Should casinos be able to bar players

**Three** · 01-25-2015, 02:44 PM

You should have said, damn. I am trying to think of a casino game that can't be beat but I can't think of any. I guess Pai Gow Tiles. Maybe Baccarat but there are weak opportunities there. All the games I can just spout out are vulnerable.

**Norm** · 01-25-2015, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tthree

I guess Pai Gow Tiles

I think it can be beatable, but not easy.

**Aslan** · 01-25-2015, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by KJ

In my mind, Today, there is little difference in the jurisdictions that are allowed to bar vs the ones that can't. Neither are going to let a counter that they deem as a threat, to play. It's just one can show him/her the door, while the other goes through a series of measures like bet restricting (usually to discourage) and if that doesn't work will either flat bet or reduce penetration (cut the deck in half), which will effectively make the game unplayable.

The offering of worse games is no longer a reaction to not being able to bar players as it probably was back in AC after the Uston case. Las Vegas strip, with it's 6/5 games and 8 decks with lousy penetration, is proof that casinos will offer bad games and conditions if they can get away with it, meaning if the public will accept it and still play. Because both types of jurisdictions have methods to deter or eliminate counters, the offering of poor games is now just about greed.

Personally, I prefer the bar jurisdiction of Vegas. It forces you to play the cat and mouse game. And if you really learn to play that game, you will find places that tolerate certain play and levels. It can allow you to co-exist.

I wonder if flat betting a customer has ever been taken to court. It seems unfair on the face of it to single out one person and force him to play a certain way, while all others can play as they wish. IF what one is doing is legal, it should not be subject to such discriminatory action. Half shoeing is a different animal; casinos can set penetration anywhere they want at any time they want if it is not regulated by the state. I am talking about those jurisdictions where they can bar players, such as, AC. In Vegas it's a moot point since they can bar anyone at anytime.

I prefer the cat and mouse, too, and there is more incentive for the casinos to risk better games if they think they can detect and bar card counters. They do not always do so (offer good games), but enough do to make it helpful to card counters. I answered the poll "No legal players" based on what is fair, not what is helpful to APs. From an AP POV I would have answered "Yes anyone they want to," seeing how AC games are continually getting worse. They don't have to half shoe a game when they routinely cut close to 3 decks from an 8-deck game (in a casino that once offered the best games in AC).

**ellenc** · 01-25-2015, 11:30 PM

I am in favor of that the casino can not bar the player. The player pays the casino dearly during the course to become a counter, so the player should have a chance to get some back. The product of the casino is market driven, if they make an unbeatable game, less people play would undermine their bottom line. If they keep the beatable game to attract the beginner, after all they are majority, they would continue benefit from their trying to become a counter; As to the counter, they are few of the pinnacle. hence, the casino is still ahead of the game.

**Aslan** · 01-25-2015, 11:49 PM

Apparently the casinos did not get the memo.

**bigplayer** · 01-26-2015, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by mofungoo

If a law says they cannot ban APs, they will make the games unprofitable or very difficult for everyone. They can still flat bet or shuffle up on the APs that they cannot ban, effectively banning them anyway. So what's the point in an AP filing suit? All that AP needs to do is to cool it for a year or two then avoid the place that banned him. Why put your name and face out there for every casino in the country to see?

If a physical assault was involved during the banning process, that is an entirely different matter.

Have you been to the Vegas Strip lately? They can and do ban players early and often and games for the most part on the strip suck. Meanwhile in Missouri there are playable blackjack games everywhere and casinos cannot bar anyone. There are countermeasures casinos can take to protect their bottom line which do not involve barring. In the end the real reason for deteriorating gaming conditions have everything to do with competition and the market in which the casino is located. It has nothing to do with their ability to bar players.

**Three** · 01-26-2015, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by bigplayer

In the end the real reason for deteriorating gaming conditions have everything to do with competition and the market in which the casino is located.

This seems counter-intuitive to me. I have a lot of competition so I will offer crappy games. that would just drive discerning customers away. You are left with a table full of min bettors that don't even cover operating costs. What is it I am missing?

**ohbehave** · 01-26-2015, 02:49 PM

Because house edge is probably one of the least important factors for the average gambler, most may never even give it a thought. Probably figure all the games are basically the same. Atmosphere, proximity, dining, comps, hotel, pool, parking, etc, etc... all much more important. In the casino all they care about is action. At the bj tables the side bet is more important than the bj rules.

**Aslan** · 01-26-2015, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by bigplayer

Have you been to the Vegas Strip lately? They can and do ban players early and often and games for the most part on the strip suck. Meanwhile in Missouri there are playable blackjack games everywhere and casinos cannot bar anyone. There are countermeasures casinos can take to protect their bottom line which do not involve barring. In the end the real reason for deteriorating gaming conditions have everything to do with competition and the market in which the casino is located. It has nothing to do with their ability to bar players.

I don't know the economic reasons, if any, for MGM properties to offer somewhat better games than Caesars properties in Las Vegas, but it may be their corporate policy of customer friendliness, backed up with some of the best surveillance on the strip. I believe this is a deliberate marketing policy. What do you think?

**21forme** · 01-26-2015, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by bigplayer

Meanwhile in Missouri there are playable blackjack games everywhere and casinos cannot bar anyone.

Just curious - Did Missouri Gaming write the no bar policy into their regs, or did it result from an Uston-like lawsuit?

**muffdiver** · 01-27-2015, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by 21forme

Just curious - Did Missouri Gaming write the no bar policy into their regs, or did it result from an Uston-like lawsuit?

The former.

**moo321** · 01-27-2015, 06:17 AM

Normally, I think a business owner should be allowed to do what they want, as long as they aren't mistreating someone because of their race, sex, etc.

However, in some states, the casinos are almost a government entity. They are established by statute or even constitutional amendment, they provide a huge tax base (in the Midwest, usually the state makes more money than the casino owner), and they are protected by a special police force that is on the government payroll. For that reason, I think some states should not be allowed to bar counters, because it is largely a public entity. That seems to factor into the Court's reasoning in Uston v. Resorts.

**Aslan** · 01-27-2015, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by moo321

Normally, I think a business owner should be allowed to do what they want, as long as they aren't mistreating someone because of their race, sex, etc.

However, in some states, the casinos are almost a government entity. They are established by statute or even constitutional amendment, they provide a huge tax base (in the Midwest, usually the state makes more money than the casino owner), and they are protected by a special police force that is on the government payroll. For that reason, I think some states should not be allowed to bar counters, because it is largely a public entity. That seems to factor into the Court's reasoning in Uston v. Resorts.

In many states a business may refuse service to anyone for any reason BUT the person refused may take it to court and a judge may rule the reason for being denied service is not reasonable, or is arbitrary, and I am not talking about race, gender, religion laws. A judge would normally uphold a refusal of service to a drunk or disorderly person, but not uphold a refusal of service for a person who parted his hair on the right side. This rationale might also apply to card counting, which we all know is a legal activity. This kind of ruling is rooted in common law and has many precedents. The right to refuse service is 100%, police will always honor it, but a judge may overturn it. Once this happens, the person is free to return and do whatever he was doing. He cannot thereafter be charged with trespass for returning.

I remember in West VA that bars and restaurants became private clubs in order to practice racial segregation, that is, they did not offer their services to the public, but restricted service to club members. It was in the seventies that I remember this being the case. Whether this is still the case I do not know, but it was long after the civil rights law of the late sixties, even though the intent was obvious.