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.
Yes, anyone they want to
Some APs, but not counters
No legal players
Ploppies should be banned
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).
Last edited by Aslan; 01-25-2015 at 09:36 PM.
Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 - 8/23/10... “Life’s most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 - 8/23/10... “Life’s most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
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.
The Cash Cow.
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.
Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 - 8/23/10... “Life’s most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
Bookmarks