Someone played my chips at L'Auberge du Lac!

About 4 years ago over Memorial Day weekend, I went down to L'Auberge du Lac casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana. I was playing $50 PGP Forutne and had about $1,000 in chips at the table.

I needed to get up from the table, so I asked the dealer to cover my chips and that I would be right back. Since it was Memorial Day, the casino was asses-to-elbows crowded and there were several people waiting for a seat at the single PGP table they had (why do casions only have one PGP table?!?).

I got back fromt he bathroom about five minutes later, and some guy was playing my chips! I quickly complained and told them this was the case. The guy asked me how sure I was, and my imimediate response was to tell them to check the video.

Long story short, they agreed, and the guy that started playing my chips was kicked out. The casino offered me $1,000 in chips as a "settlement." Now, I didn't count my chips before I left, but this sounded a little light by about $100. So I told them, whether it's more or less money, I wanted the amount of chips that I left on the table.

It went up a level or two and eventually some (I'm guessing) higher-up said, you can take the $1,000 or you don't have to, but that's what we're offering. When I insisted, they determined that I was too drunk to play any more and gave me a 24-hour ban. I had been drinking but I don't think I was too drunk, and I didn't raise my voice once, and I never lost control. I know enough about the casino power structure to know that you can't debate the bouncer!

They did comp my room, dinner, and breakfast, and would have comped the rest of the weekend, but I just got out of there the next morning.

My questions are:

1. Since I wasn't sure of the dollar amount of my chips (it could have been $900 or $1,100 or something different), was I in the right to ask for the exact amount? If so, why would the casino not give it? I'm pretty sure that cameras can see individual chips and it wouldn't have been that hard, and that's what makes me suspicious.

2. Casinos have the right to refuse service, so why even make up the "you're too drunk" excuse? They don't need a reason to kick me out.

3. Should I have reported this to anyone?

FWIW, besides that little incident, the rest of my LdL experience couldn't have been more positive.

1) I think you were right to ask for the exact amount. $100 is a day of action for some. However, it was very busy, and for security to even review the tape was a big thing. While the camera can see small details on the table,it is more likely that a wider angle was being used, which prevented them from counting the exact amount.

2) There needs to be a "cause" for the ban. "Too drunk" allows flexibility of interpretation, and the effects cannot be measured at a later time.

3.) If you were certain of the total, you could report the shortage to the Louisiana State Police's, "Gaming Enforcement Division" via a casino supplied, "Patron Dispute Form" Of course doing this does not make you any friends in Louisiana.


It is always good practice to count your chips before leaving the table. You can confirm the number with the dealer, (whether they want to accept your count or not). In any case, doing it on the table puts the count on tape in case it needs to be reviewed later.

Ah, I've discovered Nareed's twenty sixth Law:

27) NEVER leave your chips unattended at the table. Dealers can't be trusted to keep them from being used or stolen.

Thank you.


I wonder, what if you take most of your chips and leave a token amount to mark your place. After all, under crowded conditions what you care about is having a place to play when you get back. If the casino's not crowded, you can then simply leave with all your chips and return at your leisure.

I ALWAYS count my chips before I leave them on the table. I also have a policy of never leaving black or green chips on the table at all.

Any assertion by the casino that they lacked the camera angle/resolution to ascertain exactly how many chips were in your stack is complete bullshit. They can count the dust mites on the felt with those cameras.

The "you're too drunk" crap is sooooo typical of the way casinos treat their customers. The casino made an egregious error by allowing someone else to play your chips. They are liable. It sounds like they tried to cover that up the way casinos so often do, with bullying and bluster.

All the above said, I would have taken the $1000 (QUICKLY), and then filed a report with the Louisiana Whatever-It-Is to compel a thorough examination of the surveillance tapes, and a further reimbursement of any additional amount due you (and of course, be willing to refund the casino the difference if the tapes show that your stack was LESS than $1000).

The way this was handled---a baseless assertion that the surveillance tape didn't give them enough information, then the lying and bullying afterward---would make me never set foot in this casino again. They were both dishonest and unprofessional---two things that pretty much preclude my doing further business with ANYONE.

Yes, security cameras CAN zoom in and pick up incredible details, but that's only if the surveillance people actually hit the button to zoom in.

I.E. The cameras ARE watching everything, BUT are NOT zoomed in on anything, UNLESS surveillance is suspicious of something.

---

Yeah, I would have taken the $1,000.

In the future, color up, leave $5 behind to hold your seat, and tell the dealer how long you expect to be gone.

Quote: Nareed

Ah, I've discovered Nareed's twenty sixth Law:

27) ....

26? 27?

LOL!!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

26? 27?

LOL!!

12) There's no such thing as luck
14) Despite law 12... etc etc etc

That's why the twenty sixth law is numbered as 27.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yes, security cameras CAN zoom in and pick up incredible details, but that's only if the surveillance people actually hit the button to zoom in.

I.E. The cameras ARE watching everything, BUT are NOT zoomed in on anything, UNLESS surveillance is suspicious of something.

That's irrelevant. The cameras capture the same number of pixels whether or not the lenses are zoomed in. Thus, no information is lost by not having the camera zoomed in at a given moment: the tapes can always be replayed and THEN zoomed in, with no less detail than if a live camera had been zoomed in.

Quote: mkl654321

That's irrelevant. The cameras capture the same number of pixels whether or not the lenses are zoomed in. Thus, no information is lost by not having the camera zoomed in at a given moment: the tapes can always be replayed and THEN zoomed in, with no less detail than if a live camera had been zoomed in.

Not exactly. The images are captured with the same number of pixels, but an optical zoom is also employed allowing those same pixels to concentrate on a smaller area of the table. While it is true that the system has extraordinary ability, it must be actively used to take full advantage. Otherwise, you get a wide shot that needs to be digitally enhanced. Instead of looking at a 12 million pixel shot of your chip stack, you are looking at a 2,400 pixel section of the million, since the camera was pulled out to cover the general action at three tables. The shot shows boxy images of green and black, but you would not be able to tell if one black chip was missing.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

1. Since I wasn't sure of the dollar amount of my chips (it could have been $900 or $1,100 or something different), was I in the right to ask for the exact amount? If so, why would the casino not give it? I'm pretty sure that cameras can see individual chips and it wouldn't have been that hard, and that's what makes me suspicious.

It primarily depends on what kind of cameras the casino are using, and how much resolution they have. Unfortunately, I do believe that at a PGP table, the cameras are more focused on the hands being played, rather than the monies.

I was playing at a casino in Las Vegas where PGP was very new. The dealer had to be told several times that she needed to spread the cards completely apart, as the cameras were not close enough, not focused enough, or did not have enough resolution to see the value and suits of the cards if they were not completely spread out. It was very clear that security was actively watching the game, but it was also clear that they were much more worried about the incorrect setting of hands and/or incorrect loss/push/win situations.

As I've stated in other threads, my own personal business has several cameras. They vary in capabilities, and I use ones with more resolution in areas where it is needed, and those with less resolution in places where I only need to see general things. Much like the casinos, I will never, ever, let any individual see anything on any of my cameras without a subpoena. It's just bad business to give up any portion of your business to scrutiny by outside eyes. I know it doesn't sound right, but I have to agree with the casinos on this part. The last thing you want is to have to SHOW that your cameras aren't capable of seeing something. This opens you up to all sorts of problems.

As far as accepting the money, I think I would have done so. It was enough to complain about it, and I understand your frustration. However, I think that the difference in amount was only 10% ($100). Further, you also stated that they comped your room, dinner, and breakfast, which probably could have added up close to the $100 anyway, plus if they would have comped the rest of the weekend, I'm sure it would have.

I think it's also good that people know they need to keep an eye on their own chips. As a dealer told me this past weekend, there isn't anybody more concerned with your chips than yourself. It's nice to tell a dealer that you're leaving to use the bathroom, but if that dealer is switched out before you get back, the new dealer has no idea who you are.

I like the idea of grabbing the majority of your chips, and leaving just a few as the marker that you are coming back.

Quote: Ayecarumba

...The images are captured with the same number of pixels, but an optical zoom is also employed allowing those same pixels to concentrate on a smaller area of the table. etc, etc.....

I agree, assuming they have optical zoom, which I hope and expect they do.

You reminded me though -- don't you just love those TV shows where the crime lab recovers a cell phone digital image of someone, zooms in on the person's eye, picks up the reflection of a car, then zooms on in to read the license plate number? To heck with the number of pixels in the image, whose cell phone has a lens that has that kind of resolution! My Nikon digital SLR wouldn't have a chance of doing that!