Gambler accused of dice sliding at Wynn Las Vegas - Sued for return of $700,000
Quote: mdsJust curious, any updates on this?
Yeah, this story never had an ending, that I saw...
In this country the casinos didn't know much about card counting and card counters faced no countermeasures (to the point that players yelled the current count to their friends accross the floor) until someday the casinos realized why these guys where winning (it took years). Despite, the law allowing casinos to bar players without any justification, the barred players started civil action against the casinos and won (some cases even reached the Supreme Court). The legal justification was the casinos were "abusing their legal right" i.e. they have the power to bar a player without telling him a reason, but using this right to bar players that are winning without breaking any rules was abuse. The players won court orders that forced the casinos to accept their action and compensation for damages on top of that. Unfortunately, there was no happy ending for the players, after a couple of years CSMs where installed.
And the courts in that country are the same as everywhere, they usually side with big business, that's why I liked this particular decision.
Quote: CharlieGamerI've read all this debate about card counters and cheating. I'd like to tell you the history of card counting in a nice western democratic country. Probably, it does give any options for card counters in Vegas, but you'll like the story anyway.
In this country the casinos didn't know much about card counting and card counters faced no countermeasures (to the point that players yelled the current count to their friends accross the floor) until someday the casinos realized why these guys where winning (it took years). Despite, the law allowing casinos to bar players without any justification, the barred players started civil action against the casinos and won (some cases even reached the Supreme Court). The legal justification was the casinos were "abusing their legal right" i.e. they have the power to bar a player without telling him a reason, but using this right to bar players that are winning without breaking any rules was abuse. The players won court orders that forced the casinos to accept their action and compensation for damages on top of that. Unfortunately, there was no happy ending for the players, after a couple of years CSMs where installed.
And the courts in that country are the same as everywhere, they usually side with big business, that's why I liked this particular decision.
Really? You like that decision? It resulted in CSMs everywhere. So now the games are unbeatable. I would prefer a decision that left me some beatable games.
If the casinos have the right to bar me, maybe they will catch me and bar me, and maybe they will not. It's all part of the game. If they don't have the right to bar me, there will be no playable games. I prefer that they have the right to bar me, so we can play this game. Maybe they will catch me. Or maybe they will keep giving me free rooms and meals as I take their money. Lets find out which it is! Shuffle up and deal! Game on!
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
If the casinos have the right to bar me, maybe they will catch me and bar me, and maybe they will not. It's all part of the game. If they don't have the right to bar me, there will be no playable games. I prefer that they have the right to bar me, so we can play this game. Maybe they will catch me. Or maybe they will keep giving me free rooms and meals as I take their money. Lets find out which it is! Shuffle up and deal! Game on!
That would have been a good post for the 'is AP Gambling' thread.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceReally? You like that decision? It resulted in CSMs everywhere. So now the games are unbeatable. I would prefer a decision that left me some beatable games.
A CSM game isn't necessarily unbeatable, just unbeatable via card counting.
Quote: AcesAndEightsA CSM game isn't necessarily unbeatable, just unbeatable via card counting.
Whatever, my eyes suck, and I'm too tall.
The point is, these rules that prevent casinos from backing off good players DO NOT help the players. They just result in worse games. They are bad for everyone.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: DRichStephen How may disagree. Link
Occcasionally getting a 0.04% edge does not count as "beatable"
Sure it is. You just have to wong in and bet the $25k table max and you can expect a $10 profit.
Who wouldn't be happy winning an average of $10 per hand at BJ. Lol
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhatever, my eyes suck, and I'm too tall.
The point is, these rules that prevent casinos from backing off good players DO NOT help the players. They just result in worse games. They are bad for everyone.
I agree with you that the rules that prevent casinos from backing off players SUCK. Just playing devil's advocate, as has been done to me before. If you walk in to a casino and all there is is CSMs, yeah that sucks if all you know how to do is count. But don't just turn around and walk out. Take a look around :)
Quote: DRichStephen How may disagree. Link
I am referring to hole carding.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI agree with you that the rules that prevent casinos from backing off players SUCK. Just playing devil's advocate, as has been done to me before. If you walk in to a casino and all there is is CSMs, yeah that sucks if all you know how to do is count. But don't just turn around and walk out. Take a look around :)
I always look around. But I am really too tall to hole-card effectively, and anyway, my eyes aren't that good. I have heard of people crowding the table so that the dealer is forced to slide the hole card over the rim of the chip tray, popping it up briefly. I seriously doubt if that is something that I would be able to pull off.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
The point is, these rules that prevent casinos from backing off good players DO NOT help the players. They just result in worse games. They are bad for everyone.
Actually they enable the ones with sufficient bankroll to make a lot of money on the roll-free period when the games are vulnerable and the casinos cannot bar, but ultimately they may destroy the game. However, the latter depends on the dynamics. For example if casinos win more from wannabe counters than they lose to successfull ones then they may not enact countermeasures even if they lose the prerogative to ban players.
Quote: CharlieGamerActually they enable the ones with sufficient bankroll to make a lot of money on the roll-free period when the games are vulnerable and the casinos cannot bar, but ultimately they may destroy the game. However, the latter depends on the dynamics. For example if casinos win more from wannabe counters than they lose to successfull ones then they may not enact countermeasures even if they lose the prerogative to ban players.
Except, every time that some ruling like this goes into effect, it results in worse games.
This is not "justice against casino interests". This is an injustice of the idiot big government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, and doing things that result in consequences that they did not foresee. It is bad for everyone involved.
