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

Quote: Headlock

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

That is not the same thing as having a retail type business open to the public, which you can then selectively choose who you will allow in.

I'm still trying to determine who's ever been banned for gambling, with verifiable documentation other than "I've been banned because I'm an advantage player and I beat the pants off those guys" or "I heard so-and-so was banned for counting cards". Is there any proof, or do we just take someone's or someone's friend's word for it because of perceived reputation and that's all there is to it.

I myself want to see it to believe it. I'll say it again, no one can be banned from a casino or casino game without it being in writing. If the casino holds someone for the cops under the trespassing policy, they have to be able to show that they issued the "offender" something that proves he was aware of the ban. This isn't the '60's. Everything is based on CYA these days.

Quote: Headlock

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

BTW, I agree this doesn't have anything to do with discrimination. I was just responding to your comment that businesses can refuse to do business with anyone they like, for any reason. That's actually not true.

Also, I voted that casinos should have the right to ban players.

Quote: JerryLogan

I'm still trying to determine who's ever been banned for gambling, with verifiable documentation other than "I've been banned because I'm an advantage player and I beat the pants off those guys" or "I heard so-and-so was banned for counting cards". Is there any proof, or do we just take someone's or someone's friend's word for it because of perceived reputation and that's all there is to it.

I myself want to see it to believe it. I'll say it again, no one can be banned from a casino or casino game without it being in writing. If the casino holds someone for the cops under the trespassing policy, they have to be able to show that they issued the "offender" something that proves he was aware of the ban. This isn't the '60's. Everything is based on CYA these days.

Well, as I said, there's a guy here in Indiana that has a case in front of the Supreme Court because he was banned. The casino admits in court that they banned him, and are arguing they had the right to do so. All the documentation is available for anyone that would be interested.

I think "banning" in this sense means that they refuse to deal cards to the guy once they've spotted him. I don't know if they took it to the "trespassing" level. It even went as far as the Governor commented on it, said he supported the guys right to count and didn't think the casino should be able to ban him.

CLICK HERE

That is an interesting case. Does Hyatt run the gaming there or just the resort? I can imagine that if they lose at the state supreme court level it would be in the Nevada casinos interest to make sure the case is not elevated to the US Supreme Court.

Quote: progrocker

That is an interesting case. Does Hyatt run the gaming there or just the resort? I can imagine that if they lose at the state supreme court level it would be in the Nevada casinos interest to make sure the case is not elevated to the US Supreme Court.

I believe its Hyatt. Its actually run by a company called HGMI Gaming, but they are somehow tied to Hyatt. They only manage a few properties, and they are all connected in some way to Hyatt.

So if Hyatt loses at the Indiana Supreme Court, elevates it to a US court and loses again, wouldn't that mean that no (non-tribal) casino could enforce 'backing off' anyone from blackjack (except cheaters, of course) until a reverse decision?

Quote: progrocker

So if Hyatt loses at the Indiana Supreme Court, elevates it to a US court and loses again, wouldn't that mean that no (non-tribal) casino could enforce 'backing off' anyone from blackjack (except cheaters, of course) until a reverse decision?

Good question. I assumed that this would just be a state ruling. I don't see how the US Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over state gambling regulations.

Is the vote close because we have a lot of casino personnel on this site? Or jealous gamblers?

Quote: ruascott

Good question. I assumed that this would just be a state ruling. I don't see how the US Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over state gambling regulations.

Sixth article of the Constitution...the Supremacy Clause. This is exactly how all state level anti-abortion and anti-sodomy laws got struck down by Supreme Court decisions on state law cases originating in Texas. Once the Supreme court deems a state law unconstitutional then the state law dominoes fall...at least that is my understanding, which is admittedly limited in the Constitutional Law realm.