LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning advantage ga

[Barry_Glazer]

Regarding the sentiments below (if trespassed and a player returns to the casino to play, they are "wrong")...

First of all, my apologies if I've missed some of the thread; I have been very busy lately and haven't read all the posts on each digest, and am just now getting into this particular subject.

I've been barred at casinos when I played blackjack and counted cards. I've returned to several of them to play again (although eventually even these changed their games to make them less desirable to play), and have been recognized once (that I know of) on a return visit and promptly cashed out and left before being approached, and once at another place where the same host who barred me the first time came up to me again and said "I thought I told you not to play blackjack here anymore" to which I replied "I didn't know you meant forever, but I was just playing for a few minutes while waiting to meet a friend, I mostly play video poker now" (the truth) and that was the end of (1) the conversation and (2) my attempts to play blackjack there.

There was some mention in the post about suffering the consequences of returning to where you are barred -- My question is, what are those consequences, legally? Can they now have you arrested for a "second offense"? Or what? And are there actual cases where the consequences have gone through the entire gamut (e.g. civil lawsuits, criminal court, or whatever) and how did the matter end up? Are the consequences civil, or criminal? In particular, are there key elements (such as how many return attempts are made, level of play, pro vs recreational advantage player, etc. etc.) that seem to make a difference in how it might be handled? (understanding, of course, that every casino and every case is different in some way, but are there some common elements?).

The reason I ask is just curiosity, since I myself had returned to casinos where I'd been barred, and played again, and really never thought too much of it, except that they might ask me to leave again. In fact, I was never asked to avoid entering the casino, only to stop playing blackjack there ("you are welcome to play the slots or shoot craps, etc." was a common statement, although one host added "but you don't strike me as a crapshooter").

I don't know if there are "levels" of trespass, some barring you completely from entry into the facility for any reason, and others just barring you from certain games -- and I don't know if the law backs up such "levels", or if the lower levels are just a "courtesy" (in quotes because the term doesn't apply very well in this context) extended by the casino instead of a total "do not come in here."

I probably never would have tried returning again after the "second" barring, so I don't know if there's a point where one crosses some line and is in more serious trouble than just being asked to leave or stop playing.

Incidentally, I do agree that if someone is trespassed and returns, they should not expect to be allowed to play again (since no one has an absolute right to play to begin with, apparently, at least in Nevada), and depending on the answers above, I may also agree that they should reasonably expect a possibility of some "consequences" of their attempted return. The question is, what are those consequences... e.g., if I get a speeding ticket and then speed again, I can reasonably expect to get another ticket - sooner or later - and if I get "caught" enough times (the penalties come with getting caught, not with speeding), I can expect the consequences to go beyond getting tickets. I know the ticket doesn't mean that I shouldn't have been speeding that time, but that it's OK to try it again in the future.

And of course, if someone's making big money with their advantage play, the risks they may be willing to take in terms of consequences may be justified, and as long as one has a reasonable way to guess what the consequences might be, including the most extreme among those, then it's up to the individual to make a judgment as to what they'll try to do, just as it's up to me to decide when to drive faster than the speed limit, and to suffer the possible consequences if I choose to drive fast.

--BG

···

=====================

2b. Re: LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning
advantage ga
Posted by: "Luke Fuller" kungalooosh@gmail.com
kungalooosh
Date: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:54 pm ((PDT))

Bob said, "Nobody here found anything wrong with her doing
it the previous
20 times...."

That is completely false.

If Laurie played in a casino, in which she was trespassed
(whether on a
casino offer or not), she was wrong. Period. It
makes no difference
whether she was 'caught' or not.

Laurie and anyone else who enters an establishment after
being barred are
wrong for doing so and should pay the price for their
actions.

[Tim_Tucker]

I have never heard of a grocery store banning a customer who only comes in to buy the extreme loss leader sale products. Sometimes I have seen them attach a you must spend $10 or more to get the sale price on some product. This seems a pragmatic business solution whereas the casino management philosophy is personal - you beat me, get out and don't come back.

Card counting in blackjack should be fine, in fact if casino management doesn't want card counting to be a factor then show a digital display of all players' cards out for everyone to see and then change the game to be fine like that (double deck and only play one hand and have six independant card shufflers going at each table to keep game play moving or whatever your bet is on the openning deal your bet can not more than double that at any time during that deck's play, etc.). It is the same thing with video poker, don't have 100%+ machines and ding people for playing them correctly. Again, easy ways to fix these things without punishing any of your customers (except those that actually break a law or become unruly which makes people not want to go to that business.

With a written invitation by the business, did she do something illegal or even wrong by entering the premises? One person said that it was not illegal, I don't know if this info is right or not, but the casinos are wrong, period. A business should not ban a patron for being a patron. Hire business people with brains who focus on the business, not punishing customers.

My pent up 2 cents.

[Bob_Dancer3]

armchairpresident
wrote: the casinos are wrong, period. A business should not ban a patron for
being a patron. Hire business people with brains who focus on the business, not
punishing customers.

I don't
blame you for your feelings. Many players feel the same way.

However,
casinos can and do restrict players, in Nevada anyway, for almost anything
other than race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or something like that.

Players are
not required to like this. Obviously you don’t and you’re not alone. But if
players are going to survive in the gambling business they should be aware of
the “rules of the game.” And one of those rules is that casinos can restrict
you if you don’t “behave” according to their preferences.

Players who
conform to what the casinos prefer find they are welcome more than if they do
not conform. Back in the 60s I had a beard and would call this “selling out.” Selling
out was a bad thing. Now I call it an intelligent business decision.
Intelligent business decisions are good things. Same event. Different perceptions as I matured/sold out.

If you are
a recreational player, largely this doesn’t matter much. Most recreational
players lose enough that casinos don’t restrict them --- although sometimes players
are punished for big jackpots whether they know what they are doing or not.
Mostly it is the serious player who needs to be concerned with being restricted
and the steps to take to avoid it or to get reinstated.

Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]