A big score from a lawsuit after trespassing four times under different aliases? That looks like more of a personal problem than anything else.
----- Reply message -----
From: "kcace1024" <cy4873@hotmail.com>
Obviously she is too well known to fly under the radar.
If she was using aliases, she KNEW she was in the wrong.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM, rob.singer1111@yahoo.com < rob.singer1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
A big score from a lawsuit after trespassing four times under different
aliases? That looks like more of a personal problem than anything else.----- Reply message -----
From: "kcace1024" <cy4873@hotmail.com>Obviously she is too well known to fly under the radar.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You use an alias. Are you in the wrong?
Cogno
Luke Fuller
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:37 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning
advantage gamblers
If she was using aliases, she KNEW she was in the wrong.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM, rob.singer1111@yahoo.com < rob.singer1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
A big score from a lawsuit after trespassing four times under
different aliases? That looks like more of a personal problem than
anything else.
----- Reply message -----
From: "kcace1024" <cy4873@hotmail.com>Obviously she is too well known to fly under the radar.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
You use an alias. Are you in the wrong?
+1
TC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is about Laurie Tsao, not me.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@hotmail.com>wrote:
You use an alias. Are you in the wrong?
Cogno
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Luke Fuller
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:37 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning
advantage gamblersIf she was using aliases, she KNEW she was in the wrong.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM, rob.singer1111@yahoo.com < > rob.singer1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A big score from a lawsuit after trespassing four times under
> different aliases? That looks like more of a personal problem than
anything else.
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "kcace1024" <cy4873@hotmail.com>
>
> Obviously she is too well known to fly under the radar.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I never said that using an alias was wrong. It isn't wrong to simply use
an alias. However, it could be an indication that someone is doing some
thing wrong.
In this particular case, Laurie Tsao was gambling in a casino, in which she
was trespassed. It seems logical that she would attempt to hide her
identity while doing something wrong.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@hotmail.com>wrote:
You use an alias. Are you in the wrong?
Cogno
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Luke Fuller
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:37 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning
advantage gamblersIf she was using aliases, she KNEW she was in the wrong.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM, rob.singer1111@yahoo.com < > rob.singer1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A big score from a lawsuit after trespassing four times under
> different aliases? That looks like more of a personal problem than
anything else.
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "kcace1024" <cy4873@hotmail.com>
>
> Obviously she is too well known to fly under the radar.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
So...if a woman takes out a No Contact order on a man and invites him to her home and law enforcement is called there (for any reason) guess who gets arrested?...He does.....She had to know going there was wrong...However, the casino should not have invited her either IMHO
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This is complete B.S., just more of the same from Nevada courts chained to the gaming industry.
Under common law, an invitation rescinds a trespass. Period.
TC
What has it come to, this sensible life?
On Oct 28, 2012, at 8:07 AM, "redtoppicker" <redtoppicker@hotmail.com> wrote:
So...if a woman takes out a No Contact order on a man and invites him to her home and law enforcement is called there (for any reason) guess who gets arrested?...He does.....She had to know going there was wrong...However, the casino should not have invited her either IMHO
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I recall after being trespassed at Ellis Island, I got a monthly mailer. Immediately thereafter came a certified letter stating to ignore the mailer and that the trespass was still in effect. Karen Dorsey is going to see to it that Gary Ellis ain't fleeced by no gamblers!
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Tabbycat <tabbycat@wachafo.com> wrote:
This is complete B.S., just more of the same from Nevada courts chained to the gaming industry.
Under common law, an invitation rescinds a trespass. Period.
TC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
redtoppicker wrote: . . . She
had to know going there was wrong...However, the casino should not have invited
her either IMHO
I’m friendly with both Laurie and her husband John.
Other than what she and Bob Nersesian said on my radio show in separate
interviews and what I read in the paper, I have no inside information on this
particular situation.
That said, there are a lot of misconceptions by posters
in this thread. I’m using a particular quote from redtoppicker to begin my
argument but I’m really responding to several posts.
1. Casinos
are not monolithic entities where one person is making all the decision. There
are dozens or hundreds of decision makers at Caesars and other large casinos. There
is no person or database that knows everything there is to know about any
particular player --- let alone all of them. This isn’t because the decision
makers are lazy or incompetent (although sometimes this happens as well) it’s
because they have tens of thousands of customers who each make multiple trips
over an extended period of time. Sometimes (as is the case here) multiple
players use multiple names at different times and the casino may or may not
have properly linked all of the names to the same person. There is no “hole
card camera” like on TV poker games. In the real world you often don’t know for
sure what the other side knows. This creates certain inefficiencies which
players can exploit.
2. Every
time an advantage player goes in to collect on an offer, there’s a chance he
will not be allowed to play. It’s sort of a cost benefit analysis that the
player does. Laurie likely “got away” with this type of thing 20 times
previously where she collected on an offer after previously being barred. (If you think she’s been barred from casinos 200 times, you’re almost
certainly on the low side.) This time she didn’t collect on the offer. Nobody
here found anything wrong with her doing it the previous 20 times because she
was successful then and they never heard about it. They are only criticizing
her now because this is the time she got busted and it made the papers.
3. Sometimes
if you do get busted, the casino does it illegally and there is a big six-figure
settlement afterwards. This can make being willing to get busted a type of advantage
strategy. From what’s in the paper, it doesn’t seem like a big settlement is in
the cards in this particular case, but we don’t have enough information to know for sure. And perhaps Nersesian still has a rabbit he can put out of a hat. And when she went into the casino on that particular day,
Laurie couldn’t know that she would be busted or that when she would be busted
the casino would do so properly.
4. In
every advantage play, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you’ve
calculated correctly, your net wins are bigger than your net losses. People who
come by and gloat at your losses and tell you what you should have done
differently generally don’t have a clue about the winning process. They don't know how many millions of dollars you have collected by doing exactly the same thing that didn't work this time. These
gloaters are merely using after-the-fact information to decide what should have
been done before-the-fact. That's easy do and completely worthless. Making the right decision BEFORE you know what the results are separates the successful ones from the not-so-successful ones.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Laurie likely “got away” with this type of thing 20 times previously where
she collected on an offer after previously being barred. (If you think
she’s been barred from casinos 200 times, you’re almost certainly on the
low side.) This time she didn’t collect on the offer. Nobody here found
anything wrong with her doing it the previous 20 times because she was
successful then and they never heard about it. They are only criticizing
her now because this is the time she got busted and it made the papers.<SNIP>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A professional gambler should assume that everything he or she does to win money is regarded as undesirable by the casino. I see nothing particularly special, especially morally, about going into one in which he or she has been 86ed. If that's wrong, maybe playing FPDW is, too.
----- Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@gmail.com> wrote:
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.On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Laurie likely �got away� with this type of thing 20 times previously where
> she collected on an offer after previously being barred. (If you think
> she�s been barred from casinos 200 times, you�re almost certainly on the
> low side.) This time she didn�t collect on the offer. Nobody here found
> anything wrong with her doing it the previous 20 times because she was
> successful then and they never heard about it. They are only criticizing
> her now because this is the time she got busted and it made the papers.
>
> <SNIP>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Rob Singer wrote: She
asked for trouble and she found it. There is no logical, reasonable, or
comprehensible way to associate anything she did in this or any other trespass
incident, with being a successful AP.
Luke Fuller wrote: 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.
Did I mention that there were posters here who didn’t have a
clue about the winning process?
These posters are making definitive judgments about a world
they do not understand. The world of not-so-successful low stakes video poker
players is very different from the world of successful high stakes blackjack
players.
Someone who regularly makes $250K a year gambling has a very
different approach to risk and reward than do people who play for much lower
stakes. Laurie and her husband understand this. Clearly many posters on this
site don’t.
I’m not demeaning players who play for low stakes. There can
be a lot of very good reasons why they do that. But the lessons you learn
playing for low stakes are very different than figuring out a way to succeed at
higher stakes.
In today’s world, everybody maintains the right to criticize
major leaguers in all professions. Most of the people doing the criticizing
have never walked in a major leaguer’s shoes. They think they know what it’s
like to live in that world. But they really don’t.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wrong - according to the casino maybe. Honestly, it sounds like you work for a casino.
EE
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
If Laurie played in a casino, in which she was trespassed (whether on a casino offer or not), she was wrong. Period.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>