Casino Fined For Making Error--In The Players' Favor!
Poll
 | 21 votes (52.5%) | ||
| | 19 votes (47.5%) |
40 members have voted
Quote: DocSo are you going to tell us who is paying for that ad on your sig line billboard?
The WWIV Veterans Association :P
You missed "Sign at the Vorlon Tourist Office: We Have Never Been Here." That's from the tail end of WWIV.
There were lots of taglines back then. I think I had a program that rotated them, even, attached to the offline reader. ONe I recall is "Ona clear disk, you can seek forever."
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe reality is, for all businesses, ALL costs, will somehow, someway, reflect in the future business policies and/or prices.
Only across the entire industry.
If company A's cost per CPU is $300 total ($150 marginal), but the market is only ready to pay $200 because company B's units are better above $200, they'll bite the bullet and sell for $200, as long as it's more than the marginal cost. In some cases, products and services are even sold below marginal cost to maintain market presence.
Big business doesn't work like mom and pop stores that have to earn something every week, entire industries can live and even develop with negative net profit for years.
Quote: PaigowdanCourts and regulatory agencies have to have a neither side bias - "just the facts, ma'am...."
This is great in theory but is it really possible? read the wikipedia article on Regulatory Capture again. The big players in a market typically have much sway over the regulators.
Quote: weaselmanAnd, 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.
In a one time sense you are correct, it is unlikely that they say "Ok food and beverage we need to raise the price of the buffet by 23 cents to raise $5,000. That's your part of the fine for Bob leaving the tens in the deck of the Spanish game." The point is rather that, in the long run, mistakes and thus fines are inevitable and become a part of the casinos costs just like labor, food, liquor, etc. I would not be suprised if they budgeted a line item for fines like this. It is in this sense that the fines are paid by the player.
Quote: NareedI wouldn't.
Which is more likely to be bought off?
Nareed! You are my new favorite!
Quote: weaselmanIt 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.
I think that you hit on something important here. The regulator becomes a weapon that each player tries to use against each other. But Nareed is exactly right and it is out in the open, remember when (was it Station Casinos?) got the regulators to go after Dotty and Jackpot Joanie?
Quote: bigfoot66The point is rather that, in the long run, mistakes and thus fines are inevitable and become a part of the casinos costs just like labor, food, liquor, etc. I would not be suprised if they budgeted a line item for fines like this. It is in this sense that the fines are paid by the player.
My point is if they find a way to make the consumer pay more, they will use it, regardless of whether there is a line item for fines in their budget. They (understandably) want to make as much money as they can. If they see a way to make more, they won't pass on it simply because they are not being fined.
Quote: bigfoot66Nareed! You are my new favorite!
Thank you.
It's just a matter of thinking in essentials. The rest is drama :)
Seriously, governments can only work through coercion. This draws the power-hungry to government "service." Not all who work for government are power-hungry, of course, but many are. Those who do better certainly are. Not to mention that government is by nature inefficient.
Consider Mexico City's attempts to deal with pollution. It used to get really abd in the winter, when thermal inversions trapped pollution in town for days. So they set up a "coluntary" program to get people not ot use their cars one day epr week. if you did that... you got not to sue your car one day per week, and a sticker. So they made it mandatory, but only from October through March.
It worked. So they amde it year-round. And then it stopped working. Not many people would buy a second car, often a used car, to insure transportation daily if the interruption was for a few months. But if it was for the whole year, many people will.
More later, if anyone asks. In the end the problem was "solved" by car manufacturers.
Quote: weaselmanMy point is if they find a way to make the consumer pay more, they will use it, regardless of whether there is a line item for fines in their budget. They (understandably) want to make as much money as they can. If they see a way to make more, they won't pass on it simply because they are not being fined.
Again you are absolutely right, greed is a universal. But competition checks the greed. When all the companies facing the same fines for mistakes like this in the long run, it becomes a cost that props up prices despite competition.
Nareed that is a great story. If I understand correctly, everyone got a sticker on their car with a random day of the week written on it and could not drive the car on that day, so to get around that they all just bought a junker to drive on that day? HA! increasing the size and age of the car fleet is a great way to INCREASE polution. Yet another completely counterproductive government program.
Quote: bigfoot66Nareed that is a great story. If I understand correctly, everyone got a sticker on their car with a random day of the week written on it and could not drive the car on that day, so to get around that they all just bought a junker to drive on that day?
Essentially so. Details:
It wasn't random, but based on the licence plate number. Back then mine ended in 9, which meant I couldn't drive the car on Fridays.
Not everyone but a clunker, and those who did didn't necessarily buy one per car. Saya family of four with three cars would add one clunker and keep it for when their newer cars were abrred from circulation. Or they'd buy a new car but keep one of the odler ones instead of selling them. There was an upsurge in used cars brought in from other states.
Quote:HA! increasing the size and age of the car fleet is a great way to INCREASE polution. Yet another completely counterproductive government program.
Entirely so. Other measures did help, like emission checks twice a year, but nowhere near as much as the government claims. more on that later.
Quote: bigfoot66Again you are absolutely right, greed is a universal. But competition checks the greed. When all the companies facing the same fines for mistakes like this in the long run, it becomes a cost that props up prices despite competition.
The question is why you think the prices would not go up "despite competition" in the absence of fines. Clearly, if raising the price allows a business to make more money, it is the right thing for it to do. Whether or not it is being occasionally fined is irrelevant.
As long as the consumer is willing to pay more, the price will go up, because there is no reason for it to stop.
Quote: DJTeddyBearAll businesses, sooner or later, pass on all costs to the customer.
Who else are they going to pass them on to? Suppliers? Government? God?
Look, any business can absorb a certain degree of losses. Those that can't are less able to withstand bad times or even bad seasons. In any case there are limits. Too big a loss can sink any company.
The economy is too interconnected. A rise in costs will be passed on to those who purchase what you sell. That's why higher taxes across the board bring higher prices along for the ride, too. But there are many factors involved. You may not eb able to make up a mdoerate loss, but you may not be able to stay competitive if you raise prices to make up for it. So you have to turn to other optiosn. You may get a loan, thus amortizing the loss over time (time and money are closely related), or you may fire an employee or two, or reduce some benefits, or sell some assets.
All those options, though, will impact, to one degree or another, how you do business. Less employees may reduce your service quality, or yuor output. Less benefits may reduce morale and thus the quality of service or output, etc.
Employees? Stockholders?Quote: NareedWho else are they going to pass them on to? Suppliers? Government? God?
AND to those who purchase what your competitors sell, and to those who purchase something seemingly unrelated, and to those selling something also seemingly unrelated.Quote: NareedThe economy is too interconnected. A rise in costs will be passed on to those who purchase what you sell.
The only situation where an increase in costs directly corresponds to an increase in prices is if the company in question is undercutting. Then its prices are linked to the costs, so it has to let some of its edge go in order to sustain its strategy.
Quote: weaselmanClearly, if raising the price allows a business to make more money, it is the right thing for it to do. Whether or not it is being occasionally fined is irrelevant.
This is true. It is also true that if lowering the price will make a firm more money, it is the right thing to do. For example Many on this board argue that casinos set their prices too high by offering stingy video poker or 6:5 blackjack (the house edge is the price of gambling), and that they would make more money with less stingy games.
If you want to understand why firms cannot get away with regularly raising prices I suggest searching wikipedia for "Perfect Competition". The interesting thing about a perfectly competitive market is that there is no economic profit for firms, in other words profit rates end up being the same as the rate of return one could get at a bank. Understanding the concepts in that article will make it clearer why consumers ultimately pay these fines in a larger sense. Failing that, think of it this way. If a casino has had to pay between $200,000 and $250,000 in fines for petty errors each of the last 10 years and expects to do so again this year, that is just as real a cost to the casino as food, liquor, labor, utilities, etc. Surely the gambler pays the price for the free drinks and free hotel rooms by gambling. He also pays the costs of spreading the game. Well, these fines are just as much a part of the costs as buying cards and dice, dealer uniforms, etc.
Quote: weaselmanAs long as the consumer is willing to pay more, the price will go up, because there is no reason for it to stop.
This is unquestionably not true. Do you know anyone who needs, say, insulin for diabetes? I did a quick search online and it costs about $75 for a small bottle. I am very confident that someone who would likely die without insulin would be willing to pay 100x that amount for insulin.
Bad example? Because people need it to live? OK, how about beer? I went to a Snoop Dogg concert at Harrah's Rincon San Diego last year. I paid $12 (!) for a 16 oz aluminium bottle of Bud Light. This means that, at least sometimes, I value beer that highly. At the store I rarely pay more than 80 or 90 cents for a 12 oz bottle of Bud Light. Why don't the fools at Ralphs double or tripple their prices? Is it not clear that I am getting a great deal from them?
Quote: bigfoot66This is unquestionably not true. Do you know anyone who needs, say, insulin for diabetes? I did a quick search online and it costs about $75 for a small bottle. I am very confident that someone who would likely die without insulin would be willing to pay 100x that amount for insulin.
Not if it costs $76 over the corner.
Medications that are still protected by monopoly patents do command exorbitant prices, if they are life-critical.
Insulin market is a FDA-protected oligopoly in US, preventing anyone else from entering. Outside US, insulin can be found an order of magnitude cheaper.
The only thing keeping the price of patent or FDA protected monopolies down is that you can fleece a sheep many times, but only skin him once. If you charge more for the drug than your patient can pay, he dies or buys from a Canadian smuggler and you don't get anything the next week.
Quote: bigfoot66This is true. It is also true that if lowering the price will make a firm more money, it is the right thing to do.
Indeed. That was exactly my point.
Quote:If you want to understand why firms cannot get away with regularly raising prices
Oh, I understand that.
What I don't understand is how that situation changes in your view by the introduction of fines.
If the company can get away with increasing the price, it will increase it, if it cannot, it won't.
Whether or not it is being fined for some violations in the process is orthogonal to that,
Quote:This is unquestionably not true. Do you know anyone who needs, say, insulin for diabetes? I did a quick search online and it costs about $75 for a small bottle. I am very confident that someone who would likely die without insulin would be willing to pay 100x that amount for insulin.
No, unfortunately, he won't. He just would not have that kind of money.
Quote:This means that, at least sometimes, I value beer that highly. At the store I rarely pay more than 80 or 90 cents for a 12 oz bottle of Bud Light. Why don't the fools at Ralphs double or tripple their prices? Is it not clear that I am getting a great deal from them?
You may want to follow your advice on searching wikipedia for competition. I am sure, you can find an explanation there.
Besides, search for supply and demand equilibrium. Yes, sometimes you are willing to pay a lot more for beer then other times. But if you had to pay that much all the time, you'd end up buying less beer, and spending less money on it, then you would otherwise.
I am sure, you understand how it works, and I doubt you don't know that I understand it too. So, the question is what was the point of that example?
You may have faith in your government, or you may not. But the difference is, if you don't trust a private certification organization, you can always rely on another, or not on any at all, pick some other criteria for making your choices. If a government regulator is screwing up or screwing with the market on purpose to help private interests (like FDA does with insulin), your only choice is to be screwed.
Quote: bigfoot66This is true. It is also true that if lowering the price will make a firm more money, it is the right thing to do. For example Many on this board argue that casinos set their prices too high by offering stingy video poker or 6:5 blackjack (the house edge is the price of gambling), and that they would make more money with less stingy games.
On the other hand, the Caesars casinos also don't charge resort fees, offer the 24-hour buffet and show passes, offer a variety of lodging options and a re knwon to be loose with free stays (more or less, not loose enough for me). The one may, in the judgment fo some consumers, balance the other; or even overbalance the other.
Not all businesses are all of a piece.
Quote: weaselmanOh, I understand that.
What I don't understand is how that situation changes in your view by the introduction of fines.
If the company can get away with increasing the price, it will increase it, if it cannot, it won't.
Whether or not it is being fined for some violations in the process is orthogonal to that,
I am not sure that we will see eye to eye on this as I have said the same thing a few times now, but I will try to explain it one more time. The point is that no one is perfect, and over the course of 10 years, each casino would expect to make, say, 25 errors like leaving the 10's in the spanish game. Therefore each casino would have about $25,000 in silly fines (IMO) each year. Since this is a cost that each casino must bear, prices will be higher than were there no such fines. Similarly, when gas prices go up the airlines all charge more for plane tickets. Competition limits profits but does not limit absolute cost. Therefore when it is more expensive to operate a business, prices inevitably go up. Consumers bear the costs of operating an enterprise. I apologize if this is not clear.
Reading over this post (and some earlier ones) I realize that it may come across as patronizing or belittling, it is not meant to be. I am trying to write as clearly as possible so please do not take offense
Quote: P90BTW, the insulin example may be a good answer to the question of whether government or private regulation is better.
You may have faith in your government, or you may not. But the difference is, if you don't trust a private certification organization, you can always rely on another, or not on any at all, pick some other criteria for making your choices. If a government regulator is screwing up or screwing with the market on purpose to help private interests (like FDA does with insulin), your only choice is to be screwed.
Bastiat talked about "the seen and the unseen" effects of regulation. The effect that you mention is terrible and it is a "seen" effect of the FDA. Their policies double the price of insulin, lets say. This hurts consumers. But the unseen effects are even worse in part because they are costs we do not realize we are paying. When the FDA approves a drug that kills people it takes a lot of heat. If they fail to approve a drug that would have saved an equal number of lives, nothing happens to them. Because of this, they tend to underapprove drugs and approve them too slowly. This costs people their lives.
Think about this. There are treatments for rare fatal diseases that are not FDA approved. It is actually illegal for dying person to take a drug that is not FDA approved. Imagine if your wife was dying of a rare disease with no approved treatment, and there was a pill that Doctors used with mixed success in say, Europe. It would be illegal for your doctor to help her try to get it and I believe it is actually illegal for your wife to try it on her own. This is the unseen effects of regulation. The argument for the FDA usually begins with "people will die from unsafe or untested medications", a claim that I do not believe. But even if it true, we know that people do die every year because the FDA will not allow them to try to medicate themselves.
Quote: bigfoot66The point is that no one is perfect, and over the course of 10 years, each casino would expect to make, say, 25 errors like leaving the 10's in the spanish game. Therefore each casino would have about $25,000 in silly fines (IMO) each year. Since this is a cost that each casino must bear, prices will be higher than were there no such fines.
But why? Suppose, the government has come to its sense and stopped imposing those silly fines? Would each casino decide to lower its prices by $25k per year because of that? Why would they do that? Do they hate money?
Quote: bigfoot66The downward pressures on prices are just as powerful as the greed of the firm's owner.
Of course they are! You are arguing against the point that was never in dispute. All I am saying is the downward pressures on prices are there regardless of the government fines. In other words, the prices are always as high as deemed useful by the business. All other things equal, if there were no government fine, there is no reason the prices would be lower, the business would just make more profit keeping prices the same.
Quote: 98ClubsThe OP cuts both ways, 14 YO in a Casino is a fine. Playing SP21 in a manner against the rules is a fine. If the Casino is not held legally responsible for errors, what protection/recourse do you have as Customer? NONE sez I, arrrr.
I do think that 14 year olds should be allowed to gamble, but I was not attempting to defend that position here.
Quote: bigfoot66I do think that 14 year olds should be allowed to gamble, but I was not attempting to defend that position here.
To address this question, I created a new poll thread:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/8236-minimum-age-to-gamble/
About whether I'd trust private business over the state, the answer is an obvious (to me) yes. Not that I'd trust any specific business that much more, but I know that at least business has competition, whereas government generally has little competition, and when it does, it's generally still incompetent. (EG: I could easily go to AC, or Pennsylvania casinos, so I'll go where the best comps and lowest HE is. This hasn't really made AC any better, and the regulations set up by the state are , IMO, a major cause)
And you can probably tell by my mindset that I voted no, they should not be fined by the state. Although it may not be bad if they refunded some players' losses, or if private agencies had some sort of audit process. (I'm not an entrepreneur, so don't ask me to try to imagine one up haha) At very least, they could just fix the mistake and move on, saving some money that I don't think needs to be going to fuel a self serving bureaucracy.
EDIT: Just realized this thread's a month old. My mistake.
Quote: ahiromuFirst off, your link isn't working for me.
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.
I'm okay with some of the money going to the state. I think half should go to 800-BETS OFF or something similar. That's what's happened to unclaimed money at the house I work. Once I guy that had banned himself was playing poker and won a bad beat jackpot over $10K. He knew he couldn't collect the money, and would be fined so he made up some lie about getting his ID and left. All the bad beat money went to 800-BETS OFF.
Quote: Boney526
About whether I'd trust private business over the state, the answer is an obvious (to me) yes. Not that I'd trust any specific business that much more, but I know that at least business has competition, whereas government generally has little competition, and when it does, it's generally still incompetent. (EG: I could easily go to AC, or Pennsylvania casinos, so I'll go where the best comps and lowest HE is. This hasn't really made AC any better, and the regulations set up by the state are , IMO, a major cause)
I'm glad to see this topic revisited. As far as private regulators go, I had a discussion about this with my friend the other day. He told me that I was an idiot and that it would never work because the greedy regulators would be paid off and blah blah blah. Anyway it occured to me that we I already rely on a private regulator for picking restaurants....YELP! Yelp reviews tend to be very helpful and act as a regulator. I don't go to places with bad Yelp reviews and I also use the site to determine what I should order in a lot of cases. Best of all, we don't have to pay for the service.
If a private regulation agency (like YELP) gets paid off, there's no huge negative consequence. YELP isn't actually in charge, so only it's customers would be affected, rather than everybody who eats at a restaurant. And if corruption such as that was exposed, then YELP would lose credibility, and most likely go out of business.
But if a government official is paid off, and corrupted, most people would "expect" that. If the individual involved in corruption is exposed, then they get rid of the individual, but the agency is still in tact.
Which leads to the question, is it really any different? Do government agencies have an incentive to destroy themselves (since they aren't a business, I won't say go out of business) if they are corrupted, or ineffective? The obvious answer is no. Neither Private corporations, nor government agencies have an incentive to die out if they are unnecessary or corrupt. But private agencies don't have a choice, they either compete, and do well, or they go bankrupt. Government regulation agencies don't go broke, because they don't operate a business model, they simply take money from tax payers and exist.
I can't think of anything more susceptible to corruption than publicly funded, and government operated, regulation agencies.
Quote: Boney526I can't think of anything more susceptible to corruption than publicly funded, and government operated, regulation agencies.
This story was in the LVRJ the other day and reminded me of this thread. I think this goes to show that casino regulations, like almost all regualtions, are written to protect powerful players in the industry rather than to protect the consumers. How could the consumers possibly be hurt by the Roadhouse reopening without building a hotel? In the 80 years that casinos have been legal in NV, it was fine for consumers to play table games at casinos that lacked hotels, but now it is unsafe to have a table game without a hotel room attached? By this line of thinking, the most dangerous place in Las Vegas must be.... Jerry's Nugget!!!
Quote: Boney526I can't think of anything more susceptible to corruption than publicly funded, and government operated, regulation agencies.
I can! How about arbitration agencies? A company adds a binding arbitration agreement into a contract and gets to choose their arbitration agency. The for-profit arbitration agency gets revenue from cases brought before them from this company. It's in their best interest to side with the company rather than the consumer. Should we let casinos choose an arbitration agency when an error is made?
Quote: PopCanI can! How about arbitration agencies? A company adds a binding arbitration agreement into a contract and gets to choose their arbitration agency. The for-profit arbitration agency gets revenue from cases brought before them from this company. It's in their best interest to side with the company rather than the consumer. Should we let casinos choose an arbitration agency when an error is made?
This does sound like an agreement subject to a great deal of corruption. I would certainly not play at a casino if they got to pick the judge in the case of a dispute!!!
Quote: bigfoot66This does sound like an agreement subject to a great deal of corruption. I would certainly not play at a casino if they got to pick the judge in the case of a dispute!!!
Then why pick a casino that gets to choose its regulator? If they don't get to pick their regulator, where does the competition come in? Or am I misunderstanding something?
One point I'll make in favor of private regulators is how GLI has impacted the gaming industry. They work with regulators around the world when deciding on the certification practices and they've influenced industry regulators in a positive way many times.
Not all consumers, but the city itself, as well as nearby property owners. A casino without a hotel, regardless of how it's operated or how safe it is, depresses propery values.Quote: bigfoot66How could the consumers possibly be hurt by the Roadhouse reopening without building a hotel?
Quote: DJTeddyBearNot all consumers, but the city itself, as well as nearby property owners. A casino without a hotel, regardless of how it's operated or how safe it is, depresses propery values.
I'm not sure I buy this argument, but let's say it is true. It is not the casino regulators job to promote property values. It is their job to regulate gaming.
No, it's their job to enforce the gaming regulations. If one of those regulations is that a new licensee needs to have a hotel with __ rooms, then that's what they are supposed to enforce.Quote: bigfoot66I'm not sure I buy this argument, but let's say it is true. It is not the casino regulators job to promote property values. It is their job to regulate gaming.
Quote: PopCanThen why pick a casino that gets to choose its regulator? If they don't get to pick their regulator, where does the competition come in? Or am I misunderstanding something?
One point I'll make in favor of private regulators is how GLI has impacted the gaming industry. They work with regulators around the world when deciding on the certification practices and they've influenced industry regulators in a positive way many times.
What makes you think they'd pick their regulators in a privately regulated industry?
They wouldn't HAVE to listen to those private regulators, but they sure as hell would want to if they wanted customers.
I think that's the misunderstanding here. Of course no Casino is going to hire a regulation agency (rather, nobody would trust such an arrangement.) But if the regulation agency is not being paid by casinos, but some other means (consumers, or advertisers, etc.) then they wouldn't have the industries biggest players in mind, they'd have their own customers in mind. That's something government doesn't have - customers that have to trust it to keep it in business.
Isn't that the K Street Project was all about ??
Quote: DJTeddyBearNo, it's their job to enforce the gaming regulations. If one of those regulations is that a new licensee needs to have a hotel with __ rooms, then that's what they are supposed to enforce.
The point is, that that's a silly job to have, when the regulations are silly. The regulations are ludicrous, and imply that some people's rights and interests are more important that others'.
The people building a Casino shouldn't have to worry about how they will affect property values around them, or rather, shouldn't be forced to build a hotel to ensure that other people's properties stay valuable (which, like Bigfoot, I'm not entirely sure I buy that it even would). Maybe they SHOULD care about other people's property values, but they shouldn't be forced to look out for other people. That's equivalent of saying you can only open a sub shop if you're willing build a bus stop on the property. Might it be a good thing? Maybe. Should the owner be forced to pay for, and build it? No, not if he/she doesn't want to.
Quote: buzzpaff" What makes you think they'd pick their regulators in a privately regulated industry?"
Isn't that the K Street Project was all about ??
Not at all.
A privately regulated industry, at least in theory, has no government regulations. The K Street Project had everything to do with Lobbyists and Washington, if I'm thinking of the same thing as you.
It's a completely different situation. When I say privately regulated industry, I don't mean regulated by the GOP. I mean un-regulated. The markets will sort out the issues. In the case of the regulations that exist now, and that K Street attempts to get through, are all about keeping the biggest corporations in charge. And that's what happens when the government gets involved in the market. The biggest market players monopolize the industries using the arm of government, rather than pure competition (which would result in better products at cheaper prices)
What in the world justifies fining the casino for failing to shuffle the baccarat cards? Sure it was nonrandom, but who cares, the players made HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars from the error!!!! What in the world would justify government stepping in and fining the casino?
Edit: And please, don't say "they broke the regulation/approved procedure/law so they have to face the consequences!". You have to justify punishing a business for making an error against its own interest, and explain why in the world it is legitimate, and saying "the government says it is legitimate for the government to do this" is not an acceptable answer.
Quote: FleaStiffIt still gives the regulators an excuse to throw their weight around.
I agree that is probably part of why it happened.
Ditto.Quote: rainmanThey don't care who benefited from the mistake, it was an illegal practice on the casinos part and deserving of fine apparently.
Who besides the casino lost out because of the error? All the players who happened to not be at the right place at the right time. Although the money won't go to those players, for them, the regulators are adding the insult to injury.
Although the casino lost a lot due to their error, punish them anyway, in the name of all the players who couldn't be there to benefit from the error.
Quote: bigfoot66There was a lot of discussion in another thread about the casino in AC that dealt baccarat from an unshuffled shoe. They were fined $100,000. They lost hundreds of thousands of dollars to players who picked up the problem much quicker than the staff did. Surely no one can defend the fine here, right?
What in the world justifies fining the casino for failing to shuffle the baccarat cards? Sure it was nonrandom, but who cares, the players made HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars from the error!!!! What in the world would justify government stepping in and fining the casino?
.
Because it's easier to fine a casino for going out of the boundries of the regulations than it is to figure out if one could set up various scams to skim casino profits with outsiders.
If you fine them for everything, you discourage theft, by making them run a tight ship.
Quote:Other methods of skimming, such as arranging for particular employees of organized crime be allowed to win in rigged games, was sometimes used.
On Skimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimming_(casinos)
SO, fine for violations, and either way there's no incentive to steal.
