Is the Casino Responsible...

A player wins and cashes out for $10,000 at a craps table. As they are walking from the table to the cashier's cage to redeem their chips and get their cash, they get robbed. Everything is caught on video tape and the thieves have no affiliation with the victim.

Is the casino responsible for the money lost while in the casino? Does the patron/victim have any rights or recourse in this situation?

I don't think the casino is responsible.

However, that opinion changes if the player asked for a security escort.

But even then, I'm not totally sure.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I don't think the casino is responsible.

However, that opinion changes if the player asked for a security escort.

But even then, I'm not totally sure.

I'd assume this is a simple negligence tort case versus the casino. The question is what sort of duty to protect the player did the casino have, if any, and how did it perform that duty.

Did this actually happen? If so, you should be talking to an attorney, not random people on an internet forum. IANAL, but I don't see how the casino is responsible. For example, if someone lifted your wallet while you were leaning over the craps table to pick up your come bet winnings, I don't think anyone could fault the casino for that. So is there a difference in casino responsibility depending on where you are on the casino floor when you get robbed?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

However, that opinion changes if the player asked for a security escort.

They would probably offer the security escort right away. Premises liability is a strange area of the law and decisions might turn on the number of on-floor robberies, lighting, security guard numbers, etc.

Its likely the player would be on his own if he makes a stink.

The reason I brought this question up is because a similar situation did happen to one of my friends. My friend, who is a relative high roller, had cashed out from a craps table at a major Las Vegas casino, and on his way to the cage got bumped by a "drunk" person. As it turned out, the "drunk" was part of a team, and while the drunk was apologizing profusely, someone else snuck up and stole close to $10K in chips from my friend. All of this was caught on video tape.

Obviously my friend was unhappy with the situation and brought it to the attention of security, his host, and the casino staff. After reviewing the tape, the General Manager actually gave him $10K in chips and his host upgraded him to a larger suite. He is always RFB'd so that wasn't an issue. Don't know if the crooks were caught. My friend tends to be polite but firm, which I think worked in his favor.

I think the host and GM handled this situation correctly in this situation. However, we were talking and I was curious to find out if this was the norm or a special circumstance.

Now that we know more of the story, he got what he got more because of who he is and how the casino wants to keep him happy. I mean if he would have asked for a $10k loss rebate, would he get it? Maybe not. But this was different and on camera.

I think it might be per situation or per casino. I had a lady sitting next to me with a stack of greens (nothing near 10K) and a guy walked up, grabbed a handful and ran out the door, he was not caught (at least not that night). The casino gave back what was taken from her, around $400. Did they HAVE TO do that?
I have no idea.

Ken

That's interesting. I got a $35 slot ticket stolen from me at the Tuscany (I dropped it by my machine), and they verified the cashout at a nearby redemption machine (not by me). They didn't even come close to offering to refund my money. "If we refunded everyone's money ... blah, blah, blah." I guess it all depends on how much of a high roller you are.

Well it really depends on how you look at it. But in the long run, it is up to you that make things work out well in this one. I just hope that you might see who's the more responsible ones in this one.
____________________
Bwin Casino

Quote: gambler

The reason I brought this question up is because a similar situation did happen to one of my friends. My friend, who is a relative high roller, had cashed out from a craps table at a major Las Vegas casino, and on his way to the cage got bumped by a "drunk" person. As it turned out, the "drunk" was part of a team, and while the drunk was apologizing profusely, someone else snuck up and stole close to $10K in chips from my friend. All of this was caught on video tape.

Obviously my friend was unhappy with the situation and brought it to the attention of security, his host, and the casino staff. After reviewing the tape, the General Manager actually gave him $10K in chips and his host upgraded him to a larger suite. He is always RFB'd so that wasn't an issue. Don't know if the crooks were caught. My friend tends to be polite but firm, which I think worked in his favor.

I think the host and GM handled this situation correctly in this situation. However, we were talking and I was curious to find out if this was the norm or a special circumstance.

You are somewhat asking two questions it seems...

1. Is the casino legally liable to your friend?

2. Was the General Manager acting in a way which is otherwise the norm for the casino industry under similar circumstances?

Here are my thoughts...

1. As a legal matter, the answer depends on Nevada tort law decisions concerning premises liability arising from criminal acts by a third party as against an invitee upon the commercial property. Most jurisdictions will impose liability (or at least let a jury decide liability) where there has been some prior history of criminal acts upon the property against customers.

2. I don't know, other than the GM's actions here were smart business.

The way I always heard it was..if you stole chips from someone you were stealing the casino's money...which they WILL take care of...but if they steal CASH...that's your problem.

Quote: midwestgb

Here are my thoughts...

1. As a legal matter, the answer depends on Nevada tort law decisions concerning premises liability arising from criminal acts by a third party as against an invitee upon the commercial property. Most jurisdictions will impose liability (or at least let a jury decide liability) where there has been some prior history of criminal acts upon the property against customers.

This is pretty good analysis. The answer is that the casino is not responsible from the theft and gave your friend the 10k back simply as a customer service/high roller retention effort. They figured they'd get it back and more if they gave it, or they would lose a customer permanently if they didn't.

The only thing I'd change from midwestgb's analysis is this part: "some prior history of criminal acts upon the property against customers." It actually has to be a major pattern of criminal acts against customers. Also, if the casino takes remedial measures to deter (cameras, uniformed and covert security) it doesn't really matter that there is a major pattern- as they are taking steps to prevent it.

The major case on this was the Walmart case where customers were robbed in the parking lot. They won because walmart didn't provide security or lighting and had a history of similar crimes at the locations. Walmart now provides good lighting and one (1) security guard in every parking lot. Customers still get robbed but Walmart is not liable, having taken reasonable remedial steps.

Interesting few accounts on the last few posts....
Some Gamblers often do to one another what they try to do to the casino.....not really endorse-able in any form...

Quote: TIMSPEED

The way I always heard it was..if you stole chips from someone you were stealing the casino's money...which they WILL take care of...but if they steal CASH...that's your problem.

In Nevada the chip itself ultimately remains property of the casino, but it is a transferable debt note. The holder of the chip has rights to payment or an adjudicative process through the gaming commission should payment be denied.

When it is stolen from you they are under no obligation to replace it. Also, they can deny payment to people they think illegally obtained it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Interesting few accounts on the last few posts....
Some Gamblers often do to one another what they try to do to the casino.....not really endorse-able in any form...

Still pretending that pickpocketing is the ethical equivalent of making better decisions using information the casino freely gives you in a game the casino freely lets you play?

Quote: bbvk05

The answer is that the casino is not responsible from the theft and gave your friend the 10k back simply as a customer service/high roller retention effort. They figured they'd get it back and more if they gave it, or they would lose a customer permanently if they didn't.

That is pretty much it. One woman came back to her room to find three suitcases placed just inside the door. It was a hotel error but she claimed two hundred had been stolen. Security knew that no one had entered her room ... thats what those cameras and key entry codes are for. The casino "remiburses" her for the two hundred theft based on what they already know about her action on the casino floor.

It would take an awful lot of robberies to make the casino floor an area subject to liability being imposed rather than acepted.

Quote: bbvk05

Still pretending that pickpocketing is the ethical equivalent of making better decisions using information the casino freely gives you in a game the casino freely lets you play?

Using your brain in church or a casino is defeating
the purpose of both. The church and the casino are
the fleecers, not the fleecee's...

Quote: FleaStiff

It would take an awful lot of robberies to make the casino floor an area subject to liability being imposed rather than acepted.

I agree, but only because of the level of security the casinos provide. If there was less security it would be a different story.

Quote: EvenBob

Using your brain in church or a casino is defeating
the purpose of both. The church and the casino are
the fleecers, not the fleecee's...

But the intended purpose of a casino or church is not an ethical rule that binds all others. It just makes it not a good deal for them. That is their choice.

Quote: bbvk05

But the intended purpose of a casino or church is not an ethical rule that binds all others.

But both have unwritten rules about using your brain.
Just take what they spoon feed you and be happy. If
you use your brain in church you're a heretic. If you use
it in a casino, you're a thief.

Quote: EvenBob

But both have unwritten rules about using your brain.
Just take what they spoon feed you and be happy. If
you use your brain in church you're a heretic. If you use
it in a casino, you're a thief.

That is an opinion that diverges from the common law and statutory definition of theft in any American jurisdiction. Also, being a heretic isn't unethical if your belief is honestly held. Everyone is a heretic, actually.

Quote: bbvk05

That is an opinion that diverges from the common law and statutory definition of theft in any American jurisdiction.

Of course it is, and Dan knows it. Its theft
for ethical reasons, he claims. The Supreme
Court says 'don't go there', but the casino
does anyway.

Quote: bbvk05

Still pretending that pickpocketing is the ethical equivalent of making better decisions using information the casino freely gives you in a game the casino freely lets you play?

No problem with better decisions, such as play AK top with a straight, instead of as two pairs.
ANY decision that get's you 86-ed, backed off, or in a back-off "pit alert report" is a dumb decision...
When "I thinks I can gets me some FREE money, watch me bust a move on the evil casino-man..." is both the ethical basis and the informational input to decision making, I'm not the one in trouble, and yes, I hope to spare any gambler from such trouble....

Quote: EvenBob

Of course it is, and Dan knows it. Its theft
for ethical reasons, he claims. The Supreme
Court says 'don't go there', but the casino
does anyway.

If the courts said to the casinos "you can't go there," the casinos wouldn't go there. The courts rule over all gaming authorities and casinos.
They cannot and do not, certainly not with policeman Bob on the beat.

Quote: Paigowdan

No problem with better decisions, such as play AK top with a straight, instead of as two pairs.
ANY decision that get's you 86-ed, backed off, or in a back-off "pit alert report" is a dumb decision...
When "I thinks I can gets me some FREE money, watch me bust a move on the evil casino-man..." is both the ethical basis and the informational input to decision making, I'm not the one in trouble, and yes, I hope to spare any gambler from such trouble....

What you are saying is that I am required to read the casino's mind and anticipate what will get me kicked out. That is an untenable ethical system. There is no ethical difference between basic strategy and card counting, except what the casino will tolerate. That isn't an ethical system.

Is it unethical to stand on a 555A 16 against a dealer 10? Because that is card counting, and is the right play. How am I supposed to know which casino would kick you out for that?

Quote: Paigowdan

"I thinks I can gets me some FREE money, watch me bust a move on the evil casino-man..." is both the ethical basis and .

Yes, the casino can 'gets some free money' anytime they like,
but if a player turns the tables he's a low life crook. I don't
live in that world, I live in the real one, where gaming a casino
is not only ethically correct, its fun.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Paigowdan

"I thinks I can gets me some FREE money, watch me bust a move on the evil casino-man..." is both the ethical basis and .

Yes, the casino can 'gets some free money' anytime they like,
but if a player turns the tables he's a low life crook. I don't
live in that world, I live in the real one, where gaming a casino
is not only ethically correct, its fun.

If a player turns the tables on the up-and-up, he's fine with us all.
If a player's breaks a house ground rule - NOT fine.
Casino's getting free money?
Now how hard of a job is it, - do you think - to babysit gamblers with booze in their system and their cash on the line.
That's real work - not free money.

Quote: Paigowdan

Now how hard of a job is it, - do you think - to babysit gamblers with booze in their system and their cash on the line.
That's real work - not free money.

Not as hard of a job as listening to dealers and table supervisors spew their bullshit, but in any case, you've established that work eliminates the purportedly unethical aspects of having an edge in a casino game. Card counting takes work.

Quote: bbvk05

[What you are saying is that I am required to read the casino's mind and anticipate what will get me kicked out.

No, not at all; BBVK05 - that's what YOU'RE stating here - look at YOUR quote.
Now I stated that known house rules as to proper play must be followed, and that card-counting is a known-by-all, - if not notorious - infraction of casino ground rules. Every card counting, "BJ Hero" site devotes volumes to camoflaging AP play precisely because it is known to be against the ground rules by all involved, and playing innocent is abject BS here. If you KNOW card counting and DEFEND card counting, - then you also KNOW this to be absolutely true and absolutely undeniable.

Quote: bbvk05

That is an untenable ethical system. There is no ethical difference between basic strategy and card counting, except what the casino will tolerate. That isn't an ethical system.

To whom? the wanna-be card counting "BJ hero?" Clearly there's a different ethical system there...

Quote: bbvk05

Is it unethical to stand on a 555A 16 against a dealer 10? Because that is card counting, and is the right play. How am I supposed to know which casino would kick you out for that?

That's perfectly ethical by itself - and I will indeed say so. It does not depend at all on whether or not you stand on 555A against a dealer 10. that's about as material as wearing blue suede shoes to the BJ table.
It depends if your bet amount rises and falls in parallel with the true count. Let's be clear on that.

Quote: bbvk05

Not as hard of a job as listening to dealers and table supervisors spew their bullshit, but in any case, you've established that work eliminates the purportedly unethical aspects of having an edge in a casino game.

Dealers and table supervisors don't spew their bullshit to you because they might not want to talk to you. Do you think they say, "Oh look, another gambler! I have never seen one before, I must chat him up to listen to the fascinating things he may have to say!! - Oh, look, there's BBVK, he seems like a great guy!!" The ones drinking and jabbering are the ones on the players' side of the table. Granted, we greet people, and assume they're decent and chattable unless proven otherwise, but we're not particularly fascinated by, or interested in gamblers, unless we know by experience that they're decent and well-behaved, - or if Brad Pitt strolls in with Angelina Jolie...

As for the house edge, that's no different than any cost of "pay to play" anywhere for any recreation or action. This is also a known aspect of casino gambling, and if you have a problem with it, I suggest you spend more time at a bookstore or movie house. Last night I took a wedding party of eight to Battista's Italian restaurant, and it was $400. We were four dice dealers with our wives (one a blushing bride), and we were the most quiet and non-drinking ones in the place. This is because we know how people can look when drinking and acting at a table.

Quote: bbvk05

Card counting takes work.

So does safe-cracking, or doing a good job at corporate embezzlement.
Anything and EVERYTHING that may generate income takes work, without regard to its ethics. The fact money is involved and it may be lucrative does not make particular "work" ethical on that basis alone, now does it?

"Card counting takes work"

Quote: Paigowdan

So does safe-cracking, or doing a good job at corporate embezzlement.
Anything and EVERYTHING that may generate income takes work, without regard to its ethics. The fact money is involved and it may be lucrative does not make particular "work" ethical on that basis alone, now does it?

You are just arguing against yourself. You are the one that said the casino's edge is fine because they work for it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: bbvk05

[What you are saying is that I am required to read the casino's mind and anticipate what will get me kicked out.

No, not at all; BBVK05 - that's what YOU'RE stating here - look at YOUR quote.
Now I stated that known house rules as to proper play must be followed, and that card-counting is a known-by-all, - if not notorious - infraction of casino ground rules. Every card counting, "BJ Hero" site devotes volumes to camoflaging AP play precisely because it is known to be against the ground rules by all involved, and playing innocent is abject BS here. If you KNOW card counting and DEFEND card counting, - then you also KNOW this to be absolutely true and absolutely undeniable.


To whom? the wanna-be card counting "BJ hero?" Clearly there's a different ethical system there...


That's perfectly ethical by itself - and I will indeed say so. It does not depend at all on whether or not you stand on 555A against a dealer 10. that's about as material as wearing blue suede shoes to the BJ table.
It depends if your bet amount rises and falls in parallel with the true count. Let's be clear on that.

I don't agree that everybody knows that casinos generally will ban people for card counting. Significant numbers of people don't even know what it is. Also, it isn't unethical until you are actually, not constructively (your method), on notice that the casino doesn't want you there if you are card counting. That isn't something I agree to when I walk into a casino. Efforts to impose that on me can't be effectual until I am actually notified.

I am glad that you are at least limiting your insipidly stupid ethical system to varying bet sizes. Since I can achieve an advantage in card craps purely by counting, flat betting and choosing to bet odds or not bet odds (the same level of decision as not hitting on 555A), then you agree that this advantage play is ethical?

Quote: bbvk05

"Card counting takes work" You are just arguing against yourself. You are the one that said the casino's edge is fine because they work for it.

No - what I said was that the house edge is expected and reasonable to be there - as no one works for free, and all must "pay to play," no matter what the recreation, and is totally ethical on that basis. (I mean, do you walk into a restaurant, show, or movie house saying it is somehow unethical to be charged for getting the service?)

Ethics = is the business, action or "money action" being proper, - or improper - in nature.
Not "legal," not "approved or disapproved by church x," but by certain standards.

(approved house or ground rules to do or commit where you are going into, fair or agreed on from both parties POVs or from all POVs on the situation, ethical debate and analysis and argument, etc.)

Quote: bbvk05

I don't agree that everybody knows that casinos generally will ban people for card counting. Significant numbers of people don't even know what it is.

Those who don't even know what card counting is do not do it.
Those who do it know exactly what it is, and what they're doing, to include knowing that it is indeed a casino/gambling hall infraction from the get-go, or lying to all concerned (including themselves) that it is just fine and dandy.

Quote: bbvk05

Also, it isn't unethical until you are actually, not constructively (your method), on notice that the casino doesn't want you there if you are card counting. That isn't something I agree to when I walk into a casino.

Fine, they [the casino] may help you unwalk from the casino as a result; being 86-ed is an undeniable and know risk. Cannot say otherwise or play innocent. Gotta give me that.

Quote: bbvk05

Efforts to impose that on me can't be effectual until I am actually notified.

The pit boss and/or a security guard might notify you, in case you have somehow (and accidentally) overstayed your welcome.

Quote: bbvk05

I am glad that you are at least limiting your insipidly stupid ethical system to varying bet sizes.

1. Ad hominen attack is a sign of weakness. We are all guilty at times when our passions get the best of us.
2. Always limited myself as well as the proper casino definition of card counting as signaling its presence by bet size varying in parallel with the true count.

Quote: bbvk05

Since I can achieve an advantage in card craps purely by counting, flat betting and choosing to bet odds or not bet odds (the same level of decision as not hitting on 555A), then you agree that this advantage play is ethical?

Yes, if it is okay with BOTH you and the pit boss as ground rules of play, not one POV or the other.

Paigowdan, you keep justifying the house edge as a fair price. I agree. Blackjack is a pretty fair game even without counting. The entertainment value is generally worth the minor expected loss. It is not unethical for the casino to take an edge... ANY edge... it wants as long as it never misrepresents the game rules. If casinos were to place a "You Lose!" table (-100%EV) in the casino from the Jane Austen's Mafia movie, I would be totally fine with that. I am simply stating that using the information the casino freely provides you as a part of the rules of the game to make decisions is not unethical. You've developed an ethical scheme that is essentially "it is unethical to do anything that the individual casino would expel you for. It doesn't matter that your actions are completely within the game rules and table limits, it becomes unethical when the casino does not like it beyond a certain point." The entire notion is still absurd.

The casino can require flat bets. They don't. They can cap max bets. They don't. They can increase pen. They don't. I am not going to tell them what to do with their game, and I am not going to let them tell me what to do with my brain. It isn't unethical to play the game optimally, the casino just doesn't like it.

Quote: Paigowdan

No - what I said was that the house edge is expected and reasonable to be there - as no one works for free, and all must "pay to play," no matter what the recreation, and is totally ethical on that basis. (I mean, do you walk into a restaurant, show, or movie house saying it is somehow unethical to be charged for getting the service?)

Ethics = is the business, action or "money action" being proper, - or improper - in nature.
Not "legal," not "approved or disapproved by church x," but by certain standards.

(approved house or ground rules to do or commit where you are going into, fair or agreed on from both parties POVs or from all POVs on the situation, ethical debate and analysis and argument, etc.)

To contradict the idea that casinos get free money you said:

Quote: Paigowdan

Casino's getting free money?
Now how hard of a job is it, - do you think - to babysit gamblers with booze in their system and their cash on the line.
That's real work - not free money.

But earlier you said card counting is free money, which is untrue. Both of your statements argue against your original statement that AP is going for free money.


I also don't agree with your definition of ethics. Ethics is simply a system of right and wrong. You can have differing ethical systems, which we clearly do. Mine is caveat emptor and that each has to look after his own interests but owes all truthful representation of facts if they are offered. Yours isn't even internally consistent but revolves around whatever a casinos wants is right and whatever it does not want is wrong.

Quote: Paigowdan

Fine, they [the casino] may help you unwalk from the casino as a result; being 86-ed is an undeniable and know risk. Cannot say otherwise or play innocent. Gotta give me that.

The pit boss and/or a security guard might notify you, in case you have somehow (and accidentally) overstayed your welcome.


1. Ad hominen attack is a sign of weakness. We are all guilty at times when our passions get the best of us.
2. Always limited myself as well as the proper casino definition of card counting as signaling its presence by bet size varying in parallel with the true count.


Yes, if it is okay with BOTH you and the pit boss as ground rules of play, not one POV or the other.

1. If you are 86'd I agree that it is unethical to stay or return (if permanent). Just like trespassing.
2. There is no ethical difference between my card craps AP play and my blackjack AP play. I simply make the best betting and play decisions I can with the information the casino provides me.
3. I won't hold your lack of understanding of the term against you, but ad hominem attacks are against the person. I attacked your "casino's wishes= ethics rules" system as insipidly stupid. It is. I didn't say anything about you. You seem otherwise pretty intelligent with a clear distaste for policing a game you freely offer against people who make optimal decisions inside it.

Quote: bbvk05

Paigowdan, you keep justifying the house edge as a fair price. I agree. Blackjack is a pretty fair game even without counting. The entertainment value is generally worth the minor expected loss.

Exactly, - as it is with craps, Baccarat, Roulette, etc.

Quote: bbvk05

It is not unethical for the casino to take an edge... ANY edge... it wants as long as it never misrepresents the game rules.

I feel that > 5% on a flat bet is usurious.

Quote: bbvk05

If casinos were to place a "You Lose!" table (-100%EV) in the casino from the Jane Austen's Mafia movie, I would be totally fine with that.

I would be furious as a game designer, shouting and pointing out, "now that's a REAL shitty product and deal you're offering there - LOSE it now!"

Quote: bbvk05

I am simply stating that using the information the casino freely provides you as a part of the rules of the game to make decisions is not unethical.

Depends on how you obtained the information; if you used a semi-illicit process to track, then convert, (and at personal effort for personal gain), the historical discard data - when the assumption is to NOT do this, - and that it is work, a deliberate process an illicit process by the ground rules.

Quote: bbvk05

You've developed an ethical scheme that is essentially "it is unethical to do anything that the individual casino would expel you for."

Yeah, pretty much. Behave and play by the house rules, and you're a-okay. Somebody's got to run the place and is regulated. Do I think the typical gambler would run a casino better or more ethically? Hmm....

Quote: bbvk05

It doesn't matter that your actions are completely within the game rules and table limits,

Yes - it does indeed matter! that is EXACTLY the issue at hand, - being within the game rules and table limits, etc..

Quote: bbvk05

it becomes unethical when the casino does not like it beyond a certain point." The entire notion is still absurd.

Now THAT notion is absurd, I agree 100%.
If a player wins the progressive on a Pai Gow game - for cleanly drawing a 7-card straight flush, he MUST be paid, as per agreement and the ground rules that the house agreed to. For a casino house or gambling Hall to renege on a clean and honest winner who played by the rules is despicable.

Quote: bbvk05

The casino can require flat bets. They don't.

No, they can and often do. This is obvious, I've seen them do it a million times when warranted.

Quote: bbvk05

They can cap max bets. They don't.

No, they can and often do. ditto: This is obvious, I've seen them do it a million times when warranted.

Quote: bbvk05

They can increase pen. They don't.

Yes they do! Penetration varies and changes constantly, corresponding to the threat level against a BJ game. They have, and will do so time and time again, as conditions warrant.

Quote: bbvk05

I am not going to tell them what to do with their game,

You can't - unless you own and run a casino.

Quote: bbvk05

and I am not going to let them tell me what to do with my brain.

Nobody's "messing with your brain," there's no Ray-guns pointed at your head, and no, there is no extra oxygen pumped into casino. they are watching your actual actions, and verifying as to whether or not is in accordance with the house rules, to include ALL advantage actions: past-posting, marking cards, pinching and capping bets. Threats are simply dealt with as threats, and are dealt with according to its severity and appropriate response.

Quote: bbvk05

It isn't unethical to play the game optimally,

Yes, it fully is, when in accordance to the house and game-play rules

Quote: bbvk05

the casino just doesn't like it.

Doesn't matter what the casino likes, they too have to follow ground rules.

Any cheating, or just breaking the ground rules of play, etc., is "free money" in the sense that it is "easier money."
Granted, it might cost a safe-cracker $2,000 worth of time and effort to take $500,000, for a $498,000 profit, but yes, you are right, it is not totally free. There's the labor and energy involved, the risk of jail, legal defense, etc., it is not totally free, just easier and illicit money, money not by the rules.

Again, the concept of "I worked hard for that booty, so it is not free - but it is well-deserved for ME!" I do find questionable.

And there is an element of that kind of justification in ALL "against-the-rules AP play, etc. This is very hard to see, I grant you, but I see it.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

Quote: paigowdan

Now I stated that known house rules as to proper play must be followed, and that card-counting is a known-by-all, - if not notorious - infraction of casino ground rules

This is not true, and you know it. The casino does not have a rule against card counting, because ... guess what? ... they only don't like it when you are winning. Keep loosing, and they will let you count all you want, and comp you like crazy.

And when you are told that the casino can require flat bets, but they don't ... your response "yes, they do!" is also not true, and you also know it. The issue is that, if they indeed did not want card counters at the table, like you suggest, they have plenty of ways to enforce that rule - like requiring flat bets (for everybody, not just for a guy who happens to be winning) or installing a CSM or choosing from a whole bunch of other well known ways. But they don't do that, because in the end of the day they (correctly) believe that they make more money on theoretically countable games than they lose.

What you are advocating is akin to a casino offering a game of chess (the winner is paid even money), but "did not like" the player to think more than one move ahead.

My rule notes (pen, max bet limts, etc) are based on the typical table. Sometimes the limits those things. That is fine, but it is not the general rule. If the game is offered without them it is not unethical to play inside the offering. I do, and make pretty good money doing it. Nobody has ever told my I cannot vary my bet size at my favorite spot. In fact, the known rules seem to indicate otherwise (min=5, max=500).

The rest of your discussion above is either circular or a red herring, and doesn't warrant a serious response.

Quote: weaselman

This is not true, and you know it. The casino does not have a rule against card counting, because ... guess what? ... they only don't like it when you are winning. Keep loosing, and they will let you count all you want, and comp you like crazy.

BS. I've seen LOSING counters get backed off, and told to give it up.
Now, there IS indeed a current Casino policy to be currently more tolerant, and to "take a bit of that money if they wanna try this [during this currently quiet AP] period, it's their entertainment to try and fail at it" - and I am totally against that POV - because it is "selective."

deleted

Quote: Paigowdan

BS. I've seen LOSING counters get backed off, and told to give it up.

Oh, come on. Please ...

Interesting how this thread got hijacked into an attempted AP bash. There is really no comparison between a chip theft and an AP winning money. A theft is an illegal activity, where the victim has legal recourse to recover damanges if the perpetrator is caught. Advantage play, while disliked by casinos, is a legal activity. Casinos have no legal recourse to recover losses from APs, provided the AP wasn't trespassing or involved with some other illegal activity against the casino.

I really don't care to get into a lengthy discussion of ethics. You could argue that advantage play is unethical just because casinos don't like it. Likewise, I could argue that casinos are an unethical business, given that they provide and promote services that are known to ruin the lives of millions of gamblers who cannot control their habit. A definition of what is ethical and unethical will vary from one person to the next. While some consider advantage play an unethical activity, and others would consider the entire casino industry to be unethical, the fact is, both are legal activities.

Back to the original topic, I know of a couple cases where slot credits were stolen, and the casino made pretty much no effort to correct the situation. In both cases, the player left the machine to use the restroom or to accept a quick call on their cell phone where they could get better cell service. They leaned the chair against the machine, left a jacket on the machine, or did something else to make it obvious that the machine was being reserved. While away from the machine, the thief hit the cashout button on the machine, took the ticket to a kiosk, and ran. When the player reported the issue to the casino, they had no interest in filing a report, reviewing surveillance footage, or involving the police. They also did not offer to refund the player their loss (in the $200-400 range, in both cases).

Clearly, these are cases where the player was partially at fault. It is foolish to leave a machine unattended. I wouldn't necessarily expect the casino to reimburse the loss in this case, although I can assure you that if these players were on the "super sucker list", the casino would likely have gone out of their way to make sure they're not losing a customer.

Quote: weaselman

Oh, come on. Please ...

I've been relegated to flat betting while losing. I suppose some surveillance people are not morons, but the evidence is slim.

Quote: Paigowdan

BS. I've seen LOSING counters get backed off, and told to give it up.

Quote: weaselman

Oh, come on. Please ...

This happens all the time. In fact, I would expect that most people who try card counting are either underbankrolled, or are really bad at it - to the point that they are lifetime losing players. The majority of the damage caused to casinos as a result of card counting is self-inflicted. The losses associated with devoting excessive resources to catch card counters, changing game procedures to thwart counting, and tossing losing card counters are in excess of the actual dollars won by skilled card counters.

Quote: CowPieDon

Interesting how this thread got hijacked into an attempted AP bash. There is really no comparison between a chip theft and an AP winning money.

Huh? Break the house rules for personal gain, get 86-ed for either, etc...
A real lot in common, especially in nature, in the casino's view and consideration of a threat to ops, etc.
A real lot in common, not a hi-jack.

Quote: CPD

I really don't care to get into a lengthy discussion of ethics.

Fine - you're just stopped as a gambler either way, you get pushback, defeat, obstruction, whatever you want to call it.

Quote: CPD

You could argue that advantage play is unethical just because casinos don't like it.

that's not the arguement I made, so don't claim or say that it is.
1. Back offs;
2. 86-es;
3. Contrary to casino rules and what they allow.
etc..

Well, my legal expertise stopped when I flunked out of law school (which I'm still not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing), but I would think that since security at casinos is so tight, with cameras and security guards all over, that they are taking all reasonable precautions to prevent robberies, so they would not be responsible.

Quote: AlanRRT

Well, my legal expertise stopped when I flunked out of law school (which I'm still not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing), but I would think that since security at casinos is so tight, with cameras and security guards all over, that they are taking all reasonable precautions to prevent robberies, so they would not be responsible.

That is the casino argument - and the general casino result - that they're safe to play in and be in.
Short of metal detectors at the doors, and security personnel every 10 feet.
I believe there's a good faith effort to make casinos a safe to play.

- How many feel uncomfortable, or unsafe there in a casino?
A Poll?

The OP said that the guy was leaving the table with 10K. He must have had 10-1k chips or 20-500 chips. If it were me, I would be holding those chips very tightly and practically nothing would make me let go, until I got to the cage.

But I was thinking of the saying"A fool and his money are soon parted"
With that kind of value the right move would be to ask for a security escort, but I imagine pride would get in the way and keep many people from asking.

I agree that the casino prob does not have an obligation to refund monies stolen, but do it based on showing a good face to some customers. At their discretion of course.