both of you getting banned at this point. Ideally, your friend has never played blackjack before, and will swear to that in court, so he uses a basic strategy chart and cannot count cards. However, he sizes his bets according to $105 - X, where X is your current bet. So if you bet $5, he bets $100. If you bet $100, he bets $5. Now, without counting himself, his bets are 100% correlated to the count.

2nd hypothesis: your friend will be backed off. It's okay if you're backed off too, but preferably you'd be able to continue to step 3.

Step 3: After the next shuffle, de-invert your count and continue spreading $5-$100 according to the proper count.

3rd hypothesis: you will be backed off.

After step 3, you have a fact pattern that could be used to demonstrate that the casino recognized that you were counting but didn't kick you out until your play posed a threat to them, and moreover that they kicked out someone who wasn't counting simply because their play was too good for them. I think that's a more complete pattern than the typical "card counter gets kicked out" story. Based on my reading of prior NV cases, this still wouldn't win a suit, but at least it'd definitively settle the question.

Without counting, black jack is just another casino game. It will loose it's popularity as more and more people get booted out.

deleted

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'd rather get booted playing a winning game than to be allowed to stay as a sucker playing a losing game.

Good for you, but I fear you are in the minority and soon the game will have a sign at the table: Ploppies Only. Well, almost.

With gambling being the primary industry for the state of Nevada there will be few court decisions that are adverse to the industry. Oh sure, torts such Rent a Cop stuff may result in adverse verdicts but there will simply not be a judicial decision that makes all the casinos bleed.

deleted

Quote: MathExtremist

The ruling is certainly precedent for any case brought on a similar theory. Why wouldn't it be?

My understanding is that only published decisions of appellate courts form precedent. That's how it works in CA, anyway. A trial judge is free to disregard the opinions of a different trial judge if he or she disagrees with their interpretation of the law.

Quote: zippyboy

deleted by author (error due to being drunk at the time)

I think that all drunken posts should be kept around in perpetuity for our continued amusement.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

My understanding is that only published decisions of appellate courts form precedent. That's how it works in CA, anyway. A trial judge is free to disregard the opinions of a different trial judge if he or she disagrees with their interpretation of the law.

It's not binding precedent, but stare decisis still applies. I don't believe the basic facts in the hypothetical Affleck case would be any different than they were in Uston, and there's no affirmative requirement the case be heard de novo, so the prior court's ruling would certainly inform the ruling on this case.

Quote: sodawater

Quote: TMZ

Counting cards isn't technically illegal, but it can get you kicked out of a casino

I hate this typical, misinformed sentence. They say it's not "technically illegal," implying there is something immoral about it. There are a lot of things that aren't "technically illegal" -- like walking down the street.

Ben should come to Atlantic City, where a more enlightened judicial system has ruled that casinos can't discriminate on the basis of having a brain.

But they can shuffle the shoe whenever they want, take away rooms and match play etc.

Quote: MathExtremist

It's not binding precedent, but stare decisis still applies. I don't believe the basic facts in the hypothetical Affleck case would be any different than they were in Uston, and there's no affirmative requirement the case be heard de novo, so the prior court's ruling would certainly inform the ruling on this case.

While you're right that it could inform the ruling, the basic facts need not be different for a different ruling. The fact that it's not binding means that a different judge could simply make a different ruling based on a different interpretation of the law.

There was a situation here in CA a few years ago (admittedly it was traffic court) where people getting some sort of automated tickets (I think that they were red light cameras?) were claiming that they were being denied the right to confront their accusers. Some judges were sympathetic to this claim and dismissing the charges en masse, and some were not and were finding the people guilty. Someone even appealed a guilty verdict and won, but apparently the place where you appeal these tickets is not technically an appellate court (I won't pretend to understand why) so no binding precedent was ever formed. Since there was no binding precedent, each judge was just going by their own interpretation. Eventually they just changed the law, which I found a little anticlimactic.

Red light cameras are great money makers, they catch even a slightly over the limit driver ... and they are well known to increase road accidents. Its a pure money machine for the city though. Some judges didn't like the technology and its effect and tried to nullify such tickets particularly since a car being towed above the speed limit would receive a ticket and nonsense like that.

I remember the early days when they would mail the ticket to your house. Along with a picture of you behind the wheel, and a woman who was not your wife, snuggled up against you.

This totally makes up for Gigli.

This is the plot for those who don't know about this movie---Gigli-2003(14A)- The violent story about how a criminal lesbian, a tough-guy hit-man with a heart of gold, and a mentally challenged man came to be best friends through a hostage.

Quote: JoePloppy

This totally makes up for Gigli.

This is the plot for those who don't know about this movie---Gigli-2003(14A)- The violent story about how a criminal lesbian, a tough-guy hit-man with a heart of gold, and a mentally challenged man came to be best friends through a hostage.

It must be Gigli cuz jam don't shake like that

Quote: darkoz

It must be Gigli cuz jam don't shake like that

I've been looking for an excuse to say that for ten years now