MO Gaming Rule

[Boz]

Deleted

[seriousplayer]

MO Gaming,

Is it illegal in the state of MO to bar card counters from playing? {Redacted}

to me, Public

{Redacted}. This regulation prohibits casino operators from telling a card player that he/she is not allowed to play a particular (emphasis added) game. The regulatory reference to “illegal or disruptive conduct” indicates that casino management cannot deny a player access to the casino solely (emphasis added) based on their assessment that the player is a skilled or advantage player at a certain game.

Disruptive conduct may include a wide range of behaviors {Redacted}. Causing the casino to apply legitimate counter-measures on a game is not considered disruptive. However, following a group of players from table to table to cause the countermeasure to be applied at every table may be considered an intentional disruption of the casino’s business with other players. The presumptive right to play a card game must be reasonably balanced with the casino’s right to refuse service as a private business (emphasis added) {Redacted}.




The reason why certain words were emphasized is because there is at least one documented case where an AP was denied access to all card games for failure to produce ID the last time he was in the casino, despite the fact he never denied a request from the casino. Find it in the blog.

No information, except for names, appeared remotely confidential, but all superfluous information was redacted for safety.

The casino clearly CAN bar counters, if they, in their own judgment, find an AP has failed the balancing test. The NJ court held the CAA abrogated the common-law right to refuse service as a private business. I'm still on WON'T. I'll jump over to the CAN'T side for anyone who's not hi-limit.

Sorry this topic is unrelated to your post but I thought "Boz" was banned from the forum?

[Norm]

He was. I gave him a second chance. That may have been a mistake. He appears to be in a perpetual bad mood.

[Norm]

Your posts are being marked unhelpful by several members for a reason. Nastiness is unhelpful.

[RCJH]

It's not so much mean as it is annoying and argumentative, IMHO.

Those of us who have played in Missouri know the de jour law, but that's not good enough. Someone helpfully posted the de facto law, but that still wasn't good enough.

We can split hairs all day, but what's the point? Believe what you will.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Villiam]

This is ridiculous. I'm kind of offended by the lack of logic I'm witnessing out of people that claim skill in that department.

LAW is, by nature, not exactly logical, yet it's defined by rules, which creates a matrix of possibilities within a system of logic. One problem is that illogic can find it's way into all the rules (see: civil asset forfeiture where property becomes criminal, or UIGEA of Black Friday fame where fantasy football becomes a game of skill and poker becomes a game of chance). A second problem is that interpretation of the law often becomes uncommonly difficult in cases that challenge the perceived OBVIOUS nature of the law. Often cases are won or lost on fine interpretation of wording. THIS IS WHAT LAW IS AND THIS IS WHAT BOZ IS TALKING ABOUT. Types of talk like "it's right there, can't you read?" or "Believe what you want to believe" just have no merit in a discussion of law in a sense, whatsoever.

Also, it's incredibly pertinent the ruling he brought up from NJ, and no one seems to care about the points he's making. And, yeah, he can be prickish, but he's often taking a fine-toothed comb to underlying assumptions, and there's nothing more important to do in armchair practice of law... And sometimes he's right!

I get the idea that this forum has been unnecessarily censored. I feel like maybe having Boz back was in recognition of this. I have received apologies from Boz in quick order while other people have levied insults and useless attacks and off-topic assumptions and derailings and have not apologized. I think it's a standard LAZY response to look at this issue as argumentative or molesting when all that's being offered are facts by the OP and meanwhile all that comes back as posts are JUDGMENTS.

[Villiam]

If you're annoyed then quit posting. Maybe we'll hear from some people that would have more authority on this (like lawyers, instead of card counters who worship one little lawyer in Nevada)...

Because I currently agree: I see a "won't" but not a "can't."

Maybe you don't feel this topic super-material, but I think you may be missing the larger issue, which is that it's bad to give out bad legal advice...

[Norm]

The law looks pretty clear to me. And, I don't see any reason to do the casinos' jobs for them.

[Three]

It is clear. You can't be barred for card counting but you can be barred for being disruptive. So as long as a card counter is not disruptive he can't be barred. When he is barred he is not barred for counting cards but was barred for being disruptive. Therefore he was not barred for counting cards. Hence you can't be barred for counting cards. Case closed.

[Norm]

The given counter-argument is that the casino can bar you anyhow, and therefore it's not like murder; which you cannot do. Well, obviously you can also murder someone as it happens all too often. Perhaps the construction should be mayn't instead of can't. But, when we say can't in such discussions; we are obviously saying can't under the law. In MO, you can't, in accordance with the law, bar someone for card counting. That is explicitly stated in the code. You can bar someone that is disruptive. I am sure that there is also an MO legal definition of "disruption." You cannot go into court and use your own definitions of terms. A person that is silently thinking cannot be considered disruptive under any stretch of imagination.

[Bigdaddy]

Boz - as it relates to this subject, my dad always said: "if ten men tell you that you're drunk, you better sit down..."

[Boz]

This is ridiculous. I'm kind of offended by the lack of logic I'm witnessing out of people that claim skill in that department.

LAW is, by nature, not exactly logical, yet it's defined by rules, which creates a matrix of possibilities within a system of logic. One problem is that illogic can find it's way into all the rules (see: civil asset forfeiture where property becomes criminal, or UIGEA of Black Friday fame where fantasy football becomes a game of skill and poker becomes a game of chance). A second problem is that interpretation of the law often becomes uncommonly difficult in cases that challenge the perceived OBVIOUS nature of the law. Often cases are won or lost on fine interpretation of wording. THIS IS WHAT LAW IS AND THIS IS WHAT BOZ IS TALKING ABOUT. Types of talk like "it's right there, can't you read?" or "Believe what you want to believe" just have no merit in a discussion of law in a sense, whatsoever.

Also, it's incredibly pertinent the ruling he brought up from NJ, and no one seems to care about the points he's making. And, yeah, he can be prickish, but he's often taking a fine-toothed comb to underlying assumptions, and there's nothing more important to do in armchair practice of law... And sometimes he's right!

I get the idea that this forum has been unnecessarily censored. I feel like maybe having Boz back was in recognition of this. I have received apologies from Boz in quick order while other people have levied insults and useless attacks and off-topic assumptions and derailings and have not apologized. I think it's a standard LAZY response to look at this issue as argumentative or molesting when all that's being offered are facts by the OP and meanwhile all that comes back as posts are JUDGMENTS.

Thank you very much, Villiam. I appreciate someone voicing their support.

[Norm]

No, they are not completely powerless. They can use the same counter measures used by other such states.