"Markers" ... another Mark
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, I was gonna say..I worked in bankrupt /deceased collection for Citi for a year, though it was 30 years ago. It was a very low percentage recovery area. Chapter 7 rules made unsecured debt basically last. The no-asset files were.100 x larger than asset filers, where there was some chance of recovery. And then usually only a small percentage of the balance owed. Part of the reason interest rates on cc are so high. And part if the reason your credit report suffers so long after a bankruptcy. At the time, 8% of all customers were in default (not just late), and that was 30 years ago. I can only imagine the default rate has risen since.
Me: "Hello, professional poker player."
It: "Hello, lend me some money."
Me: "But I thought you were a professional poker player who had won the World Series. Why do you need money?"
It: "Uh, I've been unlucky."
Me: "So you haven't been playing badly, you've just been unlucky?"
It: "Yep, you know how this game can be sometimes. Can you lend me some money?"
Me: "So you've lost, what, forty squillion dollars in the last year because of your bad luck?"
It: "Forty-three squillion, actually. Lend me some goddamn money."
Me: "What makes you think that you'll suddenly stop being unlucky after I lend you this money?"
It: (obscenity; speculations on my ancestry)
Now, I would have this conversation because I'm smarter than a casino. However, that's not saying much, as I have some leftover meatloaf in the fridge that's also smarter than a casino.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNow, I would have this conversation because I'm smarter than a casino. However, that's not saying much, as I have some leftover meatloaf in the fridge that's also smarter than a casino.
Maybe.
But maybe the casino CFO, say, heard about so and so who wound up with $200k in arrears on his markers. The CFO starts to chew out the credit department about it, but is told "the guy had millions. He lost millions to us, we have it all now. Now that he still owes some money, we can and probably will be able to get that too, what with the help of the state. But even if we don't we have already come out way ahead."
The CFO decides to skip chewing them out and decides maybe they aren't so dumb as it seems first blush.
Quote: odiousgambitMaybe.
But maybe the casino CFO, say, heard about so and so who wound up with $200k in arrears on his markers. The CFO starts to chew out the credit department about it, but is told "the guy had millions. He lost millions to us, we have it all now. Now that he still owes some money, we can and probably will be able to get that too, what with the help of the state. But even if we don't we have already come out way ahead."
The CFO decides to skip chewing them out and decides maybe they aren't so dumb as it seems first blush.
Well, in Ted's case, since his game of choice was/is poker, the casino is only getting the rake, while the other players are getting the majority of Ted's burn through.
However, since I did not read the article, I suppose he could have been playing, and losing, at other games at the casino besides poker.......
Quote: KingoftheEyeThis is the exact same as if he ripped off a Wal-mart with a bad check. No difference at all.
If he tried to write a check for $200,000 to Wal-Mart, they would first make sure the check would clear and they would get there money. With the casinos there is a major difference: If the casino is foolish, the government will step in and save them from their own stupidity
But the casino isn't always foolish, they know exactly what they are doing.Quote: TomGIf he tried to write a check for $200,000 to Wal-Mart, they would first make sure the check would clear and they would get there money. With the casinos there is a major difference: If the casino is foolish, the government will step in and save them from their own stupidity
Casino's know poker players can oftentimes borrow large sums from other players or get staked in big games. He probably told them not to worry, because his good buddy Mike Matusow still owed him 1.8 Million (-; (An interesting topic on it's own. What are your thoughts? Any chance a civil court would/could get involved? They had a big weight loss bet/challenge, Ted won, Mike did pay 70k but claimed he was extremely drunk when he made that bet and now refuses to pay the rest)
I'm surprised Ted wasn't able to borrow the money from another poker player to pay off the Wynn(Maybe he has the money but said F'it ) Perhaps we will find out he's also in debt to a few poker players as well?
Any estimates how much he has actually lost in the last few years? Let's not forget he was also paid millions from UB I believe.
It's sad that SOME of them guys made so much money in a short time, but couldn't hold on to it.
Shocked Brunson or Harmon wouldn't lend him. He may have kept putting Wynn off and wasn't aware they were going to file before he got arrested.
Quote: AxelWolf
I'm surprised Ted wasn't able to borrow the money from another poker player to pay off the Wynn(Maybe he has the money but said F'it ) Perhaps we will find out he's also in debt to a few poker players as well?
That would be my guess.
Not "for" the casino, "from" the casino. And what you do with the money is separate from the terms under which you receive it. The fact is that I personally can go to several Las Vegas casinos, sign my name on a piece of paper, and walk out with several thousand dollars. They expect me to gamble with it, and if I don't they might prevent me from drawing similar funds in the future, but in the meanwhile I get that money with no fees and no interest for a period of at least a month before they ask me to pay it back. If that's not a free loan, what is it?Quote: AxelWolfI'm not on team it's a free loan for the casino. Someone could take out a 100k lose it all not pay while someone else could take out a 100k loan and win 100k.
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, I was gonna say..I worked in bankrupt /deceased collection for Citi for a year, though it was 30 years ago. It was a very low percentage recovery area. Chapter 7 rules made unsecured debt basically last. The no-asset files were.100 x larger than asset filers, where there was some chance of recovery. And then usually only a small percentage of the balance owed. Part of the reason interest rates on cc are so high. And part if the reason your credit report suffers so long after a bankruptcy. At the time, 8% of all customers were in default (not just late), and that was 30 years ago. I can only imagine the default rate has risen since.
Ok, I guess I was wrong about the debt. I thought Chapter 13 was more common than Chapter 7 for bankruptcy.
Quote: TomGIf he tried to write a check for $200,000 to Wal-Mart, they would first make sure the check would clear and they would get there money. With the casinos there is a major difference: If the casino is foolish, the government will step in and save them from their own stupidity
Businesses bounce checks much larger than that. My Mom used to be partners in a building supply company. One of her regular customers kept exceeding their line of credit. He finally came in and gave them ten $25,000 checks, to be be cashed one every two weeks. First one bounced and the guy closed up shop leaving dozens of workers unpaid and jobs hald done or even less.
This guy had a long track record and the casinos extended him more credit as time went on. Walmart would have done the exact same.
FROM, yes, but there's a theory that the people almost always lose it all back to the casino anyways. Obviously that's not always the case, but im sure most people do give it all back as they play until it's gone. They probably cycle enough where they should be down the entire amount of the loan. Yes I know people do win with that loan but at some point even they probably give it all back.Quote: MathExtremistNot "for" the casino, "from" the casino. And what you do with the money is separate from the terms under which you receive it. The fact is that I personally can go to several Las Vegas casinos, sign my name on a piece of paper, and walk out with several thousand dollars. They expect me to gamble with it, and if I don't they might prevent me from drawing similar funds in the future, but in the meanwhile I get that money with no fees and no interest for a period of at least a month before they ask me to pay it back. If that's not a free loan, what is it?
Sure there are aome guys use it a a free loan. Obviously it's huge +EV for the casino or they wouldn't be doing it.
Quote: AxelWolfFROM, yes, but there's a theory that the people almost always lose it all back to the casino anyways. Obviously that's not always the case, but im sure most people do give it all back as they play until it's gone. They probably cycle enough where they should be down the entire amount of the loan. Yes I know people do win with that loan but at some point even they probably give it all back.
Sure there are aome guys use it a a free loan. Obviously it's huge +EV for the casino or they wouldn't be doing it.
In and of itself, that can't be +EV for them, because even if they got the money back 95% of the time, it would still be a net loss.
What I think is going on is that gamblers will bet more and go deeper if it's understood that they can always write a check and replenish their funds. THAT would be worth more than the occasional default to the casino.
Wrong. If it comes down to the player borrowing 10k and losing 8k in EV and they collect 10k 95% of the time they make a huge profit especially it it comes down to the players playing or not playing.Quote: JoeshlabotnikIn and of itself, that can't be +EV for them, because even if they got the money back 95% of the time, it would still be a net loss.
Quote: MathExtremistNot "for" the casino, "from" the casino. And what you do with the money is separate from the terms under which you receive it. The fact is that I personally can go to several Las Vegas casinos, sign my name on a piece of paper, and walk out with several thousand dollars. They expect me to gamble with it, and if I don't they might prevent me from drawing similar funds in the future, but in the meanwhile I get that money with no fees and no interest for a period of at least a month before they ask me to pay it back. If that's not a free loan, what is it?
The casino cannot blatantly demands that the marker must be spent at its facility, but it definitely will not extend the “marker” credit if you don’t spend the marker at it gambling tables or slot machines. Therefore, a marker is realistically an interest free loan with a string attaches in a subliminal way, and the string that attaches to the marker can carry an interest in the form of a house edge, and the interest can vary depending on your luck and/or skill.
Quote: monet0412I am too busy to read through all these comments so forgive me if it was already said. This is not news! Ted has been doing this for many years now and everyone in town that has a little knowledge already knows he has been running up markers and borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
Just like sex and alcohol, gambling can be very addictive, and an update to the "marker" loan regulation is badly needed to minimize exploitative or unscrupulous actions by the casino operators or similar lenders.
Due to the addictive nature of gambling, the "marker" law should be updated to make the casino be held responsible when it suspects or knows of its patrons engaging in various "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" activities.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI can't wait to see if Richard Marcus has anything to say about this. He's been very critical about these professional poker players for years by calling them all, from Brunson to Negreanu, thieves and cheaters.
That's pretty rich coming from Richard Marcus. Isn't this the same guy who invented methods of past posting?
Quote: DeucekiesThat's pretty rich coming from Richard Marcus. Isn't this the same guy who invented methods of past posting?
Yeah. I'm critical of him as well and don't believe half his stories. Still fun to read what he thinks about these subjects.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI can't wait to see if Richard Marcus has anything to say about this. He's been very critical about these professional poker players for years by calling them all, from Brunson to Negreanu, thieves and cheaters.
It is not uncommon for the casinos to take advantage of the players and vice versa.
Since it takes two to tango and gambling can be very addictive, if there is even one slightest of suspicion that its patrons are cheaters, thieves or engaging in unscrupulous activities, then the casino has moral and ethical obligation to deny or immediately stop giving marker credit to those patrons.
And since greed is the root cause of all evil, the “marker” law must be revised to for make casino marker providers be held accountable for their greedy behaviors.
Quote: odiousgambityou can't discharge any bad checks you wrote. The Casino Credit system relies on this. It is the same in all states allowing a marker system as far as I know.
It is perfectly understandable why the way the law was written. However, the casino should also be at fault and must share the equal responsibility if it provides credit to known or to suspicious untrustworthy and unscrupulous patrons. The current law allows casino operator taking advantage of helpless and addicted gamblers, and the current law must be updated …
How would you change it?Quote: 777The current law allows casino operator taking advantage of helpless and addicted gamblers, and the current law must be updated …
Quote: MathExtremistHow would you change it?
I don't have an answer, but any revision to the law must be fair to everyone, and it must not make it difficult for responsible patrons to obtain marker credit.
Quote: MathExtremistHow would you change it?
I think under certain circumstances, the markers can just be turned into a civil rather than criminal matter.
It's going to be hard to prove the casino was being unethical. I like this idea: the player fails to make good a marker, well, that's a bad check, and there is a record of that. If the casino allows further markers, then those are automatically a civil matter if uncollected under these new rules. After maybe a year, a new marker could go back to being a criminal matter.
Quote: odiousgambitI think under certain circumstances, the markers can just be turned into a civil rather than criminal matter.
It's going to be hard to prove the casino was being unethical. I like this idea: the player fails to make good a marker, well, that's a bad check, and there is a record of that. If the casino allows further markers, then those are automatically a civil matter if uncollected under these new rules. After maybe a year, a new marker could go back to being a criminal matter.
True, it is hard to prove the casinos being unethical, but just the thought of them can be sued or severely fined would be a catalyst for them to think twice about being unethical or immoral under the legal definition.
If a bank teller or casino employee must report suspicious transactions or money laundering activities, a bartender is not allowed to serve drink to suspected drunken patron, then casino operators should be able to have a system to tightening or deny marker credit to suspected addicted gambler and/or gambler under heavy debt.
Continuing provide marker to a gambler with heavy debt under suspicion of gambling addiction or other suspicious behaviors is similar to continuing serving drinks to a drunken patron or a known alcoholic. The law must written with enough teeth to make casino operators think twice about being greedy, and at the same time it must not create incentive for frivolous lawsuits ...
Quote: 777True, it is hard to prove the casinos being unethical, but just the thought of them can be sued or severely fined would be a catalyst for them to think twice about being unethical or immoral under the legal definition.
If a bank teller or casino employee must report suspicious transactions or money laundering activities, a bartender is not allowed to serve drink to suspected drunken patron, then casino operators should be able to have a system to tightening or deny marker credit to suspected addicted gambler and/or gambler under heavy debt.
Continuing provide marker to a gambler with heavy debt under suspicion of gambling addiction or other suspicious behaviors is similar to continuing serving drinks to a drunken patron or a known alcoholic. The law must written with enough teeth to make casino operators think twice about being greedy, and at the same time it must not create incentive for frivolous lawsuits ...
I really couldn't disagree more with this entire category of blaming the operator for the reckless behavior of its patrons.
Actions have consequences. Personal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood. Don't gamble the rent. Don't drink and drive. Don't take markers that are essentially kiting checks. Don't have unprotected sex. Everything in moderation. Grow the hell up. You have a problem, yeah, I'll be there for you, not to judge you, but to help you dig out of the hole, at least once. But it's your life, for God's sake put on the big boy pants and live like a man. (Not directed at anyone here, just jumping off 777s several posts on this.)
/rant
There's a limit to be drawn, though. If a patron at a bar is sufficiently impaired, that person no longer has the mental capacity to judge whether they are sober enough to drive. There was a recent study that showed your self-evaluated level of drunkenness is more determined by how drunk other people are around you than how much you've actually had:Quote: beachbumbabsI really couldn't disagree more with this entire category of blaming the operator for the reckless behavior of its patrons.
Actions have consequences. Personal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood. Don't gamble the rent. Don't drink and drive. Don't take markers that are essentially kiting checks. Don't have unprotected sex. Everything in moderation. Grow the hell up. You have a problem, yeah, I'll be there for you, not to judge you, but to help you dig out of the hole, at least once. But it's your life, for God's sake put on the big boy pants and live like a man. (Not directed at anyone here, just jumping off 777s several posts on this.)
/rant
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/472219-judging-levels-of-drunkenness
The bartender has a civic and moral responsibility not to let that person get behind the wheel of the car, and that responsibility has been codified as a statutory liability.
Gambling addiction is an actual mental disorder, and someone in the throes of an addiction episode is similarly impaired.
Quote: DSM-5 white paper from NCRGMany scientists and clinicians have long believed that
problem gamblers closely resemble alcoholics and drug addicts, not only from the external
consequences of problem finances and destruction of relationships, but, increasingly, on the inside
as well.
http://www.ncrg.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/white_papers/ncrg_wpdsm5_may2013.pdf
Given the clinical similarities, why should the proprietor of a gambling establishment not be held to similar standards as the proprietor of an alcohol establishment?
Sometimes, your brain isn't right. Whether that's because you're drunk, in the midst of a problem-gambling frenzy, or having an aneurysm, there are definitely situations where normal standards of personal responsibilities do not apply. Did you hear about this case?
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/09/12/the-man-with-the-bleeding-brain#.Mu1yM7D16
^Best thing I've seen online so far this month. Please put THAT on a damn "Welcome to..." road sign.Quote: beachbumbabsI really couldn't disagree more with this entire category of blaming the operator for the reckless behavior of its patrons.
Actions have consequences. Personal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood. Don't gamble the rent. Don't drink and drive. Don't take markers that are essentially kiting checks. Don't have unprotected sex. Everything in moderation. Grow the hell up. You have a problem, yeah, I'll be there for you, not to judge you, but to help you dig out of the hole, at least once. But it's your life, for God's sake put on the big boy pants and live like a man. (Not directed at anyone here, just jumping off 777s several posts on this.)
/rant
Quote: beachbumbabsI really couldn't disagree more with this entire category of blaming the operator for the reckless behavior of its patrons.
Actions have consequences. Personal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood. Don't gamble the rent. Don't drink and drive. Don't take markers that are essentially kiting checks. Don't have unprotected sex. Everything in moderation. Grow the hell up. You have a problem, yeah, I'll be there for you, not to judge you, but to help you dig out of the hole, at least once. But it's your life, for God's sake put on the big boy pants and live like a man. (Not directed at anyone here, just jumping off 777s several posts on this.)
/rant
Great post, but someone will always have a "but".
Quote: beachbumbabsI really couldn't disagree more with this entire category of blaming the operator for the reckless behavior of its patrons.
Actions have consequences. Personal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood. Don't gamble the rent. Don't drink and drive. Don't take markers that are essentially kiting checks. Don't have unprotected sex. Everything in moderation. Grow the hell up. You have a problem, yeah, I'll be there for you, not to judge you, but to help you dig out of the hole, at least once. But it's your life, for God's sake put on the big boy pants and live like a man. (Not directed at anyone here, just jumping off 777s several posts on this.)
/rant
Aside from that, we're talking Nevada here, an immense company town. Casinos can, if they wish, meet the patron at the door of the casino, grab him, turn him upside down, shake him until all his money falls out, scoop it up, toss him to the ground, and throw a buffet comp ticket onto his prostrate body. The fact that they go through a SLIGHTLY more protracted process than that is due more to their marketing strategies than any moral or legal compunctions, which do not exist in Nevada Casino World.
That said, if you walk into a casino and gamble, you're the one responsible for the act and the outcome. Yes, the casino is chuckling evilly to itself as it allows the degenerate gambler to cash a check for ten grand (the screams of the card counter being beaten senseless downstairs being barely audible). The casinos take advantage of the foolish, the stupid, and the weak. That's how they roll--it's what they do. But morally, they're no different from, say, tobacco companies. They provide a product that people want. The responsibility for that product being harmful rests with the consumer, not the provider. Ted Forrest could play 3/6 limit for the rest of his life if he wants to stay in action on his own dime. But he's enabled by all the people who are (or at least, have been) loaning him money. Are they to blame for his addiction? Hell no.
Casinos are among the most evil, greedy, amoral institutions on the planet (surpassed only by Sonic drive-ins and Tupperware dealers), but unlike many such institutions, we can avoid them if we wish. Caveat emptor, which means "Let the guinea pigs beware." We can't have society develop means to protect the foolish and the stupid from themselves. That's futile, unless we can also somehow stop them from reproducing.
So IMO they certainly don't need and do not deserve the special considerations afforded to them by the state of Nevada. The fact that the legislature effectively allowed Nevada district attorneys' offices to become for-profit casino debt collectors with arrest powers is disgusting and reflects a system that has long been almost exclusively controlled by casinos. This brings predatory lending into a new stratosphere.
yes, in no recent cases that I know of, do I not also feel that a whiff of such might have done a world of good. I also lament this every time.Quote: beachbumbabsPersonal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood.
I just feel it isn't the whole story.
wow, he said that? do you have a link for that handy? love to have itQuote: cwazySteve Wynn said on an earnings call during the depths of the recession that their allowance for doubtful credit accounts was 50% - they believed that half of the money they had given out to credit players was noncollectable. Yet they still continued issuing credit because it was profitable for them to do so even with such low collection rates.
you have put it very wellQuote:Casinos know that most "money" from markers is almost immediately lost to them in the casino. Regardless of the amount of the marker, in most cases, the only thing that a casino is actually out when a marker goes unpaid is the amount they paid the minimum wage dealer during the time that player was there, and the actual net cost of whatever comps they gave to that player during their trip (the cost of a maid to clean their room, wholesale cost of any food/beverage they consumed, etc.).
So IMO they certainly don't need and do not deserve the special considerations afforded to them by the state of Nevada. The fact that the legislature effectively allowed Nevada district attorneys' offices to become for-profit casino debt collectors with arrest powers is disgusting and reflects a system that has long been almost exclusively controlled by casinos. This brings predatory lending into a new stratosphere.
+1Quote: cwazySteve Wynn said on an earnings call during the depths of the recession that their allowance for doubtful credit accounts was 50% - they believed that half of the money they had given out to credit players was noncollectable. Yet they still continued issuing credit because it was profitable for them to do so even with such low collection rates. Casinos know that most "money" from markers is almost immediately lost to them in the casino. Regardless of the amount of the marker, in most cases, the only thing that a casino is actually out when a marker goes unpaid is the amount they paid the minimum wage dealer during the time that player was there, and the actual net cost of whatever comps they gave to that player during their trip (the cost of a maid to clean their room, wholesale cost of any food/beverage they consumed, etc.).
So IMO they certainly don't need and do not deserve the special considerations afforded to them by the state of Nevada. The fact that the legislature effectively allowed Nevada district attorneys' offices to become for-profit casino debt collectors with arrest powers is disgusting and reflects a system that has long been almost exclusively controlled by casinos. This brings predatory lending into a new stratosphere.
Quote: odiousgambit
wow, he said that? do you have a link for that handy? love to have it
I want to say it was either in a late 2008 or mid 2009 earnings call. You would have to go back on their IR website and listen to the earnings calls during that period. They are actually quite entertaining. Steve Wynn loves to hear himself talk, and few CEO's will audibly enjoy chomping down on a snack while on their earnings conference calls. No one could ever accuse the guy of not being full of himself.
Quote: cwazyI want to say it was either in a late 2008 or mid 2009 earnings call. You would have to go back on their IR website and listen to the earnings calls during that period. They are actually quite entertaining. Steve Wynn loves to hear himself talk, and few CEO's will audibly enjoy chomping down on a snack while on their earnings conference calls. No one could ever accuse the guy of not being full of himself.
Thanks.
I am trying to find the transcript at least, so stay tuned
in the meantime, found this article on $400k owed in markers by Charles Barkley in 2008. He paid up when he got a taste of district attorney muscle
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/21/wynn-says-he-was-obligated-try-recoup-debt/
$40,000 fee to the DA to fund the office prosecuting gambling debts. I'm so sick of government and think it would be better off with random selected leaders in legislatures.Quote: odiousgambitThanks.
I am trying to find the transcript at least, so stay tuned
in the meantime, found this article on $400k owed in markers by Charles Barkley in 2008. He paid up when he got a taste of district attorney muscle
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/21/wynn-says-he-was-obligated-try-recoup-debt/
Quote: beachbumbabsI really couldn't disagree more with this entire category of blaming the operator for the reckless behavior of its patrons.
Actions have consequences. Personal responsibility is the hallmark of adulthood. Don't gamble the rent. Don't drink and drive. Don't take markers that are essentially kiting checks. Don't have unprotected sex. Everything in moderation. Grow the hell up. You have a problem, yeah, I'll be there for you, not to judge you, but to help you dig out of the hole, at least once. But it's your life, for God's sake put on the big boy pants and live like a man. (Not directed at anyone here, just jumping off 777s several posts on this.)
/rant
Quote: DrawingDead^Best thing I've seen online so far this month. Please put THAT on a damn "Welcome to..." road sign.
Quote: BozGreat post, but someone will always have a "but".
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAside from that, we're talking Nevada here, an immense company town. Casinos can, if they wish, meet the patron at the door of the casino, grab him, turn him upside down, shake him until all his money falls out, scoop it up, toss him to the ground, and throw a buffet comp ticket onto his prostrate body. The fact that they go through a SLIGHTLY more protracted process than that is due more to their marketing strategies than any moral or legal compunctions, which do not exist in Nevada Casino World.
That said, if you walk into a casino and gamble, you're the one responsible for the act and the outcome. Yes, the casino is chuckling evilly to itself as it allows the degenerate gambler to cash a check for ten grand (the screams of the card counter being beaten senseless downstairs being barely audible). The casinos take advantage of the foolish, the stupid, and the weak. That's how they roll--it's what they do. But morally, they're no different from, say, tobacco companies. They provide a product that people want. The responsibility for that product being harmful rests with the consumer, not the provider. Ted Forrest could play 3/6 limit for the rest of his life if he wants to stay in action on his own dime. But he's enabled by all the people who are (or at least, have been) loaning him money. Are they to blame for his addiction? Hell no.
Casinos are among the most evil, greedy, amoral institutions on the planet (surpassed only by Sonic drive-ins and Tupperware dealers), but unlike many such institutions, we can avoid them if we wish. Caveat emptor, which means "Let the guinea pigs beware." We can't have society develop means to protect the foolish and the stupid from themselves. That's futile, unless we can also somehow stop them from reproducing.
Boiler plate statement about gambling responsibly and providing 1-800- Bea-chbu(mbabs) or 1-900-Joe-shla(botnik) numbers are fine to normal functioning brain. So preaching self responsibility to a normal functioning brain is perfectly fine. (Should there be a "self responsibility" preaching to casino operators also?)
And I have no issue with treating failure to dissolve marker credit as bad check violation.
And also I don’t see anything wrong and unethical/immoral with traditional marketing or other promotional gimmick to entice or seduce consumers to use purchase products or services.
The issue that concern me is the exploitation of the consumers by taking advantage of their incapacitate brains due to their addiction, or their dire circumstance during a natural disaster.
Addiction is a serious mental disorder, and preaching self responsibility to an addict is like preaching to a choir. Good luck with that.
The way the law is written couple with the district attorney acting as a collection agency where it has absolute power to incarcerate will only encourage exploitation by the gambling establishments and their employees. The law must be change, and the first step in changing the law is removing the district attorney office's role as a collection agency.
While a simple preaching of self responsibility can be helpful to many gamblers, but it does nothing in stopping unethical and immoral practices by the gambling establishments.
Do you have any "self responsibility" preaching to casino operators?
Playing in a casino poker room. Player is cut off from free drinks by management. This was around 12:30 am. Casino closed at 2 am. Player allowed to continue playing poker until closing time.
Appears management was concerned about being liable if he had an accident driving home. But allowed him to gamble. Later I
regreted not asking for a table change or calling gaming.
Quote: cednets67Just wondering. Anybody else see a similar situation.
Playing in a casino poker room. Player is cut off from free drinks by management. This was around 12:30 am. Casino closed at 2 am. Player allowed to continue playing poker until closing time.
Appears management was concerned about being liable if he had an accident driving home. But allowed him to gamble. Later I
regreted not asking for a table change or calling gaming.
I personally witnessed a friend of mine lose $1.2 million at a Bellagio blackjack table while he was completely drunk. The waitress cut him off hours before he finished playing - too drunk to be served, but apparently not too drunk to play 3 blackjack spots @ $15k every round for 6 hours. I tried to get him to leave but he wouldn't. I don't even see how the 12 $100,000 markers he signed in that condition were enforceable, and my friend never tested it, but he should have.
Casinos just don't care. If gaming had been called, they'd have simply said "he looked fine to us". They want the money any way they can get it, as fast as they can get it.
Quote: cwazyI personally witnessed a friend of mine lose $1.2 million at a Bellagio blackjack table while he was completely drunk. The waitress cut him off hours before he finished playing - too drunk to be served, but apparently not too drunk to play 3 blackjack spots @ $15k every round for 6 hours. I tried to get him to leave but he wouldn't. I don't even see how the 12 $100,000 markers he signed in that condition were enforceable, and my friend never tested it, but he should have.
Casinos just don't care. If gaming had been called, they'd have simply said "he looked fine to us". They want the money any way they can get it, as fast as they can get it.
And if your friend ever decides to take Bellagio to court, the video surveillances and witnesses (dealers, pit bosses, other players and waitress) can be persuasive in convincing the jury into not believing Bellagio's "he looked fine to us" viewpoint.
(Casino employees may be under great pressure put upon them by their employer, and their career/job may be in great jeopardy, but when push comes to shove, I doubt that they will lie under oath).
Quote: 777I doubt that they will lie under oath).
You must be kidding.
Quote: cwazyYou must be kidding.
Do you know any "he who shall not be named" in mind?
Quote: 777Do you know any "he who shall not be named" in mind?
Listen to any Gambling With an Edge episode with Bob Nercessian as the guest. He will describe multiple incidents where casino employees blatantly lied on the stand, even in cases where there was video evidence directly contradicting their testimony.
Quote: cwazyListen to any Gambling With an Edge episode with Bob Nercessian as the guest. He will describe multiple incidents where casino employees blatantly lied on the stand, even in cases where there was video evidence directly contradicting their testimony.
Wow!
I have strong empathy for those who are under tremendous pressure by their employers because their career, future and family to great extent depend on their employers' paychecks. If these employees are not Trumper, I still have a strong belief that they would not lie under oath.
Mr. "he who shall not be named" do you have any comment on Cwazy's referenced to Bob Nercessian?
At least that would be honest. But seriously, I think that's immediate grounds for contempt of court.Quote: rudeboyoiI wonder what happens when they ask "do you swear to tell the truth..." and you respond "no".
Quote: NRS 50.195 Penalties for disobedience.
1. Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness may be punished as a contempt by the court. In a civil action, if the person so refusing is a party, the court may strike any pleading on the person’s behalf, and may enter judgment against that person.
Quote: MathExtremistAt least that would be honest. But seriously, I think that's immediate grounds for contempt of court.
What if you say "yes but under duress".
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that matters. Also, it's probably incorrect -- you might be feeling "duress" in the non-legal sense, but the legal term "duress" means unlawful coersion. Except in court, the law gives a judge the right to compel testimony so it's not actually "duress" because it's not unlawful. Almost by definition, not following the rules of the court -- including the rules about swearing to provide (and subsequently providing) honest testimony -- is contempt. You don't get to effectively say "I dispute this court's authority" and not have the court take it as an affront when, by law, they do have that authority. You have a Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't excuse you from promising to be honest in the first place.Quote: rudeboyoiWhat if you say "yes but under duress".
