No problem
The code states:
1. You cannot be barred for anything that is not illegal or disruptive.
2. Card counting is not illegal.
This is a simple syllogism. The code would not have been written in this manner if card counting could be considered disruptive. A disruption is something than interrupts an event or procedure. Thinking is not disruptive.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Relax Boz (or should I say: "Lighten up Francis").
The point of my original post was simply to learn more about this subject by soliciting comments on a theory that, based on the way the Ohio law is written, it appears that one could not be legally ejected for card counting alone. ZMF was quick to point out that he was ejected from an Ohio casino for nothing more than card counting. That is exactly the type of on-point commentary that I was looking for. I also appreciate the analysis of the MO law.
From this thread, I've learned that the Ohio law is not written quite as strongly as the MO law in that it does not explicitly contain a presumptive right of access to table games. That being said, I still think that based on the way the Ohio law is written, a casino would have a hard time justifying the ejection of a patron purely for card counting. Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't do it as ZMF has testified, and I agree that only a "doofus" would ever bother challenging this in court. But if they did, my money would be on the doofus...
I respectfully disagree that your conclusion follows. The syllogism results in the conclusion you cannot be barred for card counting unless it's disruptive. If card counting was never disruptive, the code would have specified as much seems equally valid conclusion, if not more so. Most likely, they were purposely silent on the subject. One definition of disruptive is innovative, which is thinking--and any reasonable definition can be assigned to an undefined term. Further, loss of profit and countermeasures could be construed as disruptive. I'm convinced by Ryemo that they do not ban counters. But it's not in black and white--it needs common-law precedent to become against the law, from where I'm sitting. Because a non-frivolous interpretation can be made that they could ban counters until a court interprets that they cannot. Disruptive means nothing more than undesirable and legal in the regulation before you start attaching subjective meanings. I thought everyone would be happy that I believe they "Won't".
Last edited by Boz; 06-17-2016 at 09:34 AM.
That is utter nonsense. Of course if you are yelling the count at the top of your lungs that would be disruptive. But, thinking is not disruptive in any dictionary. They were not silent on the subject. Card counting is NOT illegal. It is in black and white.
You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, in more than one thread. That is, you are being disruptive.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
I agree with Norm here, but no need to keep pressing the subject. I'm sure we can all agree on this: Come to MO and you won't need to worry about getting backed off or barred from the casino, AS LONG AS YOU BEHAVE. If they deem you to be a serious threat, they will start looking for other reasons to throw you out. But if you're well-behaved and you're just straight card counting, then I can assure you that being thrown out will not be a concern. Let's move on. lol
Seeing as this entire post is a ridiculous mischaracterization and one couldn't possibly expect it to sway my mind, I'll assume its intent was to order me to 'shut up'. I do not accept your unsupported positions. have no idea why the topic wasn't allowed to end the first 3 times I closed it out if it's disruptive, and I assume I will be allowed to refute or agree with any further discussion on my personal view on the specific topic.
Last edited by Boz; 06-17-2016 at 10:14 AM.
Bookmarks