"Markers" ... another Mark
It seems that it is the Wynn now that has gotten into the news over one of its Marks. Yes, it is through the Casino Credit system, which involves allowing gamblers to take out markers, that has snared one William "Ted" Forrest, a multi-bracelet pro poker player. If you have been following my recent blog posts and the Clinton Portis thread, you know that I consider this a Predatory Lending practice. See links, and I invite you to check out my blog if you haven't.
From reading the Las Vegas Sun article, it looks like it is currently in maximum threat phase from the Casino/State legal team: Forrest is being told he faces felony charges and prison. We know the state of Nevada will back this charge up. Forrest has lawyered up, but test cases have already failed as the article mentions, and Forrest is not going to do any better and is going to be on the hook for a long time. If other cases tell us anything, he will be unable to discharge the debt in bankruptcy proceedings, and have to agree to some sort of payment plan, at which point the jail-time/felony charge threat will ease, assuming he continues to pay.
So if you haven't kept up on this, you might be asking why the Wynn credit system allowed somebody who was getting into dire straits to write $215k in 'bad checks'. I'll repeat myself on this. The truth of the matter is that the casino invariably has come across someone with a lot of money and a gambling problem. The process of extracting that money begins; in the process I can guarantee you many more thousands in bounced checks that were later paid off preceded this final unpayable amount, and that essentially what has happened is that the casino has simply "gotten all his money now" as it might be put on the street. All the money of a poker player who has earned millions in his career. Repeating myself, now the matter is about getting even more. You have to understand that to understand why it is so predatory, put yourself in the shoes of the casino. Typically he will beg, lie, cheat, borrow and steal to get more money to gamble with. You will get that too. This Mark will have future income. You will get that too. You wind up owning this guy, you have total power over him, and the Attorney General of the state is on your legal team.
wikipedia photo
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/sep/09/poker-pro-faces-2-felonies-over-215k-in-casino-deb/
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/25009-clinton-portis/
What?!
I thought you can discharge any debt thru bankruptcy except federal student loans and IRS?
is this a Nevada thing?
Quote: 100xOdds"he will be unable to discharge the debt in bankruptcy proceedings, and have to agree to some sort of payment plan"
What?!
I thought you can discharge any debt thru bankruptcy except federal student loans and IRS?
is this a Nevada thing?
you can't discharge any bad checks you wrote. The Casino Credit system relies on this. It is the same in all states allowing a marker system as far as I know.
I suspect one of the things that hooks the Mark is that he starts to realize these markers apparently are "just loans". For the Mark, along the 'way down', the loans are easy to get, no fees, no interest, a lot of forgiveness as long as a bad check gets paid off in a reasonable period that probably seems like a grace period. But such a deluded Mark is not realizing these easy loans are hiding some ugly enforcers.
I don't see how anyone can find the casino at fault here. He was given the money, and he refused to pay it back. It's called personal responsibility. If he has a gambling problem, I sincerely hope he uses this as a wake-up call and seeks help.
Look, after dealing with casino credit people from the casino side, for a case like this, there was probably some serious issue that caused Wynn to go after him. If this were simply a matter of Ted borrowing $215K and losing it at Wynn, but promising to pay it back, this probably wouldn't be a police issue.
Exactly right. It's "credit" because, despite the mechanics and label of "check cashing privileges," the casino doesn't actually draw funds from your linked bank account at the time you sign the marker. The amount they front you is an interest-free loan until it's paid back, and they expect you to do that in a timely fashion. I've been lucky enough to usually win (or break even) on markers so I can just buy them back later that weekend, but the last time I drew a marker at an MGM property I busted out. And then I left town figuring the marker would just be drawn against my bank account as any other check would (and it had the funds, so I wasn't worried about passing a bad check). A month later I got a letter asking for payment, which I mailed in. So I was (and still am) confused about the mechanics on that part -- and why they didn't just draw funds from my bank account. But I have no intention of ever gambling beyond my means so I'm not concerned about passing a bad check anyway. For me, markers are just a way to not have to carry around a bunch of cash.Quote: KingoftheEyeIn many jurisdictions, a casino line of credit is more accurately called a check cashing line or check cashing limit or something similar. You must write a check to the casino for the full amount they gave you which will be banked in on a date that is made clear to the check cashing guest. If you write a check knowing you don't have funds in the account, that is a crime. Doesn't matter if it is to a casino, or to a mechanic that just fixed your car.
I don't see how anyone can find the casino at fault here. He was given the money, and he refused to pay it back. It's called personal responsibility. If he has a gambling problem, I sincerely hope he uses this as a wake-up call and seeks help.
For what it's worth, there is nothing more frustrating than taking out a marker at a dice table, having the boxperson lock up the lammer, and then proceeding to lose the amount before the floor supervisor comes around with the clipboard for your signature. *sigh*
Quote: KingoftheEyeIn many jurisdictions, a casino line of credit is more accurately called a check cashing line or check cashing limit or something similar. You must write a check to the casino for the full amount they gave you which will be banked in on a date that is made clear to the check cashing guest. If you write a check knowing you don't have funds in the account, that is a crime. Doesn't matter if it is to a casino, or to a mechanic that just fixed your car.
I think what you point out stops most of us from fully sympathizing with what I will still call "the Mark". It is absolutely true that there is a very large element of personal responsibility that Forrest needs to accept for his current troubles.
Quote:I don't see how anyone can find the casino at fault here.
Now we separate with our opinions.
Quote:He was given the money, and he refused to pay it back.
Without question the casino and the prosecution will carefully maintain it is as simple as that, and case law will back them up.
Quote:It's called personal responsibility. If he has a gambling problem, I sincerely hope he uses this as a wake-up call and seeks help.
Look, after dealing with casino credit people from the casino side,
I thought so.
Quote:... for a case like this, there was probably some serious issue that caused Wynn to go after him. If this were simply a matter of Ted borrowing $215K and losing it at Wynn, but promising to pay it back, this probably wouldn't be a police issue.
"A matter of Ted borrowing" ... I think you are letting it leak that "from the casino side" as long as things are hunky dory, Forrest indeed might have been encouraged to think it was just a loan. Not a bad check writing situation.
I do not have the facts, I am speculating, but I submit to you that this is another case that calls into question whether or not we can find "the casino at fault" here. Ask yourself if there is such a thing as predatory lending. I believe there is and I have come to believe firmly that these eye-popping cases where just about anybody has to not only ask "isn't that a lot of money to borrow" but also ask "why would any lender loan so much to anyone not knowing if they would repay it", that it is indeed predatory. Note the article speaks about the casino's involvement in opening up a convenient-for-them checking account with $100. Something was afoot.
Look, I first got interested in this from knowing someone who got into deep debt with illegal gambling and wound up being killed execution style. One of the big questions for me at the time was indeed this business of "why would they continue to loan him the money". After puzzling over it for years, I finally realized it actually makes sense to do so in a perverse way. I won't repeat all that here again. But I am going to be calling it like I see it.
Almost by definition, predatory lending is lending funds to someone you don't believe has the means to pay it back. Most casino check cashing policies require markers to be drawn against a linked checking account. I'll admit that I have no experience with 6-figure gambling budgets, nor do I ever expect to, but is the policy not the same at that level? If I sign a contract that says I'll withdraw money on credit from a casino and I promise that I have the funds to pay it back in a linked checking account, and I lie about that last part, how do you view that as the casino's fault?Quote: odiousgambitI do not have the facts, I am speculating, but I submit to you that this case calls into question whether or not we can find "the casino at fault" here. Ask yourself if there is such a thing as predatory lending. I have come to believe firmly that these eye-popping cases where just about anybody has to not only ask "isn't that a lot of money to borrow" but also ask "why would any lender loan so much to anyone not knowing if they would repay it", that it is indeed predatory.
Quote: MathExtremistExactly right. It's "credit" because, despite the mechanics and label of "check cashing privileges," the casino doesn't actually draw funds from your linked bank account at the time you sign the marker. The amount they front you is an interest-free loan until it's paid back, and they expect you to do that in a timely fashion. ... I have no intention of ever gambling beyond my means so I'm not concerned about passing a bad check anyway. For me, markers are just a way to not have to carry around a bunch of cash.
I have taken out markers and I agree that probably for most of us here who have done so, what you write here is all we ever are going to expect and experience.
Alas, for, say, a very successful professional athlete getting himself noticed for the wrong reasons, he might instead need to be up to date on what this special type of predatory lending is all about. And, just to say it again, if he was a person with a better handle on personal responsibility, then maybe he could stay out of trouble just on the basis of that ... and not be faced with the disapproval of you and me for what he gets into. Yes, me too, but I have chosen also to blog etc. about the other side of the story.
Quote:For what it's worth, there is nothing more frustrating than taking out a marker at a dice table, having the boxperson lock up the lammer, and then proceeding to lose the amount before the floor supervisor comes around with the clipboard for your signature. *sigh*
LOL
I think you can add that they typically then put themselves in a position to benefit from re-writing the consequences. Boy do the casinos have a good deal on that!Quote: MathExtremistAlmost by definition, predatory lending is lending funds to someone you don't believe has the means to pay it back.
I appreciate the feedback and I have conceded that I could be taking a more balanced position, yet I have to say I think the balance is already there! What you say is exactly what is going to keep a progressive-minded judge, say, from going off the rails from the point of view of the prosecution.Quote:Most casino check cashing policies require markers to be drawn against a linked checking account. I'll admit that I have no experience with 6-figure gambling budgets, nor do I ever expect to, but is the policy not the same at that level? If I sign a contract that says I'll withdraw money on credit from a casino and I promise that I have the funds to pay it back in a linked checking account, and I lie about that last part, how do you view that as the casino's fault?
I think as far as change goes, I have some hope that some of these practices in other states than Nevada might see improvement by writing changes in the law. For example, once a casino has a check bounce on them, I think any further lending they allow for a period of time could be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Your opinion may differ.
Quote: odiousgambit
I do not have the facts, I am speculating, but I submit to you that this is another case that calls into question whether or not we can find "the casino at fault" here. [edit] Ask yourself if there is such a thing as predatory lending. I believe there is and I have come to believe firmly that these eye-popping cases where just about anybody has to not only ask "isn't that a lot of money to borrow" but also ask "why would any lender loan so much to anyone not knowing if they would repay it", that it is indeed predatory. [edit] Note the article speaks about the casino's involvement in opening up a convenient-for-them checking account with $100. Something was afoot.
Look, I first got interested in this from knowing someone who got into deep debt with illegal gambling and wound up being killed execution style. One of the big questions for me at the time was indeed this business of "why would they continue to loan him the money". After puzzling over it for years, I finally realized it actually makes sense to do so in a perverse way. I won't repeat all that here again. But I am going to be calling it like I see it.
I'm familiar with predatory lending and actually would go so far as to say that if there is some way for Forrest to prove predatory lending was involved here, the debt should be forgiven. A big problem he will run into here:
When you apply for casino credit (check cashing) you agree to allow the casino to call your bank and verify your accounts. As part of that process the bank will confirm a vague average balance. For example, if you have and average balance of $15,000 the bank would tell the casino "low 5" ( five digits). An average balance of $800K would be a "high 6". This is about half of the check. The rest is a call to Central Credit which tracks all of this player's credit at other casinos worldwide. Between the two, a decision is made on credit line. If Ted Forrest had a $215K credit line, he was probably rated higher than a "Low 6".
This all falls apart with TTO's though, so if some Pit Boss approved him above his limit, then there would be some things for his lawyer to attack.
Poker players are optimists and gamblers. A pro who has a track record of millions won would be easily lured into casino credit with funds not on hand. 215k is pocket change. There's always a private high stakes game out there, and he has a winning history. He wouldn't view a cc withdrawal in the same catagory as rent or car payment. It's his business, and he knows how to win, so he sees virtually no risk.
Except sometimes variance is a bitch. And lows can sustain. And once you get down, it's really hard to dig out; you'd be giving off desperation tells, word would get around your circle you're strapped and in a slump, and all the time incurring new debt as you try to play your way back up. So you end up in the LasVegasSun, or in a ditch like OG's buddy.
But psychologically, the guy was ripe for this kind of downfall. It's not so much about personal responsibility; it's about self-delusion.
Quote: odiousgambityou can't discharge any bad checks you wrote. The Casino Credit system relies on this. It is the same in all states allowing a marker system as far as I know.
I suspect one of the things that hooks the Mark is that he starts to realize these markers apparently are "just loans". For the Mark, along the 'way down', the loans are easy to get, no fees, no interest, a lot of forgiveness as long as a bad check gets paid off in a reasonable period that probably seems like a grace period. But such a deluded Mark is not realizing these easy loans are hiding some ugly enforcers.
Technically you can discharge a bad check if a person sues you over it. If they go to the DA and fIle charges then you can't discharge the restitution.
Quote: GWAETechnically you can discharge a bad check if a person sues you over it. If they go to the DA and fIle charges then you can't discharge the restitution.
I can't vouch for which states this might be true in, or whether it is a total canard period, but I worked with a guy who said it 'became a civil matter' and not a police matter once the stiffed party accepts a partial payment. He was always sure not to have this partial payment happen by carelessness; this was Ohio.
To sue might also make it a civil matter I guess.
Quote: KingoftheEyeI don't see how anyone can find the casino at fault here. He was given the money, and he refused to pay it back. It's called personal responsibility.
Responsibility goes both ways. The casino could have done the responsible thing and waited for the check to clear. Any business that accepts a check for $200,000 knowing that there is no money is being irresponsible
Quote: odiousgambitI can't vouch for which states this might be true in, or whether it is a total canard period, but I worked with a guy who said it 'became a civil matter' and not a police matter once the stiffed party accepts a partial payment. He was always sure not to have this partial payment happen by carelessness; this was Ohio.
To sue might also make it a civil matter I guess.
I wouldn't base anything on the weirdo ohio laws.
But yeah that sounds about right.
When you write them a check is it dated for the current date but they promise to hold it until x date? I assume that is what they do since a post dated check is illegal.
In this specific case, if anyone was getting "had," it was the casino, making an interest-free, no-fee loan while assuming the (substantial, as it turned out) risk of not getting repaid. Maybe that means that Forrest was guilty of predatory borrowing.
And BTW, what genius approved cashing Forrest's checks, anyway? It must have been well known in poker circles that Forrest was circling the drain. What made them think that the risk of not getting repaid was tolerable?
Interesting viewpoint.Quote: JoeshlabotnikActually, there is no such thing as predatory lending, in any context, in any situation, assuming, of course, that there is no coercion involved. As long as the borrower is an adult and legally capable of executing a contract, there's nothing "predatory" about such a contract, even if it's a crappier deal for one side than the other.
In this specific case, if anyone was getting "had," it was the casino, making an interest-free, no-fee loan while assuming the (substantial, as it turned out) risk of not getting repaid. Maybe that means that Forrest was guilty of predatory borrowing.
This question gets asked over and over again, just as I was asking almost 40 years ago when my acquaintance got himself murdered. The thing that causes the confusion is the assumption that the casino is lending to a Mark under the same imperative need of repayment they would have if they loaned it to just anyone.Quote:And BTW, what genius approved cashing Forrest's checks, anyway? It must have been well known in poker circles that Forrest was circling the drain. What made them think that the risk of not getting repaid was tolerable?
If you put yourself in the shoes of the casino having found themselves a nice Mark, I hope you can see the difference.
You offer a game in which you have a large edge to someone you find can't stop himself from playing and playing, and is pretty much assured to give it all back.
Very important: The 'credit' is only good for making bets with you at this game.
At the beginning you know he has a lot of money.
At another point, you know you have all of his money.
So, what does it hurt to be sure you have it all? He'll get more money somehow too. You let him continue to play with this special kind of credit. What is the risk? He always gives it all back. Maybe he lives off some small part of it when he gets lucky, but remember, you took *all* his money already. This new special kind of loan, 99% of it, you are going to just get it back. For one thing, when he does win, you'll be demanding he pay off his debt. And the state will help you collect this debt.
Quote: odiousgambit
Forrest indeed might have been encouraged to think it was just a loan. Not a bad check writing situation.
Although I agree with you that casino credit can be predatory, he was very familiar with the system and knew exactly how it worked.
Predatory lending I understand would be lending which is ultimately dishonest, fraudulent, deceptive, or unpayable by design, or more profitable by default than repayment. That's my gist. Court troubles are a burden to society and we should not have disputes rely on the government unwillingly to be part of the business model when other means are available. Do you consider these criminal tools to be the coercion you speak of, or are your views just that radical? I almost don't even believe you believe what you say you believe, it's so unbelievable.Quote: JoeshlabotnikActually, there is no such thing as predatory lending, in any context, in any situation, assuming, of course, that there is no coercion involved. As long as the borrower is an adult and legally capable of executing a contract, there's nothing "predatory" about such a contract, even if it's a crappier deal for one side than the other.
Suddenly you're a libertarian? Of course there are transactions that are manifestly unfair and should be regulated or prohibited. That includes not only usury but heavily tilted wagers. Do you actually think a casino should be able to offer a slot game with a 40% RTP? What about a lender offering a mortgage with a 40% interest rate?Quote: JoeshlabotnikActually, there is no such thing as predatory lending, in any context, in any situation, assuming, of course, that there is no coercion involved. As long as the borrower is an adult and legally capable of executing a contract, there's nothing "predatory" about such a contract, even if it's a crappier deal for one side than the other.
The doctrine of unconscionability is a legitimate one. Predatory lending / usury definitely qualifies.
Quote: onenickelmiraclePredatory lending I understand would be lending which is ultimately dishonest, fraudulent, deceptive, or unpayable by design, or more profitable by default than repayment. That's my gist. Court troubles are a burden to society and we should not have disputes rely on the government unwillingly to be part of the business model when other means are available. Do you consider these criminal tools to be the coercion you speak of, or are your views just that radical? I almost don't even believe you believe what you say you believe, it's so unbelievable.
Yep, that horribly insanely ridiculously radical position is exactly what I believe. People--idiots included--should be responsible for their actions. The subprime mortgage crisis was supposedly caused by all those beeeeg eeeeeevil banks forcing loans down the throats of struggling, futilely resisting borrowers. The populist contention was/is that the great unwashed couldn't be expected to comprehend mortgage loan agreements, which contained arcane concepts such as that you were borrowing money and were expected to pay it back. Understandable, of course, given that the contracts were full of numbers and big words and stuff.
I actually don't want, and because I have a brain, don't need, the government monitoring and possibly interdicting every transaction I undertake. I'm all growed up, and if I'm being charged too much for that pack of gum at the convenience store, so be it. Let Gupta continue with his predatory gum-pricing practices; I can always choose not to do business with him.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe subprime mortgage crisis was supposedly caused by all those beeeeg eeeeeevil banks forcing loans down the throats of struggling, futilely resisting borrowers.
The problem with the mortgage crisis was that the banks gave loans to people they knew would default and then insisted on a government bailout.
Can I go to a Ferrari dealership and write a check for $200,000 and then just drive away in a new car without them first seeing if the check is good? That's essentially what the Wynn did with Ted Forrest and what the banks did with subprime mortgages.
Quote: MathExtremistDo you actually think a casino should be able to offer a slot game with a 40% RTP? What about a lender offering a mortgage with a 40% interest rate?
I would be perfectly fine with banks and casinos being allowed to avoid these sorts of government regulations so long as they also receive no government protections. I wonder if any banks would be willing to tell their customers they don't get FDIC protection, but in exchange they are allowed to pay much higher interest rates on their mortgages.
And as to Hillary ME's question....yes, banks should be able to offer any interest rate they want. And if someone is stupid enough to borrow at 40%, you also understand who and what you are dealing with.
I for one loved Western Sky Financial. They even said in the ad "The money isn't cheap but you'll have it tomorrow.". Borrow $10k, pay back 41k, all about risk to reward as a business.
Many of us know guys who work on the streets at 1 point a week or more. You know who you are dealing with. Borrow $1000, you owe $100 a week until you pay the dime back. No one forcing you to put your hand out.
Quote: BozNo one forcing you to put your hand out.
No one is forcing the banks (or in this case the casino) to make loans that are so clearly going to go bad. Why are they the ones to get government bailouts when they do stupid things with their money?
I don't think it should be a crime, it should be treated like any other loan. If the casinos want to be stupid and loan someone to much then that's on them. That would solve the problem. Casinos would be more careful who they loan to and how much.
Quote: AxelWolfI do believe it's the borrowers fault, however if a casino knows someone has an addiction then they should have some responsibility.
I don't think it should be a crime, it should be treated like any other loan. If the casinos want to be stupid and loan someone to much then that's on them. That would solve the problem. Casinos would be more careful who they loan to and how much.
But they are clear it is a check. And by clear I mean you don't have to look far in the details to see this. And clearly we all understand writing bad checks is a crime.
By the way Dana Plato was kind of hot. Of course before all the bad checks, the crack and the Al Phillips robbery.
Quote: 487tracydriveNormal practice is to deposit a check the next business day. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a LOAN!
Basic reminder, not that I need it, never do business with 487.....
Quote: BozI bring it down to liberals always thinking banks are bad and those who don't pay debts are "victims". And the rest of the country believes in personal responsibility....
Boy, it's sure a good thing that no conservatives took out any of those subprime loans---only stinkin'.liberals!
Quote: JoeshlabotnikBoy, it's sure a good thing that no conservatives took out any of those subprime loans---only stinkin'.liberals!
Never said stupid people on either side. Will never defend idiots. And yet their vote counts either way. Stupidly never transcends party lines.
But pay your debts is universal,
It's a LOAN (30 days?)and you dam well know it. They can disguise it anyway they want to. They know dam well oftentimes people don't have the money. Oftentimes they LOAN you the money on your future paycheck.Quote: BozBut they are clear it is a check. And by clear I mean you don't have to look far in the details to see this. And clearly we all understand writing bad checks is a crime.
By the way Dana Plato was kind of hot. Of course before all the bad checks, the crack and the Al Phillips robbery.
Hopefully things will change and someday soon casino's will not be allowed to press criminal charges.
What the casinos are doing regarding this should be criminal. No good comes of it.
Post dating checks is illegal to the best of my knowledge so the casinos get around it by dating it that day and just not depositing it
Quote: AxelWolfIt's a LOAN (30 days?)and you dam well know it. They can disguise it anyway they want to. They know dam well oftentimes people don't have the money. Oftentimes they LOAN you the money on your future paycheck.
Hopefully things will change and someday soon casino's will not be allowed to press criminal charges.
What the casinos are doing regarding this should be criminal. No good comes of it.
Not saying this statement applies in this case, but there are a lot of degenerate gamblers out there. If there is no deterrent, such as criminal charges, how can the casinos run any sort of credit system without some means to recover their funds?
In cases where your "victim" borrows money from the casino and loses at the casino, it is easy to look at this as a case of no money was really lost by either party, let's just call it a day. Unfortunately, some credit players will take the chips and walk out the door to another property to pay off a marker there. In this case, the casino definitely lost money. If all the casino can do is chase the "victim" to a bankruptcy judgement, then the credit system won't be sustainable, a lot of high action will dry up, and your comp rates will drop.
Quote: KingoftheEyesome credit players will take the chips and walk out the door to another property to pay off a marker there
If the casino doesn't put into place controls on the Mark - not on everybody, but people who are well into them - and make sure and demand that they pay off their markers before they get to walk with cash - my jaw would hit the floor.
I get that people want to rally around the little guy against the evil casino. In this case, your hero wrote a bad check to cover debts. He was given every opportunity to make good and failed. This is the exact same as if he ripped off a Wal-mart with a bad check. No difference at all. Hope he enjoys 3 hots and a cot for a short term, then gets counseling for his gambling issues. In the long term, this can be good for Ted. Since no casinos or legit people will lend him money for a while, he will have a choice. Get help and get his gaming under control, or go full darkside and borrow money from illegitimate areas then get in real trouble.
Quote: odiousgambitIf the casino doesn't put into place controls on the Mark - not on everybody, but people who are well into them - and make sure and demand that they pay off their markers before they get to walk with cash - my jaw would hit the floor.
So, what would you have them do? Assign a security guard to follow your "mark" around and make sure he lost all of the marker before he left? Does Visa send a cop to follow you around to make sure you pay off your credit card before you go and buy a new boat?
Chips are redeemable from casino to casino. He doesn't have to cash out to walk with the casino's money.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe movie The Big Short is on Netflix streaming right now. After reading this thread the other day, I went and found it. Really worth seeing, about the mortgage meltdown in 2007 and those who saw it coming. Good cast, too. Christian Bale, Steve Carrell, among others
I like that movie too. Nice to see Steve Carrell trying something different. I don't think the casino credit system is nearly at that level of importance though. :-)
Quote: KingoftheEyeI like that movie too. Nice to see Steve Carrell trying something different. I don't think the casino credit system is nearly at that level of importance though. :-)
I would agree about the importance, but there were a lot of posts about mortgage in the middle of this thread that reminded me of it.
where are you getting that? Per link, "In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, debtors are usually able to discharge (wipe out) credit card debts. Generally, credit card debts are treated like other unsecured claims in Chapter 7 cases". I think we can say you got it backwards: markers are the shielded-by-government debt than never goes away.Quote: KingoftheEyeBig problem with that argument is that credit card debt is shielded from bankruptcy by the government. If you go bankrupt, in most cases, Visa still get's paid. No such protections for the casinos
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/credit-card-debt-chapter-7-bankruptcy.html
I have to believe considerable effort is made. I have been asked if I needed to pay off markers when I have cashed out long before I ever took out a marker. For the most part, in high profile cases, the Pit would know, and it's a matter of alerting the cashiers.Quote: KingoftheEyeSo, what would you have them do? Assign a security guard to follow your "mark" around and make sure he lost all of the marker before he left? Does Visa send a cop to follow you around to make sure you pay off your credit card before you go and buy a new boat?
Some gamblers must manage to pull stunts. I would be ready to bet the screams over something like that would be well highlighted by the time the case gets notorious.Quote:Chips are redeemable from casino to casino. He doesn't have to cash out to walk with the casino's money.
On a personal level I don't think you should be able to gamble without having the cash. If the casino is willing to do it that's on them. If your buddy ran out of money in vegas, would you loan him 20k to gamble knowing he didn't have the cash to cover it?Quote: KingoftheEyeNot saying this statement applies in this case, but there are a lot of degenerate gamblers out there. If there is no deterrent, such as criminal charges, how can the casinos run any sort of credit system without some means to recover their funds?
In cases where your "victim" borrows money from the casino and loses at the casino, it is easy to look at this as a case of no money was really lost by either party, let's just call it a day. Unfortunately, some credit players will take the chips and walk out the door to another property to pay off a marker there. In this case, the casino definitely lost money. If all the casino can do is chase the "victim" to a bankruptcy judgement, then the credit system won't be sustainable, a lot of high action will dry up, and your comp rates will drop.
I'm not for anyone telling someone what they can and can't do with their credit card and money, but I wouldn't necessarily be against making it illegal to use a cash advance to gamble with(not sure how they could always prove or catch it).
I'm not on team it's a free loan for the casino. Someone could take out a 100k lose it all not pay while someone else could take out a 100k loan and win 100k.
I have just no simply for casinos considering they freeroll AP's all the time.
At the end of the day, I know it's in my best interest to want this predatory practice because it keeps the casinos in business and they keep building them. I get a little smile everytime I hear about a new casino being built. I was not happy to hear about AC, especially about the Revel closing.
But then I think about it, and I would be upset if my nephew came to vegas, got drunk and did something dumb like this.
