Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1403
  • Posts: 23732
April 13th, 2016 at 5:02:18 PM permalink
I 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
andysif
andysif
Joined: Aug 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 433
April 13th, 2016 at 6:18:41 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I 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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1403
  • Posts: 23732
April 13th, 2016 at 8:28:58 PM permalink
Quote: andysif

yep, better than printing money.



What is a casino supposed to do in the jackpot situation I mentioned?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
April 13th, 2016 at 8:59:50 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

What 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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1403
  • Posts: 23732
April 13th, 2016 at 10:05:05 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

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.



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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9077
April 13th, 2016 at 10:29:54 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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.



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.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
andysif
andysif
Joined: Aug 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 433
April 13th, 2016 at 10:33:50 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

What 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.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
April 13th, 2016 at 10:39:00 PM permalink
There are a bunch of Indian casinos where the gambling age is 18.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
April 13th, 2016 at 11:43:14 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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.



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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
April 13th, 2016 at 11:44:37 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

There 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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.

  • Jump to: