Minors caught gambling -- Should they be refunded their losses?
For those who don't know, a VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. They can disguise the location where the owner of a VPN is playing from. I strongly speculate many banned members have used them to return here, to avoid IP address matching.
Not to make any comment about this specific case, but it is not unusual in the industry to scrutinize a player more carefully after a win. I've heard stories lots of times of seizing a win by a rule-breaking player without offsetting any prior losses.
It would be this way in Vegas too. Say a minor loses $1,000 in a slot machine and then hits a jackpot for $3,000. The casino would not pay the jackpot. If the player argued, "Where were you when I lost $1,000? How about at least giving me that back?" The casino would at best say "no," and at worst trespass the player.
Quote: WizardI brought this up to Bovada. All I can say is they are aware of it but they didn't make any statement about this case to me.
For those who don't know, a VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. They can disguise the location where the owner of a VPN is playing from. I strongly speculate many banned members have used them to return here, to avoid IP address matching.
Not to make any comment about this specific case, but it is not unusual in the industry to scrutinize a player more carefully after a win. I've heard stories lots of times of seizing a win by a rule-breaking player without offsetting any prior losses.
It would be this way in Vegas too. Say a minor loses $1,000 in a slot machine and then hits a jackpot for $3,000. The casino would not pay the jackpot. If the player argued, "Where were you when I lost $1,000? How about at least giving me that back?" The casino would at best say "no," and at worst trespass the player.
yep, better than printing money.
Quote: andysifyep, better than printing money.
What is a casino supposed to do in the jackpot situation I mentioned?
Quote: WizardWhat is a casino supposed to do in the jackpot situation I mentioned?
I know you're addressing andysif, but I had a couple thoughts about this.
On the one hand, anyone who is betting illegally has forfeited their losses, as well as any winnings if they won. I think this is standard, and I'm sure I've seen legal language that puts that in place before the gambler makes the bet.
On the other, why is that the standard? If a person can't gamble until they're 18, there must be a reason. I understand the reason to be that they're not mature enough to handle gambling without getting in over their heads. So, why isn't the rule that, win or lose, they get their money refunded and they get trespassed, maybe fined. After all, they proved the point of the law by gambling and losing.
But, if it was their money...and that's what they wanted to do with it...why can't they win or lose it in a casino? Take their chances like the rest of us. I started earning my own money at 12. Didn't gamble it because it wasn't legal. But blew a fair amount in skeeball, pinball, early video games, all of which have some aspect of gambling, not to mention carny games for "skill" prizes where the games were rigged. So we protect kids from winning in a casino (since they confiscate losses, can't say they're protected from that), but not from throwing away their money at games they can't win anything, games that are rigged against them, and games where they collect tickets to trade in for prizes of dubious value, but still have some?
It's a better question than it seemed at first.
Me, I would go with adults only for the social aspect. I don't want to sit next to the family of toddlers in a restaurant, let alone at a pai gow table. So, yeah, make casinos adult only, or invite the family patrons at some (like Circus Circus kind of did), but for social reasons, maybe. Still thinking about it.
Quote: beachbumbabsOn the other, why is that the standard? If a person can't gamble until they're 18, there must be a reason. I understand the reason to be that they're not mature enough to handle gambling without getting in over their heads. So, why isn't the rule that, win or lose, they get their money refunded and they get trespassed, maybe fined. After all, they proved the point of the law by gambling and losing.
You and I usually agree but I have a total disagreement with you on this one. If a minor could ask for a 100% loss rebate then if he were smart he would play until he won some target amount or lost everything he had trying. When he bet his last dollar he would play the "I'm a minor" card and get a full refund. However, if he won, without getting a W2-G of course, he would quietly take the money and leave. If I could get a 100% loss rebate I would be all over that. That is why I pointed so much attention to the Revel "You can't lose" promotion, because they deserved to be taken to the cleaners for such a stupid idea.
I also can't agree with the argument that minors should be allowed to gamble because carnival games are legal. At least those are cheap and offer some entertainment value. No, I wouldn't want to play blackjack next to an eleven-year-old either. Sometimes a just society has to set limits even if they do have to draw a line in a grey area.
Quote: WizardYou and I usually agree but I have a total disagreement with you on this one. If a minor could ask for a 100% loss rebate then if he were smart he would play until he won some target amount or lost everything he had trying. When he bet his last dollar he would play the "I'm a minor" card and get a full refund. However, if he won, without getting a W2-G of course, he would quietly take the money and leave. If I could get a 100% loss rebate I would be all over that. That is why I pointed so much attention to the Revel "You can't lose" promotion, because they deserved to be taken to the cleaners for such a stupid idea.
I also can't agree with the argument that minors should be allowed to gamble because carnival games are legal. At least those are cheap and offer some entertainment value. No, I wouldn't want to play blackjack next to an eleven-year-old either. Sometimes a just society has to set limits even if they do have to draw a line in a grey area.
Okay, but even if we argue about minors, the law still doesn't make sense.
You can vote for president at 18, be trained to use military weapons and drive tanks at 18, risk your life by signing up for the military at 18 but you can't decide whether black or red is going to hit next at roulette till you are 21.
You can also smoke yourself into an early cancer from age 18 but not get drunk till you're 21. Hmm.
For that matter, you can't watch porn till your 21 but you're welcome to actually star in porn at 18. Hmm.
Quote: WizardWhat is a casino supposed to do in the jackpot situation I mentioned?
Simple. Refund his losses as well.
I can see the justification for voiding ALL bets. But what is the justification for voiding only his WINNING bets but not his LOSING bets.
Quote: WizardYou and I usually agree but I have a total disagreement with you on this one. If a minor could ask for a 100% loss rebate then if he were smart he would play until he won some target amount or lost everything he had trying. When he bet his last dollar he would play the "I'm a minor" card and get a full refund. However, if he won, without getting a W2-G of course, he would quietly take the money and leave. If I could get a 100% loss rebate I would be all over that. That is why I pointed so much attention to the Revel "You can't lose" promotion, because they deserved to be taken to the cleaners for such a stupid idea.
I also can't agree with the argument that minors should be allowed to gamble because carnival games are legal. At least those are cheap and offer some entertainment value. No, I wouldn't want to play blackjack next to an eleven-year-old either. Sometimes a just society has to set limits even if they do have to draw a line in a grey area.
I was trying to think it out loud, playing devil's advocate on some of it. You and I don't disagree about minors gambling. If only because I'm selfish enough not to want children or families invading casinos. I like it being adults only.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThere are a bunch of Indian casinos where the gambling age is 18.
On the Florida boats, gambling age is 18, but alcohol is 21. Probably because they serve alcohol while still in US waters, but no gambling til outside them.
Quote: andysifSimple. Refund his losses as well.
I can see the justification for voiding ALL bets. But what is the justification for voiding only his WINNING bets but not his LOSING bets.
Again, give a minor a 100% loss rebate and they will abuse the hell out of it. The justification for voiding only winning bets is to keep them from playing in the first place. If a minor doesn't like it -- don't play.
I personally don't disagree with lowering the gambling age to 18. That is the age at some of the Indian casinos in California.
Quote: WizardAgain, give a minor a 100% loss rebate and they will abuse the hell out of it. The justification for voiding only winning bets is to keep them from playing in the first place. If a minor doesn't like it -- don't play.
I personally don't disagree with lowering the gambling age to 18. That is the age at some of the Indian casinos in California.
Letting someone gamble at the age of 18 where it is illegal also means that you are going to serve that person alcohol if they ask for it. Total fail on the part of the casino. Part of the job of their dealers, security folks, and others is to make sure everyone in the casino is allowed to be there.
I believe that casinos will take whatever they can get. It is easy to say "if you lose, you lose" and "if you win, you lose", but that does nothing to hold the casino responsible for their actions. I know they can get in trouble for allowing under-aged folks in but, when it comes to taking their action, ALL of the action for that visit to the casino should be negated--no win, no loss. The minor should be charged for underage gambling and the casino fined for not identifying underage patrons. Any win by the minor should not benefit the casino but the people who gamble in the casino...perhaps a drawing of all carded players that day or something.
Casinos should only be allowed to keep what they win legally...
Quote: RonCLetting someone gamble at the age of 18 where it is illegal also means that you are going to serve that person alcohol if they ask for it. Total fail on the part of the casino. Part of the job of their dealers, security folks, and others is to make sure everyone in the casino is allowed to be there.
I believe that casinos will take whatever they can get. It is easy to say "if you lose, you lose" and "if you win, you lose", but that does nothing to hold the casino responsible for their actions. I know they can get in trouble for allowing under-aged folks in but, when it comes to taking their action, ALL of the action for that visit to the casino should be negated--no win, no loss. The minor should be charged for underage gambling and the casino fined for not identifying underage patrons. Any win by the minor should not benefit the casino but the people who gamble in the casino...perhaps a drawing of all carded players that day or something.
Casinos should only be allowed to keep what they win legally...
California casinos with an 18 gambling age still enforce a 21 drinking age. They just have to card the player when he asks for a drink.
For the third time, casinos would get hit hard by advantage play if they had to refund losses upon demand from minors. Nobody has addressed this point yet.
Quote: WizardCalifornia casinos with an 18 gambling age still enforce a 21 drinking age. They just have to card the player when he asks for a drink.
For the third time, casinos would get hit hard by advantage play if they had to refund losses upon demand from minors. Nobody has addressed this point yet.
Just make the casino donate the money won from minors.Also fine the casino for allowing a minor to gamble.
I should never have gone back........
No, despite what the casinos want you to believe, the cameras and camera coverage at most casinos are not great.
Quote: WizardCalifornia casinos with an 18 gambling age still enforce a 21 drinking age. They just have to card the player when he asks for a drink.
That's what they do at Soaring Eagle. They are 18+ and they DO get a lot of college kids from neighboring Central Michigan University.
I agree with Wizard here, but letting the casino just pocket a jackpot won by the minor doesn't sit well with me, either.Quote: WizardAgain, give a minor a 100% loss rebate and they will abuse the hell out of it. The justification for voiding only winning bets is to keep them from playing in the first place. If a minor doesn't like it -- don't play.
I'm curious what punishment Gaming doles out for a casino letting minors play. It would seem equitable that if a minor wins a hand pay jackpot, the money would go to the casino, but Gaming would automatically fine the casino an amount that is at least the value of said jackpot. (This assumes that fines levied by the Gaming Commission are put to good use -- dangerous assumption, I know.)
Table games if you do not give them your players card they generally ID you anyway, so that is less of an issue.
As for if losses should be refunded, I don't know. Its a tricky issue and I can understand both sides. When I have gambled underage, I always understood the risk that if I get caught or win a slot win that requires a handpay I would have to forfeit all of my winnings. Is this fair? Probably not, but how else could it be done? So if some kid wanders on the floor and dumps some money in a slot machine, is security supposed to spend all that time going over the cameras to see what machines he played and when, and they view the logs to see how much he put into the machines? This would be a logistical nightmare. So for the sake of time and resources I think the kid just has to forfeit the money, he knew the risks when he gambled underage. And, to prevent people in the future more security features need to be looked into, like requiring players cards on all machines.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThere are many reasons not to use a card as well.
Not from the casinos perspective and they are the ones that get to make the rules.
Quote: GandlerAn easy fix for this would be to require all players to get a players card. This would prevent somebody without a card from even putting money into a machine. And, really there is no point playing a slot machine without a players card (you are probably going to lose anyway, you may as well earn some comp points from play a slot).
Table games if you do not give them your players card they generally ID you anyway, so that is less of an issue.
As for if losses should be refunded, I don't know. Its a tricky issue and I can understand both sides. When I have gambled underage, I always understood the risk that if I get caught or win a slot win that requires a handpay I would have to forfeit all of my winnings. Is this fair? Probably not, but how else could it be done? So if some kid wanders on the floor and dumps some money in a slot machine, is security supposed to spend all that time going over the cameras to see what machines he played and when, and they view the logs to see how much he put into the machines? This would be a logistical nightmare. So for the sake of time and resources I think the kid just has to forfeit the money, he knew the risks when he gambled underage. And, to prevent people in the future more security features need to be looked into, like requiring players cards on all machines.
Casinos don't want players cards on all machines. It would be easy enough to implement.
Comps to them are similar to the cereal companies which offer free gifts to redeem for boxtops. The reason they don't simply put the gifts inside the box is because they save money from all the people who are too lazy or forgetful to redeem but the allure of the offers is still there to entice sales.
Quote: DRichNot from the casinos perspective and they are the ones that get to make the rules.
Sure, and they can't force me to play either. We vote with our feet. Just like scouting. If we don't see a play, we leave.
Quote: JoemanI was actually able to both legally gamble (FL boat) and drink (Bourbon St.) at the age of 18, even though the "national legal age" for both was 21. I also remember being on both a gambling boat and a regular cruise ship with family at the age of 16. Security ran me out of the casino multiple times on the gambling boat, but I never heard a word from security on the cruise ship. This was while playing 5c or 25c slots on both. I never sat at a table.
I agree with Wizard here, but letting the casino just pocket a jackpot won by the minor doesn't sit well with me, either.
I'm curious what punishment Gaming doles out for a casino letting minors play. It would seem equitable that if a minor wins a hand pay jackpot, the money would go to the casino, but Gaming would automatically fine the casino an amount that is at least the value of said jackpot. (This assumes that fines levied by the Gaming Commission are put to good use -- dangerous assumption, I know.)
I mentioned this last year, but it's pertinent, so I'll tell it again. When I was at Harrah's last year, they were being VERY aggressive about carding players and people just standing around the tables. I asked about it, and was told that earlier that month, an underage person had watched a game for a few minutes from the walkway. (At Harrah's, if you're staying there, you're almost forced to walk through the casino to leave the building to LVB - it's a huge inconvenience to step out the back and around the building. Seeing families, even unescorted teens is not unusual).
Anyway, Gaming fined the casino $70,000 for letting the kid pause there and watch. Didn't try to sit down, buy in, nothing; just stood there.
So, yeah, they have some incentives in place to force the casino to keep the minors out.
I stepped outside and thought I heard a collective groan. I thought the ground shook for a moment though I live in an area that seldom shakes. Scary stuff...Quote: GandlerAn easy fix for this would be to require all players to get a players card. This would prevent somebody without a card from even putting money into a machine. And, really there is no point playing a slot machine without a players card (you are probably going to lose anyway, you may as well earn some comp points from play a slot).
Table games if you do not give them your players card they generally ID you anyway, so that is less of an issue.
<snip>
And, to prevent people in the future more security features need to be looked into, like requiring players cards on all machines.
Quote: beachbumbabsI mentioned this last year, but it's pertinent, so I'll tell it again. When I was at Harrah's last year, they were being VERY aggressive about carding players and people just standing around the tables. I asked about it, and was told that earlier that month, an underage person had watched a game for a few minutes from the walkway. (At Harrah's, if you're staying there, you're almost forced to walk through the casino to leave the building to LVB - it's a huge inconvenience to step out the back and around the building. Seeing families, even unescorted teens is not unusual).
Anyway, Gaming fined the casino $70,000 for letting the kid pause there and watch. Didn't try to sit down, buy in, nothing; just stood there.
So, yeah, they have some incentives in place to force the casino to keep the minors out.
Many LV casinos have maps showing routes which minors can take from the hotels to the entrances/exits. Not sure if adults must accompany them though.
Take note that these are anecdotes, I attest that I heard it but I can't say if they're 100% true.
Quote: Wizard
For the third time, casinos would get hit hard by advantage play if they had to refund losses upon demand from minors. Nobody has addressed this point yet.
Not if you make attempting to gamble underage a felony. This should be a sufficient deterrent.
I'm not comfortable with casinos being able to freeroll anyone.
Quote: WizardFor the third time, casinos would get hit hard by advantage play if they had to refund losses upon demand from minors. Nobody has addressed this point yet.
Wiz, would this still be an advantage play if the minor only got their losses rebated for the session they were denied the jackpot? In other words, if they played under the radar and lost for months and then finally hit the Royal Flush or whatever another handpay, and the casino refused to pay and gave them some nominal refund for that day's losses (not sure how you would arrive at that amount, perhaps surveillance tapes for the day)?
Not sure why this doesn't get addressed...Quote: WizardFor the third time, casinos would get hit hard by advantage play if they had to refund losses upon demand from minors. Nobody has addressed this point yet.
No. Do not refund the money. Break the law and suffer the consequences. Of course, the casino should also suffer some type of penalty.
Doing anything else is creating an advantage play similar to using a minor as a drug mule.
Regarding the 18/21 thing: as others have mentioned, that's more of a liqueur law issue. Some casinos have figured it out. Some either didn't or didn't bother. Or figure it's not worth the effort or risk.
Quote: ParadigmWiz, would this still be an advantage play if the minor only got their losses rebated for the session they were denied the jackpot? In other words, if they played under the radar and lost for months and then finally hit the Royal Flush or whatever another handpay, and the casino refused to pay and gave them some nominal refund for that day's losses (not sure how you would arrive at that amount, perhaps surveillance tapes for the day)?
No. However, that wouldn't be how a smart advantage player should do it. He should play a game with no jackpots, like most 25-cent video poker games (max win of $1,000). He should play to either a small win or big loss, whichever happens first. If he has the small win, pocket it, and come back another day. If he reaches the big loss, then confess to being a minor and demand a full refund for the loss of that day. Of course, he should keep quiet about any winnings on previous days.
Did I not explain the math of 100% loss rebates in my page and hundreds of posts of the Revel promotion?
Quote: DJTeddyBearDoing anything else is creating an advantage play similar to using a minor as a drug mule.
Thank you!
Quote: WizardNo. However, that wouldn't be how a smart advantage player should do it. He should play a game with no jackpots, like most 25-cent video poker games (max win of $1,000). He should play to either a small win or big loss, whichever happens first. If he has the small win, pocket it, and come back another day. If he reaches the big loss, then confess to being a minor and demand a full refund for the loss of that day. Of course, he should keep quiet about any winnings on previous days.
That is what I expected, so my proposal is to give back estimated losses for the day a jackpot is won. There is no rebate offered for fessing up to being a minor on a loss day that you did not also win a denied jackpot/hand pay...your reward for your "come to Jesus" moment on a net loss day is getting trespassed and told to move along. However, to deny rebating losses on the same day your deny paying a jackpot is simply not acceptable in my book.
Not paying back same day losses may be industry standard or NGCB's position, I don't know either to be true. But that is not the fair way to handle an underage gambler winning a jackpot in your casino for which you cannot legally pay them. There simply was "no action" on those wagers and they should be returned, much like a late bet in roulette or craps.
Quote: Wizard
For the third time, casinos would get hit hard by advantage play if they had to refund losses upon demand from minors. Nobody has addressed this point yet.
It is the casino's responsibility to NOT ACCEPT a bet from a minor. If the casino is incompetent at that, then they should be at risk for the 'advantage play' as you call it. Remember, as part of the advantage, I assume the minor gets arrested.
Quote: WizardI brought this up to Bovada. All I can say is they are aware of it but they didn't make any statement about this case to me.
For those who don't know, a VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. They can disguise the location where the owner of a VPN is playing from. I strongly speculate many banned members have used them to return here, to avoid IP address matching.
Not to make any comment about this specific case, but it is not unusual in the industry to scrutinize a player more carefully after a win. I've heard stories lots of times of seizing a win by a rule-breaking player without offsetting any prior losses.
It would be this way in Vegas too. Say a minor loses $1,000 in a slot machine and then hits a jackpot for $3,000. The casino would not pay the jackpot. If the player argued, "Where were you when I lost $1,000? How about at least giving me that back?" The casino would at best say "no," and at worst trespass the player.
The first two paragraphs here really belong in the prior "Bovada Stole my 20K" thread, no?
Quote: SOOPOOIt is the casino's responsibility to NOT ACCEPT a bet from a minor. If the casino is incompetent at that, then they should be at risk for the 'advantage play' as you call it. Remember, as part of the advantage, I assume the minor gets arrested.
How are they supposed to ensure that no minor ever sneaks in a quick bet at a slot machine?
Quote:The first two paragraphs here really belong in the prior "Bovada Stole my 20K" thread, no?
Good point. I'll copy and paste it over to the original thread.
Quote: SOOPOORemember, as part of the advantage, I assume the minor gets arrested.
Not usually. In all cases I've seen / handled, including those where the minor actively gambled, all parties are simply '86ed. The minor until 21 (we had alcohol, so 21 was our limit), and typically the one adult unto whom the responsibility was given for the minor. If there were others in the party, they were largely left alone / not acted upon.
I've never seen a charge or arrest, ever, and I've seen this scenario many, many times.
Quote: ParadigmThat is what I expected, so my proposal is to give back estimated losses for the day a jackpot is won. There is no rebate offered for fessing up to being a minor on a loss day that you did not also win a denied jackpot/hand pay...your reward for your "come to Jesus" moment on a net loss day is getting trespassed and told to move along. However, to deny rebating losses on the same day your deny paying a jackpot is simply not acceptable in my book.
Not paying back same day losses may be industry standard or NGCB's position, I don't know either to be true. But that is not the fair way to handle an underage gambler winning a jackpot in your casino for which you cannot legally pay them. There simply was "no action" on those wagers and they should be returned, much like a late bet in roulette or craps.
Is this a position you are advocating? If so, why does a minor's bet count in one situation but not another?
Quote: WizardIs this a position you are advocating? If so, why does a minor's bet count in one situation but not another?
That is the point....on the day when the minor is caught gambling, the day he/she wins a jackpot, the bet that is won doesn't count and neither do the bets lost. Sounds very symmetrical to me.
Quote: ParadigmThat is the point....on the day when the minor is caught gambling, the day he/she wins a jackpot, the bet that is won doesn't count and neither do the bets lost. Sounds very symmetrical to me.
For one thing, it would be an enormous burden for the casino to document every bet made. What if the player roamed all over the casino making bets on different machines for hours? Do you expect surveillance to do an audit of hours of play, documenting the outcome of every single bet?
Quote: WizardFor one thing, it would be an enormous burden for the casino to document every bet made. What if the player roamed all over the casino making bets on different machines for hours? Do you expect surveillance to do an audit of hours of play, documenting the outcome of every single bet?
Yes.
They violated the law by letting the minor bet. The minor violated the law by betting. Both should be prosecuted/punished. The casino should gain nothing--they should forfeit the jackpot payment above the minor's losses, return the losses, and the jackpot should be distributed in some way to people that played in the casino that day (or some other reasonable way). They should not profit from their allowing the minor to gamble.
It shouldn't be easy for them to just say "go away; we keep the jackpot"...
Quote: WizardFor one thing, it would be an enormous burden for the casino to document every bet made. What if the player roamed all over the casino making bets on different machines for hours? Do you expect surveillance to do an audit of hours of play, documenting the outcome of every single bet?
I agree, how about just losses while at the winning machine?
Is this all just being written in secret code spelling out how to get a 'minor' in and/or out of the casino with a positive EV?
I'm still reading, carry on....
Quote: RonCThey violated the law by letting the minor bet.
I'm not at attorney but I don't think they violated the law if the minor bet at a slot machine and had no interaction with casino personnel. Every sting involving minors gambling I have ever heard of involved them playing at table games.
Quote: ParadigmI agree, how about just losses while at the winning machine?
Then it is really starting to get ridiculous. What if he also had losses at the machine next to it?
If the goal is to keep minors from gambling, then a "no refund" policy is going to be the best deterrent.
Quote: WizardThen it is really starting to get ridiculous. What if he also had losses at the machine next to it?
If the goal is to keep minors from gambling, then a "no refund" policy is going to be the best deterrent.
Or do what some casinos do, and have strict security choke points to enter the casino floor at all where everyone under 90 is ID'd.
Quote: WizardThen it is really starting to get ridiculous. What if he also had losses at the machine next to it?
If the goal is to keep minors from gambling, then a "no refund" policy is going to be the best deterrent.
That wasn't my goal...I think it isn't fair that a casino is able to not pay a jackpot while simultaneously keep the previous $500 coin in that the same underage player had on the same machine before hitting the jackpot and being discovered as underage.
What I am saying is if I was in charge and NGCB allowed it, the Policy at Casino Paradigm when a minor was discovered gambling after having won a jackpot would be deny paying the jackpot, get a name and address of the underage gambler, have surveillance review video after the incident and give us the best estimated possible of coin in by that player on that machine prior to the jackpot, ship out a check for that amount to the underage player and load the jackpot amount back on to the progressive.
Those bets on that machine on that day by that player had no action, period...it really isn't that hard or difficult to enforce and if casino's handled it that way, once the player was of age they wouldn't be telling their degen gambling friends "that F'ng property screwed me out of a jackpot....yeah I was underage, but they didn't even give me my coin in back!"...instead, by being fair about the infraction, they might actually get a loyal player for life that clearly has a propensity to spend way too much time at gambling machines. I wonder which policy has the most long term +EV for the casino?
I am 100% against the casino gaining any advantage from the play of a minor--any money from the minor or any ability to negate a bonus so they get to keep the money.
