But You Can't Put a Price On Fun!
December 5th, 2009 at 5:36:40 AM
permalink
Wow. Check this out!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 5th, 2009 at 6:58:19 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitWow. Check this out!
Wow, 5.6% of their revenue... I wonder what his comps were...
after reading further, it's actually disclosed:
In a series of emails signed by Mr. Ning, the Harrah's marketing executive, the casino company laid out the terms that it was willing to offer him, which included "a special formula just for Mr. Watanabe."
Mr. Ning specified such offers as tickets to the Rolling Stones, $12,500 a month for airfare and $500,000 in credit at the gift stores. Harrah's also offered 15% cash back on table losses greater than $500,000, special high-limit games and other incentives. Mr. Watanabe alleges that Harrah's later rolled those terms back.
So I says to him, I said "Get your own monkey!"
December 5th, 2009 at 8:05:23 AM
permalink
If you watch the World Series of Poker, the CEO (?) of Harrahs comes on and says how they have a policy of watching out for and stopping problem gamblers.
I guess he should add "except for Whales"
I guess he should add "except for Whales"
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 5th, 2009 at 11:29:02 PM
permalink
Wow, I was going to post that too. How do you p*ss that much money away? He must have NO gambling knowledge. I don't recall the article saying what game he played but... If he knew basic strategy blackjack or was a strong video poker player, it would take him eons to lose that much. I guess he doesn't read wizardofods.com?
December 6th, 2009 at 5:40:45 PM
permalink
Quote:Losing $5 Million in a Day
One reason Mr. Watanabe was seen as so valuable to Harrah's, say Messrs. Deleon and Kunder, two of his handlers, is that he gravitated toward games with low odds, including roulette and slots. "He was considered a 'house' player because slots and roulette are house games -- they have terrible odds for the player," says Mr. Kunder. "And the way he played blackjack, he made it a house game. He made such bad decisions on the blackjack table."
Several employees say Mr. Watanabe would stay at the tables for up to 24 hours, sometimes losing as much as $5 million in a single binge. He was allowed to play three blackjack hands simultaneously with a $50,000 limit for each hand. At one point, the casino raised his credit to $17 million, according to court documents.
Its all in there. How much is true, i have no idea. But as for casinos telling intoxicated patrons not to gamble? as much as every company says it does, i havnt found one yet, unless you become aggressive, violent or obnoxiously loud,
[This space is intentionally left blank]
December 6th, 2009 at 10:19:22 PM
permalink
Quote: deucedeucedeuceDEUCEWow, I was going to post that too. How do you p*ss that much money away? He must have NO gambling knowledge. I don't recall the article saying what game he played but... If he knew basic strategy blackjack or was a strong video poker player, it would take him eons to lose that much. I guess he doesn't read wizardofods.com?
From the article:
...he gravitated toward games with low odds, including roulette and slots. "He was considered a 'house' player because slots and roulette are house games -- they have terrible odds for the player," says Mr. Kunder. "And the way he played blackjack, he made it a house game. He made such bad decisions on the blackjack table."
Many high rollers play baccarat which requires no skill and is impossible to screw up. If he had done so he would have lost far, far less and would easily be able to cover his debt. If he had learned blackjack basic strategy he might have even won some money or at least only lost a million or so. Winning sessions would have been common.
However assuming he was playing slots, roulette and some ridiculous blackjack strategy at a 5+ percent house edge there is very little chance 'the grind' would not hit him hard. And boy did it ever.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:06:12 PM
permalink
Gee whillakers, $5 million in a day!!!?
As long as the state gaming boards/commissions look the other way, this problem will never be settled. It is absolutely in the casino's best interest to keep every single person in the casino gambling (with the exception of card counters who they back off) no matter what their condition is. And until the gaming commission actually prosecute casinos for allowing drunk/drugged players to continue losing, this problem will continue to persist.
I don't care if a player loses $5 million sober. Teaching people about responsible gambling is the government's responsibility as they allowed the casinos to exist. If the gaming commission wants to enforce controls forcing players to stop at a loss limit, I'm all for that too.
However, the encouraged to let the player allegedly play drunk and drugged and knew it. That's not right.
As long as the state gaming boards/commissions look the other way, this problem will never be settled. It is absolutely in the casino's best interest to keep every single person in the casino gambling (with the exception of card counters who they back off) no matter what their condition is. And until the gaming commission actually prosecute casinos for allowing drunk/drugged players to continue losing, this problem will continue to persist.
I don't care if a player loses $5 million sober. Teaching people about responsible gambling is the government's responsibility as they allowed the casinos to exist. If the gaming commission wants to enforce controls forcing players to stop at a loss limit, I'm all for that too.
However, the encouraged to let the player allegedly play drunk and drugged and knew it. That's not right.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 7th, 2009 at 2:33:20 PM
permalink
I think he still would have lost it all playing better games. It would have just taken him longer, or he would have just ended up betting even more until he lost it all.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:37:32 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI don't care if a player loses $5 million sober. Teaching people about responsible gambling is the government's responsibility as they allowed the casinos to exist. If the gaming commission wants to enforce controls forcing players to stop at a loss limit, I'm all for that too.
However, the encouraged to let the player allegedly play drunk and drugged and knew it. That's not right.
I don't see that it should be the governemnt's responsibility to teach people to gamble responsibly, any more than it should be the government's responsibility to teach people to work responsibly or play responsibly or any of a myriad other things which require responsibility.
It's any gamblers' obligation, to himself, to gamble within his limits.
As to this guy in particular, unless the casinos forced him to drink and gamble, it's his responsibility alone. When I say force I mean force. No amount of enticements, no matter how nice, qualify as force.
As to setting limits, that could be a good idea for such people who request it. But it would be a terrible idea to impose it on all gamblers. I had an uncle who gambled a lot. he qualified for free rooms and had casinos offering him airfare, limo rides, etc. But he never gambled more than he was willing to lose. He set his own limits and stuck to them. Oh, he also never borrowed money to gamble with. No one should borrow money to gamble with, it's an irrational thing to do, worse than borrowing money to pay prior debts. Anyway, if you enjoy betting big and don't mind losing big and can aford it, that's your problem.
Gambling is a lot like drinking: You have to know when to stop and when to do either activity. Also parents, teachers, schools, etc don't like to talk about either to children or even young adults. As a result people overall are unprepared and ignorant of both drinking and gambling, with predictabel consequences.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 7th, 2009 at 8:33:22 PM
permalink
In my 23 years playing in Las Vegas (geez, I'm old) playing in Vegas, I've only once seen a drunk player cut off. It was at the Circus Circus. To them, I say kudos, you did the right thing. I also applaud Wynn for cutting the guy off. If I ran a casino, I would not want to take the money of a drunk or degenerate gambler either. I think this Gaming rule about not dealing to intoxicated patrons is extremely loosely enforced.
If forced to take a position on this, I am lean towards Harrah's side. It would set a terrible precedent if gamblers could get out of paying for losses if they were drinking. Assuming the allegations are true, I think Harrah's should pay a hefty fine for letting him play drunk, but the markers should still be enforced. A bet is a bet. The player lost so he should pay, no excuses. However, Harrah's should face the consequences of ignoring the Gaming regulation. That's my two cents.
If forced to take a position on this, I am lean towards Harrah's side. It would set a terrible precedent if gamblers could get out of paying for losses if they were drinking. Assuming the allegations are true, I think Harrah's should pay a hefty fine for letting him play drunk, but the markers should still be enforced. A bet is a bet. The player lost so he should pay, no excuses. However, Harrah's should face the consequences of ignoring the Gaming regulation. That's my two cents.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 8th, 2009 at 6:14:53 AM
permalink
I agree with the Wizard's thought. A bet is a bet, but a casino should be heavily fined for allowing gamblers to bet drunk or under the influence of drugs.
At the same time, I still feel that the government who allowed the casinos to exist should take care of its problem gamblers. The government receives money from the gaming revenue and a good percentage of this revenue is derived from problem gambling: money that a player cannot afford to play, that breaks up homes and families and often drives the problem gambler into criminal behavior. Given that gambling addiction has been shown to be "real", the government should offer programs that will curb these addictions, especially since it is benefiting directly from the gambling regulations that they created. I agree that for about 95% of gamblers, it is "fun" and "entertainment", but for the other 5%, they have problems that could prove disastrous. The government has a responsibility to protect these people.
Ontario has a responsible gaming area at the entrance to each of their casinos. They also have a self-exclusion program which will effectively ban them from the casinos should they sign up. It's a start.
At the same time, I still feel that the government who allowed the casinos to exist should take care of its problem gamblers. The government receives money from the gaming revenue and a good percentage of this revenue is derived from problem gambling: money that a player cannot afford to play, that breaks up homes and families and often drives the problem gambler into criminal behavior. Given that gambling addiction has been shown to be "real", the government should offer programs that will curb these addictions, especially since it is benefiting directly from the gambling regulations that they created. I agree that for about 95% of gamblers, it is "fun" and "entertainment", but for the other 5%, they have problems that could prove disastrous. The government has a responsibility to protect these people.
Ontario has a responsible gaming area at the entrance to each of their casinos. They also have a self-exclusion program which will effectively ban them from the casinos should they sign up. It's a start.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 8th, 2009 at 5:20:18 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI agree with the Wizard's thought. A bet is a bet, but a casino should be heavily fined for allowing gamblers to bet drunk or under the influence of drugs.
Is it against current law to allow an intoxicated person to gamble? If it's not, then the casino is entriely in the clear legally.
Morally is another matter. I do think casinos should prevent intoxicated people from gambling, even if it means removing them from the premises. That leaves the practical problem of determining just what constitutes intoxication. Obviously someone's who's falling down drunk is too badly impaired in order to bet intelligently, or even to bet knowingly. But some people will make bad decisions after a few drinks, while others won't. How do you tell?
Quote: boymimboAt the same time, I still feel that the government who allowed the casinos to exist should take care of its problem gamblers.
Government shoulnd't have a say in what kinds of businesses are allowed to exist, much less how they should be run. Of course it has that kind of say and plenty more, but it shoulnd't.
Quote: boymimboThe government receives money from the gaming revenue and a good percentage of this revenue is derived from problem gambling: money that a player cannot afford to play, that breaks up homes and families and often drives the problem gambler into criminal behavior.
You can make the same claim for most other kinds of addiction, like alcoholism, durg addiction and even thrill-seeking (look up BASE jumping). To use your terminology, government allows liquor stores and abrs to operate, it allows the sale of porn in many forms, and it allows parachutes to be amde and sold. And of course government takes a cut of all these activities. SO why shoulnd't government oversee your dinking if it can oversee your gambling?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 8th, 2009 at 9:00:25 PM
permalink
Of course governments should disallow activities that are detrimental to its citizens. Alcohol is allowed to exist and be sold because the argument can be made that most people can handle alcohol responsibly, but there is a portion of the population that can't. Gambling is similar. Government allows these activities to exist and has the duty to protect its population against those who are prone to addiction.
Is it illegal to serve drunk patrons? Section 5.011 of the Nevada Gaming Control Act Establishments provides for disciplinary action.
(Rev. 11/08)
"5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action. The board and the commission deem any activity on the part of any licensee, his agents or employees, that is inimical to the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the people of the State of Nevada, or that would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry, to be an unsuitable method of operation and shall be grounds for disciplinary action by the board and the commission in accordance with the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations of the board and the commission. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following acts or omissions may be determined to be unsuitable methods of operation: ...
2. Permitting persons who are visibly intoxicated to participate in gaming activity.
3. Complimentary service of intoxicating beverages in the casino area to persons who are
visibly intoxicated."
You can't parachute off a plane unless the pilot flying that plane has a license (government), that the plane itself meets FAA regulations (government), that it files a flight plan (government), that the parachute itself is UL certified (government), that the operator is licensed (government) and has a business license (government).
Is it illegal to serve drunk patrons? Section 5.011 of the Nevada Gaming Control Act Establishments provides for disciplinary action.
(Rev. 11/08)
"5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action. The board and the commission deem any activity on the part of any licensee, his agents or employees, that is inimical to the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the people of the State of Nevada, or that would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry, to be an unsuitable method of operation and shall be grounds for disciplinary action by the board and the commission in accordance with the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations of the board and the commission. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following acts or omissions may be determined to be unsuitable methods of operation: ...
2. Permitting persons who are visibly intoxicated to participate in gaming activity.
3. Complimentary service of intoxicating beverages in the casino area to persons who are
visibly intoxicated."
You can't parachute off a plane unless the pilot flying that plane has a license (government), that the plane itself meets FAA regulations (government), that it files a flight plan (government), that the parachute itself is UL certified (government), that the operator is licensed (government) and has a business license (government).
Last edited by: boymimbo on Dec 9, 2009
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 9th, 2009 at 11:36:58 AM
permalink
The problem is not the law, but the interpretation of it. Defining "intoxicated" is the grey area that may allow the worm to wriggle off the hook.
Where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line?
[This space is intentionally left blank]
December 9th, 2009 at 5:00:43 PM
permalink
Not drunk is he who from the floor, Can rise alone and still drink more; But drunk is he, who prostrate lies, Without the power to drink or rise
Thomas Love Peacock
I believe that is the standard the casino uses to determine if a gambler is intoxicted.:)
Thomas Love Peacock
I believe that is the standard the casino uses to determine if a gambler is intoxicted.:)
December 9th, 2009 at 5:04:52 PM
permalink
Funnily enough, I think it is even more lenient than that where I work.
I have seen people in there fall over drunk and not be asked to leave, although even we draw the line when people fouul themselves.
I have seen people in there fall over drunk and not be asked to leave, although even we draw the line when people fouul themselves.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
December 9th, 2009 at 7:49:52 PM
permalink
Quote: CroupierThe problem is not the law, but the interpretation of it. Defining "intoxicated" is the grey area that may allow the worm to wriggle off the hook.
Where do you draw the line?
I agree 100%. This is not the only term that begs for clarification in the Gaming regulations. Others are "device," as in you can't use a cheating device, and "malfunction," as in if a slot machine malfunctions the casino doesn't have to honor a jackpot.
Personally, I feel that if two parties want to make a bet on something, the state should not stand in the way. For those who oppose gambling on moral grounds, you will find plenty of company in Utah.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 10th, 2009 at 7:35:42 AM
permalink
I work in a jurisdiction with similar rules to Nevada. We are not allowed to let an intoxicated person to gamble. So if we have to cut someone off from drinking alcohol we also have to inform them that they can not gamble either. Talk about throwing fuel onto a fire.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:52:25 AM
permalink
It would be interesting to see how courts/Gaming have interpreted "intoxicated" in the oontext of cutting off casino patrons. Any Nevada-licensed lawyers on the board? A greater question would be what is the "duty" of the casino? As we all know, it is in their best interest to keep patrons plied with drinks -- drinking makes you not care about losing. (Good heavens, I have seen people make horrible, horrible gambling decisions after just a few Chardonnays. This is why I don't let any alcohol cross my lips in the casino under any circumstances.) Is this practice so reprehensible that the State should step in and impose this duty on casinos to protect their patrons, or should we just make it a question of individual responsibility?
In my opinion, either ban alcohol completely from casinos (ain't gonna happen, in Nevada at least), or let the customers & the casino do whatever they want -- like the Wizard said, don't get involved.
In my opinion, either ban alcohol completely from casinos (ain't gonna happen, in Nevada at least), or let the customers & the casino do whatever they want -- like the Wizard said, don't get involved.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
December 10th, 2009 at 9:59:29 AM
permalink
An example to add to my last post: In Ontario, where I occasionally play, drinks are so expensive as to be almost prohibitive to buy ($4.75 for a beer, $7.50 for wine, more for cocktails!) This tends to keep drunkenness down, and is a good solution to the problem, I think. They also promote their problem gambling materials pretty heavily, and have a psychologist working in the casino full-time (!) Of course, this is partly a function of the "socialist nanny-state"* that is Canada, but I kind of like it.
*joking
*joking
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
December 10th, 2009 at 1:59:23 PM
permalink
I don't think charging $7 for a glass of wine would have stopped the person from losing $100+ million. I really don't have problems with people coming to the casino drunk and losing their money, as entertainment. What I don't like are people with drinking and gambling problems coming to the casino.
In Ontario, a study estimated that 35% of gambling revenue came from the 4.8% of residents that identified themselves as "problem gamblers". And although they have "Problem Gambling" areas at each of their casinos, it still is not enough. The Province allows casinos to exist and therefore has a duty to inform patrons about problem gambling and to give problem gamblers options to get out. They also are very vigilant in cutting off drunk patrons and even track the number of drinks given to patrons over an evening.
I'm not socialist enough to believe that casinos should shut down because of 5% of gamblers. However, I do believe that when a government benefits (the government in Ontario keeps all gambling profits; the three supercasinos (Niagara, Fallsview, Windsor) operate under a licensing agreement) from someone' addiction that it itself created, it has the duty to step in and take care of those people.
In Ontario, a study estimated that 35% of gambling revenue came from the 4.8% of residents that identified themselves as "problem gamblers". And although they have "Problem Gambling" areas at each of their casinos, it still is not enough. The Province allows casinos to exist and therefore has a duty to inform patrons about problem gambling and to give problem gamblers options to get out. They also are very vigilant in cutting off drunk patrons and even track the number of drinks given to patrons over an evening.
I'm not socialist enough to believe that casinos should shut down because of 5% of gamblers. However, I do believe that when a government benefits (the government in Ontario keeps all gambling profits; the three supercasinos (Niagara, Fallsview, Windsor) operate under a licensing agreement) from someone' addiction that it itself created, it has the duty to step in and take care of those people.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 10th, 2009 at 6:29:05 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboOf course governments should disallow activities that are detrimental to its citizens.
Why? Children need to be told what to do and when to do it, even how much they can do. Adults can decide for themselves. We don't need a nanny state to watch over us, at least most of us son't.
Quote: boymimboYou can't parachute off a plane unless the pilot flying that plane has a license (government), that the plane itself meets FAA regulations (government), that it files a flight plan (government), that the parachute itself is UL certified (government), that the operator is licensed (government) and has a business license (government).
Of course you can. What you can't do is parachute off an airplane if no one builds planes or parachutes, trains pilots and teaches how to safely jump off an airplane. For that you need private industry and services, not government. The state just gets in the way.
BTW BASE jumping, which I mentioned, is especially high-risk because the jumps take place off almost anything but an airplane. Also UL, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., is a private agency.
But back on topic, government does serve as an arbiter in contractual disputes. So how about this: let gambling addicts, or their families, sign a "do not gamble" contract with the casinos. The problem gambler would promise not to sue the casino for past losses in exchange for the casino to prevent him from gambling at all by any means necessary. If the casino then allows the problem gambler to lay bets, directly, then the government can step in when he sues the casino for breach of contract.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 11th, 2009 at 12:31:58 AM
permalink
Quote: nareed
But back on topic, government does serve as an arbiter in contractual disputes. So how about this: let gambling addicts, or their families, sign a "do not gamble" contract with the casinos. The problem gambler would promise not to sue the casino for past losses in exchange for the casino to prevent him from gambling at all by any means necessary. If the casino then allows the problem gambler to lay bets, directly, then the government can step in when he sues the casino for breach of contract.
Based on the last line, I don't think the casino would offer such a contract. They would not want to take responsibility for ensuring the patron never gambles, as its a practical impossibility. Unless they swiped the ID of every patron (not going to happen) there would always be ways for a person to slide in to a casino and plop down at a slot machine. Casinos would want nothing to do with declaring liability for it.
I think many casinos do have a self-exclusion program, although I'm sure its worded that if the person does not declare themseleves while entering or in the casino to be on the list, the responsibility to adhere to it resides with the patron. Sure the casino will not let them gamble if they notice, but surveillance cannot be looking for them all the time.
Also a family member has no control over a person except in certain medical cases, and nor should they.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:05:15 AM
permalink
Quote: pocketacesI think many casinos do have a self-exclusion program, although I'm sure its worded that if the person does not declare themseleves while entering or in the casino to be on the list, the responsibility to adhere to it resides with the patron. Sure the casino will not let them gamble if they notice, but surveillance cannot be looking for them all the time.
That's exactly right. So we agree such a contract would be hard to keep. Then why should we expect casinos to look out for problem gamblers under threat of government force?
Quote: pocketacesAlso a family member has no control over a person except in certain medical cases, and nor should they.
Also true. However, if someone just can't help himself from buying airplane tickets to vgeas, booking a hotel, arranging massive credit lines with a casino and pissing his money away on bad BJ bets while under an alcoholic stuppor, then he ought to have himself declared incompetent and placed under the care of a willing family member.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 11th, 2009 at 7:19:59 AM
permalink
Quote: pocketaces
I think many casinos do have a self-exclusion program, although I'm sure its worded that if the person does not declare themseleves while entering or in the casino to be on the list, the responsibility to adhere to it resides with the patron. Sure the casino will not let them gamble if they notice, but surveillance cannot be looking for them all the time.
This is true. Self-exclusion programs are basically unenforceable. There was a case in, I believe, Indiana where a woman sued a casino for letting her gamble away 200K when she had self-excluded herself. The court basically said tough luck, honey. Not the casino's responsibility, like to said, to seek you out and nail you every time you walk in (and she was surreptitiously playing slots, not high-limit blackjack).
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
December 11th, 2009 at 10:50:41 AM
permalink
Quote: pocketaces
I think many casinos do have a self-exclusion program, although I'm sure its worded that if the person does not declare themseleves while entering or in the casino to be on the list, the responsibility to adhere to it resides with the patron. Sure the casino will not let them gamble if they notice, but surveillance cannot be looking for them all the time.
There was another thread about someone who took someone's slot ticket and tried to cash it. Security approached them three days later. Certainly, surveillance could spot people on the self-exclusion list and have them excluded. Certainly, if they can take the effort to recognize people who are counters and cheats (such as people on the Griffin list), casinos can also recognize people on the self-exclusion list, especially if they are legally bound to do so.
Look, gambling is an addiction for some people, similar to drug and alcohol addictions. The government (state, provincial) allows casinos to exist and profit from gambling revenue and taxes. Therefore, the government has the duty to protect gambling addicts. Certainly the statistic in Ontario that shows that 35% (2 billion) of all gambling revenue comes from 4.8% of problem gamblers (453,000). For that, the province spent all of $33 million on prevention. And those with a gambling problem are four times more likely to suffer from an alcohol or drug problem (24 vs 6%). 80% of problem gamblers indicate that the slot machine is their preferred addictive device.
I know and agree that all of us have to take personal responsibility for our issues. At the same time, when we take responsibility for any kind of problem, the government needs to have the programs to help you through those problems and not just pay lip service. That is, make self-exclusion enforceable and to cut off drunk people from making bets.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 11th, 2009 at 3:29:37 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboCertainly, if they can take the effort to recognize people who are counters and cheats (such as people on the Griffin list), casinos can also recognize people on the self-exclusion list, especially if they are legally bound to do so.
But is is in the casino's interest to weed out cheats and card counters. Nor is this something specific to casinos. Ask anyone who's worked in retail, and you'll find out what measures are taken to weed out shoplifters; depending on scales, this would apply to deadbeats as well.
Quote: boymimboLook, gambling is an addiction for some people, similar to drug and alcohol addictions.
Granted. But having an addiction doesn't free you from responsibility from your actions. A schizophrenic cannot help hearing voices, a blind person can't help not being able to see, and someone with diabetes can't help lacking insuline. But an addict can do something about his behavior.
In fact take the time and think all the things an addict has to do to get a fix. Often that involves a great deal of effort, more so if the addict can keep functioning within society. Addiction may something that just happens to happen, but feeding the addiction requires action and effort.
Quote: boymimboThe government (state, provincial) allows casinos to exist and profit from gambling revenue and taxes. Therefore, the government has the duty to protect gambling addicts.
One statement does not follow from the other. I profit by the existence of casinos because I enjoy relaxing at a table game with a pile of slowly dimminishing chips. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for every problem gambler that chooses to waste his money.
Quote: boymimboI know and agree that all of us have to take personal responsibility for our issues. At the same time, when we take responsibility for any kind of problem, the government needs to have the programs to help you through those problems and not just pay lip service. That is, make self-exclusion enforceable and to cut off drunk people from making bets.
Taking personal responsibility means obtaining what you need either by your own efforts or the voluntary aid of whoever is willing to help you. It doesn't not mean turning to the one authority that can take resources from unwilling people and turn them over to you. There's a huge difference bwteen living within your means and taking a government bailout.
There are private organizations that help various kinds of addicts with their problems. You can write to the various casinos and ask them to help these organizations out, or organize others to do so, write letters to the editor, etc, if this matter concerns you so much. There are other things you can do. What I don't see is a need to shrug off responsibility and task the government, which is to say all of us, to solve the problem.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 11th, 2009 at 4:06:58 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo
There was another thread about someone who took someone's slot ticket and tried to cash it. Security approached them three days later. Certainly, surveillance could spot people on the self-exclusion list and have them excluded. Certainly, if they can take the effort to recognize people who are counters and cheats (such as people on the Griffin list), casinos can also recognize people on the self-exclusion list, especially if they are legally bound to do so.
I'm not saying that casino surveillance is not generally good at what they do. The problem is, its a lot easier to identify a behavior (like stealing a slot ticket which jumps out at security) than a person playing at a slot machine who is on some list. At no time does a surveillance room have the identity ready at their fingertips of all people at the casino - that's a practical impossibility, especially at busy times. The amount of resources needed to individually identify every person and cross check it with the list would be massive.
If the patron spent enough time in the casino, its possible they could be eventually identified as surveillance went through the floor bit by bit. But by that time they would have already gambled and the casino would already be liable.
I would bet that you probably could get away with stealing a ticket most of the time IF the other patron does not report it lost (which would cause surveillance to look for it). Table games are where their eyes spend most of their time.
Agree that table players can probably be scrutinized to the point of getting people on the list out pretty quickly, but with thousands of slot machines in some casinos, there's no guarantee for slot players and I don't think we can hold the casino liable here because of the technical issues. If the government had a mandate to enforce this list 100 percent of the time or make the casinos pay or lose their license, we would have to see mandatory scanning of IDs at the entrance, which opens up other issues.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:16:41 PM
permalink
Quote: pocketacesIf the government had a mandate to enforce this list 100 percent of the time or make the casinos pay or lose their license, we would have to see mandatory scanning of IDs at the entrance, which opens up other issues.
Hear, hear!
I'd also like to ad: in the battle between warhead and armor, warhead always wins (apologies to Tom Clancy, I think).
I guarantee that if there were an ID check at the door of every casino (and every other place in vegas with slots? Think about it), we'll start seeing gambling addicts with fake IDs. And that's just for starters. We may also see problem gamblers giving money to others to gamble in their stead.
You could take a less intrusive measure and simply tag the player cards of problem gamblers. When the card gos in a slot or VP, the machine spits the money out and locks down. At the table the player is asked to leave. of course, then the problem gambler simply has to play without a card.
Oh, another thing about psychological problems is that for the subject to change behaviors or get better, he has to want to do it. So simply playing defense and barring addicts from casinos, or having them turn their money to others to adminsiter, won't solve their problem. They'll simply find a way around such obstacles. No amount of government programs will make any problem gambler want to quit gambling, either.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 12th, 2009 at 4:42:39 PM
permalink
Quite a lively discussion thread. We agree to disagree I suppose. So, if the government legalizes cocaine, fixes the price at $20 a hit, takes $18 for taxes, it doesn't have the responsibility to take care of the addicts it creates?
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 12th, 2009 at 6:32:41 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboQuite a lively discussion thread. We agree to disagree I suppose. So, if the government legalizes cocaine, fixes the price at $20 a hit, takes $18 for taxes, it doesn't have the responsibility to take care of the addicts it creates?
To begin with cocaine and other drugs should all be legal. To continue taxes today are a mess almost all over the world and tax codes need massive reform. To end, no, the government isn't responsible for cocaine addicts regardless of the legality of cocaine.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 12th, 2009 at 7:53:20 PM
permalink
Right, in comes my two pennorth (or 2 cents as the Americans amongst you might say)
Here, only around 3 casinos in the whole country have an "open door" policy. For the rest, you need membership (usually free). Membership is transferable within a Casino group, so if you signup in London, you could play in the same operators casino in Manchester for example.
When you self exclude, the exclusion applies to all casinos in the group. This doesnt stop you going to another casino operators venue, but its the best system we have. Some casinos have also merged their reward cards with the membership card.
As to the government providing help,well thats a big debate. As someone else pointed out, to change your behaviour first you need ot admit your behaviour needs changing. For anyone that wants to change their behavior, there are plenty of programmes out there to help, regardless of the addiction.
Here, only around 3 casinos in the whole country have an "open door" policy. For the rest, you need membership (usually free). Membership is transferable within a Casino group, so if you signup in London, you could play in the same operators casino in Manchester for example.
When you self exclude, the exclusion applies to all casinos in the group. This doesnt stop you going to another casino operators venue, but its the best system we have. Some casinos have also merged their reward cards with the membership card.
As to the government providing help,well thats a big debate. As someone else pointed out, to change your behaviour first you need ot admit your behaviour needs changing. For anyone that wants to change their behavior, there are plenty of programmes out there to help, regardless of the addiction.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
December 12th, 2009 at 8:09:02 PM
permalink
There's an exclusion policy here in the US too. This may differ from casino to casino (or company to company). I was bored one day and read the policy for Showboat AC.
You can self-exclude for a year, or lifetime. Neither are cancelable. (This is in addition to the black list of people that the casino barred.)
If excluded and you are discovered in the casino, all sorts of options are available to the casino from simply escorting you out, to taking your winnings, to having you arrested for trespassing.
There aren't any stormtroopers at the doors looking to keep out the people that are on the list, so, if discovered and you're self-excluded, you'd probably be quietly escorted out. If you're on the black list then it might not be so quiet.
Of course the catch is, you have to produce an ID to cash out any jackpots. So, unless you are planning on walking away from a slot machine while the bells are ringing, you should not bother even going in.
You can self-exclude for a year, or lifetime. Neither are cancelable. (This is in addition to the black list of people that the casino barred.)
If excluded and you are discovered in the casino, all sorts of options are available to the casino from simply escorting you out, to taking your winnings, to having you arrested for trespassing.
There aren't any stormtroopers at the doors looking to keep out the people that are on the list, so, if discovered and you're self-excluded, you'd probably be quietly escorted out. If you're on the black list then it might not be so quiet.
Of course the catch is, you have to produce an ID to cash out any jackpots. So, unless you are planning on walking away from a slot machine while the bells are ringing, you should not bother even going in.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
December 13th, 2009 at 5:23:46 AM
permalink
Quote: Wizard... It would set a terrible precedent if gamblers could get out of paying for losses if they were drinking. ...
In law, the argument that you should be excused because you were drunk or high is always rejected. This in spite of the fact the condition is often present. No lawyer today even tries it for, say, murder cases. Otherwise you could go murder somebody and just say, "Oh Hell, I was drunk" and thus not be responsible.
Note that the argument in this case is quite different, that the casino "got" this guy intoxicated to take advantage of him.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 13th, 2009 at 8:07:51 AM
permalink
I doubt the casino forced him to drink. If drinks were $20 for a beer, he still would have pissed away the money and paid a million extra for booze anyway. The guy had a problem for sure and the casino happily took his money. The issue I have is that Gaming issued a regulation and didn't enforce it and in fact sided with the casino when there was probably plenty of evidence to the contrary.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 13th, 2009 at 5:50:49 PM
permalink
Getting off topic here....
In fact, that was the plot of one episode of Quincy.
The driver killed someone, and claimed he was drunk. Except Quincy proved that the driver had the drinks AFTER the accident. The driver had some minor injuries with blood clots. Analysis of those clots showed no blood alcohol at the time of the crash.
Actually, not too long ago, you could use the drunk defense for vehicular homicide and 'get away with murder.'Quote: odiousgambit...Otherwise you could go murder somebody and just say, "Oh Hell, I was drunk" and thus not be responsible.
In fact, that was the plot of one episode of Quincy.
The driver killed someone, and claimed he was drunk. Except Quincy proved that the driver had the drinks AFTER the accident. The driver had some minor injuries with blood clots. Analysis of those clots showed no blood alcohol at the time of the crash.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
December 13th, 2009 at 6:08:48 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear... the plot of one episode of Quincy... The driver killed someone, and claimed he was drunk. ...
Sounds to me like the plot had the driver trying to get a reduced charge of negligent homocide, as opposed to first degree murder. That might work.
As far as someone trying to get out of his gambling debt by a 'drunk thus diminished responsibility' defense, I think the Nevada authorities might have just heard enough of that several decades ago. And you can't finagle first degree gambling debt down to third degree methinks.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 1st, 2010 at 2:26:23 AM
permalink
Looks like the Courts are taking the $127 million Watanabe Case seriously
[This space is intentionally left blank]
February 1st, 2010 at 10:09:37 AM
permalink
Quote: CroupierLooks like the Courts are taking the $127 million Watanabe Case seriously
This is a great discovery ruling. We will finally get a "behind-the-scenes" look at what the casinos do to court and keep big players gambling. My guess is that the results will not be pretty.
----------------------
I don't think that Watanabe is going to win his case, but this will be a good precedent. The doofus is a useful "guinea pig."
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
