"The Law for Gamblers" by Robert Nersesian

[Bigdaddy]

I just started reading this book this past weekend. I'm about halfway through and I must say that I'm a bit disappointed. Maybe I'm not giving myself enough credit for the knowledge I've built up over the past few years through the many online resources (blogs, forums, etc.), but I would say that the topics discussed are fairly basic to the average AP.

I was particularly disappointed by his chapter on the Casino's rights to exclude or eject APs. He centers his discussion on the murkiness of the states' various approaches to assessing an individual's common law right of access to "public places of amusement" vs. the property owners' right to refuse service to anybody they choose. I get that - it's a quagmire of bad law.

But it surprises me that he does not address how a state's enabling legislation for gaming and powers bestowed on a state's Casino Control Commission could affect the analysis. That in fact was the key point in Uston v. Resorts. The NJ Supreme Court held that the Casino Commission alone had the authority to exclude players and noted....

"In sum, absent a valid Commission regulation excluding card counters, respondent Uston will be free to employ his card-counting strategy at Resorts' blackjack tables. There is currently no Commission rule banning Uston, and Resorts has no authority to exclude him for card counting. However, it is not clear whether the Commission would have adopted regulations involving card counters had it known that Resorts could not exclude Uston. The Court therefore continues the temporary order banning Uston from Resorts' blackjack tables for 90 days from the date of this opinion. After that time, respondent is free to play blackjack at Resorts' casino absent a valid Commission rule excluding him."

So in doing a state-by-state analysis of the subject, it would seem that the first step would be to assess the state's enabling legislation for gaming and the powers granted to the state's Casino Control Commission. Why was this point not mentioned in the book?

[Norm]

If you consider challenging a casino based upon a state's law, I think you really need to contact a lawyer with that specific experience/knowledge. And, laws and precedence change. I think it would be bad form for a lawyer to give overly specific advice for a particular state in a book, that might be read ten years later. Just my opinion.

[Frank Galvin]

IAAL.

Norm, your instincts are strong. Even more important to Nersesian's analysis as a legal author, is the variety of court philosophical approaches to interpreting and applying their jurisdictional laws, whether statutory, administrative, common law (or Napoleonic Code).

Unless and until a state supreme court rules on an issue, any lawyer asserting that he/she knows what the law is/will be, is simply making an educated guess.

[Norm]

Yeah. If you’re in front of a magistrate, you don’t know if he follows the Napoleonic Code, Hammurabi, Mosaic Law, an old copy of Black’s Law, the Bible, Halakhah, or his astrologist.

[Bigdaddy]

Im curious Bigdaddy. What does Neresian say about the 3 guys that surrounded you, pushed your chips forward with their hands and put their hands on you without cause? Seems to me some privacy rights were violated? And on tape?

The story continues to grow! Actually it was two guys and nobody touched me - just a very rude experience. I could care less...

The point of my post was not to try to assert any arguments as to the law in this area or any view as to what the law should be. My point was simply to point out that the legal analysis in Nersesian's book was woefully inadequate. How can you write a book about the law in this area and not even cite the Uston case where the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the common law arguments (that Nersesian went on about ad nauseum in his book) were subordinate to the statutory gaming law and Casino Commission authority in NJ and thus were irrelevant to the case.

So, IMHO, don't waste your money on this book.

[Bob Nersesian]

So in doing a state-by-state analysis of the subject, it would seem that the first step would be to assess the state's enabling legislation for gaming and the powers granted to the state's Casino Control Commission. Why was this point not mentioned in the book?

Because, in the decades since Uston, not a single gaming commission has spoken on this issue from your perspective to any degree. It is a non-issue until some jurisdiction acts on the concept. The closest to date, as discussed in the book with citation, is Missouri, who passed a regulation essentially barring the exclusion of card counters. In fact, the concept that they did so shows the marginal nature of the issue you raise. Specifically, even Missouri's gaming regulators recognized the ambiguity of the State following the common law of access and spoke to it through the regulation (essentially confirming the common law). They could have just abstained, and if the common law were that certain, reached the same result as in Uston. Also, while recognizing that the regulators could so proscribe access in Uston, the decision turned entirely on the common law sans any reference to regulation. In short, the point you raise is currently an irrelevancy, with the only material restrictions or enabling provisions coming through trespass statutes or the common law. I hope this answers your question.

As to you being disappointed in the book, I'm disappointed that you're disappointed.

Bob

[Bigdaddy]

Fair enough Bob - very kind of you to respond. In fact, if I knew you were going to read and respond, I wouldn't have been so negative. Now I'm embarrassed .

In all honesty, I think the book is well written. I think my problem is that I've read so much about the various subject areas over the past few years (including listening to your excellent interviews on GWAE) that I wasn't gleaning a lot of new information. Anyway, my bad. Thanks for your contribution to the AP community and hope I never have to call upon your services.

[Frank Galvin]

Now for a shameful, but lawyerly plug, if Bob ever needs local counsel in Florida, he should feel free to reach out to me.

[Banker]

Now for a shameful, but lawyerly plug, if Bob ever needs local counsel in Florida, he should feel free to reach out to me.

Bob mentioned in his last podcast on GWAE that he looked for local lawyer in Florida but non was willing to take over the case against the Seminole trip. The case in which a player asked a friend to push the button on the slot for good luck and hit the jackpot. The casino gave the jackpot to the friend even though the money of the bet belonged to the complainant.

[Frank Galvin]

When dealing with the Seminole, Florida case law and statutes are essentially useless, as you will have to present your case to the tribal council. Good luck with that! From the podcasts I have heard with him in the past, I suspect that Nersesian would agree.

[Aristotle]

Do you know what law/procedure applies when there is a situation between casino and player on an American cruise ship sailing in international waters?

[elimagico369]

I loved listening to Bob Nersesian the last two weeks on GWAE podcast.