Casino Fined For Making Error--In The Players' Favor!

Quote: bigfoot66

The point is that no one is perfect, and over the course of 10 years, each casino would expect to make, say, 25 errors like leaving the 10's in the spanish game. Therefore each casino would have about $25,000 in silly fines (IMO) each year. Since this is a cost that each casino must bear, prices will be higher than were there no such fines.

But why? Suppose, the government has come to its sense and stopped imposing those silly fines? Would each casino decide to lower its prices by $25k per year because of that? Why would they do that? Do they hate money?

Assuming that they were in a competitive market they would have to. I will not be able to convince you of this but economic theory predicts it. By your logic Walmart cannot possibly exist as they offer remarkably lower prices than their competitors, No company would ever offer a sale, and prices would never fall. The downward pressures on prices are just as powerful as the greed of the firm's owner.

Quote: bigfoot66

The downward pressures on prices are just as powerful as the greed of the firm's owner.

Of course they are! You are arguing against the point that was never in dispute. All I am saying is the downward pressures on prices are there regardless of the government fines. In other words, the prices are always as high as deemed useful by the business. All other things equal, if there were no government fine, there is no reason the prices would be lower, the business would just make more profit keeping prices the same.

The OP cuts both ways, 14 YO in a Casino is a fine. Playing SP21 in a manner against the rules is a fine. If the Casino is not held legally responsible for errors, what protection/recourse do you have as Customer? NONE sez I, arrrr.

Quote: 98Clubs

The OP cuts both ways, 14 YO in a Casino is a fine. Playing SP21 in a manner against the rules is a fine. If the Casino is not held legally responsible for errors, what protection/recourse do you have as Customer? NONE sez I, arrrr.

I do think that 14 year olds should be allowed to gamble, but I was not attempting to defend that position here.

Quote: bigfoot66

I do think that 14 year olds should be allowed to gamble, but I was not attempting to defend that position here.

To address this question, I created a new poll thread:
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/8236-minimum-age-to-gamble/

The point bigfoot is trying to make is that absent of those fines, competition would force casinos to lower their house edges, or provide more services, absent of fines for minor (or any) mistakes. I think this a true statement, so long as consumers "demand" it. (They don't have to actually demand it, but they have to show preference for looser casinos, as opposed to tighter ones). The actual decision to pass the savings on to consumers or not is up to the individual casino management, but there'd be a tendency towards doing so, once cheaper or self sustained (without taking payments from casinos) private regulation agencies were set up, and competing themselves.

About whether I'd trust private business over the state, the answer is an obvious (to me) yes. Not that I'd trust any specific business that much more, but I know that at least business has competition, whereas government generally has little competition, and when it does, it's generally still incompetent. (EG: I could easily go to AC, or Pennsylvania casinos, so I'll go where the best comps and lowest HE is. This hasn't really made AC any better, and the regulations set up by the state are , IMO, a major cause)

And you can probably tell by my mindset that I voted no, they should not be fined by the state. Although it may not be bad if they refunded some players' losses, or if private agencies had some sort of audit process. (I'm not an entrepreneur, so don't ask me to try to imagine one up haha) At very least, they could just fix the mistake and move on, saving some money that I don't think needs to be going to fuel a self serving bureaucracy.

EDIT: Just realized this thread's a month old. My mistake.

Quote: ahiromu

First off, your link isn't working for me.



That's what I thought when I first read it (the other casinos part, people playing on other tables were getting what they expected and deserved). On the other hand, the money should not go towards the gaming commission/state (whoever gets it) but it should go to the other casinos who, if anyone, lost business because of this.

That's playing devil's advocate though, I would have been happy to hear there was absolutely no fine as well.

I'm okay with some of the money going to the state. I think half should go to 800-BETS OFF or something similar. That's what's happened to unclaimed money at the house I work. Once I guy that had banned himself was playing poker and won a bad beat jackpot over $10K. He knew he couldn't collect the money, and would be fined so he made up some lie about getting his ID and left. All the bad beat money went to 800-BETS OFF.

Quote: Boney526

About whether I'd trust private business over the state, the answer is an obvious (to me) yes. Not that I'd trust any specific business that much more, but I know that at least business has competition, whereas government generally has little competition, and when it does, it's generally still incompetent. (EG: I could easily go to AC, or Pennsylvania casinos, so I'll go where the best comps and lowest HE is. This hasn't really made AC any better, and the regulations set up by the state are , IMO, a major cause)

I'm glad to see this topic revisited. As far as private regulators go, I had a discussion about this with my friend the other day. He told me that I was an idiot and that it would never work because the greedy regulators would be paid off and blah blah blah. Anyway it occured to me that we I already rely on a private regulator for picking restaurants....YELP! Yelp reviews tend to be very helpful and act as a regulator. I don't go to places with bad Yelp reviews and I also use the site to determine what I should order in a lot of cases. Best of all, we don't have to pay for the service.

The thought never occurs to people what a Private Regulating agency is, and how it's different from government regulating agencies.

If a private regulation agency (like YELP) gets paid off, there's no huge negative consequence. YELP isn't actually in charge, so only it's customers would be affected, rather than everybody who eats at a restaurant. And if corruption such as that was exposed, then YELP would lose credibility, and most likely go out of business.

But if a government official is paid off, and corrupted, most people would "expect" that. If the individual involved in corruption is exposed, then they get rid of the individual, but the agency is still in tact.

Which leads to the question, is it really any different? Do government agencies have an incentive to destroy themselves (since they aren't a business, I won't say go out of business) if they are corrupted, or ineffective? The obvious answer is no. Neither Private corporations, nor government agencies have an incentive to die out if they are unnecessary or corrupt. But private agencies don't have a choice, they either compete, and do well, or they go bankrupt. Government regulation agencies don't go broke, because they don't operate a business model, they simply take money from tax payers and exist.

I can't think of anything more susceptible to corruption than publicly funded, and government operated, regulation agencies.