YaleMoto: Backed Off In California

[YaleMoto]

I was finally backed off in California. It was at a different casino than the one I discussed in my prior post. I was up about 400 units spreading my bets 1-20 in a deeply dealt DD game over about 4 days of play and I was pulling a lot of black out of the racks. The back off was done in an insulting way with a pit boss and two security guards and wrongfully implied that I was cheating. (My back offs in Nevada have been more like one pit person saying: "You can play anything else but no more blackjack.") I am an attorney licensed in the State of California and I am considering legal action (or at least negotiation) against the casino. However, I have always had concerns that any successful legal action against casinos will result in a deterioration of games like what happened in Atlantic City after the Uston v. Resorts International case. Any thoughts on this?

[Sonny]

If so, it is probably more trouble than it is worth. Trying to sue a sovereign nation will not be an easy task.

-Sonny-

[Parker]

Quite frankly, it is difficult to take your post seriously. Despite being a longtime CA resident and AP, with an extensive network of information sources, it has been a very long time since I have heard of any "deeply dealt DD games" in the local Indian joints. In the unlikely event that you did manage to find one, it is doubtful that you would last 40 minutes spreading 1-20, let alone 4 days.

In any event, the reservations are considered sovereign nations and thus the Tribes have the right to evict anyone they consider undesirable. I am unaware of any law requiring them to be nice about it.

It is debatable whether Uston vs. Resorts has any effect on the quality of today's games. The AC casinos offer mediocre games because they have no incentive to offer anything better - people line up to play the crappy games.

[YaleMoto]

> Quite frankly, it is difficult to take your post
> seriously. Despite being a longtime CA resident and
> AP, with an extensive network of information sources,
> it has been a very long time since I have heard of any
> "deeply dealt DD games" in the local Indian
> joints. In the unlikely event that you did manage to
> find one, it is doubtful that you would last 40
> minutes spreading 1-20, let alone 4 days.

> In any event, the reservations are considered
> sovereign nations and thus the Tribes have the right
> to evict anyone they consider undesirable. I am
> unaware of any law requiring them to be nice about it.

> It is debatable whether Uston vs. Resorts has any

Your extensive network of information sources missed this DD game. The cut card is now down to about 26 cards remaining (sometimes deeper), depending on the dealer and the number of players at the table. About a year ago, the game used to be strictly dealt at 1/2 and I didn't play there. The casino must have wised up and determined its revenue was higher with deeper penetration. Along with the deeper penetration however there was a negative rule change, but the deeper penetration greatly overcomes the one rule change. By the way, you say that you are a longtime CA resident, where San Diego area? How is the penetration at Barona recently?

Since you seem to question my credibility I'll give you some details. Over about one week I played as follows: I played one weekday night for about 4 hours; A weekend day for about 6 hours with two additional hours drinking and playing baccarat with Oscar's Grind (during that session I even spread 1-30 a few times); A weekend morning for about 4 hours; And the last session I was backed off at was a weekend day session for about 3 hours. I lasted as long as I did without even betting big off the top - which I should have, but at another Indian casino I have played for months spreading 1-20 and 1-10 depending on the min/max without a back off. (See my posts below on Cal back offs.) If you can't last 40 minutes spreading 1-20 you need to work on your table image and act.

I am aware of the sovereign nations procedural issue, however, the matter is not that simple. California is a heavily democratic and regulated state. Oil companies obtained Federal oil leases off shore California on Federal land, but the California Coastal Coastal Commission was still able to block oil drilling on the Federal land and win in Federal Court. The Indians have entered into gambling pacts with the state and are subject to state regs. One pit boss at a different Indian Casino even told me that they have constant state surveilance. I am not aware of any published position of the state on barring advantage players or internal policy on such issue but I am researching it. (I doubt that there is a policy at this point.) Furthermore, to the extent that the state gambling agency does not enforce the gambling regs, a petition for writ of mandate can be filed against the state agency to require it to enforce the regs. Finally, a lawsuit against a casino alleging that a casino only allows losers to play would be very damaging to the business of the casino. Even with a procedural issue such as sovereignty, once a lawsuit is filed it is a public record which anyone can read - including the media. At a time when the Indians want to expand their casinos with favorably legislation they do not want bad publicity.

Although Uston was a Yale, B.A. and Harvard, M.B.A., he was not a lawyer and his legal efforts in Nevada were weak. Nevertheless, he prevailed in A.C. and I still think the no barring policy coming after the litigation resulted in poor games in A.C.

Finally, there a number of legal theories and causes of action that could be maintained against casinos that bar advantage players which have not been attempted.

[Calheel]

YaleMoto,

You are hardly the only licensed California lawyer who has been backed off from Indian casinos. If I were to guess, I'd say lawyer is the most common profession among part-time blackjack players.

I have researched this extensively, and the long and short of it is -- if you really want to be a pain in the side of the tribe or management, go ahead and file a suit. I'm sure they would pay you off with more EV then you would likely take from their blackjack game. But, the odds of success are not good for a number of reasons.

The first problem is sovereignty. Even if you sue the management company (Harrahs, Stations, etc.) they will have an indemnity agreement in place with the tribe. That means the whole shabang will get thrown into Indian Court. Now, there are some arguments you could make about false adevrtising and other creative theories that might give you a leg to stand on in the court of appeal (and hence, the settlement value of your case), but California courts will not be eager to get into the business of regulating the tribes.

The second problem is IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) which basically says states have no power to regulate Indian Gaming except as provided in the compacts. The California compacts -- except for the ones recently renegotiated by Ahnold -- are no help. They provide for state oversight on financial matters (like how much money will go to the state) but are silent on consumer relation issues. The newer compacts, which Pala and a few other signed, entitle you to demand arbitration (which the casino must pay for -- another good leverage point for settlement) if you feel you have been treated unfairly. The arbitration is intended to cover things like slip and fall accidents, but should also apply to things like being kicked out and defamed.

Now, regarding your concern that California games will turn into New Jersey. Trust me, there is no way you will be able to establish a precedent that has any serious effect on the casinos. And even if you did, the tribes have so much political power that the law would soon be changed. In other words, if you want to spend your time on a lawsuit, go for it. At the end of the day, the odds are stacked against you, but go ahead and fight the good fight.

[YaleMoto]

> You are hardly the only licensed California lawyer who
> has been backed off from Indian casinos. If I were to
> guess, I'd say lawyer is the most common profession
> among part-time blackjack players.

I was not aware that there were that many counters who are lawyers. I hardly ever see any counters or even good basic strategy players when I play. Furthermore, I have only been backed off by one Indian Casino after much play. Maybe we should get together and start a counting lawyer bar association/team?

> I have researched this extensively, and the long and
> short of it is -- if you really want to be a pain in
> the side of the tribe or management, go ahead and file
> a suit. I'm sure they would pay you off with more EV
> then you would likely take from their blackjack game.
> But, the odds of success are not good for a number of
> reasons.

I appreciate you sharing your research with me. I think the chance of settlement pay off is good considering the cost of litigation and bad publicity that would be created by the suit. Plus the casino will know that I can aggressively litigate without incurring attorneys' fees. However, I am informed that some casinos may have a no settlement policy. But then again there may be insurance coverage where the carrier controls the settlement decision and not the insured casino.

> The first problem is sovereignty. Even if you sue the
> management company (Harrahs, Stations, etc.) they will
> have an indemnity agreement in place with the tribe.
> That means the whole shabang will get thrown into
> Indian Court. Now, there are some arguments you could
> make about false adevrtising and other creative
> theories that might give you a leg to stand on in the
> court of appeal (and hence, the settlement value of
> your case), but California courts will not be eager to
> get into the business of regulating the tribes.

I was also considering suing multiple defendants, including non-tribe defendants, in multiple suits with possible concurrent jurisdiction in State, Federal, and Indian Court. As you note there are a number of creative tort causes of action that could be alleged in these suits.

> The second problem is IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory
> Act) which basically says states have no power to
> regulate Indian Gaming except as provided in the
> compacts. The California compacts -- except for the
> ones recently renegotiated by Ahnold -- are no help.
> They provide for state oversight on financial matters
> (like how much money will go to the state) but are
> silent on consumer relation issues. The newer
> compacts, which Pala and a few other signed, entitle
> you to demand arbitration (which the casino must pay
> for -- another good leverage point for settlement) if
> you feel you have been treated unfairly. The
> arbitration is intended to cover things like slip and
> fall accidents, but should also apply to things like
> being kicked out and defamed.

Have you talked with anyone at the California Department of Justice, Division of Gambling Control re the barring of advantage players?

> Now, regarding your concern that California games will
> turn into New Jersey. Trust me, there is no way you
> will be able to establish a precedent that has any
> serious effect on the casinos. And even if you did,
> the tribes have so much political power that the law
> would soon be changed. In other words, if you want to
> spend your time on a lawsuit, go for it. At the end of
> the day, the odds are stacked against you, but go
> ahead and fight the good fight.

I have never had much interest in suing casinos for barring play because of the New Jersey issue. However, the manner in which I was recently backed off has got me considering it. Interestingly, the response to my proposed suit on this site has been negative - not because of possible game deterioration, but because of the perceived small chance of success.

[Dog Hand]

[bfbagain]

The laws may be different in different parts of the U.S., but the math doesn't change. It is a misnomer that lawsuits filed against casinos are bad for the players. In Nevada, you can actually feel the difference that the Grosjean suits have had, all to the good I might add.

So it is a specious argument to decide to sue or not to sue based on how New Jersey (or any other locale) may respond regarding advantage players and/or play conditions.

In fact, I submit that any and all lawsuits be filed when appropriate. You may want to contact Bob Nersesian in Vegas before proceeding.

cheers
bfb

[AutomaticMonkey]

When I'm up 400 units, I don't care if they insult me, call me a cheater or spit in my face, as long as I am able to leave the casino with my winnings. Hell man, I've been treated like you were when DOWN a few hundred units.

My advice to you is just roll with it, and use your skills to get another kind of "settlement" from another casino. If you try to sue them, your case is going to end up in some kangaroo court with Judge Squatting Dog from his band of phony Indians presiding, and even if you get a token settlement you will have blown your cover in that venue. Next time they might even take the trouble to frame you up for cheating, and then you're screwed. Besides, you should know how hard it is to sue over insults anyway even in a normal court. Injury is much more lucrative. You're going to receive abuse of all kinds as an AP in casinos; wear it like a badge of honor.

> I was finally backed off in California. It was at a
> different casino than the one I discussed in my prior
> post. I was up about 400 units spreading my bets 1-20
> in a deeply dealt DD game over about 4 days of play
> and I was pulling a lot of black out of the racks. The
> back off was done in an insulting way with a pit boss
> and two security guards and wrongfully implied that I
> was cheating. (My back offs in Nevada have been more
> like one pit person saying: "You can play
> anything else but no more blackjack.") I am an
> attorney licensed in the State of California and I am
> considering legal action (or at least negotiation)
> against the casino. However, I have always had
> concerns that any successful legal action against
> casinos will result in a deterioration of games like
> what happened in Atlantic City after the Uston v.
> Resorts International case. Any thoughts on this?

[Coug Fan]

"The back off was done in an insulting way with a pit boss and two security guards and wrongfully implied that I was cheating."

Can you give any more details? Honestly, this doesn't seem all that bad to me. I have been backed-off in a total of 4 places and bet restricted in one other place. My back-offs were as follows (in order):
- "Your too good for us, but we welcome your action at any game other than Blackjack";
- "I hate to do this to you, but I need to ask you to play any other game except Blackjack";
- "I'm sorry "Shawn", "Joe" told me not to let you play any more Blackjack;
- "Get the f&%k out of here, NOW".

The last one included some pointing and screaming, but no physical contact. I have found all of my back-offs to be amusing, and usually play the game of asking them if I did something wrong, them saying that they just don't want me to play, etc. With the one local place that addressed me by my alias, I asked if my wife had told them to not let me play. I claimed that she had called all the local casinos saying that I was a gambling addict, but that its none of her damn business.

Others have had much worse experiences, and I would probably have a different attitude if I had been assaulted, detained or arrested. I just think that you will have a hard time getting far unless they did something physical. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

[Coug Fan]

If you really want to hit this place where it hurts, then give Parker and other Cali players on this board the name of the place. I was going to suggest posting the name here, but that would just cause a quick game burn-out and a one-time loss. I think a slow bleed would be much more painful for them.

[Coug Fan]

> I was not aware that there were that many counters who
> are lawyers. I hardly ever see any counters or even
> good basic strategy players when I play. Furthermore,
> I have only been backed off by one Indian Casino after
> much play. Maybe we should get together and start a
> counting lawyer bar association/team?

I think you would have a fundamental problem with this idea. The most important thing for any team is complete and total trust between all team members.

[Mr. X]

Anything is possible, and Indian casinos can be whacky. But this doesn't pass my smell test.
If it's on the level, the comments by Parker, Coug and Monkey are excellent.
But deeply dealt DD's? 1-20, for 4 days?? Sniff-sniff.

> A weekend day for about 6 hours with two additional
> hours drinking and playing baccarat with Oscar's Grind
> (during that session I even spread 1-30 a few times)

Wait a minute, you're using a PROGRESSION system? In a non-AP'able game? 30 units? Sniff-sniff

> If you can't last 40 minutes spreading 1-20 you
> need to work on your table image and act.

Maybe on an average California table you can do that with a good act for 40 minutes. But allegedly doing that on the best game -by far- in the whole STATE, for 4 days... that takes more than table image and act. I'm skeptical that a progression player can pull off an AP move like that.

I agree with the poster below, that if all that happened is they verbally 'implied' you were cheating, with NO physical contact or detention, it ain't that bad. Roll with it. Even a 1-800-THE-LAW-2 lawyer wouldn't pursue a case that weak.
Fuggedaboudit.