Casinos should have the right to bar perceived advantage players from playing
Poll
 | 31 votes (39.74%) | ||
| | 47 votes (60.25%) |
78 members have voted
Quote: ruascottTheres a case awaiting ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court to determine if Indiana casinos can ban APs. A counter here sued the Grand Victoria after he was banned, and so far he has won at at the Appeals court level.
That happened in Atlantic City.
But, the player has to sue?
That is not right.
Do the casinos really think they gain ANYTHING from banning advantage players.
IF the answer is yes, what are they gaining?
a higher bottom line???
Quote: HeadlockI believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Funny me, I thought Civil Rights laws in the 60s had already put that notion to bed. I've seen its been creeping back into the political discussion again.
Quote: ruascottFunny me, I thought Civil Rights laws in the 60s had already put that notion to bed. I've seen its been creeping back into the political discussion again.
Stupid you. If you ask me to perform a service for you, I have every right to decline.
Quote: HeadlockI believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Sounds like to me refuse service to anyone walks the line of discrimination.
By saying yes, Then they can discriminate against anyone because they believe that someone may be smart enough to win money from them.
You are not smart enough to count cards, play as you will.
You are smart enough to count cards we (the casino)will say you cant play here any more.
That is the definition of discrimination. And that is not right.
But, the poll is closer than what Id thought.
You are are not modest enough to wear clothes so we (the casino) will say you cannot play here any more.
That is the definition of discrimination. And that is not right.
(I agree with Headlock, obviously.)
so then the only reason why the casino would ban a suspected advantage player is the thought that they may lose more money to them.And that could hit their bottom line.
Quote: HeadlockStupid you. If you ask me to perform a service for you, I have every right to decline.
That is not the same thing as having a retail type business open to the public, which you can then selectively choose who you will allow in.
I myself want to see it to believe it. I'll say it again, no one can be banned from a casino or casino game without it being in writing. If the casino holds someone for the cops under the trespassing policy, they have to be able to show that they issued the "offender" something that proves he was aware of the ban. This isn't the '60's. Everything is based on CYA these days.
Quote: HeadlockWe're not talking about barring a certain age, sex, race, religion. So what does this have to do with discrimination?
BTW, I agree this doesn't have anything to do with discrimination. I was just responding to your comment that businesses can refuse to do business with anyone they like, for any reason. That's actually not true.
Also, I voted that casinos should have the right to ban players.
Quote: JerryLoganI'm still trying to determine who's ever been banned for gambling, with verifiable documentation other than "I've been banned because I'm an advantage player and I beat the pants off those guys" or "I heard so-and-so was banned for counting cards". Is there any proof, or do we just take someone's or someone's friend's word for it because of perceived reputation and that's all there is to it.
I myself want to see it to believe it. I'll say it again, no one can be banned from a casino or casino game without it being in writing. If the casino holds someone for the cops under the trespassing policy, they have to be able to show that they issued the "offender" something that proves he was aware of the ban. This isn't the '60's. Everything is based on CYA these days.
Well, as I said, there's a guy here in Indiana that has a case in front of the Supreme Court because he was banned. The casino admits in court that they banned him, and are arguing they had the right to do so. All the documentation is available for anyone that would be interested.
I think "banning" in this sense means that they refuse to deal cards to the guy once they've spotted him. I don't know if they took it to the "trespassing" level. It even went as far as the Governor commented on it, said he supported the guys right to count and didn't think the casino should be able to ban him.
CLICK HERE
Quote: progrockerThat is an interesting case. Does Hyatt run the gaming there or just the resort? I can imagine that if they lose at the state supreme court level it would be in the Nevada casinos interest to make sure the case is not elevated to the US Supreme Court.
I believe its Hyatt. Its actually run by a company called HGMI Gaming, but they are somehow tied to Hyatt. They only manage a few properties, and they are all connected in some way to Hyatt.
Quote: progrockerSo if Hyatt loses at the Indiana Supreme Court, elevates it to a US court and loses again, wouldn't that mean that no (non-tribal) casino could enforce 'backing off' anyone from blackjack (except cheaters, of course) until a reverse decision?
Good question. I assumed that this would just be a state ruling. I don't see how the US Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over state gambling regulations.
Quote: ruascottGood question. I assumed that this would just be a state ruling. I don't see how the US Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over state gambling regulations.
Sixth article of the Constitution...the Supremacy Clause. This is exactly how all state level anti-abortion and anti-sodomy laws got struck down by Supreme Court decisions on state law cases originating in Texas. Once the Supreme court deems a state law unconstitutional then the state law dominoes fall...at least that is my understanding, which is admittedly limited in the Constitutional Law realm.
Card counting is a completely different story though... these are people who the business believes are not abiding by the rules that the casino places on a game that they provide. What's next? Require bars to blood test people before they can't serve them anymore alcohol? I mean you can't legally prove someone is drunk until you have a blood sample.
Quote: ruascottGood question. I assumed that this would just be a state ruling. I don't see how the US Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over state gambling regulations.
It is a state deal. Remember Ken Uston?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston
He is the reason why Atlantic City casinos can NOT ban a player because of card counting.
Property Brief Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.HERE
Quote: ahiromuJust to stoke the fire a bit. I believe that private businesses have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. Should they? Depends on their clientele. I should have the right to say "No blacks" but then the next day I'll have Jesse Jackson and half the NAACP of Washington on my doorsteps... which for 95% of people out there would be a bad thing. These days only a few places in the country could get away with any of this broad-based discrimination.
I think this was the position Rand Paul took in an interview a couple months ago that got him all sorts of hot water. Your essential argument is standard libertarian philosophy that the market will self-police itself into doing the "right thing." Of course, history proved that this didn't happend in certain parts of the US, so the Federal Gov't eventually stepped in.
Quote: JerryLoganI'm still trying to determine who's ever been banned for gambling, with verifiable documentation other than "I've been banned because I'm an advantage player and I beat the pants off those guys" or "I heard so-and-so was banned for counting cards". Is there any proof, or do we just take someone's or someone's friend's word for it because of perceived reputation and that's all there is to it.
I myself want to see it to believe it.
Here are some documented cases to consider:
http://www.bj21.com/advantageplay/lawandtaxes/patronabuselinks.shtml
This guy was detained at the Clark County Detention Center for 4 days:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-08-Mon-2004/opinion/25191641.html
This casino admitted that they had banned video poker winners:
http://casinogambling.about.com/library/weekly/aa120202.htm
Quote: 7crapsIt is a state deal. Remember Ken Uston?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston
He is the reason why Atlantic City casinos can NOT ban a player because of card counting.
But that case never went past New Jersey. I don't think any of these cases would ever make it to US Court level because the gaming corporations would be afraid of having some far-reaching judgement come down, so they'll never appeal it that far. Now if Indiana decides in favor of Hyatt and somehow the plaintif convinces the SCOTUS to take the case...then wow, that will have some crazy implications.
Quote: ruascottI think this was the position Rand Paul took in an interview a couple months ago that got him all sorts of hot water. Your essential argument is standard libertarian philosophy that the market will self-police itself into doing the "right thing." Of course, history proved that this didn't happend in certain parts of the US, so the Federal Gov't eventually stepped in.
Private civil rights watch dog groups didn't have much power yet then...even if the Civil Rights Act gets repealed things wouldn't go back to how they were before it was passed.
Quote: ruascottI think this was the position Rand Paul took in an interview a couple months ago that got him all sorts of hot water. Your essential argument is standard libertarian philosophy that the market will self-police itself into doing the "right thing." Of course, history proved that this didn't happend in certain parts of the US, so the Federal Gov't eventually stepped in.
Actually there were laws mandating separate facilities for blacks. That's government action at the state level, not a free market at all.
And as has been said, attitudes have changed a great deal since the 60s.
Quote: HeadlockI believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Including, say, lunch counters that prohibit Negroes?
Quote: SanchoPanzaIncluding, say, lunch counters that prohibit Negroes?
It just goes to show how these words can be taken out of context, or put in whatever context the reader is predisposed to take. I am not a professional writer. Nor am I racist, nor do I discriminate in any way.
The context was advantage players, specifically card counters. I believe that any casino should have the right to bar any person they suspect of being a card counter. And I equate that right to my own as a business owner; if I don't want to do business with a particular person, I have the right to choose not to do business with that person.
BTW, how many posters here are unemployed and drawing unemployment benefits?
I might change my mind, because I just decided on that answer just now.
Casinos in Vegas routinely throw vagrants out. Not like a ban exactly, but they don't seem to have much of a problem asking someone to leave.
(of course, it's next to impossible not to get caught playing VP if they are/were able to track all your hands)
Isn't it a little bit crazy for someone to expect you not to play a game as well as you can? You're welcome to play BJ here if you suck at it.
Not being a BJ player, didn't the casinos make card counting a moot point when they added decks, shufflers and other rules years ago?
Quote: HeadlockI believe that any casino should have the right to bar any person they suspect of being a card counter.
So if you use your eyes and your brain you should be banned. Do you work for Harrah's or MGM ??
Quote: DeMango
Quote: HeadlockI believe that any casino should have the right to bar any person they suspect of being a card counter.
So if you use your eyes and your brain you should be banned. Do you work for Harrah's or MGM ??
Stating that you believe someone has a right to do something, and stating that you believe they should actually do that same thing are two different opinions.
Quote: EnvyBonusStating that you believe someone has a right to do something, and stating that you believe they should actually do that same thing are two different opinions.
wut?
Quote: iamthepushQuote: EnvyBonusStating that you believe someone has a right to do something, and stating that you believe they should actually do that same thing are two different opinions.
wut?
I think Richard Jefferson has the right to opt out of a contract that will pay him $15Million next season. I don't think he should do it, since he'll be lucky to make $7Million if he opts out. Oh, wait...that happened? My bad...
As pertains to this subject, the casino's viewpoint is pretty simple: the casino makes money out of the house advantage. Anything that reduces such advantage will hurt their income, therefore they will do whatever they can to preserve it.
In games where the HA is low to begin with, such as BJ, is where you'll find the most obvious actions by any casino. therefore the ban on card counters.
But card counting isn't cheating, it's just playing the game better. That's what bothers gamblers, card counters and non, understandably so. Serious players acquire skills and knowledge, and are very much bothered when the casino tells them, in essence, "use your skills and you're outta here."
Quote: NareedThe subject of discrimination is a comlpex one, and should be discussed elsewhere.
As pertains to this subject, the casino's viewpoint is pretty simple: the casino makes money out of the house advantage. Anything that reduces such advantage will hurt their income, therefore they will do whatever they can to preserve it.
In games where the HA is low to begin with, such as BJ, is where you'll find the most obvious actions by any casino. therefore the ban on card counters.
But card counting isn't cheating, it's just playing the game better. That's what bothers gamblers, card counters and non, understandably so. Serious players acquire skills and knowledge, and are very much bothered when the casino tells them, in essence, "use your skills and you're outta here."
Compare that to what we vp players face. On FPDW, which is readily available all over town in quarters and 5c, the HA is even less than it is in card counting with BS. There are also quite a few plays available at higher and much higher denominations that, with the goodies, can be a player advantage. I assume most of the players who play these things are skilled as you call it, yet it is very uncommon for any of them to get backed off or banned from playing them. (and basically none if you ask to see the proof from those who CLAIM to have been 86'd).
Why the difference?
Quote: JerryLoganCompare that to what we vp players face. On FPDW, which is readily available all over town in quarters and 5c, the HA is even less than it is in card counting with BS. There are also quite a few plays available at higher and much higher denominations that, with the goodies, can be a player advantage. I assume most of the players who play these things are skilled as you call it, yet it is very uncommon for any of them to get backed off or banned from playing them. (and basically none if you ask to see the proof from those who CLAIM to have been 86'd).
Why the difference?
Because their VP machines don't really offer a player advantage. Card counting does. And I'm not talking about comps here, but the ability to actually earn real, serious money over the long-haul. No machine will ever allow that. Even on the machines that have a theoretical player-advantage, the denominations are so low it only works out to earing about $6/hr (again, not counting comps in this discussion). Compare that with a $500/hand played who is an effective counter, and has an expected profit of something like $5 PER HAND or $300/hr and you see why casinos ban effective counters, but not effective VP players.
Quote: JerryLoganI assume most of the players who play these things are skilled as you call it, yet it is very uncommon for any of them to get backed off or banned from playing them. (and basically none if you ask to see the proof from those who CLAIM to have been 86'd).
Why the difference?
You can't add player advantage to VP beyond using correct strategy. You can't count cards in VP because the virtual deck is randomized for every play. Besides players usually make a fixed bet (max coins, usually, for the more experienced players).
Now, a FPDW will have a negative HA only if played well. Even epxerienced players amke mistakes, and the less experienced ones probably give the casino a positive HA. It's like the Mohegan Sun triple down promo that was widely discussed and reported on recently.
Come to think of it, casinos can ban players who are drunk, drugged, disorderly, cheats, naked, carrying a computer, operating a cell phone, taking photographs, and many other reasons. As long as it it not discrimintation as defined in a law somewhere, then the casino can do what they want.
Quote: NareedYou can't add player advantage to VP beyond using correct strategy. You can't count cards in VP because the virtual deck is randomized for every play. Besides players usually make a fixed bet (max coins, usually, for the more experienced players).
Now, a FPDW will have a negative HA only if played well. Even epxerienced players amke mistakes, and the less experienced ones probably give the casino a positive HA. It's like the Mohegan Sun triple down promo that was widely discussed and reported on recently.
I believe you'd find a lot of disagreement to the first sentence on any vp forum. It used to be the way you described for vp AP's on <100% games, but they've cleverly evolved into adding in all that cash back and other slot club benefits that we vp players cannot live without, to create a house disadvantage. I myself do it when I can.
Quote: boymimboI voted yes on this poll. My thought is that the casino is a business and you are engaging in a service on their property. While you are on their property you are subject to the laws of the United States, which means that you have your Bill of Rights and Constitutional Rights at hand. A casino cannot ban you based on those protected groups identified. Nowhere in the constitution does the word "mentally gifted" or "rain man" come up. Therefore, the casinos have the right to ban advantage players (or anyone for that matter), as it is not a form of discrimination as crafted in US law.
Come to think of it, casinos can ban players who are drunk, drugged, disorderly, cheats, naked, carrying a computer, operating a cell phone, taking photographs, and many other reasons. As long as it it not discrimintation as defined in a law somewhere, then the casino can do what they want.
Everyone can and has their opinion.
Here is a summary of what happened in Atlantic City:
sourse
Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.
444 A.2d 370 (N.J.1982)
Author: Jim
Facts: The defendant excluded plaintiff from the blackjack tables in its casino because the plaintiff is an expert card counter.
Issue: Can the defendant exclude the plaintiff from its casino just because the plaintiff is an expert card counter?
Holding: No
Rationale: When property owners open their premises to the general public in the pursuit of their property interests, they have no right to exclude people unreasonably. Such owners do have the right and duty to exclude those who disrupt the ‘regular and essential’ operations of the premises. The plaintiff in this case does not fit that category. He was not disruptive in the casino and no way interfered with the regular functioning of the casino. Therefore, the plaintiff possesses the usual right of reasonable access to the defendant’s casino.
This was and is the ruling for the state of New Jersey. Other states can do as they wish unless the Feds step up.
Quote: 7crapsEveryone can and has their opinion.
Here is a summary of what happened in Atlantic City:
sourse
Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.
444 A.2d 370 (N.J.1982)
Author: Jim
Facts: The defendant excluded plaintiff from the blackjack tables in its casino because the plaintiff is an expert card counter.
Issue: Can the defendant exclude the plaintiff from its casino just because the plaintiff is an expert card counter?
Holding: No
Rationale: When property owners open their premises to the general public in the pursuit of their property interests, they have no right to exclude people unreasonably. Such owners do have the right and duty to exclude those who disrupt the ‘regular and essential’ operations of the premises. The plaintiff in this case does not fit that category. He was not disruptive in the casino and no way interfered with the regular functioning of the casino. Therefore, the plaintiff possesses the usual right of reasonable access to the defendant’s casino.
This was and is the ruling for the state of New Jersey. Other states can do as they wish unless the Feds step up.
Interesting summary, horrible decision. Most legal scholars would agree that this trampled on property rights and f---ed things up for years for New Jersey. Actually, it made things worse for advantage players in New Jersey because if they can't kick you out, they just half-deck you or preferential shuffle. You lose your advantage, and the casinos loses time/revenue, so both parties are losers.
Quote: JerryLoganI believe you'd find a lot of disagreement to the first sentence on any vp forum. It used to be the way you described for vp AP's on <100% games, but they've cleverly evolved into adding in all that cash back and other slot club benefits that we vp players cannot live without, to create a house disadvantage. I myself do it when I can.
People are entitled to their delusions.
Sure, cash back, comps, etc can be counted as a return on gambling, and perhaps should be, but they don't add to the player advantage, if any, as far as the game itself is concerned. All you can do in VP is play the right strategy.
Quote: teddysNot a delusion. If I play a 9/6 JOB machine (99.54% return) at a casino that has a slot club cashback rate of .25% on a 3x points day, I would consider that game a 100.29% payback machine on that day. That's a player advantage. Sure, the machine is not positive in and of itself, but you can't ignore the cash back rate.
Agreed.
But the additional payback you get from the slot club, in special multiple points day or otherwise, is the same for the best VP player that ever lived as it is for the yutz who doesn't know what to do with 4 aces, so long as they both bet the same amount of money.
My point is that beyond good strategy you can't squeeze more advantgae from the game itself. This is as opposed to BJ, where a card counter can get a positive player advantage, vs a superb basic strategy player who can only minimize the HA.
Quote: teddysNot a delusion. If I play a 9/6 JOB machine (99.54% return) at a casino that has a slot club cashback rate of .25% on a 3x points day, I would consider that game a 100.29% payback machine on that day. That's a player advantage. Sure, the machine is not positive in and of itself, but you can't ignore the cash back rate.
I totally agree. Anyone who says cash back and other slot club benefits/offers should not be added into the play is just jealous of all the benefits video poker players can get that table players can only dream about. For every card-counting/Expert Basic Strategy BJ player struggling just to make a few thousand a month, there'a 10 times that many vp players taking advantage of opportunities because of the slot club benefits, & making 5-10 times what the table players do on a consistent basis.
I'd have a blackjack pit with a HUGE sign... "CARD COUNTERS WELCOME HERE!!!!"
Tables in that pit would just have a lower MAX bet compared to the minumum - something like 25 - 100, limiting the spread to 1-4.
I'd be willing to bet that that pit would make WAY more money from all the people who thought they could count, but can't, than it would lose to the few that came in and actually played with an advantage. Plus, think of all the positive PR such a move would make. I'm still shocked nobody has tried to pursue this avenue. If anybody wants the idea, feel free. I'm generous that way. :-)
