Casino Fined For Making Error--In The Players' Favor!
Poll
 | 21 votes (52.5%) | ||
| | 19 votes (47.5%) |
40 members have voted
Quote: P90Like casinos are looking after their own, so is the state. It's a food chain, players->casinos->gov't. These fines are levied for revenue, not deterrence.
Right. But the question is whether or not it is acceptable.
Quote: bigfoot66Right. But the question is whether or not it is acceptable.
It's hard to come up with a moral frame of reference for this one. The government is playing both sides of the coin really...if the casino makes an error that harms the players, the fuzz fines them because they're "looking out for the players." If the casino makes an error that *helps* the players, the fuzz fines them because they just lost tax revenue on the casino's potential winnings for that game. I'm not sure whether they "should" be fined or not (haven't voted yet).
I also saw that story and was rather flabbergasted. I really would love to know some details. How long did that situation exist? Who realized it after seeing the first 10 card, the dealer/pit or a player? I don't even know basic Spanish strategy, so I'm not sure if I could take advantage of it, but if a smart player saw that 10 come out and no one else said anything, he could make a killing I'm sure.
Quote: AcesAndEights...if the casino makes an error that harms the players, the fuzz fines them because they're "looking out for the players." If the casino makes an error that *helps* the players, the fuzz fines them because they just lost tax revenue on the casino's potential winnings for that game.
Establishments (not just casinos) are also fined if they make an error that neither harms nor helps the players, so it's not that.
Remember the Baccarat Dance.
Many fines are just a form of revenue collection.
Quote: P90Remember the Baccarat Dance.
To quote Prince Humperdink, "I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase..."
But on the overall point, yes you are completely correct. Any excuse to take make a few more bucks.
Quote: AcesAndEightsTo quote Prince Humperdink, "I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase..."
It's amazing how often a long playing session feels like a fight to the pain...
But on the point, it's both an excuse to make a few more bucks and an incentive for the casino to more closely regulate their process. At least, I assume that the State would say that the penalties are aimed at process standardization and not solely revenue generation.
Sure, leaving in the 10's makes it an advantage for the player, but it also makes it a disadvantage for the unlucky player who choses to play Spanish 21 at a different table, as well as a disadvantage to other casinos when players who know about the error begin to frequent the Trop hoping to discover other errors.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/17/gaming-commission-oks-settlement-over-baccarat-tab/Quote: AcesAndEightsTo quote Prince Humperdink, "I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase..."
Well, the thing is, it actually is, at least as far as fines go. Revenue is frequently used even openly as a justification for levying new fines, and unofficially it's universal.Quote: DocTo take a position that doesn't just assume that the government is out to get all it can (and issues fines just to collect money)
Quote: rdw4potusIt's amazing how often a long playing session feels like a fight to the pain...
But on the point, it's both an excuse to make a few more bucks and an incentive for the casino to more closely regulate their process. At least, I assume that the State would say that the penalties are aimed at process standardization and not solely revenue generation.
I should have been more specific. What is the meaning of the term "Baccarat dance?"
EDIT: Whoops, posts crossed. Got it.
This kind of reminds me of Waldo, FL, a city of less than 1000 people where the speed on the highway goes from something like 65 to 35 in a quarter of a mile and the cops just sit there and write tickets to unsuspecting motorists all day. The town makes something like 2/3 of its revenue from the poor saps who drive through the town. It's so bad that AAA designated the place (and Lawtey) a speed trap and put up billboards warning people. At least there they make the argument that people were flying down a main street in their town at 65 miles an hour and it was unsafe for them and their kids.
The law is sold to people as a way to make everyone safer and then used as a weapon against us to put food on the table for the parasite class.
The Trop was also fined $15000 on September 2nd for allowing an excluded patron to play craps. Apparently everything was okay until they caught the guy cheating.
Quote: ChampagneFireballWhat is the player's advantage in Spanish 21 with 10s in the deck?
My estimate is that using perfect strategy, a player would have a 1.35% advantage at an Atlantic City Spanish 21 game if all 32 tens were left in instead of the 0.40% disadvantage with all the tens removed.
But the match-the-dealer bet EV would decrease from -2.99% to -10.42%! A player betting $10 on the main bet and $5 on match-the-dealer would have an overall EV of -1.26% without the 10's and -2.57% with all the tens left in.
However, the Tropicana might have left in only a few 10's instead of all of them.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI think the Trop SHOULD be fined.
Sure, leaving in the 10's makes it an advantage for the player, but it also makes it a disadvantage for the unlucky player who choses to play Spanish 21 at a different table, as well as a disadvantage to other casinos when players who know about the error begin to frequent the Trop hoping to discover other errors.
That's what I thought when I first read it (the other casinos part, people playing on other tables were getting what they expected and deserved). On the other hand, the money should not go towards the gaming commission/state (whoever gets it) but it should go to the other casinos who, if anyone, lost business because of this.
That's playing devil's advocate though, I would have been happy to hear there was absolutely no fine as well.
Would you start making max bets right away?
Or would you notify the dealer and pit boss immediately?
I think I can predict some peoples' answers already :)
Quote: MathExtremistNevada has a minimum payback limit (75%). I believe New Jersey has both a minimum and maximum payback limit. If that's so, >100% payback games are actually against the rules in New Jersey. That would explain the fine for a +EV game, at least.
If this is a fact how effing stupid is that? Not allowed to offer games that can be beaten? God I really hate the state.
Quote: teddysA good question, and one sure to spark debate, is what would you do if you were playing on that Spanish 21 game and noticed the tens were still in there?
Would you start making max bets right away?
Or would you notify the dealer and pit boss immediately?
I think I can predict some peoples' answers already :)
Not knowing if you just saw one errant ten or if they were ALL in there certainly makes a difference. You obviously have to change BS from standard Spanish 21, but if only a couple of tens made it in, you'd probably be harming yourself more by playing as if they were all in there. It would be risky even if you were at that particular table, since you wouldn't know for sure. And in the interim (While you are trying to count and figure out if they are all there or not) how much are you losing because you don't know which strategy to play!
It's also unreal that none of the dealers (even if there were only 2) and pit noticed any 10s for FOUR HOURS!!
Quote: DJTeddyBearI think the Trop SHOULD be fined.
Sure, leaving in the 10's makes it an advantage for the player, but it also makes it a disadvantage for the unlucky player who choses to play Spanish 21 at a different table, as well as a disadvantage to other casinos when players who know about the error begin to frequent the Trop hoping to discover other errors.
As I posted above, it's only an advantage for the player if you KNOW they are all in there. So short of collusion in this particular case, it seems it would be hard to assess they are all there and then change strategy. Even if all the players realized it, I can't believe the first time someone pulled a ten and busted, they didn't complain! I'd bet most players DIDN'T realize, or else someone would have said something in such a scenario. Even if pointing it out would doom future advantage. Spanish 21 players at the Trop aren't that astute.
Quote: WizardI voted they should be fined. The rules say "no tens" and there were tens. Casinos should abide by their own rules, regardless of which way the error cuts.
You're funny, Wiz, you should be a stand-up comic..
I mean, I laughed when I read casinos should abide
by their own rules..
Quote: bigfoot66The nominal point of having a gaming control board is to protect the patron from dishonest or overly deceptive casino practices. This is always the justification given when governments try to institute licensing or regulatory bodies. I do not believe these bodies should exist, but let's ignore that.
Are you arguing that casinos should be completely self-regulating? I agree that government agencies are imperfect, (the blogger at The Bear Growls believes Nevada's regulators are too lenient on the casinos). However, there needs to be at least some oversight to protect consumers from fraud. A casino has a lot of power over its customers (many of whom are drunk and/or ignorant of math), so it wouldn't be too hard for a dishonest operator to rig the games even more than they're already rigged.
I'm sympathetic to the libertarian philosophy. But as imperfect as police are, they are sometimes necessary.
Quote: renoAre you arguing that casinos should be completely self-regulating? I agree that government agencies are imperfect, (the blogger at The Bear Growls believes Nevada's regulators are too lenient on the casinos). However, there needs to be at least some oversight to protect consumers from fraud. A casino has a lot of power over its customers (many of whom are drunk and/or ignorant of math), so it wouldn't be too hard for a dishonest operator to rig the games even more than they're already rigged.
I'm sympathetic to the libertarian philosophy. But as imperfect as police are, they are sometimes necessary.
I enjoy discussing libertarianism. If someone would like to debate me I am happy to do so, perhaps in a different thread. To answer your question, I would tend to agree that the regulators are probably too lenient on some casinos. The theory of Regulatory Capture explains why they are lenient to established big interests and hostile to newcomers. The regulator gets in bed with the big players in a market and uses their regulatory power to erect a number of barriers to entry which end up leaving the market with a few big players. Remember our friends Dotty and Jackpot Joanie? This is a perfect example of how a regulatory agency becomes an attack dog to protect the interests of the big guys.
To answer your question, yes, the casinos need to be regulated, and the government is not a good option to regulate. The government regulators crowd out private regulators that would spring up in their place. Think about it, if there were a reputable private casino rating agency out there and they said, "The MGM properties are great and we give them an A-, the Harrah's properties are fair but the rules are bad for the player so we give them a B+, and Boyd Gaming has contested 3 slot machine jackpots claiming machine malfunction in the last 6 months, so we give them a C and advise you to play with caution there. Fiesta has this real Jerk named Dan dealing craps so don't play there at all (JK Dan)". MGM would pay a fee to the agency and print "Guaranteed Fair Games! Rated A by BigFoot66 Rating Agency" on the BJ Felt. Now this is a system I just made up. Imagine how much better a system that would emerge with thousands of people smarter than me working on the system! Not perfect, but if an agency like this was too lenient or hard on casinos another competing agency could spring up and take its place. People have been complaining about the current regulators forever but they are a monopoly and a competitor like this cannot emerge.
14yo big fine, 10's in SP21, bigger fine... cuz its a double-date wine'em, dine'em and fine'em.
no dutch treats posted at enterance.
I think I trust government regulators more than I trust private "regulators" who are receiving their support from contributions or advertisements paid for by the casinos or other businesses being "regulated." There are a few exceptions, UL being one that comes to mind, but I don't much buy into private "ratings" as being equivalent to regulation.Quote: bigfoot66To answer your question, yes, the casinos need to be regulated, and the government is not a good option to regulate. The government regulators crowd out private regulators that would spring up in their place.
Quote: DocI think I trust government regulators more than I trust private "regulators" who are receiving their support from contributions or advertisements paid for by the casinos or other businesses being "regulated." There are a few exceptions, UL being one that comes to mind, but I don't much buy into private "ratings" as being equivalent to regulation.
Would you trust more a fair evaluation of games by government regulators, or by the Wizard?
Quote: NareedWould you trust more a fair evaluation of games by government regulators, or by the Wizard?
Amen! Most instictively trust the Gov't more than those that succeed in the free market. Seriously though this is an excellent point Nareed. The Wizard and, indeed, this board already performs a regulatory function for online casinos. Remember the rigged online craps game that was outed here a few months ago?
(1) I would be more trusting/confident that the government could keep up with everything that is going on in the casinos of a state than the Wizard could.Quote: NareedWould you trust more a fair evaluation of games by government regulators, or by the Wizard?
(2) If there were two "regulatory" systems in place -- one operated by the government and one by the Wizard -- which one do you think a casino would be more likely to ignore?
Quote: WizardI voted they should be fined. The rules say "no tens" and there were tens. Casinos should abide by their own rules, regardless of which way the error cuts.
Certainly we all agree that casinos should abide by their own rules but perfection is impossible and the fine benefits no one but the regulator. Keep in mind, the fine is ultimately paid by the gamblers themselves in the form of higher prices or higher house edges. Bob Dancer writes articles about some casino mistakes like one where a certain combination (say 4 dueces) pays double what the pay schedule says it should and the pros really hammer it until it is discovered. Should the casinos have to pay a fine for this? Rules is Rules, right, and they set it up to overpay in violation of the rules....
My point is that it is easy to say "rules is rules" but a more nuanced answer is often more fair.
Quote: cclub79It's also unreal that none of the dealers (even if there were only 2) and pit noticed any 10s for FOUR HOURS!!
I came to this thread late, but Ameristar Casino in Council Bluffs, IA actually had this happen as well. They changed cards (it's a 24-hour table) at 7am-ish. The dealer who came in at 4pm(!) was the one to notice there were 10s in the deck. They had to shut the table down immediately, and they got fined (I think) $10,000 as well. If it's a dealer mistake (which happens occasionally) and they correct it near immediately, then it's just a reprimand, although the pit supervisor will most likely get fired for the incident.
In another incident of it getting caught quickly, the dealer had never dealt the game before, and was told it was just like blackjack. He opened the table, and nobody corrected him. A relief dealer arrived within about 30 minutes, noticed the error, and they fixed it. Again, the supervisor got in trouble, but not the dealer in this case.
Quote: TiltpoulI came to this thread late, but Ameristar Casino in Council Bluffs, IA actually had this happen as well. They changed cards (it's a 24-hour table) at 7am-ish. The dealer who came in at 4pm(!) was the one to notice there were 10s in the deck. They had to shut the table down immediately, and they got fined (I think) $10,000 as well. If it's a dealer mistake (which happens occasionally) and they correct it near immediately, then it's just a reprimand, although the pit supervisor will most likely get fired for the incident.
In another incident of it getting caught quickly, the dealer had never dealt the game before, and was told it was just like blackjack. He opened the table, and nobody corrected him. A relief dealer arrived within about 30 minutes, noticed the error, and they fixed it. Again, the supervisor got in trouble, but not the dealer in this case.
Again, I'm shocked about the players. The consensus here is that it was an advantage, but I think it could be argued that it was a disadvantage unless they knew that they were all in there and could use a different strategy. Using Basic Spanish 21 strategy in a deck with 10s would make it a sizeable disadvantage, which is why I agree with the fine...It's only an advantage after the fact, when you KNOW that all 24 or 32 tens are in the deck.
Quote: cclub79Again, I'm shocked about the players.
I'm not - people are people, including gamblers! They don't care about other people's problem or errors unless if negatively affects them, and wouldn't hestitate in a second if it possibly meant a free advantage that they could justify ("I didn't know," "it wasn't MY mistake, I just took it..." etc.) People are people, and that is it. (A dealer never turns to his players and thinks to himself, "oh, look...it's the manifestation of the Christ Consciousness sitting right here before me....I Bang My Chest....rest assured he shall carry me in case I screw up...." - and we don't think this with our supervisors, either....)
The casino should reasonably be fined in the sense that it was a breach of their game integrity practices, of which they are the sole guarantor at the scene.
A "pull your head out of your ass" fine and warning is appropriate.
Quote: Doc(1) I would be more trusting/confident that the government could keep up with everything that is going on in the casinos of a state than the Wizard could.
(2) If there were two "regulatory" systems in place -- one operated by the government and one by the Wizard -- which one do you think a casino would be more likely to ignore?
Mike has declared his bias for the player, as is his player's POV as it should normally be (he even has a hole-carding advice section for Three-card, - casinos would just love this...)
The casino industry has a casino operators' POV - self-regulation is having the fox running security for the bird's nest.
Courts and regulatory agencies have to have a neither side bias - "just the facts, ma'am...."
Quote: PaigowdanI'm not - people are people, including gamblers! They don't care about other people's problem or errors unless if negatively affects them, and wouldn't hestitate in a second if it possibly meant a free advantage that they could justify
Which is exactly my point. First, not knowing if there are just a few, some, or all of the tens in the deck is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Again, I'll throw this out to the gallery. You are at a S21 table and you see a couple of tens in the course of 4 or 5 hands. Do you clam up and immediately start playing a strategy as if they are all in there? Or do you wait to see if there are more? What strategy do you use in the interim? If you stick with regular S21, you are going to be hitting hands you absolutely shouldn't, thereby losing more hands. So now you are "gambling" that your bad strategy in the short run will lead to an advantage in the long run, but only IF (1) you can determine all the tens are there, (2) you get to play like that for a while before THEY realize it. To me, that seems like a great risk, but I'd love to know what others think.
Plus, people are people, and I can't believe that NONE of them busted on a ten and immediately started to complain. Let's say you sat down and on your second hand, you have 13, hit it, and get a ten. I can't believe no one saw the ten (ANYONE at the table who lost the hand), realized it shouldn't be there, but decided to take the loss in the hope that if they stayed and all the tens were gone, there'd be an advantage. (Back to the two step process above). People are people, and people don't want to lose, so if it was me, I probably would have said, "Whoa! That's not a bust! That card's not supposed to be in there! I'd like my bet back please!" In fact, that one time "Free bet" might be a bigger advantage than trying to figure out the ten situation and hoping that the floor doesn't figure it out right when you do. I think optimal strategy if you see a ten in a S21 game is to bet big until you lose any hand with a ten visible on the table. The first time you lose with a ten somewhere in the view of the camera, you can raise a stink and say "Refund please, game is broken!"
The idea is that the casino must have adequate processes and policies to ensure that the official rules of the games are enforced. If they fail, they are fined. In the end of the day, this does benefit players by ensuring the consistency and fairness of the games.
And, no the fine is not "passed on to the players". The players pay their "dues" (in the form of the house edge) either way, fine or no fine. The fine goes to decrease the casino's profit.
Yes it is.Quote: weaselmanAnd, no the fine is not "passed on to the players"
All businesses, sooner or later, pass on all costs to the customer.
In this case, when it comes time to set up next month's comp mailer, some bean counter's sphincter is going to tighten and reduce the comp to recoup the $10K...
I think this makes some assumptions about a couple of topics:Quote: DJTeddyBearAll businesses, sooner or later, pass on all costs to the customer.
In this case, when it comes time to set up next month's comp mailer, some bean counter's sphincter is going to tighten and reduce the comp to recoup the $10K...
(1) Does the bean counter have a clue about how to help his business be more profitable?
(2) Does the casino issue comps to return a share of revenue to the players (a reward) or in an attempt to generate increased revenue through the advertising?
At my level of play, the comps work as advertising -- give me a coupon/discount and I am more likely to show up and spend/lose more than the value of the comp. If that is the normal situation, a bean counter who reduces comps is hurting his casino's profitability, not helping to recover an unplanned expense, such as a fine.
The reality is, for all businesses, ALL costs, will somehow, someway, reflect in the future business policies and/or prices.
At some point, someone, be it bean counters, or corner office executives, will look at the bottom line and try to find a way to make it bigger next time. That $10K is reflected in the bottom line that he's considering.
Quote: Doc(1) I would be more trusting/confident that the government could keep up with everything that is going on in the casinos of a state than the Wizard could.
I wouldn't.
Quote:(2) If there were two "regulatory" systems in place -- one operated by the government and one by the Wizard -- which one do you think a casino would be more likely to ignore?
Which is more likely to be bought off?
Quote: DJTeddyBear
The reality is, for all businesses, ALL costs, will somehow, someway, reflect in the future business policies and/or prices.
This is simply not true (not for most businesses anyway). The price of the goods or services provided by the business is determined by the market. If the business screws up and gets fined, it will lose profit, not just rise its prices to make up for it (if it could rise the prices, it would make them higher to begin with to make more money).
Sure, the casino could just take money from the marketing budget to make up for the horrible loss of 10 grand in fines, but that move would be so incredibly stupid, that I find it hard to believe a casino, managed like that is still in business.
Quote: NareedWhich is more likely to be bought off?
Certainly, the private business is more likely. Not that it is impossible for a government agency to eve be bought off, but private enterprises are bought and sold every day, this is incomparable.
Quote: weaselmanCertainly, the private business is more likely. Not that it is impossible for a government agency to eve be bought off, but private enterprises are bought and sold every day, this is incomparable.
Private companies change ownership sometimes. That kind of buying is not what I was talking about.
Government regulators are usually paid off to overlook "violations." BUt that's not the point. Even when there's no straight up trade of goods for services, there's lobbying. Large, established companies make use of regulations to keep smaller, upstart companies off the market. That's just for starters.
Quote: NareedPrivate companies change ownership sometimes. That kind of buying is not what I was talking about
Why not? I mean why are you not talking about it? Don't you think, it would be kinda convenient for a major investor in a casino business to also own a big chunk of equity in a private regulatory authority?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And as for being paid off to overlook ... What makes you think a private regulator cannot get paid off as easily? Do you somehow believe that people, working in a private sector are less greedy or more honest? What would be the reason for such difference?
Quote:
Large, established companies make use of regulations to keep smaller, upstart companies off the market. That's just for starters.
It is actually the other way around - small upstart companies sue the large and established ones left and right under the covers of unti-trust regulations etc.
This is not a consequence of being the regulator, but rather of the mere existence of the regulations however. The term "lobbying" is only used in the context of government currently because that's where the regulators are. If the regulators were private, so would be the lobbyists. They would not just magically give up and go away because trhey don't know how to give money to an entity that is not government.
Quote: weaselmanWhy not? I mean why are you not talking about it? Don't you think, it would be kinda convenient for a major investor in a casino business to also own a big chunk of equity in a private regulatory authority?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Because that destroys all credibility and renders the investment worthless.
Buit I'll ask: when you look for information on gaming, and related activities and services, do you look up government agencies, or sites like this one such as Cheapo Vegas and Las Vegas Advisor?
Quote:And as for being paid off to overlook ... What makes you think a private regulator cannot get paid off as easily?
Let's say you run a company that reports on gaming. Would you not lose your credibility if your field agents were paid off? A government agency doesn't lose its power if that ahppens. And their credibility doens't matter. Yours does. So, how long wyould you keep employing dishonest people?
Quote:Do you somehow believe that people, working in a private sector are less greedy or more honest? What would be the reason for such difference?
I do not merely believe it. I've seen it.
Quote: NareedBecause that destroys all credibility and renders the investment worthless.
Only if it becomes known to public. Same exact issue as that with government corruption. No difference.
Quote:when you look for information on gaming, and related activities and services, do you look up government agencies, or sites like this one such as Cheapo Vegas and Las Vegas Advisor?
Depends what particular kind of information I am looking for.
If it is information, kept or published by a gvernment agency, then that's where I'll go to get it.
Quote:Let's say you run a company that reports on gaming. Would you not lose your credibility if your field agents were paid off?
Yes, but only if I am stupid enough to get caught.
Same can be said about a casino itself - it would lose its credibility if it ran unfair operations wouldn't it? Does that mean that there is no need for it to be regulated at all?
Quote:A government agency doesn't lose its power if that ahppens.
The agency does not, it's corrupt representatives do. That's good enough. Agency itself is neither good nor bad, it's the people that work for it and define its policies that make the difference.
Quote:I do not merely believe it. I've seen it.
You have never seen a dishonest person working for private enterprise? No insider trading, no doctoring of research data, no cover-ups, no false advertisement, no lying to SEC, no falsifying financial reports?
Wow ... I'd like to visit the world you live in :)
Quote: weaselmanYou have never seen a dishonest person working for private enterprise?
Not to the extent of government.
Quote: Nareed's old sig lineThis space for rent or lease. (or something like that)
Quote: Nareed's current sig lineA soul is a terrible thing to waste on religion
So are you going to tell us who is paying for that ad on your sig line billboard?
