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: JerryLoganI 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.
This is very intersting. There may be no more than 100 pro bj players out there with incomes over 100K. That's the last I heard before I left bj21.com Of course there are a lot of recreational players, part time if you will, doing much less. So what you are saying is that there are maybe a 1000 players making 500K and up a year?? Hard to believe the casinos would allow that, look how paranoid they are about a handfull of counters.
Being a smart player is not a category protected by any legal statute. Businesses are allowed to bar patrons because of the way they are dressed, for being drunk, for talking loudly on the cell phone, for smelling bad, etc. Casinos simply take advantage of this legal right to bar advantage players.
While the casinos may be paranoid, they are operating within their legal bounds.
Quote: DeMangoThis is very intersting. There may be no more than 100 pro bj players out there with incomes over 100K. That's the last I heard before I left bj21.com Of course there are a lot of recreational players, part time if you will, doing much less. So what you are saying is that there are maybe a 1000 players making 500K and up a year?? Hard to believe the casinos would allow that, look how paranoid they are about a handfull of counters.
No vp player makes anything close to $500k, and believing propped-up/marketing-influenced info from bj21 is music to SW's ears. Every time he sees such advertising he starts adding up all the profit from the stuff he sells.
No card counter is ever going to get away with making that much. If that were the case then players at $5 & $10 tables would't get hassled over counting.
It's all speculation and no one can prove what anyone else makes gambling. But in the vp world, you've got a handful of people not only claiming they beat the hell out of certain casinos year in and year out for 6 figures or even more, they publish that info and even tell us how much they've taken the slot clubs for. Obviously they all use their slot cards religiously and are tracked meticulously. None, however, are ever banned or backed off. Wouldn't these big mouths be bragging wildly about that if they were? So it's all very confusing. I just wish there were some kind of truth serum available so the rest of us could have a real barometer to go by, and as a result, know better on what to expect from our own efforts.
Imagine, if you will, an arcade where a skilled player is able to win tickets at a rate so that the prizes they redeem those tickets for exceeds what they spent to play the games, and then the arcade does one of three things:
*Tells the player their play is no longer welcome - this would most end up in the local news as a bad business and the backlash they got from this media story would definitely hurt their business.
*Raises the price of the higher-level prizes - this hurts everyone, skilled player or not, and it would still definitely be noticed.
*Increases the difficulty/lowers the payout of the machines that were being won on - this unfairly punishes the non-skilled players to thwart the play of a single player or select few.
Now translate that into blackjack.
Barring a player, for some reason, is considered acceptable, on the premise of "you're too good for us". At this point, you're not offering the same game to everyone as once you show that you're able to win on that game you're no longer welcome - they only want to welcome the losers.
Raising the prices of the prizes could be equated to bad rulesets in BJ - 6:5 payouts on blackjacks, dealer hitting soft 17, not being able to surrender, not being able to double on any two cards, not being able to double after a split, etc. - If they're doing this to make their games undesirable to counters, they're giving everyone else a worse game at the same time, and people will eventually get fed up with this.
Adjusting payouts on machines the counter plays could be compared to anti-counting measures - preferential shuffling, bringing in CSMs, half-shoeing, etc. - this ends up hurting the casino because the time they're taking and money they're spending to do this could be used to play more hands (instead of shuffling more).
Honestly, I don't think the casino should be able to do ANY of these things. Shuffling away a deck that favors the player intentionally, making a game uncountable, barring a player, all of these things ought to be illegal.
At least Pennsylvania has some of this right - their gaming law states that casinos MUST offer Surrender, MUST stand on Soft 17, MUST allow doubling after a split, doubling on any two cards, etc. - no casino is allowed to try and put out a H17 game or anything of the sort.
If we could take New Jersey's inability to ban counters, PA casino's inability to offer crappy ruleset, and progress from there, we might have what would pass for a proper blackjack game.
So long as the casino is not losing money - that is to say, the money they make with the house edge, plus the money they make from players making incorrect basic strategy decisions, outweighs what they lose to counters - it should be illegal for them to take countermeasures against them.
Quote: MewtwoAt least Pennsylvania has some of this right - their gaming law states that casinos MUST offer Surrender, MUST stand on Soft 17, MUST allow doubling after a split, doubling on any two cards, etc. - no casino is allowed to try and put out a H17 game or anything of the sort.
That may be counting the chickens before they hatch. Let´s see what happens in six months and whether Pennsylvania, with its reliance on its new=found bonanza, can repel the forces of government greed and caves in to the more universal practices.
Quote: MewtwoI am amazed at how many people feel that casinos should be able to bar APs. In most other lines of business, this would not only be unacceptable, but enough reason to have a business be shut down.
But it does happen in other businesses. Several years ago my wife and I would eat at Old Country Buffet several times a week. At that time, they had a regular customer who was this huge fat guy who would come in at 2pm, eat and eat, linger over his dessert for a couple hours while he read a book, then get hungry and go thru the line again and again. He was eating what 4-5 regular customers ate. They finally barred him from the building. The manager told me they can do that as long as the customer was abusing the intent of what the restaurant was offering.
Casinos are enertainment venues, they aren't there for a player to make a living. Its perfectly within their rights to barr anyone trying to do that and succeeding.
Quote: ahiromuWhen someone is counting and making this game with a reasonable negative EV into a positive EV game, this throws off their entire business model which equates into lower profits for their employees (bonuses) and shareholders... the only two people that they are accountable to.
Following that line of reasoning, we might look forward to the day when casinos offer only prop bets in craps.
Quote: SanchoPanzaFollowing that line of reasoning, we might look forward to the day when casinos offer only prop bets in craps.
Not really, because part of that business model is attracting players using games they want to play.
Quote: bluefireNot really, because part of that business model is attracting players using games they want to play.
Why can't the casino "use their brain" in that way? Blackjack rules are based on an unbiased deck. So, the casino can solve the counter problem by shuffling every hand. But, that is a nuisance to the good faith player, and requires that
dealers be paid more per hour due to reduced tips. Or maybe increase the house advantage with altered rules. Is that what we want? I say kick out the counter for the good of everyone else.
Quote: bluefireNot really, because part of that business model is attracting players using games they want to play.
Yes conceivably. Look at how blackjack has been transformed.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYes conceivably. Look at how blackjack has been transformed.
There's a huge difference between 6:5 and Prop bets. Do you think average Joe really cares about 6:5? The casual players I talk to don't care one bit. Do you think average Joe would want to play an entirely different game based just on prop bets?
Average Joes wouldn´t be betting a dollar or two on prop bets without at least a minimum wager on the line.
And if they´re betting much more than that, they´re going to be cleaned out pretty darn quickly.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYes conceivably. Look at how blackjack has been transformed.
The equivalency in craps would be lower odds in line bets, not more prop bets.
At that most casinos in the Strip and Downtown offer 3,4,5 odds, unless they offer more like 10x at the Stratosphere, 20x at MSS, 100x at Casino Royale (and otehr off strip joins like Rampart). The only exception I know of is the Fremont which only offer 2x odds.
To be sure the tables are alive with prop bets, hop bets and way too many people play the fire bet, too. Meaning there's no need to change the game. Also casinos won't back off craps players who only play low HA bets, because they're playing fully within the rules and the bets available.
I imagine Rapid Craps will make furhter inroads within the next few years, especially if the odds are programmable. This game saves the casinos money long term as it uses less dealers (and no boxman), which may translate into even higher odds.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe average Joes don´t have much of any idea about what they´re playing.
You don't think that a casual player picks Blackjack because they like the basic game? Every player that I know who visits casinos a few times a year, and doesn't really care too much about odds, goes because the like playing the basic bets on a particular game. They may make a side bet or two once in a while, but that's not why they go.
Quote:The reference is the meat and potatoes middle level. And those results are showing. If you don´t think that might be cutting into table play in Las Vegas, check states from California to Pennsylvania and, yes, even New Jersey.
Which has much more to do with table games & casinos opening in other states and the lower visitation rates to Las Vegas than 6:5 blackjack.
And if they *are* losing tons of money simply because the odds are worse, doesn't that go against your argument that prop-bets-only is a realistic option?
Quote: bluefireAnd if they *are* losing tons of money simply because the odds are worse, doesn't that go against your argument that prop-bets-only is a realistic option?
That´s precisely the point. Thinking that 6=for=5 blackjack is helping Las Vegas is sadly mistaken, and the monthly data bear that out. It is a strong sign of how oblivious the MBA`s running the show are. They have been repeatedly showing that they are not marketers.
Re, `Every player that I know who visits casinos a few times a year, and doesn't really care too much about odds.
A caring and obviously informed acquaintance might try to help them along the road to understanding. And it´s just those basic bets that some wise guy MBA might just decide to do away with.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat´s precisely the point. Thinking that 6=for=5 blackjack is helping Las Vegas is sadly mistaken, and the monthly data bear that out. It is a strong sign of how oblivious the MBA`s running the show are. They have been repeatedly showing that they are not marketers.
Such a pronouncement might be arguabel if we were talking about one casino or one corporation. Since most casinos offer 6:5 21 rather than 3:2 BJ, there must be some rational motive for doing so.
I did notice several Downtown casinos had 3:2 BJ in the regular room, as opposed to the high limit room. Do any stats show better BJ performance there?
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat´s precisely the point. Thinking that 6=for=5 blackjack is helping Las Vegas is sadly mistaken, and the monthly data bear that out. It is a strong sign of how oblivious the MBA`s running the show are. They have been repeatedly showing that they are not marketers.
Except that the data shows that the opening of casinos has way more of an impact, as I already showed. Pacomartin, would you care to comment on this? You're the best expert on this I've seen, and I think I'm stating your position correctly. If I'm not, please correct me.
Quote:Re, `Every player that I know who visits casinos a few times a year, and doesn't really care too much about odds.
A caring and obviously informed acquaintance might try to help them along the road to understanding. And it´s just those basic bets that some wise guy MBA might just decide to do away with.
They don't care about regular game odds. For example, they don't care about the difference between 6:5 BJ and 3:2 BJ, even though I explain to them that the house advantage is way different. And I quote, "I don't make my money on blackjacks". There's no way in hell they'd play if the game was something other than normal blackjack, though. They play the game based off of the regular bet, NOT the side bet.
If casinos started losing their customers quick because of bets, they'd realize and change. These are multi-billion dollar corporations, it's a terrible assumption to think they don't understand their customers.
So, while I appreciate your ridiculous accusations of me not talking to my good friends about odds, I'd also appreciate it if you didn't assume things you have no idea about.
Quote: EvenBobBut it does happen in other businesses. Several years ago my wife and I would eat at Old Country Buffet several times a week. At that time, they had a regular customer who was this huge fat guy who would come in at 2pm, eat and eat, linger over his dessert for a couple hours while he read a book, then get hungry and go thru the line again and again. He was eating what 4-5 regular customers ate. They finally barred him from the building. The manager told me they can do that as long as the customer was abusing the intent of what the restaurant was offering.
Casinos are enertainment venues, they aren't there for a player to make a living. Its perfectly within their rights to barr anyone trying to do that and succeeding.
It does happen in other businesses - and it shouldn't happen there either.
Was the person that was barred being abusive? If not, was he costing the business a significant amount of money - specifically, was he (and others like him) enough to send the business into the red? If not, then they shouldn't have been able to lay down the banhammer on him.
Quote: ahiromuHow can so many people here have the perception that they have the right to play blackjack? The casinos set their rules in order to maximize profits... something that we can all agree on. When setting these rules they assume, for the most part, that people aren't counting and playing the game THAT THEY FUCKING OFFER in a way that THEY FUCKING WANT IT TO BE PLAYED. When someone is counting and making this game with a reasonable negative EV into a positive EV game, this throws off their entire business model which equates into lower profits for their employees (bonuses) and shareholders... the only two people that they are accountable to. I was wrong before, this has absolutely nothing in common with kicking out blacks or native americans (racial reasons) which has happened in our past. If you can count and get away with it, more power to you. If you get caught, then hopefully you understood the risks before.
If a casino has set its minimums and maximums at specific levels, then they should have to take a bet anywhere within that range without having issue with it. Don't want people spreading 1 to 50? Don't offer a game with a 1:50 spread.
My argument here with what you said is the same as the other one I'm replying to here - the casino should only be allowed to intervene when the group of counters at their casino is pushing their blackjack figures from the black into the red for them or comes damn close to doing so. If a casino takes in 10 million dollars over a period of time on their blackjack games and loses 250,000 to counters over that same period of time, for a net of 9.75 million dollars, then I honestly don't feel they should be allowed to do anything to stop them or change the rules of the game. Now if the casino was losing 90% of its profits or more because of counters, then I could understand them having to take some kind of action.
One other thing bugs me - "If you can count and get away with it". Counting shouldn't be something that's "gotten away with". I'm amazed at the perception of card counting that has been allowed to propogate within groups of gamblers and non-gamblers alike.
For the record, I don't actually count cards, but I've been the one to have arcade games changed detrimentally solely because of my play, and I'm a bit bitter about them being able to do that - that angry feeling I have from being punished for using your brain extends to those who count as well.
Quote: NareedThe equivalency in craps would be lower odds in line bets, not more prop bets.
At that most casinos in the Strip and Downtown offer 3,4,5 odds, unless they offer more like 10x at the Stratosphere, 20x at MSS, 100x at Casino Royale (and otehr off strip joins like Rampart). The only exception I know of is the Fremont which only offer 2x odds.
The difference between 6=5 and 3=2 blackjack is a lot bigger than the thousandths and ten=thousandths of one percent difference in house advantage for, say, 5X odds and 20X odds.
Quote: NareedSuch a pronouncement might be arguabel if we were talking about one casino or one corporation. Since most casinos offer 6:5 21 rather than 3:2 BJ, there must be some rational motive for doing so.
The rationale is similar to the one that keeps many dealers standing on their feet for hours at empty tables. Some MBA`s have clearly told the operators that it is more profitable to stand around and wait for the higher rollers. It would be most interesting to see whether anyone else has other ideas about why the casinos act as they do.
All of the Vegas casinos could go the same way that they did for three card poker, for example, changing the odds from 1-4-6 to 1-3-6 to extract more money from the players.
What is mean is that there are several variations to deal and play blackjack. Casinos could all switch to CSMs all of the time and deal more hands per hour and vary the rules around to create competition.
Dealing from a 8 deck, 6 deck, 4 deck, 2 deck, or 1 deck shoe just invites the counters and those with suspicions about CSMs rigging the game. Casinos make alot of money from people who believe they can beat the game by playing the shoe games and using a rudimentary count. Casinos only lose money from those who can truly count and can play a disciplined, advantage game without getting caught.
Therefore, I think it's wrong to ban the advantage players because the only reason that shoe dealt games remain for the casinos is to bring in those who think they can beat the game because it is shoe dealt. I don't think it's fair, inotherwords, to not ban unsuccessful counters but to ban successful ones.
I see a disconnect between how casinos view BJ AP's and vp AP's. Any ideas why?
Quote: JerryLoganBut as a vp player it makes me think even further. We have great promotions all the time, whether they be locally advertised for the public or in mailers to us out-of-towners. We also have a good portion of at least self-proclaimed vp advantage players, many of whom are well known in LV and elsewhere.
Yet THEY are never blocked from playing, banned, or on some blacklist, and you tend to think that casinos have these promos mostly to get them IN for their heavy play.
I personally know a vp high roller who can not use players cards at some casinos and is actually banned from playing vp at a strip casino. I will not name names unless he wants to post here.
Bob Dancer has a current article about these happenings at his website HERE
Quote: JerryLoganI see a disconnect between how casinos view BJ AP's and vp AP's. Any ideas why?
great point. should start a new thread.
Quote: 7crapsI personally know a vp high roller who can not use players cards at some casinos and is actually banned from playing vp at a strip casino. I will not name names unless he wants to post here.
Bob Dancer has a current article about these happenings at his website HERE
All the more interesting. Two points to make: First, I'd love to know who it is that's banned as a AP. I say that because, although I used to be on the Dancer bandwagon with expert play and all that, I was doing nothing but losing and have since switched over to the Rob Singer line of thinking (which is a combo of AP & his own creation). He openly wrote that he's banned from playing vp at Planet Hollywood because he won a ton there in 2008, and he was banned from Harrahs and I believe Bellagio in the early 2000's for the same reason prior to it being sold once or twice.
I wish there were a way to verify what Dancer says in that interesting article, because in Singer's video e-newsletter which I got yesterday he mentions how he's caught Dancer making things up for that column in the past. As I've said, I play a lot in LV and I've met and know a LOT of AP's, and I've never heard any of them say they've been banned from playing anywhere or unable to use a slot club card (that's a new one).
We VP players have a bigger "game" to play than BJ players if we want to understand the ins & outs, that's for sure.
Quote: MewtwoIt does happen in other businesses - and it shouldn't happen there either.
Was the person that was barred being abusive? If not, was he costing the business a significant amount of money - specifically, was he (and others like him) enough to send the business into the red? If not, then they shouldn't have been able to lay down the banhammer on him..
The guy was huge, at least 450 pounds. He thought paying 9 bucks meant he could stay there for 6 hours and eat lunch, read a book while they put out the dinner food, and eat his weight in chicken and roast beef all over again. Dang straight they should have bounced him, thats not what the buffet was there for. They also throw out people who waste food. Its all you can eat, not all you can fill your plate with and throw away.
And casinos don't say 'come here and make a living'. They say 'come here and try your luck'. If you don't like that, go someplace else for entertainment.
But, I have a much larger objection that no one has talked about yet. Very simply, unless the player admits doing so, or is caught with some sort of device to help them (which would be an entirely different matter anyway), it is impossible for the casino to PROVE that he was counting. And it seems to me that if they can't prove it, they can't ban someone for it. I realize that they would have a lot of circumstantial evidence (huge wins, huge variances in bets, always guessing right when they split or double down and so on, etc.), but that is not proof. The player could easily claim luck, and it would be virtually impossible for the casino to prove otherwise. So unless the casino is going to ban everyone who manages to win consistently and take large amounts of money from them on a regular basis, they should not be allowed to ban only those who might be counting. (And yes, I know it's highly unlikely that anyone would win on a consistent basis by pure luck, or just playing basic strategy. But it's not impossible, and we've probably all heard of people who had incredible strings of luck who won thousands or even tens of thousands at once without counting cards.)
I will also say that I think it would be okay for a casino to kick out a team of counters, but only if they had substantial video evidence of signals being passed between players, and could show a correlation between the signals and how the players bet and whether they won or lost.
Quote: Lhornbk70I am against banning card counters (advantage players) for a couple of reasons. First, I have noticed that some have defended the practice because they say the casinos should be able to set the rules and ban players who don't follow the rules. But, I have never seen any casino that actually had a sign posted saying that card counting is against the rules. Or that varying bets is against the rules. If they want to ban players for counting, they should make it explicit that their rules don't allow that. Another option would be to simply establish table limits with smaller variances ($5-$50 instead of $5-$500, for example, and $25-$500 instead of $25-$1000) which would make it much more difficult for counters to vary their bets as much as they like. Casinos are perfectly happy for players to start increasing their bets if they've been losing to try to win their money back, so if they're going to allow that they can't really object to people varying bets for other reasons. Either allow variance, or don't allow variance.
It's a private business. There's nothing requiring them to post rules before kicking someone out for any reason. There's no rule posted anywhere that I've seen against opening an emergency exit, yet doing so can get you thrown out of a casino. I haven't seen any rules posted at casino bars saying they'll cut you off if you drink too much, yet they do at their discretion. I haven't seen any rules about being verbally abusive to other players at a table, yet doing so could get you kicked out at the casino's discretion.
There's nothing wrong with any of those, just like card counting.
Quote:But, I have a much larger objection that no one has talked about yet. Very simply, unless the player admits doing so, or is caught with some sort of device to help them (which would be an entirely different matter anyway), it is impossible for the casino to PROVE that he was counting. And it seems to me that if they can't prove it, they can't ban someone for it. I realize that they would have a lot of circumstantial evidence (huge wins, huge variances in bets, always guessing right when they split or double down and so on, etc.), but that is not proof. The player could easily claim luck, and it would be virtually impossible for the casino to prove otherwise. So unless the casino is going to ban everyone who manages to win consistently and take large amounts of money from them on a regular basis, they should not be allowed to ban only those who might be counting. (And yes, I know it's highly unlikely that anyone would win on a consistent basis by pure luck, or just playing basic strategy. But it's not impossible, and we've probably all heard of people who had incredible strings of luck who won thousands or even tens of thousands at once without counting cards.)
This isn't a court of law. There's no evidentiary standard needed.
Quote:I will also say that I think it would be okay for a casino to kick out a team of counters, but only if they had substantial video evidence of signals being passed between players, and could show a correlation between the signals and how the players bet and whether they won or lost.
Why is it okay to kick out a team of counters if they don't have a sign posted saying it's not allowed?
Good point. But the answer lies beyond the 8 or 9 regular posters here who react more like grumpy old men than the superstar players they purport to be.
PROOF is not something AP's or anyone serious about their gambling is going to offer up, explain, or take on in front of other so-called big shots. Further, I've already been alerted to the fact that there is more mathematical intellect on this forum than in Einstein's family. But TRUTH is another matter. These guys want and actually NEED their peers to believe that card counting actually works and that players can be spotted and then banned as "super intellects" in order to build their egos and legends....and to pretend that there are "plenty of BJ AP's" out there just absolutely KILLING the casinos. As I've said earlier, if there were any way to consistently count cards for a profit then "legends in their own minds" Anthony Curtis and Stanford Wong wouldn't be playing & losing at vp and selling everything under the sun for their livings. It is as clear as day, as easy to read as Obama and his teleprompters, and as simple to understand as the overall unhappiness of an atheist.
BTW, the JL haters will be happy to know my company's sending me to Australia and New Zealand for 6-8 weeks early tomorrow morning. I'm Western Regional Director for JB Hunt trucking and we bought ownership in an outfit down under, so I'm going down to map out more efficient and profitable routes around that continent. As such, you'll have to wait until I get back for more JL words of wisdom.
Good luck in the meantime.
Quote:As I've said, I play a lot in LV and I've met and know a LOT of AP's, and I've never heard any of them say they've been banned from playing anywhere or unable to use a slot club card (that's a new one).
Just ask a casino general manager next time you see one if they have banned VP players for VP play. Well, I won't do it. Maybe someone else will.
Quote: nyuhoosierLet me be the first to say, good riddance. I hope you like it so well down there you decide to stay.
I understand your wish because you were recently humiliated. But it's not early morning yet here.
I can't say it won't be nice to have a break from your screeds, but I wish you a safe trip. Be sure to visit some of the gambling houses down there and report back.Quote: JerryLogan
BTW, the JL haters will be happy to know my company's sending me to Australia and New Zealand for 6-8 weeks early tomorrow morning. I'm Western Regional Director for JB Hunt trucking and we bought ownership in an outfit down under, so I'm going down to map out more efficient and profitable routes around that continent. As such, you'll have to wait until I get back for more JL words of wisdom.
Good luck in the meantime.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThis 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.
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.
Quote: darkozBottom 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.
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.
They DO call it something else. They use the term "Buffet" not "All you can eat."Quote: darkozAll 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.
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.)
