<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6j5e6">
http://tinyurl.com/6j5e6</a>
LVRJ - Attorney sues casinos for using blackjack card counting system
Quote: "The casinos already have everything (stacked) in their favor
and they want to make sure no (players) ever win."
I'm astounded at this revelation by the advantage gambler quoted in
this story. This clearly is actionable!
I'd love to see the brief for this lawsuit ... it has to make the
McDonald's coffee suit look airtight by comparison.
- H.
If the following quotes from the article accurately states the facts,
I think the casinos might have a problem.
"'(The dealers) shuffle up whenever the count goes positive over and
above a certain criteria. It's universal there and the dealers aren't
all competent card counters, so it's obvious they are getting outside
information," he said.'"
"'People in the casino, such as shift managers and surveillance, can
call up what's going on in the game and signal the dealer (to
reshuffle). There are read-outs in the casino," Nersesian said.
Other players who asked not to be named said casinos place a light
under the blackjack table that dealers can see to alert them when to
reshuffle the deck because the odds are turning against the house."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
Quote: "The casinos already have everything (stacked) in their
favor
···
and they want to make sure no (players) ever win."
I'm astounded at this revelation by the advantage gambler quoted in
this story. This clearly is actionable!I'd love to see the brief for this lawsuit ... it has to make the
McDonald's coffee suit look airtight by comparison.- H.
Harry,
Before you poke fun at this complaint, you should be aware that the
counsel of this case has represented several advantage players in the
past and won (undisclosed) judgements in the past. This is not a
frivelous lawsuit without merit.
Bob Nersesian (the attorney for the plaintiff) is a stand-up guy who
has represented numerous AP's who have been illegally detained and
beaten by casino security thugs in the past.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
Quote: "The casinos already have everything (stacked) in their
favor
···
and they want to make sure no (players) ever win."
I'm astounded at this revelation by the advantage gambler quoted in
this story. This clearly is actionable!I'd love to see the brief for this lawsuit ... it has to make the
McDonald's coffee suit look airtight by comparison.- H.
This story also made today's Las Vegas Sun:
http://tinyurl.com/3pj7s
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6j5e6">
http://tinyurl.com/6j5e6</a>
I hope to have links to the actual complaint by tomorrow and will
post.
Harry,
Before you poke fun at this complaint, you should be aware that the
counsel of this case has represented several advantage players in
the
past and won (undisclosed) judgements in the past. This is not a
frivelous lawsuit without merit.Bob Nersesian (the attorney for the plaintiff) is a stand-up guy
who
has represented numerous AP's who have been illegally detained and
beaten by casino security thugs in the past.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/6j5e6
>
> Quote: "The casinos already have everything (stacked) in their
favor
> and they want to make sure no (players) ever win."
>
> I'm astounded at this revelation by the advantage gambler quoted
in
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hockeystl" <vegasstl@c...> wrote:
> this story. This clearly is actionable!
>
> I'd love to see the brief for this lawsuit ... it has to make the
> McDonald's coffee suit look airtight by comparison.
>
> - H.
hockeystlwrote:
Harry,
Before you poke fun at this complaint, you should be aware that the
counsel of this case has represented several advantage players in
the past and won (undisclosed) judgements in the past. This is not a
frivelous lawsuit without merit.
It should be clear that my amusement was largely with the advantage
player quotation, "casinos want to make sure no players win". Maybe
this isn't quite so obvious and I've just been playing in AC too long. 
But, in truth I think the suit faces an uphill struggle. I'm not sure
that the most recent "innovations" violate any compact with the player
any more than the introduction of automatic shufflers and 8 deck games
(not to mention 6-5 games).
I won't argue that the house recording more intelligence regarding the
unplayed deck doesn't bear some legal examination. But, I'll bet on
the house in this one.
- H.
I wrote:
But, in truth I think the suit faces an uphill struggle.
Many thanks for posting the LV Sun article, which is clearer in
stating the basis for the suit. It's not related to any perceived
contract between the player and the casino as I initially imagined.
The stickler will be whether the casino regs banning use of a device
to project game outcome are deemed applicable to the casino itself.
That's going to be a closer call than my first impression. I think
the casinos will prevail and it will take a change in regs before
there's any impact on them (-- a rather uninformed opinion).
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
I wrote:
> But, in truth I think the suit faces an uphill struggle.Many thanks for posting the LV Sun article, which is clearer in
stating the basis for the suit. It's not related to any perceived
contract between the player and the casino as I initially imagined.The stickler will be whether the casino regs banning use of a device
to project game outcome are deemed applicable to the casino itself.
That's going to be a closer call than my first impression. I think
the casinos will prevail and it will take a change in regs before
there's any impact on them (-- a rather uninformed opinion).- H.
Prohibition is not just a "casino reg", but also a matter of Nevada
Criminal Law; nrs 465.075. Seems "not inconceivable" that
prosecution of management and/or pit personnel, for violating same,
might be supportable.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
Quote: "The casinos already have everything (stacked) in their
favor
and they want to make sure no (players) ever win."
I'm astounded at this revelation by the advantage gambler quoted in
this story. This clearly is actionable!I'd love to see the brief for this lawsuit ... it has to make the
McDonald's coffee suit look airtight by comparison.- H.
In most jurisdictions, the allegations made in a lawsuit are a matter
of public record; available for payment of a nominal copying fee.
But, in truth I think the suit faces an uphill struggle. I'm not
sure
that the most recent "innovations" violate any compact with the
player
any more than the introduction of automatic shufflers and 8 deck
games
(not to mention 6-5 games).
The Nevada Revised Statute below seems pretty clear....
NRS 465.075 Use of device for calculating probabilities. It is
unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or
possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:
1. In projecting the outcome of the game;
***2. In keeping track of the cards played;***
3. In analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event
relating to the game; or
4. In analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the
game,
except as permitted by the Commission.
NRS 465.083 Cheating. It is unlawful for any person, whether he is an
owner or employee of or a player in an establishment, to cheat at any
gambling game.
(Added to NRS by 1967, 1282; A 1969, 408; 1977, 325; 1979, 1478;
1981, 1294)
hockeystl wrote:
The Nevada Revised Statute below seems pretty clear....
Perhaps ... but from what I see I expect there to be considerable
argument/deliberation over whether "any person" is deemed to include
the casino with respect to the regs applicable on this issue, despite
the fact that this phrase specifically is stated to include casino
employees with respect to cheating.
But I wouldn't argue against any stand to the contrary.
- Harry
NRS 463.0171 "Licensee" means any PERSON to whom a valid gaming
license, manufacturer's, seller's or distributor's license or pari-
mutuel wagering license has been issued...
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
hockeystl wrote:
> The Nevada Revised Statute below seems pretty clear....Perhaps ... but from what I see I expect there to be considerable
argument/deliberation over whether "any person" is deemed to include
the casino with respect to the regs applicable on this issue,
despite
···
the fact that this phrase specifically is stated to include casino
employees with respect to cheating.But I wouldn't argue against any stand to the contrary.
- Harry
I hope this lawsuit goes the distance. It sounds to me like the
casinos are trying to get away with exactly the same thing that
causes card counters to get trespassed, or even rate a visit to
the "back room". Players aren't allowed to use devices to track the
cards, they aren't even permitted to be in possession of such a
device. But the casinos are trying to do exactly the same thing.
Can you imagine what would happen if this lawsuit were to get a good
head of steam, and a newsmagazine like "60 Minutes" (for example) got
ahold of it? Casinos go to great lengths to avoid any publicity of
their own underhanded tactics against the gamblers. Remember the
Greektown debacle - the resulting publicity splattered all over the
local TV news and the papers hurt them quite badly, no matter how
hard they tried to put their own "spin" on the situation. Eventually
all the noise died down, but I'm rather sure they never really
recovered. You know that the casinos watch each other for cause-&-
effect of actions taken. I'd be willing to bet that others saw that
avalanche of negative publicity and aren't too eager to be tarred
with the same brush.
- Brian in MI
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > But, in truth I think the suit faces an uphill struggle.
Page 1 on yesterday's LVRJ is a good start.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "marksalot300" <Marksalot300@a...>
wrote:
I hope this lawsuit goes the distance. It sounds to me like the
casinos are trying to get away with exactly the same thing that
causes card counters to get trespassed, or even rate a visit to
the "back room". Players aren't allowed to use devices to track
the
cards, they aren't even permitted to be in possession of such a
device. But the casinos are trying to do exactly the same thing.
Exactly!
A player caught using a mechanical device to count cards faces
potential felony prosecution.
A casino using a mechanical device to count cards gets the green
light from the casino lapdogs that currently sit on the NV Gaming
Control board.
Can you imagine what would happen if this lawsuit were to get a
good
head of steam, and a newsmagazine like "60 Minutes" (for example)
got
ahold of it? Casinos go to great lengths to avoid any publicity of
their own underhanded tactics against the gamblers. Remember the
Greektown debacle - the resulting publicity splattered all over the
local TV news and the papers hurt them quite badly, no matter how
hard they tried to put their own "spin" on the situation.
Eventually
all the noise died down, but I'm rather sure they never really
recovered. You know that the casinos watch each other for cause-&-
effect of actions taken. I'd be willing to bet that others saw
that
avalanche of negative publicity and aren't too eager to be tarred
with the same brush.
Page 1 on yesterday's LVRJ is a good start.
I understand if casinos want to make it impossible to count cards,
via continuous shuffle machines, barring, etc. Let's face it, the
days of making a living playing Blackjack are pretty much over.
However, I am one of those people who likes a lower casino edge. I
don't expect a positive expectation or anything like that. I play 9/6
JOB VP, Pick'em VP, Spanish 21, Blackjack , max odds on Craps, etc.
On these games, if the casino wants to increase the house edge, they
have to be honest about it and up front (eg. changing VP payout
schedules, H17 rule/6:5 BJ, lower odds bet, etc.). The problem that I
have with "Mindplay" is that it is SECRET. The casinos do not
disclose to the players that early shuffling increases the edge on
negative expectation players.
With "Mindplay", Blackjack can be turned into a slot machine. If the
casino wants to increase the house edge on slot machines, they can do
it in secret (changing chips); players have come to expect this.
However, now the house edge on Blackjack can be changed in secret as
well. The casino can "loosen" their Blackjack games to shuffle up
when the count is +10 WITHOUT DISCLOSING THIS TO PLAYERS. Then, the
casino can "tighten" their Blackjack games to shuffle up when the
count is +5, again WITHOUT DISCLOSING THIS TO PLAYERS.
With "Mindplay", Blackjack players, just like slot machine players,
have virtually no control or knowledge over the house edge. What made
Blackjack, Video Poker and other table games appealing was that
players felt that they were able to use skill, and that when they
won, they deserved it. Players understood that they could be barred
if they were "too good", but they also knew that they could lose more
if they were "too bad". Unfortunatly, it seems like "Mindplay" will
become the nail in the coffin of Blackjack and other table games.
Replies appreciated.
hockeystl wrote:
NRS 463.0171 "Licensee" means any PERSON to whom a valid gaming
license, manufacturer's, seller's or distributor's license or pari-
mutuel wagering license has been issued...
As preface, I'm not trying to nitpick over the language ... just
trying to better to understand the specifics. And if it should appear
I'm nitpicking, or otherwise being annoying, just ignore this post.
Was "licensee" specifically used in the regs detailing the prohibition
against using a device to determine the outcome of a game in advance?
- H.
djmcosmo wrote:
Unfortunatly, it seems like "Mindplay" will
become the nail in the coffin of Blackjack and other table games.Replies appreciated.
Understand that I consider the use of electronic devices by the casino
at the table very unfortunate and repugnant. And I'll be pleased if
ultimately it's disallowed.
However, the suggestion that if players aren't permitted to use
electronic devices then the casino shouldn't represents a concept of
fairness that I haven't exactly seen proudly rear it's head in other
casino/player relationships.
In most cases casinos have full license to screw the player unless it
clearly runs afoul of the law. And the law has been generous to
casinos in most other respects. Clearly the jury's out here, but I
don't see that "fairness" is going to have much a role in their decision.
As far as this being the "nail in the coffin" ... well, all I can say
is that 6:5 rules where they're applied seem to meet with success --
at least from what I hear the games aren't disappearing from the
landscape. Sure, play is down, but for the large part the players
leaving the table are those who are either unprofitable or else very
slimly profitable to the casino. The players who are left more than
likely have made those tables more profitable than ever.
If Mindplay devices are successfully defended, I see a roughly
parallel situation. Casinos will find that they have to abandon the
devices at the higher limit tables (say min $25 or $50) to hold onto
the players there. But there are plenty of fools who'll continue to
play the $5 and $10 tables and, 1) these tables won't want for
players, 2) you'll find these tables in place at peak times rather
than being replaced with higher limits.
- Harry
When I get a link to the actual suit, I'll post.
Here is the link to the NRS:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
hockeystl wrote:
> NRS 463.0171 "Licensee" means any PERSON to whom a valid gaming
> license, manufacturer's, seller's or distributor's license or
pari-
> mutuel wagering license has been issued...
As preface, I'm not trying to nitpick over the language ... just
trying to better to understand the specifics. And if it should
appear
I'm nitpicking, or otherwise being annoying, just ignore this post.
Was "licensee" specifically used in the regs detailing the
prohibition
against using a device to determine the outcome of a game in
advance?
···
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
I'd love to see the brief for this lawsuit ... it has to make the
McDonald's coffee suit look airtight by comparison.
It is sad (to me at least) how so many people slam on the "Mcdonald's
coffee suit" as if it was some frivolous suit that allowed a lucky
person to get sickeningly rich. It is widespread ignorance of the
facts that perpetuates this belief...
Even if Harry knows the details (I suspect he knows more about the
Mcdonald's case than this post implies), joking about it only helps
to perpetuate the misinformation.
Ken