86ed by casino monopoly

**BPrenewable** · 05-11-2016, 12:16 PM

In my state only 1 casino license is issued. So there is a state sanctioned monopoly.

Suppose similar arrangements exist for say beer or cigarettes. The beer monopoly runs a monthly sale below their production cost and that's the only time I buy beer. Now the beer company 86 me for life because I am not profitable.
In this case I am pretty confident going to the state politicians and argue this situation is unacceptable. Otherwise I am banned from beer for life. Either issue more beer license or force to beer company to accept me as a regular customer.

Same thing can be argued for casino. Can be argued for limited casino license too, like only 2 or 3 casinos.

In the beer case I feel strongly that I am morally entitled to drink beer if everyone else in my state can drink beer.

**mofungoo** · 05-11-2016, 12:33 PM

You can still drink beer, just not in that casino.

**Boz** · 05-11-2016, 01:53 PM

Lifetime bans can get lifted on appeal. But they're not going to let you AP their games again if that's what you were doing.

**Norm** · 05-11-2016, 02:29 PM

I find the argument that an entity that accepts bets hasn't the right to refuse bets from someone that can beat it a bit troubling. I mean, I wouldn't want to give Ted Forrester the right to demand that I play heads-up Poker with him with his rules. Now, I'm not a public accommodation. But, if I owned a high end, all you can eat buffet; I wouldn't want to serve the national eating champion every day either. Obviously, I have serious problems with the manner in which casinos treat APs. But, I'm not convinced that Uston helped anyone in his A.C. suit.

**davethebuilder** · 05-11-2016, 03:47 PM

I also come from a one casino state and it is a state sanctioned monopoly but they have no right to choose their customers unless you want to play in the VIP areas. The trade off is the main floor rules for most games have high house edges and are dealt from CSM's. So unless you break their device laws or common law in general they cannot ask you to leave regardless of your results. Our second casino is currently under construction and will open in 2019.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 05-11-2016, 07:15 PM

For those slightly confused, Dave the Builder is an Australian.

*************************************************

RE: NORM's post I concur with his outlook. I also believe that

the majority of Pro Players were (and still are) disgusted with

New Jersey's loss of the Uston lawsuit and the precedent it set

for some other states. When a casino cannot refuse our play

they worsen gaming conditions and take "countermeasures"

that, in effect, on balance, are simply the same as a barring.

**Boz** · 05-12-2016, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Norm

I find the argument that an entity that accepts bets hasn't the right to refuse bets from someone that can beat it a bit troubling. I mean, I wouldn't want to give Ted Forrester the right to demand that I play heads-up Poker with him with his rules. Now, I'm not a public accommodation. But, if I owned a high end, all you can eat buffet; I wouldn't want to serve the national eating champion every day either. Obviously, I have serious problems with the manner in which casinos treat APs. But, I'm not convinced that Uston helped anyone in his A.C. suit.

I have a slightly different take on it, but I think somewhat similar thoughts. Half the casinos have some sort of variation on the marketing tag-lne "Everybody wins at XYZ casino!" and a picture of everybody getting rich, not a loser in sight. But what do the casinos do with the only statistical winners in the place? Boot them. The ones that hit a spike of positive variance, they'll give them comps to entice them to stay long enough for it swing back. The part that gets me the most is they feed the degenerate gambler's itch. And they'll take his kid's education fund. The only law is that they have to have the gambling hotline number somewhere, some casinos you can find it, some you don't see it. If they are allowed to ban counters, they shouldn't be allowed to prey on these weaklings. If someone loses his life savings, he should be able to get a doctor's note, and say "sorry casino, I have a gambling problem, you have to give me my money back." If that were the case, I'd have no problem with them banning counters. But since it isn't, I think it must be the law that people can exploit the casino the way they exploit others. You can't say that card counters are undesirable but that it's desirable to ruin people's lives, it reeks of moral turpitude. I think one of those lawsuits by degenerates will eventually succeed, because casinos are evil.

**Freightman** · 05-12-2016, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Boz

I have a slightly different take on it, but I think somewhat similar thoughts. Half the casinos have some sort of variation on the marketing tag-lne "Everybody wins at XYZ casino!" and a picture of everybody getting rich, not a loser in sight. But what do the casinos do with the only statistical winners in the place? Boot them. The ones that hit a spike of positive variance, they'll give them comps to entice them to stay long enough for it swing back. The part that gets me the most is they feed the degenerate gambler's itch. And they'll take his kid's education fund. The only law is that they have to have the gambling hotline number somewhere, some casinos you can find it, some you don't see it. If they are allowed to ban counters, they shouldn't be allowed to prey on these weaklings. If someone loses his life savings, he should be able to get a doctor's note, and say "sorry casino, I have a gambling problem, you have to give me my money back." If that were the case, I'd have no problem with them banning counters. But since it isn't, I think it must be the law that people can exploit the casino the way they exploit others. You can't say that card counters are undesirable but that it's desirable to ruin people's lives, it reeks of moral turpitude. I think one of those lawsuits by degenerates will eventually succeed, because casinos are evil.

Let's not take our eyes off the ball. The goal of the casino is to empty your wallet. I saw a guy get beat for 250 k over 2 days - a previously self excluded gambler - who was in tears at the end, crying that he had lost everything. Who gives a shit - guarantee at the casino was nobody. Innumerable heavily intoxicated individual making outlandish plays while seriously inebriated - who gives a shit - guarantee nobody at the house, despite the fact that it was illegal. Casinos don't mind winners - after all, games are designed so that ploppies will win a certain percentage in order to keep them coming back. What they mind though, we those individuals who are still winners at the end of the year.

The most ethical thing I've ever seen in a casino (by a witch who will half shoe me if she sees me) is to say to someone that she would not let them gamble until they sobered up. That us the exception, though it should be the rule.

**Boz** · 05-13-2016, 01:27 AM

The house should have an obligation to proactively keep degenerates off the floor. For God sake, kid embezzle student loan money and piss it away in casinos all the time. Not many kids can afford to bet $100 bucks a hand with no idea how to play the game appropriately. The casino is quite aware of these things.
They shouldn't be able to keep any of the money. If they are able to put so much effort into determining who can beat them for 50 cents an hour and kick them out, they should be putting way more effort into who's betting more they can afford to lose and kicking them out instead. I don't think they should be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. The game is either for everyone, or it's only for losers that will lose an insignificant amount.