Thread Rating:

Poll

31 votes (39.74%)
47 votes (60.25%)

78 members have voted

Mewtwo
Mewtwo
Joined: Jul 28, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 7
August 6th, 2010 at 2:24:46 PM permalink
I believe the use of a cut card and posted minimum/maximum bets should be considered implied acceptance of a player's action. The min/max is the casino agreeing to take action from any player who sits down at the table so long as it is equal to or above the table minimum, and equal to or below the table maximum. The cut card is the casino agreeing to take action from any player and continuing to do so until the hand where the cut card is reached.
dm
dm
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
August 6th, 2010 at 2:58:04 PM permalink
No, the posted bet range is not intended as a "spread" allowance. But you are welcome to flat bet the max.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
August 9th, 2010 at 6:58:02 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Lhornbk70
Lhornbk70
Joined: Jul 26, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 40
August 10th, 2010 at 3:01:14 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

This guy says that counting cards doesnt work? I must have been getting real lucky over the last ten years then.

Also, I voted yes they should. Even as an advantage gambler, casinos are a private business and have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they want. You could just as easily walk into a Walmart and they could ask you to leave and never come back if they want and they dont have to give you any explaination.



I can pretty much guarantee you that NO major corporation, or even small chain, is going to ask someone to leave and never come back without some sort of legitimate explanation (theft, not wearing shoes or shirt, soliciting, harassing customers or employees, etc.) simply due to fear of being sued for discrimination (even if it was a white male that was kicked out he could claim that he was gay or some other protected minority.) Yes, a business has the right to refuse service "to anyone for any reason" in theory. But, in today's lawsuit filled world, the business needs a legitimate reason to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. And although I despise the lawsuit mentality of many people today, I am glad that this is the case because otherwise it would be far too easy for a bigot to kick out minorities and use the "any reason" excuse. This way they have to have a reason for kicking the person out that can be defended in court. There might be a few independent businessmen in the world that would take the "kick you out without an explanation" approach, but frankly they probably aren't smart enough to run a business worth going to anyway. If the manager of the nearest Wal-Mart tried to tell me I had to leave and could not come back without giving me a legitimate reason for doing so, I would be on the phone to the corporate office until I either had an explanation or apology, or I would not only contact a lawyer but would write letters to every newspaper and radio and tv station that might reach customers of that Wal-Mart and cause them as big a headache as possible.

As to how this applies in this context, yes a casino probably has the right to kick out big winners to protect their bottom line. But unless they're going to kick out every big winner, I don't think they should be allowed to kick out just those that they think might be counting cards without some sort of proof or admission.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
August 13th, 2010 at 7:08:44 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 213
  • Posts: 5445
December 8th, 2010 at 12:12:54 PM permalink
Looks like I just threw the vote over to favor the no's.

My issue with throwing people out is the casinos offer games of gambling. The casino may operate like a normal business but they do this by setting up rules that give them favorable odds, not guaranteed odds. That is, if a person can win money, they have the right to because it is gambling and the clientelle is accepting a risk to their money. The casinos must risk their money as well.

You can argue the casinos don't have to risk their money but that is ludicrous. It would not be gambling then. If the casinos had the right to always make money, then they could simply institute illegal means to win, Like card cheats to deal, or rigged roulette wheels. There has to be the ability of the player to fairly win or the casino is not offering gambling at all.

If an AP has come up with a means to fairly win(that is using nothing but thinking, no artificial devices like computers or card manipulation) than the casino needs to accept that as part of their gamble.

I believe that is the essence of the NJ casino decision by the high court. The casino has no right to ban someone simply because they "won fairly".

BTW-Card counting is a fair form of winning. Take a simplified example. Lets say you were to win only when aces appear. And from a normal 52 card deck, you saw three aces go by within the first ten cards. You'd be an idiot to keep playing with such lousy odds. Likewise, if 42 cards had passed and you had not seen a single ace, then it is definitely time to raise your bets. This would be cheating? Heck no. Its intelligent play and to argue with someone otherwise is to argue they must always gamble dumb.

Bottom line: the casinos offer you chances to win money. And they cannot bar you, simply because you actually try.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
FleaStiff
FleaStiff 
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 261
  • Posts: 13789
December 8th, 2010 at 12:27:35 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Bottom line: the casinos offer you chances to win money. And they cannot bar you, simply because you actually try.


They don't want to bar those who try, they want to bar those who succeed. The skillful player or one who simply knows more than a half-drunk fanny pack wearing tourist who has been brainwashed.

Should an all you can eat restaurant be forced to have no limits on their largess?

If a casino can not bar the skillful then they must only offer games that require no skill or are too complex to benefit someone who is alert.

I admit it seems strange to say you can shear the sheep and can't ban the wolf. I'd love to let this be a problem for the marketplace to solve, but a Sweat The Money joint that bans card counting even at its five dollar table can do so without fear of a customer backlash, most of their customers leave town in two weeks anyway.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 213
  • Posts: 5445
December 8th, 2010 at 1:03:51 PM permalink
"They don't want to bar those who try, they want to bar those who succeed"

That's nonsense. If they only ban the successful, then there is no point in trying.

"Should an all you can eat restaurant be forced to have no limits on their largess?"

All you can eat is very plain grammar. There is no foggy point on its meaning. "ALL YOU CAN EAT". If a buffet does not offer that, they need to call it something else. It is a gamble on the part of the restaurant that the average person will eat less than their cost. If they ban those who eat too much then they are not offering all you can eat, only all they allow you to eat. The cost of the buffet is higher than an average meal to cover those cases where people eat more than expected. Now, like the casinos they can establish reasonable rules. Such as no take out food, or a loitering time limit(so someone does not read a newspaper for three hours until supper time for a second meal but that is true of any restaurant on the basis of limited table space.)

"If a casino can not bar the skillful then they must only offer games that require no skill"

What skill are you talking about-card counting?. If the game of BJ is offered because it requires skill(your implication) then it behooves you to use skill. But your argument is as soon as the skill works, you can be thrown out. Might was well just play games of no skill then.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 10059
December 8th, 2010 at 1:42:06 PM permalink
Not to derail this thread, but....
Quote: darkoz

All you can eat is very plain grammar. There is no foggy point on its meaning. "ALL YOU CAN EAT". If a buffet does not offer that, they need to call it something else.

They DO call it something else. They use the term "Buffet" not "All you can eat."
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 213
  • Posts: 5445
December 8th, 2010 at 2:33:58 PM permalink
Yeah, I don't want to derail this thread either but:

The question I was responding to referred to an "All you can eat restaurant" I have seen plenty of restaurants with the words all you can eat before the word buffet. There can be no argument in a case like that. It means all you can eat.

And I personally would feel discontent if I had to be nervous that my eating habits might be misconstrued as too much in an all you can eat. I don't want to feel when I take a second helping of dessert that I'm being greedy and offending the staff. I paid for an all you can eat and I will eat(no I am not terribly obese-I refer to the principle of it.)
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee

  • Jump to: