The Adventures of MDawg II

I got the transcript of the April 23, 2026 hearing where these new regulations were adopted, but it doesn't answer the question.

What it does establish is that the wording of (i) was deliberate. Deputy AG Somps specifically corrected it to read “a negotiable instrument made payable to the patron,”

“I do want to correct a typo that's contained in Regulation 5.0472I where the word ‘payment’ is located or currently written. That should be replaced with the word ‘payable,’ so that entire provision would read, ‘a negotiable instrument made payable to the patron.’”

and the Commission then adopted that exact language.

So immediately before adoption, the draft apparently read:
“a negotiable instrument made payment to the patron”
which is grammatically nonsensical. He characterized the change as a typo correction, not a substantive change in the meaning of (i).

But there is a separate and much more interesting drafting change I mentioned above: the earlier February 5 version apparently used:
“a government or employer issued negotiable instrument”

whereas the final version became:
(h) A government entity; or
(i) A negotiable instrument made payable to the patron.

That is the substantive evolution worth investigating. The April 23 transcript only explains payment → payable; it does not explain why the earlier issuer-based limitation (“government or employer issued”) became the much broader-looking payee-based language (“made payable to the patron”).

And nothing says who must purchase the instrument, who must be the remitter, or that it must be funded from the patron's personal account.

So, as written, an LLC cashier's check made payable to ME and endorsed by me to the casino appears to fall within (i).

Whether Gaming intended that result is another matter. The transcript doesn't say.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

OK I get why a casino might not want to take corporate funding because of the potential of that kind of dispute, so why don't they just say "We don't accept any kind of corporate funding or credit?" What do they need legislation for?

Unless it's the kind of thing where one of the big players wants to implement the policy, but they're afraid a competitor with more risk tolerance is going to take all of that kind of action from them if they do, so they used their influence in the government to make everyone else do the same.
link to original post

The transcript also sheds some light on this.

It doesn't say that casinos pushed Gaming to adopt the rule because they were afraid of losing corporate-funded players to competitors.

What it does say is that this was developed jointly by Gaming and the casino industry over the better part of a year, through an AML working group involving casinos throughout Nevada. Gaming describes the purpose as addressing AML concerns, and specifically describes 5.047 as imposing “restrictions on business entities funding patrons' wagering activities.”

Chair Dreitzer also said the objective was to put “compliance over commerce.”

So apparently Gaming didn't want this left to individual casino policy and varying levels of risk tolerance. They wanted an industry-wide regulatory rule.

Whether part of the industry's motivation was exactly what you suggest—if we're going to stop taking this money, everybody else should have to stop too—the transcript doesn't say. But the casinos themselves were very much involved in drafting the rule.

Claimed he was trespassed for winning too much ($3M), actually booted for setting up a pop up shop selling his clothing line from his hotel room.

A source inside the Fontainebleau confirmed that “company policy does not permit the trespassing of customers for winning, and we can confirm this was not the case in this incident.”

UPDATE: ‘$3M Winner’ Ejected from Fontainebleau Las Vegas for Staging Pop-Up Sales Event

On March 15, 2026, the TikTok account @terrencemclaren1 posted a video claiming, “Won $3,000,000.000 @Fontainebleau Las Vegas and they kicked my blk azz out,” with a text overlay.

But turns out winning had nothing to do with it.

It's tough to get around Koval right now, including trying to enter Venetian's parking lot from there.

VIDEO: Rain from Tropical Storm Rachel causes flooding across Las Vegas valley

Not that I'm interested in going there, but access to Primm off I-15 is pretty much flooded out too.

Quote: MDawg

It's tough to get around Koval right now, including trying to enter Venetian's parking lot from there.

VIDEO: Rain from Tropical Storm Rachel causes flooding across Las Vegas valley

Not that I'm interested in going there, but access to Primm off I-15 is pretty much flooded out too.
link to original post

Interesting. Henderson got almost nothing. Just wind.

This was reported a couple days ago.



Some were saying it is AI, but by now it has been repeated a few places, including by VitalVegas.

Apparently some kind of player dealer collusion.

That roulette dealer actually looks familiar to me, although I don't play roulette. I think she also deals blackjack sometimes.

There's been discussion of ceremony in Baccarat and how it's not a basis for recalling a hand played.

In Blackjack, hand signals are the way a player lets the dealer know whether he wants to hit or stand. Verbal signals are inadequate because surveillance needs to document the player's intentions.

I did see a video where Cerasani was dealt a hard 19, and the dealer went directly to his hand, and played the hand out. Cerasani objected. Obviously he didn't want a hit on a hard 19, but he told the dealer to slow down, and to wait for hand signals. Now that's a situation where a player could get a hand recalled, if the Blackjack dealer doesn't wait for a hand signal before moving on. The reason being, that almost nothing is fixed in Blackjack, a player may hit on any hand up until he busts. Or stand on any two cards, even a hard 2 if he chooses to do so.

Additionally in Blackjack, from the house's perspective anyway, the hole card is not supposed to be exposed. If it is, the hand plays out, but if it keeps getting exposed and the pit knows about it, obviously the game is going to get shut down.

But in Punto Banco Baccarat the rules are fixed, so whether the play moves quickly or slowly, whether cards are exposed along the way or not exposed, doesn't affect the hand outcome as long as the rules of the draw are obeyed.

So yes in Blackjack there are some situations where the ceremony of play may definitely lead to hand recall. But not so much in Vegas Baccarat.

Ratholing Chips, Casino Ratings, and What the Pit Actually Knows

We've discussed ratholing chips here before, including SooPoo's claims that he routinely gets away with pocketing a black chip or two during rated table-game sessions, supposedly making his actual win appear smaller, or even turning a win into a loss for casino accounting purposes.

I've disputed this before, because the fact that a player manages to put a chip in his pocket without the dealer or pit boss saying anything does not mean the chip has gone unaccounted for.

Now we have something more than my own experience to go by.

Have a look at the 2025 Station Casinos Floor Supervisor Procedure Manual, particularly page 22, under "Bankroll Management."

The manual states:

"You are responsible for every chip that comes in and leaves your games."

It further instructs supervisors to account for chips no longer in the tray, including those held by players, whether in front of them or in their pockets.

Think about that for an MDawg moment.

The pit is expected to know where its chips are. The fact that some chips are no longer physically in the tray does not mean the casino has lost track of them, or that the player who pocketed them has successfully manipulated his recorded result.

At Station properties using Bravo Pit Watch, including Red Rock, Green Valley Ranch, Durango, and Palace Station, supervisors maintain an electronic bankroll. The manual instructs them to reconcile that bankroll with the physical chips at the table.

The same manual describes recording cash and chips brought into play, a player's average bet, and the chips the player takes away upon leaving.

At other Station properties, the procedures involve the DART rating system and manual bankroll accounting. Different equipment, same underlying responsibility: keeping track of the money.

Now, this doesn't mean that every chip pocketed during a busy table-game session will necessarily be attributed to the correct player. Nor does it mean a supervisor cannot make a mistake.

But neither does it mean that someone who discreetly pockets a black chip has automatically fooled the casino.

A chip disappearing from the player's visible stack is not the same thing as a chip disappearing from the casino's accounting.

And let's revisit what SooPoo has said about all this.

Back in August 2022, SooPoo acknowledged that he occasionally ratholes chips, explaining that he thinks showing a loss rather than a win might help his comps. He also acknowledged that he doesn't actually know whether it works.

Earlier discussion of SooPoo's ratholing

Then, in October 2022, the subject came up again. SooPoo described buying in for $400, pocketing eight green chips over the course of a session, and coloring up another eight when leaving. According to him, the casino recorded a $100 loss even though he had actually won $100.

He insisted that the pit would not later correct the result.

October 2022 ratholing discussion

But in that very thread, ZCore13, who identified himself as a casino pit supervisor and former table-games director, confirmed that casinos do assign missing chips to players and that this can affect their recorded results and comps.

That was precisely the issue I had raised.

SooPoo may believe he got away with ratholing a chip or two. But unless he has independently verified the final casino accounting, what does he actually know?

He knows what he put in his pocket.

He doesn't necessarily know what the pit recorded, what adjustments were made, or what the casino ultimately attributed to his play.

Nor does a rating that initially shows a loss establish that the result was never subsequently adjusted.

And even assuming that a player does manage to create an inaccurate win/loss figure by ratholing a few chips, what has he accomplished?

At the low levels SooPoo describes, comps are ordinarily driven substantially by theoretical loss, rather than simply whether the player shows a modest actual win or loss.

So pocketing $100 or $200 in chips does not necessarily translate into additional comps.

There may be situations where actual losses influence discretionary comp decisions, but that is a different proposition from assuming that every artificially increased loss improves the player's treatment.

And there is another consideration. The pit knows its regular rated players. A player who repeatedly complicates table accounting by pocketing chips may eventually become memorable for exactly that reason.

Not necessarily the sort of attention someone supposedly trying to improve his standing with the casino should want.

I'm not suggesting that ratholing is impossible, or that casino accounting is infallible. Obviously neither is true.

And when you play at private reserved tables like I do, the casino knows exactly what the table holds before and after my play.

But my point, which I've made here before, is that pocketing chips without being challenged is not proof that the casino has been fooled.

And now we have a casino's own written procedures supporting the very point I've been making.

SooPoo has described what he believes happens when he ratholes a chip or two.

The Station Casinos manual describes what the pit is actually supposed to do.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Two Decades of Playing Under the Radar? Coo Coo Cool!

While we're on the subject of casino pit procedures, ratholing, and what the pit actually knows, let's revisit another interesting claim that has circulated on gambling forums over the years.

There is someone around who claims to have played under the radar for two decades, repeatedly describing supposedly playing anonymously at numerous Las Vegas casinos, maintaining chip inventories at those properties, introducing chips from previous sessions, and avoiding identification while playing blackjack at substantial betting levels.

Coo coo cool!

But how exactly does someone manage to do that, year after year, without repeatedly attracting the attention of the pit, having a player's card requested, being asked for a name, or having identifying information demanded in connection with cash transactions?

We don't have to rely solely on MDawg's firsthand experience to examine this.

Take a look at the 2025 Station Casinos Floor Supervisor Procedure Manual, which provides some fascinating insight into the procedures actually followed by casino floor personnel.

The Vital Vegas article discussing the manual provides an overview.

First, the chips.

Page 22, under "Bankroll Management," states:

"You are responsible for every chip that comes in and leaves your games."

The manual explains that supervisors must account for chips that have left the tray, whether those chips are in front of players or in their pockets.

In other words, a casino does not simply lose track of its chips because a player decides to place some in his pocket or bring others back from an earlier session.

The pit has to reconcile its bankroll.

And if a player repeatedly arrives with chips from his own inventory, introduces them into play, buys in for cash, and pockets chips during the session, those activities create additional accounting work for the supervisors.

The question isn't whether any of this is possible. Of course it is.

The question is whether someone can repeatedly conduct himself this way for twenty years at the same Vegas properties and somehow remain practically invisible.

Now comes the interesting part: the casino's own rules for surveillance notification.

Pages 11–13 contain the "Rules of Engagement," specifying when floor personnel must notify the Shift Manager and Surveillance.

Station divides its properties into Legacy casinos, including Boulder Station, Santa Fe Station and Sunset Station, and Luxury casinos, including Red Rock, Green Valley Ranch and Durango.

At Legacy properties, the general notification threshold includes a $1,000 buy-in, whether immediate or cumulative.

At Luxury properties, the general threshold is $5,000.

But here is where it gets particularly interesting.

The manual has separate provisions for players who refuse to give their names.

At Legacy properties, a blackjack player who refuses to provide a name while averaging $50 or more per bet triggers notification.

At Luxury properties, the corresponding average-bet threshold is $100.

And at Luxury properties, a refused-name player buying in for $1,000 or more, either immediately or cumulatively, also triggers notification.

Think about that.

A blackjack player refusing to provide a name while averaging a mere $50 per hand may become the subject of a surveillance notification at the Legacy Station properties.

At Red Rock, Green Valley Ranch and Durango, the corresponding blackjack threshold is $100.

Not $10,000. Not $5,000. Not even $1,000 in cash. We're talking about average bets of $50 or $100, combined with refusing to provide a name.

Now consider someone claiming to have played anonymously at numerous Vegas casinos for twenty years, with maximum bets supposedly running into the hundreds of dollars per hand.

Of course, maximum bets and average bets are not the same thing. But anyone claiming sustained play at those levels should be intimately familiar with the ordinary pit interactions that result.

And the manual provides another surveillance notification trigger for blackjack players moving their wagers by five or more units.

That alone could be relevant to someone claiming to spread bets as an advantage player.

But what about players without a casino card?

Pages 15–16 address guests who have no Boarding Pass card.

The manual instructs floor personnel to track certain unidentified guests, to create descriptions when the relevant $1,000 threshold is reached, and to record sufficient physical details for identification and communication among casino personnel.

This includes descriptions of appearance, clothing, age and distinguishing characteristics.

The same section specifies a $3,000 cash threshold for creating a Monetary Transaction Log, or MTL.

That is separate from the familiar $10,000 Currency Transaction Report threshold.

The manual does not establish that every player reaching $1,000 or $3,000 must automatically produce an ID or SSN. What it establishes is that casinos have procedures for tracking unidentified players and documenting transactions well below the CTR threshold.

And that is exactly what I have been pointing out from my own experience for years.

These days, a player who introduces even a couple thousand dollars in cash over as few as two sessions may find himself being asked by the pit for both ID and SSN.

I know this because I have personally experienced it.

I'm not talking about a single $10,000 transaction, or even anything approaching that amount. I'm talking about ordinary cash buy-ins, sometimes spread over just two playing sessions, that nevertheless result in casino personnel requesting identifying information.

And this is precisely what makes the Station Casinos manual so relevant. The casino's internal monitoring, tracking, and identification procedures operate at thresholds substantially below the federal CTR reporting threshold.

The manual does not say that every player who introduces a couple thousand dollars must provide ID and SSN. But it does document the procedures that explain why players may receive this kind of attention at amounts far below $10,000.

So when someone claims to have played anonymously at multiple Vegas casinos for two decades, repeatedly buying in for cash after exhausting his chip inventory, I have to wonder how he has supposedly managed to avoid these ordinary encounters with the pit.

Has he somehow avoided what I encounter regularly, or has he simply neglected to mention it?

Because in my experience, the casino asking for identification at those levels is hardly some unusual occurrence. It is part of how Las Vegas table-game operations work today.

The $10K CTR threshold is not some magical anonymity exemption.

A casino may ask for identification at substantially lower levels, and casino personnel are expected to track player activity whether or not the guest has enrolled in a rewards program.

So when someone tells us that he has been playing anonymously at multiple Vegas casinos for twenty years, repeatedly using chips carried over from previous sessions and introducing cash as needed, the obvious questions are:

How often have the pit bosses asked for his name?

How often have they asked whether he has a player's card, or suggested that he obtain one?

How many of those casinos already have his identification information?

How often has he been questioned about chips brought to the table from a previous session?

And how often has surveillance been notified of his activity, particularly at properties where he refuses to identify himself?

Playing unrated is not the same as playing unnoticed. And playing without a card is not necessarily the same as playing anonymously.

A player may genuinely be unknown by name to the casino. But that does not mean the casino isn't tracking him by physical description, monitoring his wagers, or maintaining information about his transactions.

This is also why I have disputed the notion that merely pocketing chips establishes that a player has successfully fooled the pit.

The casino's obligation to account for its table bankroll does not disappear just because a player slips a black chip into his pocket.

And for a supposedly accomplished anonymous advantage player, repeatedly making the pit's accounting more difficult would hardly seem a desirable way of remaining inconspicuous.

I am not claiming that every casino uses Station's exact thresholds, or that every chip introduced or pocketed is always attributed correctly. Obviously procedures and systems vary, and supervisors can make mistakes.

But the underlying responsibilities are ordinary casino operations.

The pit accounts for chips. The pit monitors betting. The pit records player activity. The pit asks questions. And Surveillance is informed when specified thresholds or circumstances arise.

These are the mundane details that someone with two decades of sustained Las Vegas table-game experience should know from firsthand encounters.

It is one thing to repeat stories about anonymous blackjack play, keeping chips from earlier sessions, avoiding player cards, staying below CTR thresholds, and occasionally getting backed off.

It is quite another to explain how those activities actually interact with the casino's everyday operating procedures.

And when someone claims to have done all this for two decades, at numerous casinos, without describing the entirely ordinary identification requests and supervisory attention that go along with it, I find that rather remarkable.

Twenty years under the radar?

Coo coo cool!

Or perhaps there is a difference between knowing the familiar stories about anonymous casino play and actually having spent enough time at Vegas tables to know how the pit operates.

As long as the casino hasn't yet figured out what the advantage is, which is more or less the case with me (been booted from only one Major so far in past eight years), playing straight up is definitely one way to go.

Quote: MDawg

Two Decades of Playing Under the Radar? Coo Coo Cool!

While we're on the subject of casino pit procedures, ratholing, and what the pit actually knows, let's revisit another interesting claim that has circulated on gambling forums over the years.

There is someone around who claims to have played under the radar for two decades, repeatedly describing supposedly playing anonymously at numerous Las Vegas casinos, maintaining chip inventories at those properties, introducing chips from previous sessions, and avoiding identification while playing blackjack at substantial betting levels.

Coo coo cool!

But how exactly does someone manage to do that, year after year, without repeatedly attracting the attention of the pit, having a player's card requested, being asked for a name, or having identifying information demanded in connection with cash transactions?...

Playing anonymously, playing pseudonomously, and confounding the pit's accounting with ratholing and similar techniques are all different things that can be used in combination with one another, but they are still separate things.

A good rule for ratholing is to never do it for more than that could be attributed to normal dealer errors and oversights in their approximations. When you hear a pit boss ask a dealer "How much did he come with?" or "How much did he leave with?" that is an estimate that no one expects to be precise, because they can't devote a great deal of attention to such things.

They also can't pay attention to what everyone is tipping the waitress, so not ratholing any cheque larger than what players would tip a waitress with is another good rule.

Here I thought buying empty plastic chip racks to hoard chips in would work. I could have a stash of $250K in purple chips at home. I'm sure a few tables will miss those chips, and if they were ever counterfeited, they'd become worthless overnight. But there seems to be new policies of checking where the purple chips came from like a bank asking where the cash came from. You bring in $5K in purple chips from home each day and take home $15K in chips, it kind of defeats the purpose of a CTR. But we've been told Vegas casinos put RFID in chips so they can see where every black chip went even if it went out the door. I don't know how far I could push using a stack of chips that never went back to the cage, but with all these policies, it seems they will be scratching their heads if there's no RFID in the chips. Also, just coloring up tells the pit what you left the table with, then it comes down to whether you went to the cage or not. I'm kind of liking the idea of TITO vouchers for table games at higher stakes.