This question has come up now and again since the Uston suit in Atlantic City. The Pennsylvania litigation brings it back to mind. I am less interested in the strictly legal question, and more interested in practical considerations. Is it better for APs if casinos have the right to unilaterally ban players. Or, would the ability to play in any casino bring about repercussions, like worse rules and flat-betting, that are worse than the threat of exclusion? That is, as Francis Bacon said, “The remedy is worse than the disease.”