The December 2nd LVA News is reporting that a decision by a North LV court
allows an 86'd video poker player to continue playing at Jerry's Nugget.
See the "Casinos vs. Players" item:
LVA News: Casinos vs. Players
Wow, don't know if I like the sound of that. Sure, it's difficult for me to muster up any sympathy for Jerry's Nugget, especially after the fiasco there earlier this year. But if this philosophy is enforced against private businesses, it will come back to bite us in the ass, I guarantee you that.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:
The December 2nd LVA News is reporting that a decision by a North LV court
allows an 86'd video poker player to continue playing at Jerry's Nugget.See the "Casinos vs. Players" item:
"vpFREE Administrator" wrote:
>
> The December 2nd LVA News is reporting that a decision by a North
> LV court allows an 86'd video poker player to continue playing at
> Jerry's Nugget.
>
> See the "Casinos vs. Players" item:
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/whatsnews.cfm
bobbartop wrote:
Wow, don't know if I like the sound of that. Sure, it's difficult
for me to muster up any sympathy for Jerry's Nugget, especially
after the fiasco there earlier this year. But if this philosophy
is enforced against private businesses, it will come back to bite
us in the ass, I guarantee you that.
Since when was it necessary to 86 a video poker player? Isn't rescission of card benefits (along with enforcement of club rules against play on another's card) sufficient?
Tell that to the owner of Jerry's Nugget.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
Since when was it necessary to 86 a video poker player? Isn't rescission of card benefits (along with enforcement of club rules against play on another's card) sufficient?
That's what the judge did. Trespass is not the way to deal with customers who are not breaking any laws. If the owner is not happy with the results of a promotion, he or she needs to suck it up and be a good sport and change the promotion. At least that way they stand a chance of winning back the promotion whereas if they trespass the promotion winners, they will never get the money back, not to mention lost business from other customers who perceive the owner as a bad sport for trespassing winners who haven't broken any laws.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@> wrote:
>>
> Since when was it necessary to 86 a video poker player? Isn't rescission of card benefits (along with enforcement of club rules against play on another's card) sufficient?
>Tell that to the owner of Jerry's Nugget.
My point, Iguana, is that this can backfire in our face. Look what happened in New Jersey with blackjack.
Don't get me wrong, I think Jerry's Nugget is totally chickenshit. Many on this board probably don't know what happened there about 10 months ago. I am not sure if this current challenge results from what happened, but I think I can make a safe guess that it did. First of all, it was a really stupid promotion. And the way the guy handled it was pretty stupid too. But, business owners have a right to be stupid. I'm just saying that we might regret someday the courts getting involved to "protect" us.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
That's what the judge did. Trespass is not the way to deal with customers who are not breaking any laws. If the owner is not happy with the results of a promotion, he or she needs to suck it up and be a good sport and change the promotion. At least that way they stand a chance of winning back the promotion whereas if they trespass the promotion winners, they will never get the money back, not to mention lost business from other customers who perceive the owner as a bad sport for trespassing winners who haven't broken any laws.
Regarding the state of Blackjack in AC it has nothing to do with the Uston court case and everything to do with them having very few large casinos, many owned by the same people, and little or no competition between them. Right now Las Vegas is a toilet for blackjack and that is with the right to 86. Note the judge did not say casinos cannot take countermeasures and there are many to take for both VP players and BJ players that don't involve 86ing them or even backing them off. You can drop the cashback, cutoff the mail, half shoe, pref shuffle, and many other techniques.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
>
> That's what the judge did. Trespass is not the way to deal with customers who are not breaking any laws. If the owner is not happy with the results of a promotion, he or she needs to suck it up and be a good sport and change the promotion. At least that way they stand a chance of winning back the promotion whereas if they trespass the promotion winners, they will never get the money back, not to mention lost business from other customers who perceive the owner as a bad sport for trespassing winners who haven't broken any laws.
>My point, Iguana, is that this can backfire in our face. Look what happened in New Jersey with blackjack.
Don't get me wrong, I think Jerry's Nugget is totally chickenshit. Many on this board probably don't know what happened there about 10 months ago. I am not sure if this current challenge results from what happened, but I think I can make a safe guess that it did. First of all, it was a really stupid promotion. And the way the guy handled it was pretty stupid too. But, business owners have a right to be stupid. I'm just saying that we might regret someday the courts getting involved to "protect" us.
Note the judge did not say casinos cannot take countermeasures and there are many to take for both VP players and BJ players that don't involve 86ing them or even backing them off. You can drop the cashback, cutoff the mail, half shoe, pref shuffle, and many other techniques.
If they do that to me, then they might as well 86 me. I dunno, I just think that in America, a business owner should retain the right to be an asshole. That seems to be "Jerry's" preferred method. It's business-stupid, in my opinion, but this is still America.
By the way, it's difficult for me to imagine this player wanting to go back in to Jerry's Nugget. I know if a casino had ever kicked me out, I would be afraid to go back there. Maybe I've watched the movie 'Casino' too many times.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpbp2002" <21mail@...> wrote: