Bad court decision: Nevada Supreme Court finally rules in Slade vs. Casears

[Three]

They set up a system designed to make it look enticing but if you can work the system they put in place so you end up actually getting the enticement then they can bar you? The reason they won't go all CSM is because some people won't play unless they know the game can be beaten. So they offer a game that can be beaten to entice more to visit the casino and play. Isn't living with those that can beat the game and using whatever countermeasures you see fit against them rather than barring them the honest way to go. They don't need to bar to deal with counters, they just use countermeasures. They don't need to bar to deal with hole carders, they just need to train their staff to deal properly.

Have you ever seen the sign that says all you care to eat instead of all you can eat. It was put up because they lost a lawsuit for people taking food with them that they could eat but chose not to. The court ruled the establishment couldn't refuse service to the patron and the patron was following the offer. The establishment took the countermeasure to post all you care to eat as their offering rather than all you can eat. The casino has a bunch of countermeasures they can use against suspected counters that would make a counter not want to play. Barring players is an unnecessary violation of equal access.

I know people that once they enter an establishment that can't bar they are flashed the bet restriction sign and the player never even considers playing. They just do whatever brought them there to start with as they already knew they would be bet restricted if they played. In many jurisdictions courts are basically owned by the casinos and they set dangerous precedences. Fortunately many states don't give the casinos the right to own the courts and decide for the greater rights of the people rather than the back the casino in trampling everyone's rights.

[Boz]

Well, yeah, they can bar you after you get your enticement. That's reality. I hope your surprise is feigned. Maybe you're asking, how can they legally get away with this? Well, everyone, even children who know nothing about gambling, do know one thing--The House Always Wins. So any belief that you will ultimately win money at a casino is unreasonable. Any loser who goes into a casino who doesn't believe he's more than likely going to leave a loser, is both a loser and an idiot. And society doesn't do a whole lot to protect idiots from themselves. You go to a casino to make horrible financial decisions and hope you get lucky. If you are one of the few non-losers, you aren't welcome. That's how they get away with it.

I've never heard of the buffet lawsuit. It sounds like ridiculous bickering between a poor fat person and an overly stingy buffet that probably had terrible food to begin with. I know the comparison you're trying to make, but I don't think it's on point. Once the buffet changes it's sign, they need not identify potential AP buffeteers. It's illegal to steal food; they can just call the police. Failure to identify an AP costs the casino money. Countermeasures cost the casino money. Barring the AP costs the casino no money. They are a business.

I'm not on the casino's side. I'm for never being barred and having access to games with good rules. But I'm not seeing any legal violations in your statements. I've said it before. My problem is the lack of regulation regarding the casino's catering to people who gamble more than they can afford; some of those idiot ploppies hitting their 16 v. 4 are betting $500 per hand, and it's little Johnny's education fund. Casino's should be required to either A) Refund a certain amount of wrongfully obtained funds from degenerates per month or B) turn a blind eye to all advantage play. That's my take. But not looking at the whole picture, just the single issue of AP rights, generally I don't see much to stand on.

[Three]

This whole thing reminds me of being a church's judge in a chili cookoff. The other two judges were the pastor and his wife. We all agreed on what chili was best but they didn't want the same person to win 2 years in a row so the second best chili won. It just seems wrong to me to bar someone that is good at something from winning simply because they have won in the past. All they need do is bet restrict you which costs them nothing and will likely have you deciding you don't want to return. Is that really so hard to do that the casino must be granted special privileges to deny equal access to law abiding citizens playing their game legally, thereby eroding all peoples civil rights?

[Boz]

This whole thing reminds me of being a church's judge in a chili cookoff. The other two judges were the pastor and his wife. We all agreed on what chili was best but they didn't want the same person to win 2 years in a row so the second best chili won. It just seems wrong to me to bar someone that is good at something from winning simply because they have won in the past. All they need do is bet restrict you which costs them nothing and will likely have you deciding you don't want to return. Is that really so hard to do that the casino must be granted special privileges to deny equal access to law abiding citizens playing their game legally, thereby eroding all peoples civil rights?

Well that's what they usually do, or kick you of BJ and welcome you to play at the very least the slots. In my experience, which I'm sure isn't representative of everyone but probably of at least some, they don't 86 unless they hate you. Most PBs don't want to kick anyone out. But they also don't want to be on the hook for you murdering their game every time they're at work.

Civil rights include things like voting and not having torts committed against you by the government. Counting cards doesn't make the list. Gambling doesn't make the list.

[Freightman]

Nor is it illegal for women in NY.

if you've seen two, you've seen them all.

[Freightman]

But if she should be so vile as to breast feed her child in public, all hell breaks loose.

On a more serious note though - what could be more natural. An infants needs trump (no pun intended) other considerations. .

[CallSaul]

if you've seen two, you've seen them all.

I think it was Ron White who said "once you've seen one woman naked...you want to see the rest of 'em naked, too."

[Boz]

On a more serious note though - what could be more natural. An infants needs trump (no pun intended) other considerations. .

Bodarc is right, it is vile. Breastfeeding is not natural. A hot chick would never do this in public--not even an average-looking chick would do it. Fat poor person? Totally oblivious to the disgusted looks of passersby as a giant parasite extracts fluid from her body and emits loud shrieking noises, probably in the plane seat behind me. Yes, I KNOW what I said is biologically inaccurate, but I stand by it all the same.

[Freightman]

Bodarc is right, it is vile. Breastfeeding is not natural. A hot chick would never do this in public--not even an average-looking chick would do it. Fat poor person? Totally oblivious to the disgusted looks of passersby as a giant parasite extracts fluid from her body and emits loud shrieking noises, probably in the plane seat behind me. Yes, I KNOW what I said is biologically inaccurate, but I stand by it all the same.

Given time, that hot chicks boobs are going to be down to her knees - with or without breastfeeding. Is that thinking in the box, or outsifpdevthe box - in any event - babies have been feeding on mothers breasts since the dawn of time - it's a natural function.

[Boz]

Given time, that hot chicks boobs are going to be down to her knees - with or without breastfeeding. Is that thinking in the box, or outsifpdevthe box - in any event - babies have been feeding on mothers breasts since the dawn of time - it's a natural function.

These so-caled hot chicks you speak of are not hot. They might have been in 1970, I don't know, I wasn't there. I don"t think you"re applying the time variable correctly. There comes a time when your new car is no longer new, and it's time to trade it in for something younger. And maybe even made in Asia.

[Freightman]

These so-caled hot chicks you speak of are not hot. They might have been in 1970, I don't know, I wasn't there. I don"t think you"re applying the time variable correctly. There comes a time when your new car is no longer new, and it's time to trade it in for something younger. And maybe even made in Asia.

Nothing wrong with a vintage ride.

[Three]

Nothing wrong with a vintage ride.

Experience makes for a more enjoyable experience.

[Boz]

Nothing wrong with a vintage ride.

Ick to both of you.