Casinos should have the right to bar perceived advantage players from playing

Thanks Wizard, better question.
What do the casinos gain from barring perceived advantage players?

I think they gain nothing, they may feel like they gain something so an advantage player does not win more than a non-advantage player

Theres a case awaiting ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court to determine if Indiana casinos can ban APs. A counter here sued the Grand Victoria after he was banned, and so far he has won at at the Appeals court level.

Quote: ruascott

Theres a case awaiting ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court to determine if Indiana casinos can ban APs. A counter here sued the Grand Victoria after he was banned, and so far he has won at at the Appeals court level.

That happened in Atlantic City.
But, the player has to sue?
That is not right.

Do the casinos really think they gain ANYTHING from banning advantage players.
IF the answer is yes, what are they gaining?
a higher bottom line???

I believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Quote: Headlock

I believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Funny me, I thought Civil Rights laws in the 60s had already put that notion to bed. I've seen its been creeping back into the political discussion again.

Quote: ruascott

Funny me, I thought Civil Rights laws in the 60s had already put that notion to bed. I've seen its been creeping back into the political discussion again.

Stupid you. If you ask me to perform a service for you, I have every right to decline.

Quote: Headlock

I believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Sounds like to me refuse service to anyone walks the line of discrimination.
By saying yes, Then they can discriminate against anyone because they believe that someone may be smart enough to win money from them.

You are not smart enough to count cards, play as you will.
You are smart enough to count cards we (the casino)will say you cant play here any more.
That is the definition of discrimination. And that is not right.

But, the poll is closer than what Id thought.

You are modest enough to wear clothes, play as you will.
You are are not modest enough to wear clothes so we (the casino) will say you cannot play here any more.
That is the definition of discrimination. And that is not right.

(I agree with Headlock, obviously.)

Then I do agree. anyone can refuse service to anyone at any time.

so then the only reason why the casino would ban a suspected advantage player is the thought that they may lose more money to them.And that could hit their bottom line.

We're not talking about barring a certain age, sex, race, religion. So what does this have to do with discrimination?