card counter sues planet hollywood
Quote: darkozWell, lucky for us the laws of the United States forbid this and you are completely wrong.
No company has the right to confiscate your money because you don't want to show them (a private company) your ID.
Next time you go to a nightclub and they ask for ID, why don't you just refuse and empty your pockets and give all your cash to the bouncer.
Depending on the contents of your pocket, that might get you a VIP table with no further questions.
In all seriousness though, there doesn't seem to be much of a 'good' way out-- either you refuse and hold onto chips that are effectively worthless (or require other methods to liquidate) or give in and do whatever dance they can get away with.
Quote: darkozWell, lucky for us the laws of the United States forbid this and you are completely wrong.
No company has the right to confiscate your money because you don't want to show them (a private company) your ID.
Next time you go to a nightclub and they ask for ID, why don't you just refuse and empty your pockets and give all your cash to the bouncer.
How I am "completely wrong" I literally posted a PDF of the full regulation...
And, then gave my opinion how it should be. My opinion cannot be "wrong"... And, I stand by it, this guy wanted this to happen and he got what he wants. I hope CET combats it in court for as long as possible so that his lawyer gives up....
People like this sully the integrity of the gambling industry by making them look bad and that make things stricter for normal players...
I don't refuse to give my ID going into a nightclub because I am not out to prove anything.
I'll be curious to see how the rest of it goes.
Quote: GandlerHow I am "completely wrong" I literally posted a PDF of the full regulation...
And, then gave my opinion how it should be. My opinion cannot be "wrong"... And, I stand by it, this guy wanted this to happen and he got what he wants. I hope CET combats it in court for as long as possible so that his lawyer gives up....
People like this sully the integrity of the gambling industry by making them look bad and that make things stricter for normal players...
I don't refuse to give my ID going into a nightclub because I am not out to prove anything.
Your opinion as to whether the chips can be confiscated is wrong.
Bob Nersessian has defended and won this type of situation before.
Bob does not have to win on all the issues but only one to obtain a victory. The tort of theft is indefensible.
Casino chips by Nevada statute and most jurisdictions are bearer instruments and are the property of the bearer. They cannot be confiscated by the casino.
Regarding the theory the casino seized the chips because he couldn't prove he was 21, I tend to think they are allowed to do that, but I'm not an attorney. However, then why don't they do that with counters, especially younger ones, all the time? It would seem such an easy card to play (forgive the pun). I am pretty sure that casinos can refuse to pay a slot machine jackpot if the player can't prove he is 21. Why wouldn't this principle apply to blackjack?
Quote: WizardI am going to refrain from taking a side on this because that RJ article was pretty much just the player's version. I do suspect the player was being disorderly in both states and may have been trying to get a backroomed under dubious reasons after hearing about half-million dollar verdicts to other advantage players after being illegally detained. Then again, I don't think Nercesian would take the case if it was totally frivolous.
Regarding the theory the casino seized the chips because he couldn't prove he was 21, I think to think they are allowed to do that, but I'm not an attorney. However, then why don't they do that with counters, especially younger ones, all the time? It would seem such an easy card to play (forgive the pun). I am pretty sure that casinos can refuse to pay a slot machine jackpot if the player can't prove he is 21. Why wouldn't this principle apply to blackjack?
It does apply to blackjack.
Not showing ID, however, does not prove he is under 21. The casino can refuse to pay the chips but not confiscate until proper ID is shown if age is their position.
Let us say a 23 year old lost his ID(my daughter loses her ID constantly). Can her slot jackpot now be denied? It can be withheld until she provides ID but the payout is still valid.
Chips, however, are bearer bond instruments. There are bearer bond laws. The chips cannot be confiscated. The player is allowed to hand the chips over to someone else so they can cash them out.
BTW - U.S. currency of any denomination are bearer bond instruments as well. They belong to the person who is in physical possession of them.
Quote: darkozIt does apply to blackjack.
Not showing ID, however, does not prove he is under 21. The casino can refuse to pay the chips but not confiscate until proper ID is shown if age is their position.
Let us say a 23 year old lost his ID(my daughter loses her ID constantly). Can her slot jackpot now be denied? It can be withheld until she provides ID but the payout is still valid.
Chips, however, are bearer bond instruments. There are bearer bond laws. The chips cannot be confiscated. The player is allowed to hand the chips over to someone else so they can cash them out.
BTW - U.S. currency of any denomination are bearer bond instruments as well. They belong to the person who is in physical possession of them.
They could ask his SSN according to SARP which I am willing to bet he also refused to do...
They could ask for his ss number but he doesn't have to give it. The transaction has to be over 10k.Quote: GandlerThey could ask his SSN according to SARP which I am willing to bet he also refused to do...
Perhaps it would be easier if you just read about a past similar case coincidentally handled by this same attorney.
False imprisonment of patrons costs Virgin River Mesquite $200,000
Two skilled patrons were victims of false imprisonment in their hotel room by Virgin River Casino guards and the Mesquite Police Department. Though the imprisonment was for only about fifteen minutes, the jury found the actions of the defendants to be egregious enough to award $72,000 damages, with a settlement made with the casino for an additional $128,000 punitive damages. As part of the punitive damage settlement, Virgin River agreed not to appeal the general damages and not have the usual confidentiality clause contained in most settlements with casinos. All the documents are public records. The jury verdict additionally included about $300 for a chip-cashing refusal by the casino related to the incident.
Plaintiffs' attorneys Bob Nersesian and Thea Sankiewicz broke favorable new ground regarding ID laws and police behavior (or misbehavior). Mesquite Police Officer Southwick admitted on the stand that he wrongfully threatened to arrest the victims if they refused to show him ID that he then (illegally) turned over to Virgin River security guards, but said doing so is the policy of the department (demanded to be complied with by the Chief of Police ) in alleged trespassing incidents involving casinos, even when there is no reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity by the patrons.
Quote: darkozIt does apply to blackjack.
Not showing ID, however, does not prove he is under 21. The casino can refuse to pay the chips but not confiscate until proper ID is shown if age is their position.
Let us say a 23 year old lost his ID(my daughter loses her ID constantly). Can her slot jackpot now be denied? It can be withheld until she provides ID but the payout is still valid.
Chips, however, are bearer bond instruments. There are bearer bond laws. The chips cannot be confiscated. The player is allowed to hand the chips over to someone else so they can cash them out.
BTW - U.S. currency of any denomination are bearer bond instruments as well. They belong to the person who is in physical possession of them.
They can confiscate the chips under certain circumstances, but they have to issue a receipt. I don't know what circumstances those are though (Some valid reasons would be if they suspect the chips are stolen or counterfeit). And I'm pretty sure if a player demands that the casino contact gaming, the casino has an obligation to do so.
Also, I don't think you can hand over the chips to someone else to cash out.
Go ahead and try doing this with flags or higher. Whoever you give them to won't be able to cash them.
Quote: sc15They can confiscate the chips under certain circumstances, but they have to issue a receipt. I don't know what circumstances those are though (Some valid reasons would be if they suspect the chips are stolen or counterfeit). And I'm pretty sure if a player demands that the casino contact gaming, the casino has an obligation to do so.
Also, I don't think you can hand over the chips to someone else to cash out.
Go ahead and try doing this with flags or higher. Whoever you give them to won't be able to cash them.
Yeah, I just uncovered some regulations on whether casinos have to honor chips from players who have not gambled at their property.
They have some ability to refuse but had you handed these chips to someone else, that person could have gone to a table, broken the chips down, made some play and then cashed out. The casino would then have to honor the chips.
I doubt a pit boss would refuse you table action because someone else might have given you the chips.
Quote: kewljGandler took the same opposing view last year in a discussion concerning Harrah's security that beat up the Florida family including a minor female. He either is sympathetic to Caesars entertainments because of personal ties, or he doesn't understand the laws involving such actions including gaming regulations and the precedents that have been set by previous similar cases, or he is just being argumentative.
I didn't realize you were a witness to this incident?
Can you verify that his allegations are all accurate?
Because you do realize we have not only one side, but one individual perspective? Are you going to trust the integrity of an AP who is known to beef with CET? Is there any valid reason to believe everything he says is truthful?
The whole "article" only says what one man claims. As I said I will wait for evidence before joining a lynch mob....
Quote: darkozSeriously? So the clerk can keep your money because you were trying to buy booze underage?
Not only can the clerk keep your money, he can also hold you and call the police to arrest you because you already broke the law.
Quote: GandlerI didn't realize you were a witness to this incident?
Can you verify that his allegations are all accurate?
Because you do realize we have not only one side, but one individual perspective? Are you going to trust the integrity of an AP who is known to beef with CET? Is there any valid reason to believe everything he says is truthful?
The whole "article" only says what one man claims. As I said I will wait for evidence before joining a lynch mob....
I don't personally know the individual involved, but I know of him. To be honest, I suspect he was sort of looking or hoping for such an incident (and that is just my own personal gut feeling). But even if he was, that's no excuse for the casinos involved to violate state gaming regulations and laws regarding unlawful arrest and detainment. If they are THAT stupid, they deserve what they get. They have an obligation to follow laws and gaming regulations. Maybe it comes down to improper training or even a lack of training of low level personnel, but again that is their responsibility.
You would think losing case after case, involving 6 figure payout and even more that are settled before ever getting to trail would be enough for the industry and particularly one of the biggest gaming corporations in the industry, to wake up. Isn't this a prime example of the definition of insanity? (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome).
You are correct that we have only heard one side. But I do know Bob Nersesian personally, and I know he wouldn't have taken the case if he hadn't looked into it and KNEW that their was something there. It is not in-expensive to try these types of cases. Mr Nersesian, usually takes these types of cases at a very deeply discounted rate. He is not making a lot of money on most of these cases. His reasons are more than financial. He wouldn't take a case he hadn't looked into and was pretty sure he could win. And he has a pretty good record to back him up. :) Just think about that for a second. He has a pretty good record of winning these types of cases or settling out of court, when he is usually going up against a mega corporation with teams of high priced attorneys. Why would that be?.....maybe because he has 'right' (the law) on his side.
Quote: kewljOh, and no, I was not an eye witness. But, there is an eye witness. The casino's own surveillance cameras. And Ironically, it is their very own footage that is usually the star witness in many of these types of cases. It isn't just a matter of one side's version vs the other side's version.
That is what I Have been saying. The eye in the sky will reveal the truth. He claims he was trying to leave when he was kidnapped by security. I am willing to bet that he was standing, blocking the counter areas arguing with everyone, refusing to leave...
Quote: GandlerThat is what I Have been saying. The eye in the sky will reveal the truth. He claims he was trying to leave when he was kidnapped by security. I am willing to bet that he was standing, blocking the counter areas arguing with everyone, refusing to leave...
Really? Now who's speculating? :)
Quote: kewljReally? Now who's speculating? :)
It's a speculation. I may be wrong. But his story sounds so improbable (at best exaggerated). And he has a known beef with CET.
I think he wants to push an extreme story to get a quick settlement. I think if this goes to full trial the truth will come out. I hope the CCTV footage comes out either way so that we can see...
This guy was abusing the system and was intending to get a lawsuit to prove a point. He will get no support from me.
Quote: pokerfaceNot only can the clerk keep your money, he can also hold you and call the police to arrest you because you already broke the law.
Nope. He could call the police but attempting to purchase alcohol underage is not against the law.
Drinking under the age is against the law.
There are penalties for attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted robbery, but not attempted under-age drinking. If he showed his ID and the bartender refused him, the bartender would have to hand his money back. Not rob him and then press charges for attempted drinking.
I'm truly shocked at how many people on here think private companies have rights to your money if you are caught breaking their rules. Even breaking the law in an establishment does not give them the right to take your money without service.
Call the police, yes. Take or keep your money without service, no.
Quote: darkozYeah, I just uncovered some regulations on whether casinos have to honor chips from players who have not gambled at their property.
They have some ability to refuse but had you handed these chips to someone else, that person could have gone to a table, broken the chips down, made some play and then cashed out. The casino would then have to honor the chips.
I doubt a pit boss would refuse you table action because someone else might have given you the chips.
Actually, some places require a player's card to break a flag or higher at a table. And the pit swipes the card and looks at the screen prior to OKing the transaction (whereas breaking a yellow they would say OK first and then deal w/ the player's card).
Presumably they're checking to make sure those chips belong to you.
Quote: sc15Actually, some places require a player's card to break a flag or higher at a table. And the pit swipes the card and looks at the screen prior to OKing the transaction (whereas breaking a yellow they would say OK first and then deal w/ the player's card).
Presumably they're checking to make sure those chips belong to you.
Well, I gamble on the East Coast. I don't think I have ever even seen a "flag" so I cannot comment on this without the proper knowledge.
But I would assume that without a color-up, the chips would be a small enough denomination to make it feasible to go to another table after handing off the chips.
He cashed out less than five grand after all. He could have had a pocketful of black. Since he was clearly leaving after experiencing heat I doubt he colored up to yellows and I've cashed out purples with not even a bat of the eye.
Quote: darkozWell, I gamble on the East Coast. I don't think I have ever even seen a "flag" so I cannot comment on this without the proper knowledge.
But I would assume that without a color-up, the chips would be a small enough denomination to make it feasible to go to another table after handing off the chips.
He cashed out less than five grand after all. He could have had a pocketful of black. Since he was clearly leaving after experiencing heat I doubt he colored up to yellows and I've cashed out purples with not even a bat of the eye.
flag = $5000 chip.
Just saying, the "bearer instrument" thing doesn't work on high denomination chips.
I don't like taking big chips either, but if I'm leaving a game with $100K I'd rather not carry 100 yellow or 200 purple.
Quote: darkozChips, however, are bearer bond instruments. There are bearer bond laws. The chips cannot be confiscated. The player is allowed to hand the chips over to someone else so they can cash them out.
I believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
Quote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
Don't know why vouchers and chips would be handled any differently.
As for Nevada law, the chips must be cashed out unless the casino has some knowledge the chip holder is not a patron of the casino. In the Nolan Dalla case, he explained he was not a patron and was handed the chip.
The statute does not say the chips must be purchased by the patron. Only that a patron is the only person who can cash them in. So if you hand me your chips and I then go to a table and gamble (with newly purchased chips or the ones you handed) by statute I am now a patron of the casino and must be able to redeem them.
That's the statutes anyway. I wouldn't care to test it, lol.
Quote: darkozQuote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
That seems to make a lot more sense. Chips seem so archaic. Everything on paper or card would be so much more practical. Plus carrying around pocketfuls of chips is annoying.
Quote: darkozQuote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
That seems to make a lot more sense. Chips seem so archaic. Everything on paper or card would be so much more practical. Plus carrying around pocketfuls of chips is annoying.
Quote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
That seems to make a lot more sense. Chips seem so archaic. Everything on paper or card would be so much more practical. Plus carrying around pocketfuls of chips is annoying.
How are chips archaic?
How do you propose they take and pay at a table game?
Quote: darkozQuote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
What a coincident! Here is the 2006 story of why the old AC Hilton refused to honor a gambler's gray chips.
The casino refused to cash the $5,000 chips because the chips were previously stolen. A homeless guy grabbed and ran away with a fistful of gray chips from the Dealer David's tray. Later that guy sold the chips at a deep discount to the innocent and naïve gambler on the Broadwalk. That gambler attempted to cash them in Hilton, and he's out of luck, since the Holder in Due Course (HDC) doctrine doesn't apply to the stupid bad faith buyer.
You say something to me at a bar (just words) that incites me into smashing your head in with a beer bottle. You die in the hospital. The entire incident is caught on tape, and it shows that you did nothing to physically threaten me (so the self defense defense is out). Even though you're the instigator, I'll probably be convicted of murder/manslaughter and spend at least a couple decades in prison.
Who's really in the wrong in this situation is up for debate. But the facts (video evidence) show your mouth moving, and me swinging at you. Saying something to me doesn't give me the right to strike you. Unless the guy was making bomb threats or threatening to kill somebody, the casino had no right to confiscate his chips or detain him.
Quote: sc15BTW, for the people saying that he doesn't deserve anything because he got into this situation on purpose, consider this:
You say something to me at a bar (just words) that incites me into smashing your head in with a beer bottle. You die in the hospital. The entire incident is caught on tape, and it shows that you did nothing to physically threaten me (so the self defense defense is out). Even though you're the instigator, I'll probably be convicted of murder/manslaughter and spend at least a couple decades in prison.
Who's really in the wrong in this situation is up for debate. But the facts (video evidence) show your mouth moving, and me swinging at you. Saying something to me doesn't give me the right to strike you. Unless the guy was making bomb threats or threatening to kill somebody, the casino had no right to confiscate his chips or detain him.
They may have had a right though. If the security tape shows that he was not leaving when told (as he claimed) and was standing his ground and bein aggressive, them security had every right to subdue him until the cops show up.
This man was not killed or even injured (oh no he got minor abrasions supposedly....) he went there to cause trouble. He got detained by security before the police showed up to take him. He got exactly what he wanted, and I hope he gets nothing more.
Quote: sc15Quote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
That seems to make a lot more sense. Chips seem so archaic. Everything on paper or card would be so much more practical. Plus carrying around pocketfuls of chips is annoying.
How are chips archaic?
How do you propose they take and pay at a table game?
Credit through player card, faster, safer, and they can track everybody and exactly where they are playing. Comps will be far more accurate as well as they track all of your plays instantly.
No chips on table. Insert player card into seat slot and place bets with a button.
And more secure. Nobody can steal my player card and cash out without my pin or ID.
If you think about it, chips are so inefficient and old fashion. And very liable to get stolen or dropped.
Quote: GandlerQuote: sc15Quote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: WizardI believe you are incorrect about that. Please see the Nolan Dalla case as evidence.
I tried to find an update to that case but could not.
Looking up Nevada statutes from Bob Nersessian's book, yes, you are correct. They are not bearer bonds.
Interestingly, I gamble in NY State and everything here is by voucher, not chips (the table games are all electronic.). The vouchers are all bearer bonds and are clearly stated as such. So I assumed chips would be as well.
I will go down in a few minutes and see if that is the case with Atlantic City as well. I am staying right now in Tropicana. Will get back to you on that momentarily.
That seems to make a lot more sense. Chips seem so archaic. Everything on paper or card would be so much more practical. Plus carrying around pocketfuls of chips is annoying.
How are chips archaic?
How do you propose they take and pay at a table game?
Credit through player card, faster, safer, and they can track everybody and exactly where they are playing. Comps will be far more accurate as well as they track all of your plays instantly.
No chips on table. Insert player card into seat slot and place bets with a button.
And more secure. Nobody can steal my player card and cash out without my pin or ID.
If you think about it, chips are so inefficient and old fashion. And very liable to get stolen or dropped.
Table players don't want an electronic game.
They want a physical game with chips and cards.
Quote: GandlerThey may have had a right though. If the security tape shows that he was not leaving when told (as he claimed) and was standing his ground and bein aggressive, them security had every right to subdue him until the cops show up.
This man was not killed or even injured (oh no he got minor abrasions supposedly....) he went there to cause trouble. He got detained by security before the police showed up to take him. He got exactly what he wanted, and I hope he gets nothing more.
I thought you were waiting to hear from CET and/or see the video(s)? The rest of us are wrong [in your opinion] because we're only hearing one side of the story. We actually have something to back up our side of the story (the article). You're just making sh*t up. There is more evidence to support what the rest of us are saying and absolutely nothing supporting what you're saying.
Do you think he only and specifically went and played at Planet Hollywood? Or do you think (the more likely chance) that he played at several casinos on the strip?
You cannot cash out someone else's chips and I *think* they have a right to confiscate chips if they can provide PROOF the person trying to cash out the chips is not a gambling patron. Legally.
If the security guards detained him for standing his ground, not leaving, being aggressive, etc. (called and waited for the police) then OK. But they still can't steal his chips from him.
I'd say the most important part is the fact that Bob is taking the case. As has been repeated numerous times, he doesn't just take random cases, but cases he is damn near sure he's going to win.
Quote: RS
I'd say the most important part is the fact that Bob is taking the case. As has been repeated numerous times, he doesn't just take random cases, but cases he is damn near sure he's going to win.
Totally agree. I've listened to Bob on Gambling with an edge. I am extremely impressed. His track record speaks volumes. Once Bob took the case, the casino has got to be thinking, OMG, we really screwed this one up. Bob is the real deal. He knows the law regarding these cases. I have no doubt Bob grilled his client aggressively before taking this case. Bob has a full case load, doesn't need new clients. He generally refers new cases to other Vegas lawyers. He's only going to take a slam dunk win due to video. Bob loves video, its proof that wins cases.
Bob's opinion or Gandlers opinion. Hmm.
Bet the farm on Bob.
Quote: RSI thought you were waiting to hear from CET and/or see the video(s)? The rest of us are wrong [in your opinion] because we're only hearing one side of the story. We actually have something to back up our side of the story (the article). You're just making sh*t up. There is more evidence to support what the rest of us are saying and absolutely nothing supporting what you're saying.
Do you think he only and specifically went and played at Planet Hollywood? Or do you think (the more likely chance) that he played at several casinos on the strip?
You cannot cash out someone else's chips and I *think* they have a right to confiscate chips if they can provide PROOF the person trying to cash out the chips is not a gambling patron. Legally.
If the security guards detained him for standing his ground, not leaving, being aggressive, etc. (called and waited for the police) then OK. But they still can't steal his chips from him.
I'd say the most important part is the fact that Bob is taking the case. As has been repeated numerous times, he doesn't just take random cases, but cases he is damn near sure he's going to win.
You have nothing to back up your side other than the claims of one man. You are wrong, you are siding with a man with a bad history with no evidence at all. You like him because he is an AP and are giving the the benefit of the doubt. Choosing a side without evidence is scientifically wrong. N
I am still waiting. I clearly said in the post you replied to "they may have had a right" and we will see what the tapes show. Never have I said anything was decided.
Here is why this man (on his own) is not credible in my view.
1. He is a professional AP. Not only does he AP, he does it for a living. These types are generally (for obvious reasons) biased against casino management requesting IDs.
2. He had multiple run ins with CET before. We can argue about who was right and wrong in past run ins. But the fact is they are not on good terms and he knew that. He wanted trouble.
3. He cashed out just under 5k. That is an obvious bait attempt. If you do not see this well sorry...
4. He was 28, I am willing to bet he has been IDd at cashier before and knew what to expect especially with 5k.
This is clearly somebody who takes advantage of the system. He went in to get a law suit.
Let me say this. Since everyone else is choosing a side with no evidence, I will choose one with evidence. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if his story turns out to be 100% accurate (which is unlikely), I will still side with CET. Because even in his skewed story they are still in the right in my book. He went in looking for trouble. You reap what you sow...
I don't have a clue who this lawyer is nor do I care, morally CET is in the right. He may well win, he likely will in this pathetic society where businesses have no rights anymore, but he is clearly a person who abuses the good nature of businesses and takes advantage of whatever he can.... Not a person I will have sympathy for nor somebody who deserves any.
He lives in NJ, and went to Vegas. Why on earth on a short Vegas trip would he pick a CET casino out of all of the (far better by all reviews I have read) casinos? We all know why, he was targeting them for his assault...
Quote: GandlerQuote: RSI thought you were waiting to hear from CET and/or see the video(s)? The rest of us are wrong [in your opinion] because we're only hearing one side of the story. We actually have something to back up our side of the story (the article). You're just making sh*t up. There is more evidence to support what the rest of us are saying and absolutely nothing supporting what you're saying.
Do you think he only and specifically went and played at Planet Hollywood? Or do you think (the more likely chance) that he played at several casinos on the strip?
You cannot cash out someone else's chips and I *think* they have a right to confiscate chips if they can provide PROOF the person trying to cash out the chips is not a gambling patron. Legally.
If the security guards detained him for standing his ground, not leaving, being aggressive, etc. (called and waited for the police) then OK. But they still can't steal his chips from him.
I'd say the most important part is the fact that Bob is taking the case. As has been repeated numerous times, he doesn't just take random cases, but cases he is damn near sure he's going to win.
You have nothing to back up your side other than the claims of one man. You are wrong, you are siding with a man with a bad history with no evidence at all. You like him because he is an AP and are giving the the benefit of the doubt. Choosing a side without evidence is scientifically wrong. N
I am still waiting. I clearly said in the post you replied to "they may have had a right" and we will see what the tapes show. Never have I said anything was decided.
Here is why this man (on his own) is not credible in my view.
1. He is a professional AP. Not only does he AP, he does it for a living. These types are generally (for obvious reasons) biased against casino management requesting IDs.
2. He had multiple run ins with CET before. We can argue about who was right and wrong in past run ins. But the fact is they are not on good terms and he knew that. He wanted trouble.
3. He cashed out just under 5k. That is an obvious bait attempt. If you do not see this well sorry...
4. He was 28, I am willing to bet he has been IDd at cashier before and knew what to expect especially with 5k.
This is clearly somebody who takes advantage of the system. He went in to get a law suit.
Let me say this. Since everyone else is choosing a side with no evidence, I will choose one with evidence. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if his story turns out to be 100% accurate (which is unlikely), I will still side with CET. Because even in his skewed story they are still in the right in my book. He went in looking for trouble. You reap what you sow...
I don't have a clue who this lawyer is nor do I care, morally CET is in the right. He may well win, he likely will in this pathetic society where businesses have no rights anymore, but he is clearly a person who abuses the good nature of businesses and takes advantage of whatever he can.... Not a person I will have sympathy for nor somebody who deserves any.
He lives in NJ, and went to Vegas. Why on earth on a short Vegas trip would he pick a CET casino out of all of the (far better by all reviews I have read) casinos? We all know why, he was targeting them for his assault...
This is getting ridiculous.
"You have no evidence....I have evidence."
*shows no evidence*
Quote: RSQuote: GandlerQuote: RSI thought you were waiting to hear from CET and/or see the video(s)? The rest of us are wrong [in your opinion] because we're only hearing one side of the story. We actually have something to back up our side of the story (the article). You're just making sh*t up. There is more evidence to support what the rest of us are saying and absolutely nothing supporting what you're saying.
Do you think he only and specifically went and played at Planet Hollywood? Or do you think (the more likely chance) that he played at several casinos on the strip?
You cannot cash out someone else's chips and I *think* they have a right to confiscate chips if they can provide PROOF the person trying to cash out the chips is not a gambling patron. Legally.
If the security guards detained him for standing his ground, not leaving, being aggressive, etc. (called and waited for the police) then OK. But they still can't steal his chips from him.
I'd say the most important part is the fact that Bob is taking the case. As has been repeated numerous times, he doesn't just take random cases, but cases he is damn near sure he's going to win.
You have nothing to back up your side other than the claims of one man. You are wrong, you are siding with a man with a bad history with no evidence at all. You like him because he is an AP and are giving the the benefit of the doubt. Choosing a side without evidence is scientifically wrong. N
I am still waiting. I clearly said in the post you replied to "they may have had a right" and we will see what the tapes show. Never have I said anything was decided.
Here is why this man (on his own) is not credible in my view.
1. He is a professional AP. Not only does he AP, he does it for a living. These types are generally (for obvious reasons) biased against casino management requesting IDs.
2. He had multiple run ins with CET before. We can argue about who was right and wrong in past run ins. But the fact is they are not on good terms and he knew that. He wanted trouble.
3. He cashed out just under 5k. That is an obvious bait attempt. If you do not see this well sorry...
4. He was 28, I am willing to bet he has been IDd at cashier before and knew what to expect especially with 5k.
This is clearly somebody who takes advantage of the system. He went in to get a law suit.
Let me say this. Since everyone else is choosing a side with no evidence, I will choose one with evidence. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if his story turns out to be 100% accurate (which is unlikely), I will still side with CET. Because even in his skewed story they are still in the right in my book. He went in looking for trouble. You reap what you sow...
I don't have a clue who this lawyer is nor do I care, morally CET is in the right. He may well win, he likely will in this pathetic society where businesses have no rights anymore, but he is clearly a person who abuses the good nature of businesses and takes advantage of whatever he can.... Not a person I will have sympathy for nor somebody who deserves any.
He lives in NJ, and went to Vegas. Why on earth on a short Vegas trip would he pick a CET casino out of all of the (far better by all reviews I have read) casinos? We all know why, he was targeting them for his assault...
This is getting ridiculous.
"You have no evidence....I have evidence."
*shows no evidence*
I have no evidence. You said you trust that guys word as evidence. I used that as an example and gave his word the benefit of the doubt...
Quote: Gandler
I don't have a clue who this lawyer is nor do I care,...
That says it all. Any fact that hurts your argument is dismissed with "nor do I care"
Heres a good article on Bob. How about educating yourself on the players in this case.
http://www.vegasinc.com/business/gaming/2011/jun/15/lawsuits-pile-alleged-casino-assaults-continue/
or listen, show 94/96
http://www.bobdancer.com/radio.cfm
Quote: terapinedThat says it all. Any fact that hurts your argument is dismissed with "nor do I care"
Heres a good article on Bob. How about educating yourself on the players in this case.
http://www.vegasinc.com/business/gaming/2011/jun/15/lawsuits-pile-alleged-casino-assaults-continue/
or listen, show 94/96
http://www.bobdancer.com/radio.cfm
The lawyer pushing a lawsuit has no relevance on the events in the incident. I don't know why everyone is acting like it makes a claim more legitimate if a famous lawyer takes it or some barely functioning lawyer takes it....
I have not dismissed any facts of the case. I am the one advising people to wait for facts to be shown at the trial before jumping to conclusions.
I guess this lawyer is popular with Vegas locals because he does a gambling talk show? That's fine, it makes no claim any more or less legitimate....
I said nor do I care, because the fact that everyone is obsessed with him is 1. Giving people a favorable opinion of Miller. 2. Totally irrelevant to any hard facts of who is morally right.
Like I said the security footage as well as testimony from game board and police will be the most important things as far as legality. I really want to see the footage because I am curious if he really was "walking out" when he was grabbed...
Quote: GandlerThe lawyer pushing a lawsuit has no relevance on the events in the incident. I don't know why everyone is acting like it makes a claim more legitimate if a famous lawyer takes it or some barely functioning lawyer takes it....
I have not dismissed any facts of the case. I am the one advising people to wait for facts to be shown at the trial before jumping to conclusions.
I guess this lawyer is popular with Vegas locals because he does a gambling talk show? That's fine, it makes no claim any more or less legitimate....
...
Talk show has nothing to do with it. Just gives you a chance to actually listen to him and size him up for yourself.
He wins cases against casinos over and over.
He takes cases he knows he can win.
Its his track record.
This is a gambling board. Everybody here gathers information too determine odds.
If Bob takes the case, the odds are the person has a good case.
Its about looking at all information then estimating odds.
Its a fact that Bob knows more about this case then you do.
Bob taking the case is not evidence itself, but it greatly improves the odds there is a very strong case.
Bob is an attorney who has fought for gambler's rights for many years. He does not run a talk show. He has appeared on some as a guest.
You are running into resistance because you are saying things like "nor do I care" which shows apathy to any research that might prove you wrong.
Many people on here are gamblers and AP's and are going to respect someone who fights for their rights.
Casinos have been shown (in court of law from several past cases) to violate gambler's trust and civil rights.
Bob has been someone who has fought for those rights.
As for video evidence which you keep insisting will prove the truth, I highly doubt that would be satisfactory for you either. I see when I referred to the Binns case, of which there is plenty of video evidence from Harrah's AC own surveillance system showing the family attacked and beaten, your response suddenly became "well, there is more to the story the video isn't revealing."
If you want to support the casinos in all actions regardless of any possible recrimination, regardless of any evidence when presented, regardless of the opinions of top attorneys, regardless of past casino actions and regardless of past civil findings as well as state and federal laws then go ahead and do so, but you will not find many supporters on this forum.
Quote: GandlerThe lawyer pushing a lawsuit has no relevance on the events in the incident. I don't know why everyone is acting like it makes a claim more legitimate if a famous lawyer takes it or some barely functioning lawyer takes it....
Bob Nersesian is regarded throughout the legal community, even by those that he opposes in court, as an expert in casino law, particularly casino abuse cases. He currently is up for a state judge position. When he accepts a case, it is because he thinks it to be a strong case and that is why he wins most of his cases, even against casinos with teams of corporate lawyers. There are many cases that he doesn't take and will flat out tell the person, you don't have a case or you don't have a strong case. If you think the fact that he takes a case has no relevance, well you are just flat out wrong and are embarrassing yourself. I can assure you, CET doesn't think the fact that Bob took this case is irrelevant.
I'll ask you again, do you have any ties, or have family or friends that have ties to CET?
Quote: GandlerQuote: sc15How do you propose they take and pay at a table game?
Credit through player card, faster, safer, and they can track everybody and exactly where they are playing. Comps will be far more accurate as well as they track all of your plays instantly.
No chips on table. Insert player card into seat slot and place bets with a button.
And more secure. Nobody can steal my player card and cash out without my pin or ID.
If you think about it, chips are so inefficient and old fashion. And very liable to get stolen or dropped.
Have you ever played at an iTable, or similar?
My subjective observations (based on iTable play):
The snoop features on the shoe would make it extremely easy to correlate bet spread with count. (I do not know if this is a built in feature of an iTable, but it's technically feasible.)
The player rating system, while accurate, seems painfully conservative. (It seems to count HPH, not just time, and tracks average bet. It was a long time before the "unrated" in the corner changed to a value. I understand that this can probably be adjusted by the house. Also, I don't want accurate comps - I want to be overcomped. ;) )
It is slow. With a fast dealer, I can run about 4x faster than an iTable. With a slow dealer, I can run about 1.5x faster than an iTable. (An iTable seems to be about the same pace as a break-in dealer. Most of this seems to be from the shoe, which they may have improved since the model I played.)
It is error prone. If the scanner in the shoe misreads a card (seems to happen about 1% of the time), the game has to stop, things fixed.
It is expensive. (I expect it to be about 20x the cost of a standard, non-electronic blackjack table. I have not seen a price list to confirm this. I just know that specialized electronics + rubber + felt costs more than rubber + felt. There's a lot more electronics in an iTable than in an electronic hole card reader.)
It may be fragile. (Drinks spill; would you want to pour one on a tablet or laptop? How about 6? Will one broken position take the table out of service? Will an irate or careless drunken patron slam a drink down on the playscreen (accidentally or otherwise)? Will that playscreen crack?)
It is difficult to use. Tapping a touch screen may seem logical and simple, but it is not. (Perhaps a software update has made the on-screen buttons larger and changed their position. I found them to be too close together to use quickly, it seemed prone to activate a button adjacent to the one I intended. Changing bets is slow and frustrating.)
Very hard to play two spots. Even harder to pick up a second spot mid-shoe.
Even if it did generate TITO tickets, (the one I played did not - dealer cashed out a position to cheques - slowly), the disadvantages would irritate me.
It's perfect for civilians, who want a slow playing social game with a lot of sidebets. (The one I played offered 3 - I think Kings Bounty, Royal Match, and ... maybe one of the pair bets, or 21+3.)
We exchange chips for money at the casino. The casino pays face value for the tokens/chip and only allow people to borrow them. You are not buying chips when ou give cash at the table for a stack of chips. I learned his when I use to play poker a lot. I wanted to buy racks on $1.00 chips from the Bellagio and take hem home to use for personal homes. They would no allow me to actually give hem $200.00 for two racks of chips o take of the premises.
Anyways.. just some fuel for thought.
Quote: pokerdanielAs an attorney, I would argue that the chips are actually the casino's property and they can confiscate them for any reasonable need. When we gamble in a casino the chips are the casino's property and used to play games and exchanged for money. It reminds me of a carnival or arcade. You give money and get tokens to use and play games whereby you can win prizes. Interestingly a lot of those coins and tokens state, and are inscribed "No cash value". Chips in the casino have a monetary value. However, can they be used as currency? The simple answer is NO!! You can not use the chips to make purchases in the hotels throughout Vegas. The chips have "No Cash" value. The casino honors the chips and gives you money to technically by back their property. Does this mean you can't take a chip home with you? Of course not, but casino's frequently replace chips and uncirculate chips for his purpose. When casino's get robbed they quickly discount and take those chips off the market.
We exchange chips for money at the casino. The casino pays face value for the tokens/chip and only allow people to borrow them. You are not buying chips when ou give cash at the table for a stack of chips. I learned his when I use to play poker a lot. I wanted to buy racks on $1.00 chips from the Bellagio and take hem home to use for personal homes. They would no allow me to actually give hem $200.00 for two racks of chips o take of the premises.
Anyways.. just some fuel for thought.
Yeah, this isn't a carnival, it's a casino, which operates under the rules set by gaming and the state.
Also, if you wanted $200 in white to take home, you don't go to the cage and say "Hi, I'd like $200 in white to take home and keep." You buy the $200 in white, then walk away and do whatever you want with them.
Quote: pokerdaniel
We exchange chips for money at the casino.
Your words, sir. This is the key to the argument. "exchange". They cannot keep both the chips and your money.
As evidence, counselor, I would like to submit the following sections from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, gaming statutes and regulations:
12.060 Use of chips and tokens.
1. Chips and tokens are solely representatives of value which evidence a debt owed to their custodian by the licensee that issued them and are not the property of anyone other than that licensee.
2. A licensee that uses chips or tokens at its gaming establishment shall:
(a) Comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies of Nevada and of the United States pertaining to chips or tokens;
(b) Issue chips and tokens only to patrons of its gaming establishment and only at their request;
(c) Promptly redeem its own chips and tokens from its patrons by cash or check drawn on an account of the licensee;
So here's the thing...the chips are evident of a debt owed to the custodian (patron) by the licensee (casino). And second, must PROMPTLY be redeemed by cash or check.
