Nov 29 show with Bob Nersesian
He has been a previous guest a few times, so we're running low on things to ask him. His last appearnace was on May 10, to give you an idea of what his niche is.
So, I'm open to question suggestions from the floor.
Card Counting....trespassed
Hole Carding alone (without a device).....??
Hole Carding and communicating with a team (without a device)....??
Card Indexing as per recent Snyder interview/Show......??
Taking advantage of any other dealer game protection weakness....??
Pinching/Capping/Past Posting.......Backroomed/NGCB/Police
Using a device of any kind........Backroomed/NGCB/Police
What is the most aggressive AP plays that he has seen that are "legal" under the law (if he can share them as they are part of an open court case record).
Quote: MrVAsk if he knows the status of the Wynn lawsuit against the South American dice sliders.
Also the case of the Golden Nugget (AC) baccarat players and the allegedly pre-shuffled decks. As well as any similar cases elsewhere.
Quote: MrVAsk if he knows the status of the Wynn lawsuit against the South American dice sliders.
And please follow up with a question of statutory interpretation.
NRS 465.015 says:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
I am curious as to whether there has been any caselaw or other statutory interpretation of the meaning of the word "alter" in that statute. In a first interpretation, "alter" only means to physically change, such as by replacing fair dice in a craps game with toppers or loads -- and as such, a skilled method of throwing fair dice (such as sliding) would not be cheating under this statute. In a second interpretation, "alter" means to change the end results -- and as such, any skilled method of throwing the dice which results in a different probability distribution than standard dice would be cheating, even if done with fair dice. For example, a successful dice slide with one die staying face up on the number six would change the probability distribution from the standard odds (p(2) = 1/36, p(3) = 2/36, etc.) to one where the probability of numbers 7 through 12 is 1/6 each and the probability of numbers 2 through 6 is zero. I want to know if that would be "altering" per the meaning of NRS 465.015, specifically since the dice probabilities are what "determine ... (b) the ... frequency of payment" in the game of casino craps.
Skipper v. State stands for the premise that sliding in conjunction with using an accomplice to obscure the fact you're sliding is a crime. But is sliding openly (without an accomplice) a crime? If so, is any other form of dice setting or dice influencing? And if so, is *attempting* to influence the dice a crime? (NRS treats cheating and attempted cheating equally).
Quote: ParadigmI don't know if you asked this before (and I did listen the 5/10 Show shortly after it aired), but there seems to be an ongoing Forum debate about where the line is between legal AP play that will get you trespassed and what will get you backroomed and held for NGCB/Police.
Card Counting....trespassed
Hole Carding alone (without a device).....??
Hole Carding and communicating with a team (without a device)....??
Card Indexing as per recent Snyder interview/Show......??
Taking advantage of any other dealer game protection weakness....??
Pinching/Capping/Past Posting.......Backroomed/NGCB/Police
Using a device of any kind........Backroomed/NGCB/Police
What is the most aggressive AP plays that he has seen that are "legal" under the law (if he can share them as they are part of an open court case record).
It's only a gray area because Paigowdan keeps claiming things that are completely legal aren't. I can clear up all but one:
Card Counting....trespassed
Hole Carding alone (without a device).....trespassed
Card Indexing as per recent Snyder interview/Show......trespassed
Taking advantage of any other dealer game protection weakness....trespassed
Pinching/Capping/Past Posting.......Backroomed/NGCB/Police
Using a device of any kind........Backroomed/NGCB/Police
As for
Hole Carding and communicating with a team (without a device)....??
This one I'm actually not sure so I would support asking Bob. I know in the case that set the precedent for hole-carding being legal, I think the plaintiff was actually charged for a crime only because he was using a partner? I'm fuzzy on it. But I also know that Grosjean regularly used a partner while hole-carding, and he won all of his court cases. Shrug.
Other than that, everything but the last two are legal. Not saying you won't get backroomed...but you shouldn't be, and should sue if you are.
Quote: AcesAndEightsIt's only a gray area because Paigowdan keeps claiming things that are completely legal aren't. I can clear up all but one:
Card Counting....trespassed
Hole Carding alone (without a device).....trespassed
Card Indexing as per recent Snyder interview/Show......trespassed
Taking advantage of any other dealer game protection weakness....trespassed
Pinching/Capping/Past Posting.......Backroomed/NGCB/Police
Using a device of any kind........Backroomed/NGCB/Police
As for
Hole Carding and communicating with a team (without a device)....??
This one I'm actually not sure so I would support asking Bob. I know in the case that set the precedent for hole-carding being legal, I think the plaintiff was actually charged for a crime only because he was using a partner? I'm fuzzy on it. But I also know that Grosjean regularly used a partner while hole-carding, and he won all of his court cases. Shrug.
Other than that, everything but the last two are legal. Not saying you won't get backroomed...but you shouldn't be, and should sue if you are.
I think the distinction the courts have made thus far is the use of an accomplice to actually pull off the move, rather than just to place bets. In Skipper v. State, where Hubert Skipper used an accomplice to shield the slide from the view of the crew, the Court's reasoning seemed to be that sliding itself was okay, even though it is obviously effective, and the casino's recourse is their right to call "no-roll" for basically any reason. If they don't like the way you throw the dice, the casino can invalidate rolls, make you change the throw, or take the dice away altogether. However, using an accomplice to hamper the casino's ability to detect and therefore decide that your rolls aren't kosher (so they can no-roll them if they so choose) was an intentional fraud and therefore criminal. I think that's what Skipper means, though I'd really like a NV-barred attorney's take on the matter. I'm neither NV-barred nor an attorney, though I do spend more time with legal affairs than most. As far as hole-carding, I think if you were to use an accomplice to somehow get the dealer to increase their likelihood of flashing while you sat at the appropriate spot to take advantage of that, that would probably be equivalent and ruled as cheating. Maybe not. But I haven't read the case(s) you're referring to -- can you cite them?
Quote: MathExtremistBut I haven't read the case(s) you're referring to -- can you cite them?
I can't find a reference right now, sorry. I may be completely off-base here (I do not work in law at all), but in the course of reading about and learning AP and various casino things, I seem to remember one case consistently being referenced that set the precedent for the act of hole-carding itself not being illegal. As in, it's the casino's job to protect the information you're not supposed to know, not your job to ignore it.
State of Nevada vs Einbinder and Dalben.Quote: AcesAndEightsAs for
Hole Carding and communicating with a team (without a device)....??
Is this case over? What happened?
I think the case that is usually cited for the legality of hole-carding is Lyons v. State, 118 Nev. 317 (1989).Quote: AcesAndEightsI can't find a reference right now, sorry. I may be completely off-base here (I do not work in law at all), but in the course of reading about and learning AP and various casino things, I seem to remember one case consistently being referenced that set the precedent for the act of hole-carding itself not being illegal. As in, it's the casino's job to protect the information you're not supposed to know, not your job to ignore it.
I am an American citizen and we do not have a caste system here. I would not take kindly to being told I would be deprived of my
entertainment simply because i looked upon one betting more than me. Assuming I am not particularly prone to violence that day, what would happen after I refused to comply and stared at the other table.
If I am told to leave the casino, who has the authority to execute that order. What if i tell the Barney Fife wannabe from Security, " No thanks. " Then what? Can he touch me if I continue to stand there, playing craps and occasionally staring at the almighty whale ?
I am more than willing to wait for a policeman to escort me from the premises, issue a ticket for trespassing,etc. But I do not
believe I have to respect any lesser authority. And that I would have an opportunity to appear with my grievance at the next gaming commission meeting !
I know no one answer fits all jurisdictions, just asking what my rights are. Operating a casino is a privilege and not a right.
Quote: AcesAndEightsAfter listening to last week's show, I would love to here Bob talk about the legality of edge-sorting. Seems like a gray area...
Do you know any casinos that still use edge-sortable cards?
Now legally the Gaming Commission only recently enacted rules for these private gaming rooms the casinos now have where they can legally exclude the uninvited.
Prior to that rule change, a "high limit" area was just a fancy area legally open to the public as much as any other area of the casino. Any "get lost attitude" from the licensee such as security guard appearing or a "suit" questioning you was dealt with but it seems without any hearings.
I've heard of casinos using security guards to keep lookey-lous away from a high roller in the casino but in reality I doubt they would press the issue in the face of someone who really knew his rights.
Quote: FleaStiffDo you know any casinos that still use edge-sortable cards?
I don't personally know for sure, but I'm fairly certain one of my home casinos still does. It's such a new technique, I doubt every casino has gotten wind of it and procured non-edge-sortable cards.
Well, don't ever put anything as beyond some jerk making a bad decision based on price quoted by some salesman who fails to disclose edge design defects. Its always possible. I guess I should have realized that. It is however the cheapest thing a casino can do to avoid problems. Card backings that have edges and get handled by players can go back into a card shuffler and a shoe, each are "devices" but the players are not using those devices. The house is perfectly free to turn the cards around and re-sort them.Quote: AcesAndEightsI don't personally know for sure, but I'm fairly certain one of my home casinos still does. It's such a new technique, I doubt every casino has gotten wind of it and procured non-edge-sortable cards.
Putting woman's makeup on the back of an Ace is cheating, but turning the card so that the cheap "x" backing is edge sorted is no more cheating than if the casino orients the cards towards Mecca or the player does.
Quote: BuzzardAnybody have an opinion on my watching a whale question ?
They will trespass you, and the police will give you a ticket if you do not leave. You can watch the whale all you want on public property or from your own property, but not on casino property. A property owner or his representative (security guard) may use reasonable force to detain and remove you from an area until police are called. What constitutes reasonable force varies wildly so I won't speculate, but you would still be trespassing. Maybe you can start a movement to end casino segregation by being the gold rewards member that marches to the front of the diamond card line and demands equality... but I would bet against your success.
Quote: WizardBob Nersesian will be our guest on the Nov 29 radio show. For those unfamiliar with him, he is the author of Beat the Players, and is pretty much the attorney to advantage players. He is famous for earning mid six-figure settlements and judgements against casinos when they illegally backroom players.
He has been a previous guest a few times, so we're running low on things to ask him. His last appearnace was on May 10, to give you an idea of what his niche is.
So, I'm open to question suggestions from the floor.
Really good show tonight. I'm interested in gambling law and Nersesian is a great guest. Wish you had time for more Q's. Hope he's back soon. SPOILER ALERT: The Wizard has been committing a felony in Nevada casinos and openly confessed to the crimes on air!
Quote: MrVAsk if he knows the status of the Wynn lawsuit against the South American dice sliders.
You might also inquire if he has any opinion on the very notion of Steve Wynn running into a court room yelling "unfair, unfair" months after all his employees with eons of experience just stood there and kept their yaps shut. He controls the lighting, the pace of the game, the presence of employees, the training and experience of employees...and then months later he wants to go running into a court room to overturn something the umpires never even questioned at the time?
Anyone placing hands on me who is not a police officer will be warned to stop, then knocked on his ass if he persist on being a jerk.
Yes, I am willing to spend a night in jail, if need be. Been there, done that.
My question is not what a casino can do, but what they can legally do. America does not have a caste system. If someone does not want me to look at them, that is their problem, not mine. I repeat " Owning a casino is a privilege and not a right." I am entitled to look anywhere I damn well please while at a crap table as a law abiding citizen and a customer.
I think I would win a civil suit if 86'd because a fat assed whale said i can not glance in his direction. But the key word is " think".
That's why I sought professional advice.
Your "orange shirt" scenario provides you with no immunity.
The same interpretation of the law that allows them to 86 card counters applies here.
The only thing I can think of that would be worth arguing about is if a casino 86'd you due to a handicap, e.g. "Get out, we don't want people in wheel chairs."
Oh, and if you resist casino security, orange shirt and all, you WILL lose both the battle and the war.
Try it and see ...
That's not exactly what I spent 4 year as a Vietnam Era vet for ! That casino operates only with a license granted by the state. I
am a citizen of that state. I will see the casino, or the whale's attorney in court. I will leave politely when the police arrive, but not willingly before.
Casino security often has a Barney Fife mentality and no real understanding of the trespass law.
No offense Face just a general statement.
Quote: BuzzardSo what you are telling me, as per the original poster, that if I am playing at a craps table, being a good boy, happen to glance at the whale playing at another table, and warned that if I do that again, I will be 86'd, you believe the casino has that right.
The casino - or any business - decides what is acceptable behavior on their premises, and what is not, - and not the player. However, "looking" is a bit extreme, and is seldom used as a reason, but it can be. Frank Sinatra had people warned and expelled from casinos all the time for gawking him.
Quote: BuzzardThat's not exactly what I spent 4 year as a Vietnam Era vet for !
You were there basically to snipe at VC. If you were to think that military service is in "defense of freedom and law," then know you were there for all, and not for "a personal right to gawk."
Quote: BuzzardThat casino operates only with a license granted by the state. I am a citizen of that state.
The casino workers are citizens of the state, too, and with a job to do, often involving removing undesirables from the property.
Quote: BuzzardI will see the casino, or the whale's attorney in court.
With whose money? Did the wife okay THIS expenditure?
And would the whale's attorney, or casino's attorney, be more afraid of your attorney, or vise versa? And what attorney, aside from perhaps Nersesian, will take this case?
Quote: BuzzardI will leave politely when the police arrive, but not willingly before.
You might be right about that. You might leave in a manner that might offend you. And if the police come, they might book you for refusing to vacate a property/tresspassed. Misdemeanor arrest, then released. If you force the police to remove you, they may not take too kindly to that.
Quote: BuzzardCasino security often has a Barney Fife mentality and no real understanding of the trespass law.
On what basis do you make this assertion? They receive a ton of training on this, overseen by real lawyers in their law departments. Casino operators spend a lot to protect their interests.
The Wizard often adjusts effective benefits of the Powerball by factoring in the utility of money. The point is that there is decreasing marginal utility in the case of extreme wealth. True, but I also feel that the inverse is true for marathons, there is an increasing marginal cost associated with each additional mile. Hence, a half marathon, measured by distance is 13.1, but distance is not necessarily the appropriate metric. In reality, effort is most likely a better metric a "half marathon" is probably 20+ miles for most people.
I understand that I am a semanticist, the Wizard was not discussing the philosophical implications, and I wish him the best in his upcoming race. I am simply saying that this is often a case where the lexicon is not correct.
Might be a bit extreme? Are you serious. Telling me to not even glance at another table !!!!
A bit extreme my ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I did not call you an ass. Have too much respect for Mike to say what popped into my mind when I read
" Might be a bit extreme "
"
The casino workers are citizens of the state, too, and with a job to do, often involving removing undesirables from the property."
Now I am an undesirable for glancing into the direction of a whale. Not looking, or gawking. merely glancing. What a crock of shit.
a bit extreme. You view is extreme as hell.
Quote: Buzzard" The casino - or any business - decides what is acceptable behavior on their premises, and what is not, - and not the player. However, "looking" is a bit extreme, and is seldom used as a reason, but it can be."
Might be a bit extreme? Are you serious. Telling me to not even glance at another table !!!!
A bit extreme my ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I did not call you an ass. Have too much respect for Mike to say what popped into my mind when I read
" Might be a bit extreme "
"
The casino workers are citizens of the state, too, and with a job to do, often involving removing undesirables from the property."
Now I am an undesirable for glancing into the direction of a whale. Not looking, or gawking. merely glancing. What a crock of shit.
a bit extreme. You view is extreme as hell.
It's private property Buzz - that's what it boils down to. Ridiculous, yes. But they could do it if they wanted to.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
Las Vegas no longer has a plethora of whales; those days are long gone.
So when a leviathan swims up, they roll out all the stops to keep the whale in their waters.
The whale is god; you are nothing.
It is what it is.
Quote: FleaStiffDo you know any casinos that still use edge-sortable cards?
All cards are edge sortable. Granted, some designs make it quite difficult for all but a true master, but when something's mass produced like cards are, perfect cuts just aren't going to happen. If you have the visual acuity required, you can sort the majority of cards in play today.
Quote: BuzzardCasino security often has a Barney Fife mentality and no real understanding of the trespass law.
No offense Face just a general statement.
None taken. I have my own dose of contempt for Security in general, at least some I'm in contact with. Sure, there are many that are decent people and know what they're doing, but some...
I encourage everyone to know your rights and fight for them. Although "I'm The Man", it's a job. It's not who I am, and I've never hesitated reporting actual or suspected cases of Rights infringement by either party. I've gotten patrons arrested for treatment against our Security and Table Games, I've gotten employees fired over treatment of patrons. When it comes to that stuff, there is no "Us vs Them", and I'd flip on an employee and have the report started before you'd even realize you'd been violated.
As far as your whale watching, though....I kind of think there's nothing you can do, but I'm no expert in that area. We don't have such high faluting patrons in these parts.
the whale if he minded if I glanced at his table from time to time. If I had to step over some ropes to do so, well, shit happens.
I respect his right to privacy, but a rich man is just a poor man with money. And it's private property, but operating as a casino only
because the state allows it to. I also bet upper management, and i do mean upper would not condone such shenanigans.
Before I was done people would be doing more than glancing. The employee who warned a paying customer not to glance at the other table should be suspended.
I did have a similar situation with a ( and I am serious ) $25 whale in Blackhawk years ago. I no longer have the email from corporate, but the situation was resolved in my favor. And I was a gentleman at all times. And I might be one also in the poster's unusual situaution. But no promises LOL
Face, once again you are a stand-up guy. Now can you straight out the NHL ??
Quote: BuzzardCasino security often has a Barney Fife mentality and no real understanding of the trespass law.
My understanding of the trespass law is that if someone tells you to leave their property and you don't, you're trespassing.
What's your understanding of the trespass law?
The casino only operates as a business with the grace of the state. You need a reason to deny me, a tax payer, the opportunity
to participate. Gaming will make the final decision as to whether 86'ing people for daring to look in the direction of a whale is in
the public's best interest. And I am willing to bet corporate shares my view.
Quote: BuzzardYou need a reason to deny me, a tax payer, the opportunity to participate.
No, you don't. That's the key. They can deny you the opportunity to participate for no reason at all.
There are certain reasons that the state (and feds) won't allow them to use, but "no reason at all" is allowed.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd please follow up with a question of statutory interpretation.
NRS 465.015 says:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
I am curious as to whether there has been any caselaw or other statutory interpretation of the meaning of the word "alter" in that statute. In a first interpretation, "alter" only means to physically change, such as by replacing fair dice in a craps game with toppers or loads -- and as such, a skilled method of throwing fair dice (such as sliding) would not be cheating under this statute. In a second interpretation, "alter" means to change the end results -- and as such, any skilled method of throwing the dice which results in a different probability distribution than standard dice would be cheating, even if done with fair dice. For example, a successful dice slide with one die staying face up on the number six would change the probability distribution from the standard odds (p(2) = 1/36, p(3) = 2/36, etc.) to one where the probability of numbers 7 through 12 is 1/6 each and the probability of numbers 2 through 6 is zero. I want to know if that would be "altering" per the meaning of NRS 465.015, specifically since the dice probabilities are what "determine ... (b) the ... frequency of payment" in the game of casino craps.
Skipper v. State stands for the premise that sliding in conjunction with using an accomplice to obscure the fact you're sliding is a crime. But is sliding openly (without an accomplice) a crime? If so, is any other form of dice setting or dice influencing? And if so, is *attempting* to influence the dice a crime? (NRS treats cheating and attempted cheating equally).
You are under-reading Skipper v. State. The accomplice was not necessary for the outcome, but an aggravating factor.
The 'openly' idea is interesting though.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, you don't. That's the key. They can deny you the opportunity to participate for no reason at all.
There are certain reasons that the state (and feds) won't allow them to use, but "no reason at all" is allowed.
The argument, briefly, is that a Nevada statute requires that casinos remain open to the
general public, and that access to gaming remains open to the general public. The statute
contains an exception providing that casinos can exclude patrons for any common law
reason. The Nevada trespass statute is a statutory reason, not a common law reason, and
therefore would be trumped by the statute mandating access. The question is then whether
at common law a place of public amusement could exclude any one for any reason, or
whether there is a conditionally revocable license requiring cause. New Jersey found the
conditionally revocable license. Other states are split, and as mentioned, Nevada has never
answered the question.
http://www.bj21.com/al/Order%20to%20Dismiss.PDF
Good work Bob.
Quote: BuzzardAnd there is this in NEVADA :
I'd be interested in the follow up; i.e., did that criminal court ruling give Mr. Robertson basis for civil action against the casino for pressing the charges against him (which I assume the casino did)? Could he at least recover his expenses for hiring Mr. Nersesian, and perhaps more?
Quote: BuzzardThe argument, briefly, is that a Nevada statute requires that casinos remain open to the
general public, and that access to gaming remains open to the general public. The statute
contains an exception providing that casinos can exclude patrons for any common law
reason. The Nevada trespass statute is a statutory reason, not a common law reason, and
therefore would be trumped by the statute mandating access. The question is then whether
at common law a place of public amusement could exclude any one for any reason, or
whether there is a conditionally revocable license requiring cause. New Jersey found the
conditionally revocable license. Other states are split, and as mentioned, Nevada has never
answered the question.
I respect Bob N, but I disagree with him here. Right to exclude is a fundamental property owner's right, and has been at common law for a long time. The bifurcation of civil and criminal common law rights is interesting, because the judge is saying that an analogous civil wrong from the past does not allow a denial of access? Pretty thin. I think Bob N. gave a eloquent argument to a municipal court judge and the judge went for it.
Quote: MoosetonMaybe you could bring up the Andre Nestor case: Two indicted in video poker scam Is this case over? What happened?
The federal government just decided to drop all charges: Ding Ding Ding! Video Poker ‘Hackers’ Cleared of Federal Charges.
Quote: WizardQuote: MoosetonMaybe you could bring up the Andre Nestor case: Two indicted in video poker scam Is this case over? What happened?
The federal government just decided to drop all charges: Ding Ding Ding! Video Poker ‘Hackers’ Cleared of Federal Charges.
Thank god! To me, this seems logically similar (if not equivalent) to a flashing dealer. The casino opened themselves up to this by offering a machine with a bug. You could say the vendor is ultimately responsible, but the casino is responsible for trusting their vendors and verifying the machines are "fair." Just like the casino is responsible for training their dealers not to flash.
It might be an ethically gray area depending on where you fall on the Paigowdan spectrum, but I'm elated that they were found legally innocent. I wonder if they can recover attorney's fees or file a civil suit for defamation/loss of reputation?
The fact that they tried to call this "hacking" in the first place was just ludicrous.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAlso the case of the Golden Nugget (AC) baccarat players and the allegedly pre-shuffled decks. As well as any similar cases elsewhere.
I can answer this for you. GN wants to pay the players provided that they sign an agreement to waive all damages against GN. Some of the players are for this and others are not. It is all or nothing proposition for GN because of a class action suite.
Even if the players wanted to settle they can't. They gave the casino chips to the lawyer to hold and they aren't getting it back till everything is done. The lawyer will be getting about 25% from the players. The lawyer is asking 3x damage be awarded.
