AP Ethics discussion thread

[Dieter]

the point I believe ZenMaster_Flash was making is that you can't justify an AP play by saying if the casino can't defend from it they deserve to have it happen to them.

The casino voluntarily offers games of chance and skill to the general public. This is the first part, and it's important - they have considered the ramifications, and decided to offer their money, contingent to the outcome of a game.

If the casino chooses to conduct those games in a manner that allows players to win more than the math would suggest, I don't see that they have a valid complaint. They chose to play, and the manner in which they played allowed players to win.

The casino has determined the manner in which they will conduct the game. They have selected the design of cards they wish to use. They have selected the manner in which they will shuffle the cards. They have selected people to conduct the game. They have trained these people in the manner which they want the game conducted. They have supervisors and surveillance personnel who observe the conduct of the game, and assure that the game protection procedures are being followed.

Beyond that, in order to play, a player must risk something of value on the outcome of the game of chance, which the casino will win if the game outcome is decided against the player. ("I pays my money, I takes my chances.")



The difference with someone who leaves their keys in the car is they haven't necessarily chosen to lose possession of their car, based on someone seeing the keys in it, and they don't stand to get another car just for not getting theirs taken.

[Norm]

There have been court cases where leaving keys in a car has resulted in damages.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

There have been court cases where leaving keys in a car has resulted in damages.

Damages arising from the car's owner being negligent via leaving the keys in
the car, when the (stolen) vehicle caused grave injuries to innocent parties, YES.

Did it also mean that the underwriter did not have to cover the value of the stolen vehicle?

NOTE: the car thief is never going to be exonerated.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I see the following as a legal oddity worthy of mention in this thread:

If a patron is accidentally overpaid and the casino immediately demands that
the chips be handed back to the dealer and the player refuses, the casino has
The legal right to sue for recovery; and can bar that patron as an undesirable.

In Nevada, once the player is overpaid, the chips become the sole property of
the player, even if the chips have been in his possession for less than 1 second.
The casino WILL ask for the money back, but they have NO legal recourse.
Of course, the player can expect to be trespassed immediately for his refusal.

[Norm]

You must mean that the insurer did not have to cover the stolen vehicle; NOT that the car thief was exonerated.

Car thief is in an accident. Car "thief" is a child that is injured. Several states have laws against leaving a running car unattended.

[Three]

Several states have laws against leaving a running car unattended.

It is common for criminal to use these cars left running in the commission of a serious crime. Often these types of crimes result in serious injury or death. Giving a stupid criminal a disposable get away car, whether intentionally or through negligence, is like giving him a gun. That is why these laws exist and that is why you usually won't get a break if a cop finds your car has been left running in front of a store.

[Frank Galvin]

But the car thief's attorney might be able to successfully mitigate (if not avoid) liability if the car were maintained in a negligent manner that resulted in an accident, such that the faulty operating condition was unforeseeable by the thief or anyone other than the vehicle's owner (owner aware that front wheel systems shot, advised by mevhanic that needed to be repaired/replaced, and disregarded that advice).

i understand the preceding would be a stretch, but so were the social host liability cases first pursued against bars for continuing to serve liquor to inebriated patrons, and doing nothing to prevent them from then departing and driving home, placing others at unknown/unforeseeBle risk..

[Sharky]

...on rare occasions the EITS catches it and makes a phone call...

so I have seen paid errors numerous times - some sizable (in the 100s) - but never saw the casino ask for the money back AFTER the fact...how exactly does this play out? what proof does the casino provide? just their word, or do they show you the mis-pay? what if the patron no longer has the error amount left in chip (at least in front of them) and claim to not have any cash?

[Dieter]

just their word, or do they show you the mis-pay?

The times I have seen it (tribal places, not Nevada), it has been because EITS calls to the pit. The floor comes to the table, informs the player that they can either repay the error or leave.

No "evidence" presented, just their word - but every time they've done it that I've seen, they've been right.

[Floor]

The player is held to the same standard when found to be "cheating". Cheating being the operative word. Under NRS 465.015:

A player who intentionally attempts to mislead the dealer into paying losers, or overpaying winners would fit both the NRS "cheating" and "theft by deception" definitions. This is what RollingStoned was describing. While legally it may be difficult to prove, it seems like a very thin line to be walking.

[Three]

so I have seen paid errors numerous times - some sizable (in the 100s) - but never saw the casino ask for the money back AFTER the fact...how exactly does this play out? what proof does the casino provide? just their word, or do they show you the mis-pay? what if the patron no longer has the error amount left in chip (at least in front of them) and claim to not have any cash?

I was referring to a phone call to pay you more money but the phone call that you describe is certainly more common.

The phone rings. The Floor picks it up and then approaches you and explains. You give them the money you probably already know you didn't deserve and your longevity is ensured for a time.

Option b, which I have witnessed, said patron refuses to pay. Conversation escalates. In the end the Floor explains that the casino is taking the nice tact and if the person refuses to cooperate the next call will be to the police and said patron will then be forced to pay or be booked for theft. I have never seen a patron refuse to pay at that point. Only witnessed this twice so we all know what we can gather from a small sample size. I have seen people request to see the tape. The casino has always refused and said that gaming enforcement can represent you and view the tape if you wish to take that route we understand. I have never seen the no money left defense. Perhaps the casino forgives the debt in a good faith gesture perhaps they get it from you if you return, perhaps a credit card payment, who knows.

You put enough time in at the casinos you see a lot.

[Freightman]

I have never seen the no money left defense.

You put enough time in at the casinos you see a lot.

I have, on a $1000 mispay. Worked to, since the guys wallet was empty at that point. I saw him play a couple more times after that, and then nothing. Assume it was because he tapped out vs being 86'd

[Sharky]

...You put enough time in at the casinos you see a lot.

yes, i'm pretty confident i've seen everything you have and THEN SOME in my 20+ yrs [EDIT: Meant 30+ AP BJ years...WOW, time really flies when you're having fun]_

recently had a $25 side bet that should've paid 4-1...i notice the dealer puts out a bigger stack (10-1)....quickly grabbed and put right in my pocket