Attention Las Vegas Casinos

Quote: ZenKinG

No it's not because it's a federal issue and a fundamental right of all citizens in this country to be able to access a public place. YES, CASINOS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC PLACES. They're either 'public amusements', or 'gaming establishments', or whatever in between, all public in nature when one seeks out the definition.

Wrong again. Ever see a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse service? Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include: Race or color. National origin or citizenship.


ZCore13

OK, my interest is piqued.


I'm not a lawyer, but reading the Wiz's link, Mr. V's interpretation seems more accurate. There are certain common law requirements of inn keepers because of "monopolistic concerns" (i.e as, inns can be far apart you might find yourself "at the mercy of the innkeeper"). A dissenting view was that casinos must abide by these rules. The majority view was that they be treated as purveyors of "amusements," who can exclude for "any reason, or no reason" apart from discrimination or any other reason specified in a statute.

"There is overwhelming authority recognizing the common law right of a private owner of a public amusement to exclude any person for any reason from the premises. "

Arguing against the inn keeper angle, it's stated again:

"Further, the rule suggested by our colleague would result in district courts parsing out parts of a gaming establishment's premises to determine whether patrons may be excluded without cause or whether a reason for exclusion must be given."

It doesn't say that casinos can or can't have you arrested and jailed for showing up when excluded. It does talk about whether it is "lawful" for you to be on the premises when excluded, implying that you are breaking the law if you show up when lawfully excluded. Statue does stipulate that returning to a private building after a warning from the owner is a misdemeanor.

Never says the only lawful reason for exclusion is unruly behavior. Explicitly says the opposite, including that "no reason" is a good enough reason, if the casino is regarded as a purveyor of amusements rather than an inn keeper.

They do say that Slade never sought the reason for his exclusion in discovery but, several times, potentially unlawful exclusions are listed and they are always discrimination. No judge suggests that it would be unlawful to exclude him for AP, even though it seems far more likely that this is the reason for his exclusion than say, gender discrimination, which is mentioned repeatedly.

Also, I doubt that Slade's lawer (Bob N I think) is such a bungling moron that Slade was illegally excluded, but he just forgot to bring it up.

If any of the judge's thought the only lawful reason for an exclusion was unruly behavior, it would be very strange for them to discuss the case in these terms, and never make mention of that fact.


I thought the dissenting argument was better, for a few reasons, but mainly that it's silly to say that various convention halls operate in competition and therefore there is no monopolistic concern. "Why can't Dr. Slade just go to the AVN awards instead?"

On the other hand, the majority opinion might be more pragmatic because it saves endless debates about which casinos count as innkeepers or monopolists.

Saying that every security guard who has read a trespass is guilty of some federal felony does, in fact, sound like sovereign citizen type stuff.

Quote:

The judge then proceeds to cite the ending part of 463.0129, which, remember, is the part of the statute that says casinos and misinformed people like Zcore claim they have the right to trespass you for any reason, and I quote, "the saving language at NRS 463.0129.3(a) "Does NOT apply ABSENT disruptive or disorderly conduct".

Based on what you are saying, a judge said that common law overrides the staute which says.

"This section does not:

(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason;"

That's hardly iron clad. It's also pretty sovereign citizen to rely on a particular interpretation of common law as though it was clearly written in the sky by God.

However, if more judges take up the view that English common law overrides these statutes, then ZK could become correct. At least if the casio is regarded as an innkeeper. Would be kinda funny if Eureka could ban you but Bellagio couldn't.

I figure the lawyers and casino folk probably understand the question best, though the latter are biased. True, it doesn't logically follow that a lawyer knows the law better than a layman, but it is very likely.

It's also interesting to consider what happens if the casino IS treated as an innkeeper. They now must provide a reason for barring you. If they cannot bar you as innkeepers, can they still "tresspass" you from the casino floor? The judges in Slade seem open to this as they discuss things like if Slade could use the convention center without setting foot in the casino.

Quote: ZenKinG

So thank you for confirming everything I have said and not masquerading the truth. All an intimidation tactic and casinos must tell you to leave each time just like I said it was. I never argued about not leaving, just about the ability to return each and every time and that a casino cannot restrict you from entering the premises the next time.

Props to you. Thank you very much.

So seriously, you think that if you leave after being told to, you are free to turn around seconds later and return, and have the same scenario play out over and over?

Quote: SOOPOO

So seriously, you think that if you leave after being told to, you are free to turn around seconds later and return, and have the same scenario play out over and over?

Yes, yes he does. Same thought process as the guys who consider numbers “due” on Roulette, play Marti’s and consider each short gambling session as having no effect on long term odds.

Stay Hydrated my friends.

Just as interesting to me is wondering if anyone here has reported ZK to any casinos as a potential threat based on his ramblings? Considering we have posters who send PM’s to Mods when they see or feel the slightest “insult”.

And some claim casinos monitor this site when the threat of a play being exposed comes up. While most feel ZK is harmless I wonder if casinos at least have him on their radar based on his threats to “own” MGM and other negative comments toward casinos and employees.

We all could be a witness to history in a way yet to be determined. And every generation, minority or oppressed group (Backed Off Card Counters)needs their own Rosa Parks, maybe ZK is one of them.

Right or wrong, ZK is fighting (more like.... just arguing) for the right side. That side includes the same side that many of the people who love F+×÷ing with him are on.

In an attempt to distill what seems to be people talking past each other in this thread, I’ve teased out what I see are the key questions.

1) Can a casino legally force someone to leave their premises for cars counting (no disorderly conduct involved)? I think Zenking says yes, but am not sure. This may go further than a back off of stopping individual from playing the games.

2) After a backoff and a return by the individual, can the casino legally read that person the trespass act (no disorderly conduct, just person kept card counting)? Zenking says no.

3) If after being read the trespass right and another return by the individual, can the casino legally have the person arrested for criminal trespass (no disorderly conduct, just more card counting)?

4) After 3, can the person be prosecuted and found guilty of a criminal trespass?

Are those the four questions in dispute?

Quote: AxelWolf

Right or wrong, ZK is fighting (more like.... just arguing) for the right side. That side includes the same side that many of the people who love F+×÷ing with him are on.

ZK clearly is no dummy, and he has untrammeled zeal.

Were he to become an attorney then he'd better understand the issues involved and how to chart a path to achieve his desired result.

Who knows, he might catch the eye of and be hired by Bob Nersesian.

Bob is the closest there is to a casino dragon-slayer; he knows how to play the game and is best positioned to do so.

It takes hard work and focus.

Quote: AxelWolf

Right or wrong, ZK is fighting (more like.... just arguing) for the right side. That side includes the same side that many of the people who love F+×÷ing with him are on.

History is filled with infamous people who weee fighting for the “right” thing for many but went about it the wrong way.

Or in other words, stop wining on an Internet forum and do something about it. Wouldn’t be hard to get backed off again if he really wants to go to court and press the matter. Otherwise it’s just rambling nonsense.

Quote: MrV

ZK clearly is no dummy, and he has untrammeled zeal.

Were he to become an attorney then he'd better understand the issues involved and how to chart a path to achieve his desired result.

Who knows, he might catch the eye of and be hired by Bob Nersesian.

Bob is the closest there is to a casino dragon-slayer; he knows how to play the game and is best positioned to do so.

It takes hard work and focus.

I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not hiring the “most cursed” person on Earth to represent me. But maybe that’s just me.

Quote: Boz

I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not hiring the “most cursed” person on Earth to represent me. But maybe that’s just me.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I think the grinding wheel of the law would disabuse him of many of his seemingly foolish notions.

He seems avid enough, anyway, but who can tell how a cake will turn out after the baking is done?

Zen king has one thing spot on. Just because someone is a judge, doesn’t mean they know everything about the law.

The problem is that he thinks the law will save him from going to jail.

Are you going to feel vindicated if you get convicted of something, spend a year in jail, and get it overturned on appeal? That’ll show em!

I was kinda rambling before, cuz I was writing as I read all this stuff.

Quote: unJon

In an attempt to distill what seems to be people talking past each other in this thread, I’ve teased out what I see are the key questions.

1) Can a casino legally force someone to leave their premises for cars counting (no disorderly conduct involved)? I think Zenking says yes, but am not sure. This may go further than a back off of stopping individual from playing the games.

2) After a backoff and a return by the individual, can the casino legally read that person the trespass act (no disorderly conduct, just person kept card counting)? Zenking says no.

3) If after being read the trespass right and another return by the individual, can the casino legally have the person arrested for criminal trespass (no disorderly conduct, just more card counting)?

4) After 3, can the person be prosecuted and found guilty of a criminal trespass?

Are those the four questions in dispute?

This seems pretty fair. While I'm not a lawyer, the statutes in NV on these questions are pretty short and pretty clear:

1) Yes.
2) Yes. It sounds like they don't have to read you some formal "trespass act" really. A private property owner just has to tell you to never set foot on their property. In some cases (agriculture) they can just put up a sign.
3) Yes. The statute says specifically that a property owner can tell you to flip off. While I'm no lawyer, the idea that these people are committing felonies seems absurd, since they are following statutory law. I've never heard of someone convicted of a felony for following a statute that is later deemed unconstitutional or something.
4) Yes. It is a misdemeanor.

All I read was the Slade case and the relevant statutes. In Slade, there is a common law question of if Casinos count as purveyors of amusements, who can ban anyone as long as they ain't racist, or innkeepers who must provide a solid reason. The driving force behind this seems to be whether the business has some sort of monopoly on an essential service.

ZK found a judge in another case, which I have not read, who says English common law overrides the statutes because of NRS 1.030 which reads:
NRS 1.030 Application of common law in courts. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the Constitution and laws of this State, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

I'm pretty sure there is no question that NV statute answers the questions as I did. It's just a question of whether common law overrides the statutes in some or all cases.

Quote: ZenKinG

No it's not because it's a federal issue and a fundamental right of all citizens in this country to be able to access a public place. YES, CASINOS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC PLACES. They're either 'public amusements', or 'gaming establishments', or whatever in between, all public in nature when one seeks out the definition.

The police have told me we CAN bar people because we are a private business. They never said my store is a public place.

Quote: cmlotito

The police have told me we CAN bar people because we are a private business. They never said my store is a public place.

Maybe it's different in Virginia but calling the police in NY to remove someone will generate multiple police reports and doing it repeatedly can result in a business being labeled a public nuisance. If your employees can't do it themselves, you might want to hire some private security.
Your insurance provider is generally aware of this and it may effect future rates. Landlords probably aren't thrilled by it either.

The way I read the Slade case was whether the Innkeeper rule or the Private Amusement rule, if that the right term, applied in the case of his trespassing. I would argue that casinos can refuse service to anyone for reasons other than discrimination. However, Innkeepers have fewer rights and have a short list of acceptable reasons, like the patron can't pay, poses a safety threat to themselves or other guests, the hotel is full, and things like that. As we all know Caesars runs hotel/casinos and he was trespassed from setting foot on any portion of the property.

I'm not lawyer, but to me a common sense solution may have been to let the trespassing stand for the casino, but make Caesars prove a valid reason to exclude him from other parts of the property, which they didn't have per the Innkeeper standard, or allow him access to the hotel/convention portions of the property.

Not that it matters, but I know Joel Slade and he was fighting this entirely on principle. I told him to just go to his medical conference, while staying away from the casino, and nobody would notice, much less care. However, like I said, he was fighting for the principle, not to actually go to a conference.

I guess it sucks when a vacationing card counter winds up for a week's stay at a Vegas casino/hotel and he gets barred in the first 30 minutes at the tables.

Quote: ChumpChange

I guess it sucks when a vacationing card counter winds up for a week's stay at a Vegas casino/hotel and he gets barred in the first 30 minutes at the tables.

Don't stay where you play.

Quote: Wizard

The way I read the Slade case was whether the Innkeeper rule or the Private Amusement rule, if that the right term, applied in the case of his trespassing. I would argue that casinos can refuse service to anyone for reasons other than discrimination. However, Innkeepers have fewer rights and have a short list of acceptable reasons, like the patron can't pay, poses a safety threat to themselves or other guests, the hotel is full, and things like that. As we all know Caesars runs hotel/casinos and he was trespassed from setting foot on any portion of the property.

I'm not lawyer, but to me a common sense solution may have been to let the trespassing stand for the casino, but make Caesars prove a valid reason to exclude him from other parts of the property, which they didn't have per the Innkeeper standard, or allow him access to the hotel/convention portions of the property.

Not that it matters, but I know Joel Slade and he was fighting this entirely on principle. I told him to just go to his medical conference while staying away from the casino, and nobody would notice, much less care. However, like I said, he was fighting for the principle, not to actually go to a conference.

I agree. But I also see the other side, and having slept on it, I might lean that way.

It seems really messy to fight this battle again and again. What parts of the facility are you banned from? What if you cannot get to the hotel without walking through the casino? What if you want to eat in the restaurant? But, what if the restaurant has Keno? What if you sit at a bar with machines?

While I'm on the light side, seems like a yuge pain in the butt for the casino to deal with these things. Like, you have a guy who is legally trespassed from the casino, but can walk through it all he wants to go to the hotel or bathrooms. So security has to just constantly watch him and then make some sort of judgment call about if he is hanging around the tables too long. Then the police have to evaluate that judgment call. Then the DA. Then the courts.

I think CET was probably in the wrong ethically though. Especially given that it was a medical conference.

Also, don’t free willy in sin city. And as the brilliant ludacris informed us so eloquently, can’t turn a hoe into a housewife hoes don’t act right.

Quote: Rigondeaux

It seems really messy to fight this battle again and again. What parts of the facility are you banned from? What if you cannot get to the hotel without walking through the casino? What if you want to eat in the restaurant? But, what if the restaurant has Keno? What if you sit at a bar with machines?

Good point. I think in such situations, the person in question should be allowed to cross through the casino to get to the hotel. No meandering. I took my kids to Atlantic City a few times and they were very strict about rules against kids in the casino. I explained we were staying there and the guards said you had to keep moving towards the hotel elevators in a straight path without stopping. That seems like a common-sense solution to me.

As to the restaurant and bar, I see signs at most of them that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," which seems to indicate to me that the trespassing can apply to them. However, convention space seems like more associated with a hotel and I think the innkeeper rule should apply.

I'd like to emphasize that I have no legal background and I would give much more weight to the opinion of an actual attorney.

A gaming license requirement should mandate that a casino must allow all patrons to gamble, not just the ones that they know will likely lose.

Quote: Wizard

Good point. I think in such situations, the person in question should be allowed to cross through the casino to get to the hotel. No meandering. I took my kids to Atlantic City a few times and they were very strict about rules against kids in the casino. I explained we were staying there and the guards said you had to keep moving towards the hotel elevators in a straight path without stopping. That seems like a common-sense solution to me.

Yeah. And I guess that the prospect of jail would keep a lot of people in line.

On the other hand, kids are easily identified, for the most part. It's up to the casino (I think) to weigh the pros and cons of which legal spots to allow kids, if any. They'd probably lose a lot by banning kids entirely. And (I think) as long as they make an earnest effort to keep them off the floor, they are OK if some 20 year old occasionally sneaks by and watches a game or sits at a machine for a few mins.

It's far more onerous to expect them to constantly monitor one individual adult out of thousands. From their POV, it's probably hard enough to spot the guy just once.

We can say "no meandering," but I don't know how practical that is. If the guy stands there watching blackjack for 10 mins, will he really be arrested, tried and convicted? Should he be? 5 mins? 20 mins? 1 min?

What if a security person thinks he did something wrong when he didn't? Does CET now have to deal with a law suit?

A lot of times we want rules/policies to be "common sense" on a case by case basis when they affect us. But it's a lot more practical to just have simple, general rules.

Don't casinos have one type of carpet in gaming areas and a different pattern in non gaming areas?

Quote: Keyser

A gaming license requirement should mandate that a casino must allow all patrons to gamble, not just the ones that they know will likely lose.

While I agree 100%, I think the question of "to what extent?" is a good one. Would it be acceptable for a well bankrolled team to hit the same location every day? Certainly casinos won't stop a losing player with lots of cash from playing, but at some point I could see coordinated trips to casinos being problematic.

Quote: Keyser

A gaming license requirement should mandate that a casino must allow all patrons to gamble, not just the ones that they know will likely lose.

I agree 0%. As Uston vs. Atlantic City showed, both sides are better off with the cat and mouse game as is.

The mice might respectfully disagree. They usually have better lawyers, as well.

Quote: Wizard

I agree 0%. As Uston vs. Atlantic City showed, both sides are better off with the cat and mouse game as is.

This was the pint Minty was making about ZK actually losing if he wins by LV becoming like AC. And ZK admits this effect historically by tying 6:5 BJ to Slade.

Quote: Minty

While I agree 100%, I think the question of "to what extent?" is a good one. Would it be acceptable for a well bankrolled team to hit the same location every day? Certainly casinos won't stop a losing player with lots of cash from playing, but at some point I could see coordinated trips to casinos being problematic.

If the casino doesn't like a well funded team playing within their casino then perhaps they should consider upping their game protection skills or going into a different business.

Touché.

Quote: Keyser

If the casino doesn't like a well funded team playing within their casino then perhaps they should consider upping their game protection skills or going into a different business.

On the other hand, since they make it well known that card counting is not welcome there, perhaps such a "well funded team" should honor their request and not count cards.

I never know if Jesse "The Body" is dealing the cards, or if the casino found his clone.

Quote: FTB

This site is a joke.

Let me get this straight...

WatchMeWin gets a two month ban for simply saying, "Naive," yet ZQ, who just returned from a one month suspension, is allowed to call someone a drone and does not get another suspension for personal insult despite being warned not once but twice by moderator OnceDear.

Then you have Kentry continuously breaking the forum rule against thumbtacking by posting the ridiculously inane lottery predictions and s/he doesn't get a suspension (or dare I say, a well deserved nuke, as should have been done weeks/months/years ago!).

Like I said, a joke of a forum.

I am not Kentry and I really don't appreciate the barb at me when I had nothing to do with this thread and in fact decided to read this thread on an impulsive whim(I'm the one who posts about Lottery Numbers Predictions, which by the way I no longer do it was getting tedious and tiresome for me and I got the advice to stop posting Florida Lottery Numbers Predictions since most of WOV doesn't live in Florida, so the FLNP have no use for them).

Quote: Wizard

I agree 0%. As Uston vs. Atlantic City showed, both sides are better off with the cat and mouse game as is.

While Atlantic city couldn't technically bar you for counting,they could shuffle whenever they wanted or they could restrict you to one hand of table minimum.
Also Las Vegas casinos went to 6-5 bj before Atlantic city did so,Although the Uston case is often cited,I don't think it made that much difference.
Having said that,I think casinos should have the right to restrict your play.

Quote: Hunterhill

While Atlantic city couldn't technically bar you for counting,they could shuffle whenever they wanted or they could restrict you to one hand of table minimum.

I agree. This was before my time, but I heard after the Uston ruling the casinos all made penetration worse to the point counters were not motivated to play any longer. I welcome correction if I'm in error on that.

Quote: Wizard

I agree. This was before my time, but I heard after the Uston ruling the casinos all made penetration worse to the point counters were not motivated to play any longer. I welcome correction if I'm in error on that.

Initially there was a knee jerk reaction and they were dealing 50% penetration,that didnt last long,but 75% was pretty standard.

Quote: Wizard

I agree. This was before my time, but I heard after the Uston ruling the casinos all made penetration worse to the point counters were not motivated to play any longer. I welcome correction if I'm in error on that.

I still thing Uston did all gamblers a great service with that case.

It's nice to play in a jurisdiction where the rule of law says they can't throw you out for using your brain to play as well as possible.

I don't even play blackjack anymore but I still benefit every time I enter the casino having that peace of mind.

Quote: ZenKinG

Yea theyre gonna be sued into oblivion.

I tried to skim through enough of this and think I have an idea of where everything stands. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. To summarize:

ZK plays blackjack at Las Vegas casinos. Occasionally casino staff ask him to leave, sometimes even reading a statement that refers to some NRS. He leaves, but believes his rights and the law have been violated. In response to these violations, he comes to these internet chatrooms to warn these casinos that is going to sue them. But then instead of suing them, he just lets the same scenario play out over and over again.


During this process he insults anyone who questions that he is the most brilliant legal mind in the state. One thing I'm missing is knowing if he insult these casino employees to their face, or does he leave politely and only insult them behind their backs?

He calls us drones. He calls them Sir.

Quote: TomG

I tried to skim through enough of this and think I have an idea of where everything stands. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. To summarize:

ZK plays blackjack at Las Vegas casinos. Occasionally casino staff ask him to leave, sometimes even reading a statement that refers to some NRS. He leaves, but believes his rights and the law have been violated. In response to these violations, he comes to these internet chatrooms to warn these casinos that is going to sue them. But then instead of suing them, he just lets the same scenario play out over and over again.


During this process he insults anyone who questions that he is the most brilliant legal mind in the state. One thing I'm missing is knowing if he insult these casino employees to their face, or does he leave politely and only insult them behind their backs?

Well done, IMO.

Quoting it to make it a bit easier to find & repost. In all the multiple nearly identical threads that are going to continue to come for however many months and years, until it it eventually stops for one of the inevitable reasons that I'm probably not supposed to say here, no matter how obvious and severe it is.

I spoke to my buddy who is a long time member of the LVPD. He said that if someone returns to a casino after being trespassed, then casino security can detail them for trespassing, because trespassing is a crime. I think it falls under a citizen's arrest. However, he said that if the person in question attempts to leave in a peaceful manner, they probably will let him. The reason being the casinos also know of half-million dollar judgments for back-roomings gone bad. He made a comparison to shoplifting, saying that Target and Walmart will usually let shoplifters walk, even if caught, if they try to leave, fearing the alternative could be facing a huge lawsuit. He went onto say that Las Vegas swap meets are full of people fencing stuff stolen from those two stores, because the ring leaders know Target and Walmart are basically allowing it.

Hypothetical question:

You own an all you can eat buffet. The lunch price is $9.99.

Every day, a person comes in and eats $15.00 worth of food, not to mention the labor and other related costs. How long do you let him keep patronizing your business? Do you go out of business, choose another business, or just tell this one person that their business is no longer welcome.

This is EXACTLY what an advantage player does.

Quote: FCBLComish

Hypothetical question:

You own an all you can eat buffet. The lunch price is $9.99.

Every day, a person comes in and eats $15.00 worth of food, not to mention the labor and other related costs. How long do you let him keep patronizing your business? Do you go out of business, choose another business, or just tell this one person that their business is no longer welcome.

This is EXACTLY what an advantage player does.

If it's one or two people, you market them. A business model should have built in shrinkage and promotional costs. Casinos mostly tolerate small time counters, from my personal experiences.
There used to be an all you can eat Italian buffet down the street from Rick Rubinstein studio in the village. One of his first artist was a group called the Fat Boys. Ricks efforts to keep the group in the studio and out of the eatery were hilarious. A compromise was worked out where the group would feature the place in a video as a peace offering. They wrote a song for the occasion, " All you can eat".
On a personal note, Ill never forget the look on the servers face in a Lancaster PA buffet when my rugby team walked in one Sunday morning brunch.

Quote: FCBLComish

Hypothetical question:

You own an all you can eat buffet. The lunch price is $9.99.

Every day, a person comes in and eats $15.00 worth of food, not to mention the labor and other related costs. How long do you let him keep patronizing your business? Do you go out of business, choose another business, or just tell this one person that their business is no longer welcome.

This is EXACTLY what an advantage player does.

-If that food wasn't eaten by the customer, it would be thrown away.
-If ZK was earning $5 per day, casinos would almost never ask him to leave.
-The buffet could very easily change their menu or prices. It is very easy to eat $15 worth of Kobe steak. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to eat $15 worth of the wholesale cost of pizza ingredients.
-If the buffet doesn't ask him to leave, they are perfectly fine with his business. When a casino asks ZK to leave, they do not want his business
-If he tips and is polite and doesn't take up a table excessively long, any buffet in Las Vegas would let him continue indefinitely.
-Therefore it is absolutely NOTHING like what ZK is doing.

I have two very serious questions for ZK. I'm not trolling, I genuinely would like to know his response to these two questions.

1) Say you win, and you can't be kicked out of casinos. Now every single casino in Vegas, or around the world, only offers EVEN MONEY blackjack. What do you do with your life then?

2) Say you're right, technically, but the politicians and judges are all paid off and they create a new law or change the existing law so that you're wrong, and you lose. So in this scenario, you lose, and it has NOTHING to do with technically correct or not, just money buying votes (how our Oligarchy of a country works). What do you do with your life then?

Quote: TomG

--If ZK was earning $5 per day, casinos would almost never ask him to leave.

Assume you are a card counter, albeit rather clumsy and inept at your trade, such that you only earn on average five bucks a day.

Assume also that the casino detects / determines that you are counting, no question about it.

Given the above, would they let you keep counting or give you the bum's rush?

Quote: Romes

I have two very serious questions for ZK. I'm not trolling, I genuinely would like to know his response to these two questions.

1) Say you win, and you can't be kicked out of casinos. Now every single casino in Vegas, or around the world, only offers EVEN MONEY blackjack. What do you do with your life then?

2) Say you're right, technically, but the politicians and judges are all paid off and they create a new law or change the existing law so that you're wrong, and you lose. So in this scenario, you lose, and it has NOTHING to do with technically correct or not, just money buying votes (how our Oligarchy of a country works). What do you do with your life then?

He really has nothing right now and no real future, so it would probably work out best for him if something like that happened.

His intelligence and passion would do him well at a job that rewards someone both financially and mentally for those features. I'd take a shot on him if I was looking for someone to add to my team.


ZCore13

Nice thing about having nothing is you have nothing to lose.

Quote: MrV

Assume you are a card counter, albeit rather clumsy and inept at your trade, such that you only earn on average five bucks a day.

Assume also that the casino detects / determines that you are counting, no question about it.

Given the above, would they let you keep counting or give you the bum's rush?

I've allowed many people to count due to their poor skills at it. Had one guy come in a few times a week for years. He always bought in for $120. $100 in red and $20 in white. Then he would hold the white under the table in his hand and move chips left and right in his hand with the count. Probably had 1, maybe 2 winning months. Laughed inside every time he came in.


ZCore13

I once watched a guy who had set four chips apart from his stack and he would rotate them about a quarter turn for every card, sometimes left, sometimes right. I knew what he was doing, but couldn't follow his patterns. I did notice he won more often than not when he jumped from $5 to $30., so whenever he put out $30, I'd jump my $5 to $10 or $15. He had a nice run but it went south.