Casinos don't cheat.....prove it.

Quote: mkl654321

Are you one of those people who thinks that a CEO actually has a personal stake in the company he works for, like someone running a lemonade stand?

CEOs either get stock, stock options or bonuses tied to the company's market value (ie what the stock is worth). So, yes, CEOs have a personal stake on how the company does.

Quote: mkl654321

Are you one of those people who thinks that a CEO actually has a personal stake in the company he works for, like someone running a lemonade stand? The parallel is NOT apt. And by the way, the third quote was in reference to the directors of nonprofit organizations---I'll leave you to fathom the distinction.

Yeah, good point. You be the CEO of Radio Shack. I'll be the CEO of Google. Let's see how similar our pay structure is.

Most NPOs get retired private sector bosses or politically connected individuals to run them (if they want to be able to raise money, at least), so no, the distinction is not clear. They could have run a car company or a casino in their previous life. They probably cheated me there (friggin undercoating!), and now they're cheating me again (help the troops, yeah right! they are mindless robots!).

Quote: cclub79

Yeah, good point. You be the CEO of Radio Shack. I'll be the CEO of Google. Let's see how similar our pay structure is.

Most NPOs get retired private sector bosses or politically connected individuals to run them (if they want to be able to raise money, at least), so no, the distinction is not clear. They could have run a car company or a casino in their previous life. They probably cheated me there (friggin undercoating!), and now they're cheating me again (help the troops, yeah right! they are mindless robots!).

The point, which you missed, was that CEOs, unlike direct owners of businesses, have less incentive to engage in dishonest business practices, because they do not stand to directly profit from those practices. This is not to say that they don't engage in such practices, only that their incentive to do so is less than, say, the owner of a car dealership.

You appear to be upset at my portrayal of young soldiers as being unsophisticated dupes. Unfortunately, that pretty much describes the ideal soldier. An older potential recruit might be more aware of the asymmetry of the soldier risking his life vs. the politician's achieving a nebulous political objective. I feel sorry for the soldier--not just the American one, but all soldiers of all times--sent to die because his elders were too incompetent to resolve conflicts any other way.

Quote: Nareed

CEOs either get stock, stock options or bonuses tied to the company's market value (ie what the stock is worth). So, yes, CEOs have a personal stake on how the company does.

That's a very, very indirect linkage--the market price of a stock is only weakly correlated, if at all, to the company's success or financial soundness (see: dotcom boom; see: the fact that GM stock is still selling for more than a penny).

In any case, the majority of most CEOs' compensation comes in the form of salary, which is determined by the board of directors and NOT tied to the company's performance (it is part of a contract). What most people don't understand is that a CEO is an EMPLOYEE.

MKL, you could not be more wrong.

A CEO certainly is an employee BUT most of their salaries are bonuses, stock options, pensions, and deferred executive pay.

And according to a 2009 report from the Institute for Policy Studies:

Quote:

The top 20 highest-paid executives of U.S. publicly traded companies raked in an average $36.4 million in 2006. The top earner: Yahoo’s Terry Semel, whose $71.7 million in annual earnings consisted almost entirely of options grants estimated to be worth $71.4 million. The Internet services chief also cashed in $19 million in options
last year. Semel stepped down as CEO in June, amid widespread shareholder concern over the company’s sluggish performance.

The second- and third-highest-paid U.S. CEOs last year both hailed from the oil industry, a sector that continues to benefit from record-high world crude oil prices. Bob Simpson of Texas-based XTO Energy took in $59.5 million, including a $31 million cash bonus and $27 million worth of new options grants. He cleared another
$39.8 million exercising previously awarded options.

XTO Energy last year also donated $6.8 million to Baylor University, Simpson’s alma mater, for the construction of a sports complex. In exchange, the XTO proxy explains, the university will name the new athletic complex after Simpson — and provide him “access to certain sporting events.”

The sixth-highest-paid CEO in 2006 was Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial, with $42.9 million. In July 2007, the company’s sub-prime mortgage woes drove its foreclosure rates to the highest level in more than five years and contributed to a global liquidity crisis.

Absolutely, the exercise of a stock option is critical to the CEO's compensation, which is precisely why the company performance is VERY important to him (or in the very rare case, her).

While CEOs of small and mid-size companies may not as much be influenced by the non-salary compensation, any public company will use the stock option as a key compensation tool for their CEO and top executives.

What a waste of time even if it someone came up with the evidence, do you think anything would be done about it?

you better check your toothpaste for explosives.

Quote: boymimbo

Absolutely, the exercise of a stock option is critical to the CEO's compensation, which is precisely why the company performance is VERY important to him (or in the very rare case, her).

While CEOs of small and mid-size companies may not as much be influenced by the non-salary compensation, any public company will use the stock option as a key compensation tool for their CEO and top executives.

I'll say it a third time: stock price is not related to company performance. Company performance is not realted to CEO performance.

You may have gone digging through the attic of the Internet to find examples that "prove" your point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of executive compensation consists of good ol' fashioned money. You can't count stock options as being worth anything at all--they only have POTENTIAL value, so the phrase, "$X worth of stock options" is incorrect on its face. But, whatever.

Quote: mkl654321

I'll say it a third time:

You can say it a million times if you like, it won't be any more true.

Quote: Nareed

You can say it a million times if you like, it won't be any more true.

True, something can't have a greater certainty than 1.

What you meant was that I can say it a million times, and you still won't believe it :)

Hmm ...

My first thought is, you can't prove a negative, so there's that. "Casinos DO cheat" is a better hypothesis to prove.

But that's like saying, "People lie." Duh.

I would imagine casinos are like lawyers, bankers, any other industry: largely populated with honest people trying to make a living, but with some bad apples in there. So to say "casinos cheat," while true, is misleading and so braod as to be senseless. SOME casinos cheat, most don't.

Quote: Nareed

You can make chips with an RFID chip on each, which would identify chips by value and type (regular, non-negotiable, etc). You can certainly put in RFID readers under the table. You could conceivably do it on a craps table, too.

But RFID chips and readers cost money, and integrating them into the system costs money, too. I can't see a casino using them to track card counters, because there are many other ways to spot counters already. It would be easier for the dealer to keep track of the count, especially as he could use any aids he needed, and whether any players raise their bet when the count is high.

BTW spotting counters isn't cheating.

If you can't see casinos using this technology, and haven't actually seen it in use, then it must not exist?

I have seen it in use.

BTW I made no implication it had anything to do with identifying card counters.

Quote: Headlock

If you can't see casinos using this technology, and haven't actually seen it in use, then it must not exist?

Some casinos brag about using RFID.


But let's say all casinos cheat all the time. What's it to you? If I knew a business was cheating me, or had tried to, I wouldn't patronize it again. Therefore if you believe casinos are cheaters, then don't gamble there. If you can prove it, then write a story about it, citing pertinent sources and facts, and send it to a newspaper. You might win a Pulitzer that way. Imagine scooping every major, medium and minor paper in the country, not to mention every blog.

Quote: Nareed

Some casinos brag about using RFID.


But let's say all casinos cheat all the time. What's it to you? If I knew a business was cheating me, or had tried to, I wouldn't patronize it again. Therefore if you believe casinos are cheaters, then don't gamble there. If you can prove it, then write a story about it, citing pertinent sources and facts, and send it to a newspaper. You might win a Pulitzer that way. Imagine scooping every major, medium and minor paper in the country, not to mention every blog.

I do care if casinos are cheating, and if I knew for sure that I was being cheated, then I would not play there.

It's been repeated so many times I'm sick of hearing it; "If you think casinos cheat, prove it." Well, Doc commented in an earlier thread that the deck is stacked against the player proving anything, so to speak.

Anyway, the topic of the thread is whether or not the gaming commissions, controls, boards, etc. are an effective deterrent to cheating by the casino.

I have not stated unequivocably that casinos do or do not cheat. My opinion is that given the poor financial results in the gaming industry recently, there is motive to cheat. The remaining question then is whether there is opportunity to cheat. Without effective regulation by the gaming control entities, I would conclude there is ample opportunity to cheat.

Quote: Headlock

I do care if casinos are cheating, and if I knew for sure that I was being cheated, then I would not play there.

It's been repeated so many times I'm sick of hearing it; "If you think casinos cheat, prove it." Well, Doc commented in an earlier thread that the deck is stacked against the player proving anything, so to speak.

Anyway, the topic of the thread is whether or not the gaming commissions, controls, boards, etc. are an effective deterrent to cheating by the casino.

I have not stated unequivocably that casinos do or do not cheat. My opinion is that given the poor financial results in the gaming industry recently, there is motive to cheat. The remaining question then is whether there is opportunity to cheat. Without effective regulation by the gaming control entities, I would conclude there is ample opportunity to cheat.

It's SOOOOOO tiresome to hear someone say "prove it prove it prove it, neener neener neener" in response to an articulated suspicion. Of COURSE if cheating were easily detectable--by anyone, in any context, not just in and by casinos--then that cheating wouldn't exist. Cheating involves deception--both the act of cheating itself, and the concealment of that act.

As you say, at the heart of the issue is motive and opportunity, as in any crime, actual or potential. I agree that motive is there, because of plummeting casino profits, and that opportunity is there, because of ineffective enforcement. The third leg of the stool is moral/ethical considerations, and given the behavior of casinos in the past, I'm not encouraged there either. It's been established that they CAN cheat, and unfortunately, that they WILL if they CAN.

Quote: Headlock

I do care if casinos are cheating, and if I knew for sure that I was being cheated, then I would not play there.

It's been repeated so many times I'm sick of hearing it; "If you think casinos cheat, prove it." Well, Doc commented in an earlier thread that the deck is stacked against the player proving anything, so to speak.

1) If you suspect cheating then you shoulnd't gamble.
2) When you make a claim you must prove it. Proving a criminal case, for example, is hard and often circumstances are stacked against the prosecution. That's irrelevant to the matter of responsibility.

Quote:

Anyway, the topic of the thread is whether or not the gaming commissions, controls, boards, etc. are an effective deterrent to cheating by the casino.

They aren't.

Oh, thay may do inspections and check security tapes and any of a myriad other things. So what? Any inspector can be bought.

Quote:

I have not stated unequivocably that casinos do or do not cheat. My opinion is that given the poor financial results in the gaming industry recently, there is motive to cheat. The remaining question then is whether there is opportunity to cheat.

There is a hell of a lot more opoprtunity to increase the house edge. Things like 6:5 twenty one, lousier pay tables at VP and three card pair +, that kind of thing, also more sucker bets. We know that happens, along with some missdirection by the casinos. Of course it sucks, but it's not cheating if you know the terms of the bet before you make it.

Quote:

Without effective regulation by the gaming control entities, I would conclude there is ample opportunity to cheat.

"Effective" regulation is mostly good to keep smaller places from cheating. The larger ones with higher incomes can afford to pay off whomever they need to.

What a casino cannot afford, however, is to be known as a cheat. For one thing the house edge is alredy high enough that cehating no top of it is gluttony. For another, any casino known for cheating will be empty of all but the most foolish or ignorant customers.

Suppose the NFL were to fix games. Do you think football would keep its audience?

Quote: Nareed

2) When you make a claim you must prove it.

Why? The very nature of the claim being made here carries with it the implicit argument that "proof" is a practical impossibility. The topic, you might remember, was whether casinos CAN cheat, given the lax enforcement environment.

Also, if you would challenge the claim that casinos cheat, then you are making a counterclaim that they DON'T, and I would hope that in the interest of intellectual rigor, you will subject yourself to the same mandatory burden of proof. If you claim that casinos don't cheat, you must prove it (to use your own words).

Somewhere on a few dice boards several months ago, the claim was made (In Las Vegas) that at certain times in certain casinos, biased dice were being introduced. "Shaved dice", too many 6-1's!! What a bru haha, back and forth. Nothing of course was proved one way or the other although it is rumoured, evidence exists somewhere. Conspiracy theory at it's best. The obvious answer of course would be that if you really think the condition exists, bet the don't pass and make a fortune!

Quote: mkl654321

Why? The very nature of the claim being made here carries with it the implicit argument that "proof" is a practical impossibility.

You should only make claims when you have evidence to back them up. If you don't have concrete proof, you should at least have some evidence on which to base a reasonable suspicion.

Not having seen game commission officials is not a solid basis.

Quote:

The topic, you might remember, was whether casinos CAN cheat, given the lax enforcement environment.

Casinos can cheat at any time, regardless of the way regulations are enforced.

Quote:

Also, if you would challenge the claim that casinos cheat, then you are making a counterclaim that they DON'T, and I would hope that in the interest of intellectual rigor, you will subject yourself to the same mandatory burden of proof. If you claim that casinos don't cheat, you must prove it (to use your own words).

Read what has been said in this thread. Casinos have a house edge. Casinos can change pay tables. Casinos can change the rules to increase the hosue edge (like 6:5 twenty one). Casinos can add side bets to any games (like the 6 card bonus for TCP at Harrah's). Casinos can take advantage of drunk customers (read the Watanabe saga). They can do all this and stay within the law. Better yet, they can do all this without their reputation suffering any loss of value whatsoever, and without loosing popularity.

So why would they risk loosing their reputation, popularity, and maybe being sued and fined, not to mention being embroiled in expensive legal troubles by cheating? It makes more sense to assume they are not.

Quote: Nareed

You should only make claims when you have evidence to back them up. If you don't have concrete proof, you should at least have some evidence on which to base a reasonable suspicion.

Not having seen game commission officials is not a solid basis.

Casinos can cheat at any time, regardless of the way regulations are enforced.

Read what has been said in this thread. Casinos have a house edge. Casinos can change pay tables. Casinos can change the rules to increase the hosue edge (like 6:5 twenty one). Casinos can add side bets to any games (like the 6 card bonus for TCP at Harrah's). Casinos can take advantage of drunk customers (read the Watanabe saga). They can do all this and stay within the law. Better yet, they can do all this without their reputation suffering any loss of value whatsoever, and without loosing popularity.

So why would they risk loosing their reputation, popularity, and maybe being sued and fined, not to mention being embroiled in expensive legal troubles by cheating? It makes more sense to assume they are not.

Sigh. Nareed, my poor friend, you seem to be so very very very interested in being "right". So I'll help you out here. You're "right". OK? Feel better now?

For the benefit of anyone else who wishes to read further (Nareed is now out paddling in the wading pool and shrieking ecstatically to himself), this is what's wrong with Nareed's logic:

It is obvious that casinos cheat. The only question is how often, and under what circumstances. There are hundreds of documented cases of casino cheating. Nareed seems to think that because it is difficult to gather evidence of casino cheating, such casino cheating must not exist at all. Nareed keeps bleating that those who suspect casinos "MUST"!!!!! produce concrete evidence of that for his examination. Sorry, that's not where the burden lies. The burden is on those who say that the casinos are honest--ESPECIALLY, THE CASINOS THEMSELVES--to produce evidence of that honesty, THEY are the ones purporting that their games are fair.

The fact that the casino has a house edge and expects to make money is no disincentive for the casino to cheat, and it's ludicrous to suggest that, so ignore all Nareed's blather about 6:5 BJ, etc.

The risk of casinos "loosing" their reputation from being caught cheating is near-zero. NO casino, despite the hundreds (thousands) of complaints filed, has ever lost its license or even been temporarily shut down as a result of being caught cheating. It is, how shall I put it, kinda sorta unlikely that this is because casinos never cheat.

As far as reputation goes--the Venetian was recently caught rigging a contest drawing, i.e., cheating. The case was well documented. But do you see people deserting the Venetian in droves?

Quote: mkl654321

It is obvious that casinos cheat. The only question is how often, and under what circumstances. There are hundreds of documented cases of casino cheating.

So list 25 of them. That should be easy.

Quote: Nareed

So list 25 of them. That should be easy.

No, YOU do the work. Contact the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Search the online archives of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and other Nevada newspapers.

Or are you seriously saying that if I went to the trouble of providing such a list for you, you would fall to your knees and admit you were wrong? I doubt that you've admitted you were wrong since you were in the womb.

And as I've repeatedly said, enough times that you can't possibly not have noticed, the burden of proof is on the casinos to rpove that they're honest, not on the players to prove that they're not.

I'm sorry. My reply should have been, "Yes, Nareed. You're right."

What you do with the seal at the zoo is, you throw it a fish, you don't bark back.

Quote: mkl654321

The burden of proof is on the casinos to rpove [sic] that they're honest, not on the players to prove that they're not.

Honesty is the absence of guilt. You cannot prove a negative. You can only prove dishonesty, that's what courts are for. It is assumed, in fact presumed, that without a guilty verdict, you have committed no crime.

So, the burden is definitely on the side of the person who alleges a crime to prove it, not the honest person to prove their honesty.

Obviously this constitutional presumption goes for all levels of legal entities, from individuals up to corporations. The same law, unfortunately, does not hold here in OZ, where there are good witches and bad witches who hand down verdicts willy nilly.

Stop being so clueless, please ... or I'll have to sic the munchkins on you,

--Dorothy

Just to get an additional take on where you are coming from, mlk, suppose I walk into a casino, play blackjack for 3 hours, and walk out. Any casino randomly in these United States. Any dealer randomly. Where would you put the percentage that I was covertly cheated in some way? 40%? 10%? 1%? I'm just curious how pervasive you feel the cheating is.

Quote: DorothyGale

Quote: mkl654321

The burden of proof is on the casinos to rpove [sic] that they're honest, not on the players to prove that they're not.

Honesty is the absence of guilt. You cannot prove a negative. You can only prove dishonesty, that's what courts are for. It is assumed, in fact presumed, that without a guilty verdict, you have committed no crime.
So, the burden is definitely on the side of the person who alleges a crime to prove it, not the honest person to prove their honesty.
Obviously the constitutional procedure goes for all levels of legal entities, from individuals up to corporations.
Stop being so clueless, please ... or I'll have to sic the munchkins on you,

--Dorothy

Dwelling on typos is an internet-kiddie tactic that is old and tired.

What you are failing to take into account--perhaps because of your history of being joined umbilically to the casino industry--is that in the offering of casino games, there is an "implied presumption" that the games are honest. In the case of selling tangible goods, there is an "implied warranty of fitness for use": an apple will not be poisonous; a vacuum cleaner will, in fact, vacuum. This is a cornerstone concept of US commercial law.

Civil courts have held that the implied presumption/warranty is as binding as an explicit contract. Therefore, by offering a casino game, the operator is warranting that the game is honest and fair. The burden of doing so is DEFINITELY on the casino, as it is with any merchant offering a good or service for money. The relevant case law is not in the Constitution, but rather, in the Uniform Commercial Code.

And it's ridiculous to say that you cannot prove a negative. A successful defense lawyer will do that if he can (though he need not do so to achieve an acquittal)---it's called an "affirmative defense".

Quote: DorothyGale

So, the burden is definitely on the side of the person who alleges a crime to prove it, not the honest person to prove their honesty.

Obviously this constitutional presumption goes for all levels of legal entities, from individuals up to corporations.

Well, DottyG, I'm certainly no constitutional lawyer, so this is well out of my field. I just thought I would point out something that was buried fairly deep in an earlier post on this thread.

Zcore13 pointed us to some info on legal suits brought by the Nevada government against casinos in the state for what were considered major violations. One of the .pdf documents relating to the Palms is available here.

My not-at-all-in-depth reading of that document leads me to think that the Palms was being charged with not adequately assuring that another company hosting a tournament in the Palms facility was adequately complying with gaming regulations. That sorta strikes me as forcing the Palms to prove that they are honest enough to investigate thoroughly and assure that everyone in their place is honest.

Several other cases in the document provided by Zcore13 are similar cases where the casino did not directly violate the rules -- they just failed to make certain that everyone else conformed to the rules (and I am not talking about their own employees).

Anyway, it seems that the NGC takes a bit of an aggressive position, expecting license owners to assure that things are honest, not just be able to defend against claims that they violated laws themselves. It isn't really an assumption of guilt, but it is a message that you better be able to prove you were working diligently to keep everyone else from acting up.

Quote: Doc

Well, DottyG, I'm certainly no constitutional lawyer, so this is well out of my field. I just thought I would point out something that was buried fairly deep in an earlier post on this thread.

Zcore13 pointed us to some info on legal suits brought by the Nevada government against casinos in the state for what were considered major violations. One of the .pdf documents relating to the Palms is available here.

My not-at-all-in-depth reading of that document leads me to think that the Palms was being charged with not adequately assuring that another company hosting a tournament in the Palms facility was adequately complying with gaming regulations. That sorta strikes me as forcing the Palms to prove that they are honest enough to investigate thoroughly and assure that everyone in their place is honest.

Several other cases in the document provided by Zcore13 are similar cases where the casino did not directly violate the rules -- they just failed to make certain that everyone else conformed to the rules (and I am not talking about their own employees).

Anyway, it seems that the NGC takes a bit of an aggressive position, expecting license owners to assure that things are honest, not just be able to defend against claims that they violated laws themselves. It isn't really an assumption of guilt, but it is a message that you better be able to prove you were working diligently to keep everyone else from acting up.

There is a difference between regulation advocating a quality product and honesty. Food, banking, housing, etc. are all subject to quality control regulations, as well they should be. The relaxing of such regulations led to the housing boom and bust. I advocate government oversight and am an advocate of more such regulation.

However, regulation is not the same as saying that it is up to the casinos to prove their honesty. That's just absurd. They can only prove that they are following the regulations set up to protect consumers from alleged unsavory actions.

I was absent these last few days. I was at a meeting of some casino people in OZ ... on one side or other of the tables, or both. Notwithstanding other posts, the statement I responded to was just silly.

The casinos on this side of the rainbow are as honest as the day is long ...

--Dorothy

Testing

The topic of this thread was whether or not gaming commissions, board, controls, etc. were an effective deterrent to casino cheating. The results are in and the consensus opinion (well, just mine) is a resounding NO!

Only cclub79 was eyewitness to a New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement representative taking cards from the table in the casino.

There were several examples of CCC reps (NJ) and a few from other states where the gaming official helped to resolve disputes between the patron and the casino, always at the request of the patron. What little I read about the CCC led me to believe these representatives in the casino were akin to Wal-Mart greeters. I don't mean to offend anyone by that.

Alot of discussion about dealers cheating either on their own or on behalf of the casino. While interesting, I think this was off-topic.

An oft-repeated opinion was that "casinos don't have to cheat, they always have the edge." I can only attribute this to wide-eyed innocence. Casinos are just as likely to cheat as any business given motive and opportunity.

There was some vigorous debate about whether shaved or weighted dice would or would not favor the casino. My opinion is that the casino certainly could use weighted dice in their favor, but I would suspect a juiced table (harder to detect by the player) rather than weighted dice.

Nareed, your contention that, rather than cheat, casinos would change the payoffs and/or paytables is just ridiculous. If casino A pays 1:1 for a blackjack and 8/5 JOB, while casino B pays 6:5 for a blackjack and 9/6 JOB, casino A will lose it's patrons just as surely as if they had been caught cheating. Also, your sarcastic comment about the use of sensors in blackjack tables was not like your level-headed self. I can assure you they are in use; I have seen them. Not the MindPlay software the Wizard mentioned. What I have seen is a button on the table that the dealer presses after making sure all bets are down and before dealing the first card. It records the amount bet in each circle. I do not claim to know how the casino uses this information.

Doc, I read some of the case summaries Zcore13 directed us to. Seemed to be mostly licensing issues.

I'll mention my creds, as if that will mean anything. I am a CPA, an auditor. I have been trained to maintain a degree of skepticism in my work and right or wrong that spills over into other facets of my life. I have been a casual gambler since 1984, for the past 5-6 years I play an average of 35 weekends a year. Until 4 years ago, I played blackjack almost exclusively, and counted cards, mostly unsuccessfully. For the last four years I have been playing craps with just a bit of video poker mixed in.

This is off-topic, perhaps seed for a new thread. I know the house edge at craps, and I fully realize that I am probably going to be a loser in the long run. I play PL and 2 come bets with full odds, 10x at the casino I frequent. I understand this is a high risk/high reward betting strategy, but the house edge is only .18% if the Wizard is to be believed (and I do!). If I lose more than I win, that's to be expected. If I lose almost all the time, it's bad luck. If I lose 20 sessions in a row, it's bad luck. If I lose 40 sessions in a row, it's bad luck.

Isn't there a point where the bad luck leads you to believe something is amiss?

Quote: mkl654321

Dwelling on typos is an internet-kiddie tactic that is old and tired.

What you are failing to take into account--perhaps because of your history of being joined umbilically to the casino industry--is that in the offering of casino games, there is an "implied presumption" that the games are honest. In the case of selling tangible goods, there is an "implied warranty of fitness for use": an apple will not be poisonous; a vacuum cleaner will, in fact, vacuum. This is a cornerstone concept of US commercial law.

Civil courts have held that the implied presumption/warranty is as binding as an explicit contract. Therefore, by offering a casino game, the operator is warranting that the game is honest and fair. The burden of doing so is DEFINITELY on the casino, as it is with any merchant offering a good or service for money. The relevant case law is not in the Constitution, but rather, in the Uniform Commercial Code.

And it's ridiculous to say that you cannot prove a negative. A successful defense lawyer will do that if he can (though he need not do so to achieve an acquittal)---it's called an "affirmative defense".

Would make sense if the offering of a casino game was the selling of a tangible good, which it isn't, so the UCC doesn't apply.

Quote: superrick

DorothyGale, I think you got this one wrong!

Those are fighting words -- may all your children get picked apart by flying monkeys!

Quote:

When you get a ticket driving down the road for lets just say speeding, the burden of proof is on you.

False, the burden is on the officer who wrote the ticket. Most defenses attack the credibility of the officer or his equipment.

Quote:

When you get sued for anything, again the burden of proof is on you!

Lawsuits are not criminal actions. They are decided by a "preponderance of the evidence."

Quote:

Yes you are innocent till proven guilty

False, you are "presumed innocent." There is a big difference between being "innocent" and being "presumed innocent."

Quote:

you have to prove that you did not commit a crime

False, you have to defend yourself against the alleged proof the prosecution presents. All you have to do is convince one juror that the prosecutions case is insufficient. You don't have to convince all 12 of the jurors. That's the difference between a universal quantifier (prosecutors) and an existential quantifier (defense).

Etc ... this is just too boring ... Not that I mind being bored ... believe me, lots of things in life are more boring, like looking out the window and having it be Kansas in 1939 ...

--Dorothy

Quote: teddys

Would make sense if the offering of a casino game was the selling of a tangible good, which it isn't, so the UCC doesn't apply.

The UCC also applies to intangible goods, such as a doctor's examination or a rock concert. Anything that involves the exchange of value (monetary or otherwise) for a service or good is subject to that body of law.

Quote: DorothyGale

Etc ... this is just too boring ... Not that I mind being bored ... believe me, lots of things in life are more boring, like looking out the window and having it be Kansas in 1939 ...

--Dorothy

But I think I see some storm clouds on the horizon, my pretty...

Welcome back by the way. See what happens? You go away and the place gets all trolly.

DorothyGale

I think you got this one wrong! When you get a ticket driving down the road for lets just say speeding, the burden of proof is on you. When you get sued for anything, again the burden of proof is on you!

Yes you are innocent till proven guilty, but you have to prove that you did not commit a crime, and just think about how many innocence people have been sent to jail because they didn’t have the funds to defend them self. Now on the other hand you got to get the gaming board or FBI to bring a casino up on any charges, but once they bring the charges, the poor innocent casino would have to prove that they didn’t do, what the gaming board or FBI said they did!

Innocent till proven guilty, went out the window a long time ago, once charges are made, you have to prove you are innocent. Depending on how much money you have at your disposal, can affect the outcome of your case!

Yes casinos have gotten caught cheating in the pass, so why not now?

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/article_89569f3e-6e70-11df-bea5-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/08/debt-case-dropped-against-vegas-casino-high-roller/

Quote: mkl654321

The UCC also applies to intangible goods, such as a doctor's examination or a rock concert. Anything that involves the exchange of value (monetary or otherwise) for a service or good is subject to that body of law.

A casino game isn't a monetary transaction. You're not exchanging money for value or services. It's an aleatory contract. So I think it would be subject to common contract law but not the UCC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And we're in the top 5. Woo!

Quote: cclub79

But I think I see some storm clouds on the horizon, my pretty...

There are those who speak very highly of you behind your back. But they insist I not disclose their names.

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

False, the burden is on the officer who wrote the ticket. Most defenses attack the credibility of the officer or his equipment.
--Dorothy

I don't know if you've ever had to defend yourself against a traffic ticket, but the burden of proof is effectively on the ACCUSED. The officer's word is taken as being enough to make the case for the prosecution. If the defendant testifies that he did not commit the offense, that is hopeless--he will be found guilty. In traffic court, the presumption is of GUILT--which is why the defenses you mention offer the best hope of success. If the presumption was that of innocence--as is supposed to be the case in American jurisprudence--then the officer's mere testimony would not be enough to convict, as long as the accused could also testify to his presumed innocence. The weight of evidence would then be equal for both sides--but the reality is that the officer's testimony counts for everything, and the accused's testimony counts for nothing. This is, of course, to protect the revenue stream that comes from issuing frequent and lucrative traffic citations. Civil rights and the rule of law are trivial considerations in the light of budgetary needs.

Quote: teddys

A casino game isn't a monetary transaction. You're not exchanging money for value or services. It's an aleatory contract. So I think it would be subject to contract law but not the UCC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And we're in the top 5. Woo!

Aleatory contracts--contracts based on a contingency--are indeed governed by the UCC. See: insurance policies.

Quote: superrick

DorothyGale, I think you got this one wrong! -- the sequel

You are simply speaking rhetorically and your words have no factual merit. You can say it's so, but it ain't so.

There was a land long ago where you had to prove you were innocent -- it was called Salem ... oh, no, sorry, it was called McCarthyism ... no, sorry, it was called Arizona Immigration Law ... oh, no, sorry, it was called ...

These things, as awful as they are, have come and gone in this country over the years ... assumption of guilt and having to prove you are innocent ... fortunately we live in a country where the courts protect the constitution against the tyranny of the majority ... not always very fast, but eventually they get most things right ...

We don't have T.V. in Kansas, we just look at pigs when we're bored ...

--Dorothy

What you are failing to take into account is that in the offering of casino games, there is an "implied presumption" that the games are honest - mkl


I think this sums up the problem exactly.
You are also entitled to presume that the Government is monitoring the probity, of these places, successfully.
When playing their games, you should only have to contend with your own stupidity & greed and the erratic behavior of random numbers.
Not consistent extreme deviations from the mean that you would only, normally, expect to find inside the Bermuda Triangle.
I also agree, as has been said previously, that the problem is at a much higher level than just the stickmen.

The discussion of law will soon drown out all vestiges of the original topic! Anyway, I am reposting shamelessly so we can get to top 4!

The topic of this thread was whether or not gaming commissions, board, controls, etc. were an effective deterrent to casino cheating. The results are in and the consensus opinion (well, just mine) is a resounding NO!

Only cclub79 was eyewitness to a New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement representative taking cards from the table in the casino.

There were several examples of CCC reps (NJ) and a few from other states where the gaming official helped to resolve disputes between the patron and the casino, always at the request of the patron. What little I read about the CCC led me to believe these representatives in the casino were akin to Wal-Mart greeters. I don't mean to offend anyone by that.

Alot of discussion about dealers cheating either on their own or on behalf of the casino. While interesting, I think this was off-topic.

An oft-repeated opinion was that "casinos don't have to cheat, they always have the edge." I can only attribute this to wide-eyed innocence. Casinos are just as likely to cheat as any business given motive and opportunity.

There was some vigorous debate about whether shaved or weighted dice would or would not favor the casino. My opinion is that the casino certainly could use weighted dice in their favor, but I would suspect a juiced table (harder to detect by the player) rather than weighted dice.

Nareed, your contention that, rather than cheat, casinos would change the payoffs and/or paytables is just ridiculous. If casino A pays 1:1 for a blackjack and 8/5 JOB, while casino B pays 6:5 for a blackjack and 9/6 JOB, casino A will lose it's patrons just as surely as if they had been caught cheating. Also, your sarcastic comment about the use of sensors in blackjack tables was not like your level-headed self. I can assure you they are in use; I have seen them. Not the MindPlay software the Wizard mentioned. What I have seen is a button on the table that the dealer presses after making sure all bets are down and before dealing the first card. It records the amount bet in each circle. I do not claim to know how the casino uses this information.

Doc, I read some of the case summaries Zcore13 directed us to. Seemed to be mostly licensing issues.

I'll mention my creds, as if that will mean anything. I am a CPA, an auditor. I have been trained to maintain a degree of skepticism in my work and right or wrong that spills over into other facets of my life. I have been a casual gambler since 1984, for the past 5-6 years I play an average of 35 weekends a year. Until 4 years ago, I played blackjack almost exclusively, and counted cards, mostly unsuccessfully. For the last four years I have been playing craps with just a bit of video poker mixed in.

This is off-topic, perhaps seed for a new thread. I know the house edge at craps, and I fully realize that I am probably going to be a loser in the long run. I play PL and 2 come bets with full odds, 10x at the casino I frequent. I understand this is a high risk/high reward betting strategy, but the house edge is only .18% if the Wizard is to be believed (and I do!). If I lose more than I win, that's to be expected. If I lose almost all the time, it's bad luck. If I lose 20 sessions in a row, it's bad luck. If I lose 40 sessions in a row, it's bad luck.

Isn't there a point where the bad luck leads you to believe something is amiss?

Quote: DorothyGale

There are those who speak very highly of you behind your back.

First time for everything.

Quote: cclub79

First time for everything.

Let's try and keep some things private ... TMI.

--Dorothy

My two cents.

I don't believe that land-based casinos cheat. I think they do everything legally possible to take money from you, and sometimes even cross the ethical line from time to time (Watanabe). Looking at the Nevada Gaming's complaint, there are been few complaints over the years on the strip casinos... Caesar's for letting a baccarat player dance on the table, the Palms for not supervising a third party poker tournament payout, Harrah's for backrooming someone who withdrew a bet after cards were drawn. Big whoop. These are not casinos cheating people, they are individual employees misbehaving.

Every single game at the casino was created with house advantage built in. Dice are weighted properly and cards are not missing from the decks. You are getting dealt a fair game and there is no need to operate illegally and risk reputation. The slot machines with an advantage of 2 to 15 percent allow casinos to make money hand over fist.

Do individuals at casinos cheat? Absolutely, you will find a bad egg in the group. But I think that players likely cheat as much as the dealers do. Just because Harrahs and MGM are large corporations doesn't make them cheats. The gaming authorities verify the slot machines and verify the gaming technology to make it fair to the consumer.

Thanks for bringing this thread back on topic. I like law discussions! (By the way, mkl6454321, are you a law professor/J.D.? If not, you are quite the impressive polymath.) Re: the button that they push. I'm 90% sure that's to record the speed of the dealer so they can evaluate his or her performance. It does not/cannot record the amount everyone bets.

Quote: Headlock

If I lose more than I win, that's to be expected. If I lose almost all the time, it's bad luck. If I lose 20 sessions in a row, it's bad luck. If I lose 40 sessions in a row, it's bad luck.
Isn't there a point where the bad luck leads you to believe something is amiss?

Of course. Why wouldn't you think that? It's a natural human response to come up with an explanation for extremely bad luck. But that's oftentimes just what is is. We just can't comprehend extreme variance. Turn the tables a bit: If you won 40 sessions in a row, and the casino kicked you out for cheating, would you feel they were justified in doing so?
-----------------------------------
I don't think casinos cheat and nothing has been said in this thread to convince me that they do, sorry.

Quote: teddys

Thanks for bringing this thread back on topic. I like law discussions! (By the way, mkl6454321, are you a law professor/J.D.? If not, you are quite the impressive polymath.) Re: the button that they push. I'm 90% sure that's to record the speed of the dealer so they can evaluate his or her performance. It does not/cannot record the amount everyone bets. Of course. Why wouldn't you think that? It's a natural human response to come up with an explanation for extremely bad luck. But that's oftentimes just what is is. We just can't comprehend extreme variance. Turn the tables a bit: If you won 40 sessions in a row, and the casino kicked you out for cheating, would you feel they were justified in doing so?
-----------------------------------
I don't think casinos cheat and nothing has been said in this thread to convince me that they do, sorry.

Don't apologize, I'm not trying to convince anyone that casinos cheat. And thanks for helping me get the thread back on topic. Re table sensors, I inquired about the button and was told by both the dealer and pit supervisor that it recorded the bet amounts. I don't play blackjack anymore so I don't look, but I am going to Colorado and Missouri the next two weekends and I will be looking for table sensors not only on BJ tables but the other games as well.

Quote: teddys

Thanks for bringing this thread back on topic. I like law discussions! (By the way, mkl6454321, are you a law professor/J.D.? If not, you are quite the impressive polymath.)

Thank you, but I'm jest a humble backwoods English teacher. I have worn many hats in my life, though, some having been nailed to my head. My experience with the law is based on actual combat (I have never hired an attorney, figuring that I could botch my own legal affairs for free).

Quote: mkl654321

Thank you, but I'm jest a humble backwoods English teacher.

*Based on your posts, your dialect, and your spelling, notwithstanding your political views, I'd say you live in the Bay area in California, and that you have spent most of your life living on the "left" coast ... you like to travel and visit far away backwoods places, but you also like to come home to a clean middle class and moderate, but slightly liberal, lifestyle ... my guess is you own an SUV, though at this point it's become less science than I'd really like ... because of the tinge of guilt you feel while driving said car ...

Backwoods? I think not ...

--Dorothy

*research courtesy "the google" -- speculations courtesy "the scarecrow"

Quote: DorothyGale

*Based on your posts, your dialect, and your spelling, notwithstanding your political views, I'd say you live in the Bay area in California, and that you have spent most of your life living on the "left" coast ... you like to travel and visit far away backwoods places, but you also like to come home to a clean middle class and moderate, but slightly liberal, lifestyle ... my guess is you own an SUV, though at this point it's become less science than I'd really like ... because of the tinge of guilt you feel while driving said car ...

Backwoods? I think not ...

--Dorothy

*research courtesy "the google" -- speculations courtesy "the scarecrow"

Since you would otherwise live in an agony of speculation, I will provide you with some information...

I grew up in the Bay Area, but I haven't lived there since 1993.

I have lived, at one time or another, in every state west of the Great Plains, except Utah. I would rather be smeared with honey, bound with rope, and buried in an anthill than live in Utah. (It's a spectacularly beautiful place; if all the people would leave, I'd reconsider.)

My lifestyle has never been what anyone would remotely call "normal", and having had a widely fluctuating but largely satisfying career as an advantage gambler, i suppose you could call me middle class--with wide swings around that datum.

My political views can be summed up with two statements: anyone exhibiting a desire to hold political office should be ipso facto banned from holding such office, and neither the vote nor the right to bear children should be automatically conferred on citizens until they have exhibited minimal understanding of the attendant processes and consequences.

I own and have always owned a small compact car. My present one goes zoom zoom. (I hate paying for gas.)

I do like to travel--in fact, I have abandoned lucrative career opportunities because they would have affected my ability to do so. That's one of the cool things about being a teacher--the long vacation.

And you're right--I don't really live in the backwoods--though I often have, in the recent past.

Overall, nice work. B-plus.