barring APs
- Thread starter psyduck
- Start date
kewljason
Well-Known Member
I have always been a little curious about how the supreme courts of two states could have totally opposite rulings on the same issue as Nevada and New Jersey in the 70's. I am not a legal scholar by any means, but it seems to me that one or the other must be interpereting the law incorrectly. I often wonder what would happen if someone pursued the matter to the U.S. supreme court? (if they accepted the case) Not that is matters because Uston's victory in NJ was the worse thing that could have happened for counters. Just wondering from a legal point of view.psyduck said:
psyduck
Well-Known Member
Could you explain why the victory was bad for APs? BTW, how are you recovering from your bone injury?kewljason said:
P.S.
I just noted this:
http://www.worldgameprotection.com/resources/media/card-counting-flyer.pdf
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
Basically the decision to block casinos from 86'ing Advantage Players is derived from the Casino Control Commission's position on the issue.
In New Jersey, in just the last month I was twice put on "bet restriction" and I was once "half-shoed"
The latter is self-evident. Fifty Percent penetration. The former means being held to a precise $5 to $50 bet spread - irrespective of what the others at the table are betting.
In New Jersey, in just the last month I was twice put on "bet restriction" and I was once "half-shoed"
The latter is self-evident. Fifty Percent penetration. The former means being held to a precise $5 to $50 bet spread - irrespective of what the others at the table are betting.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
I am fully recovered from my collarbone break, thank you for asking.psyduck said:
I was not alive at the time, so I can only relate what I have read. Perhaps some of the others will correct me if I am wrong. (perhaps? what am I thinking. No doubt they will. lol) Anyway when the NJ supreme court ruled that casinos could not barr counters, the casinos protected themselves by going to terrible conditions. they went to 8 decks and at the time where cutting off four of them for 50% penetration. They also eliminated the surrender rule. As time went on the penetration improved to about 2 decks cut off of the eight deck game. 75% penetration (you can find better if you shop around) but overall Atalantic City Blackjack remains by most peoples standards a lousy game.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
can I ask what your spread was before you were restricted, flash? A 1-10 spread seems doable to me. My everyday spread is 1-12 ($25-$300), so I could live with a 1-10 spread. I have never been bet restricted in AC, but have once (earlier this year) been half shoed. After avoiding that casino for a while I have once again began playing there (unrated of course) and have had no problems in a dozen or so appearances.FLASH1296 said:
Grisly Dreams
Well-Known Member
I am an attorney, but not in Nevada or New Jersey. So the following should not be construed as legal advice (we always have to say that), but as the musings of a bad blackjack player with a good law degree, and nothing more.
Uston v. Resorts International (which I just skimmed moments ago) appears to be grounded in the fact that the NJ legislature, and the commission it formed to regulate gambling, regulated the hell out of casinos -- including the appropriate countermeasures for advantage players. Barring was not among the countermeasures provided for by the Casino Control Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder, so casinos may not bar players until the relevant commission promulgates new regulations. (Note that it appears that at any time, the NJ gaming commission could change this rule under the holding in Uston.)
If a state's high court grounds its decision in state law, such that the result would not differ, regardless of any question of federal law -- what is called an "adequate and independent state ground" -- the federal courts will not review that decision. So, the court decision throwing open the doors of NJ casinos to counters is only binding on NJ courts.
Uston v. Resorts International (which I just skimmed moments ago) appears to be grounded in the fact that the NJ legislature, and the commission it formed to regulate gambling, regulated the hell out of casinos -- including the appropriate countermeasures for advantage players. Barring was not among the countermeasures provided for by the Casino Control Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder, so casinos may not bar players until the relevant commission promulgates new regulations. (Note that it appears that at any time, the NJ gaming commission could change this rule under the holding in Uston.)
If a state's high court grounds its decision in state law, such that the result would not differ, regardless of any question of federal law -- what is called an "adequate and independent state ground" -- the federal courts will not review that decision. So, the court decision throwing open the doors of NJ casinos to counters is only binding on NJ courts.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
kewljason,
You said:
"can I ask what your spread was before you were restricted, flash? A 1-10 spread seems doable to me. My everyday spread is 1-12 ($25-$300), so I could live with a 1-10 spread. I have never been bet restricted in AC, but have once (earlier this year) been half shoed. After avoiding that casino for a while I have once again began playing there (unrated of course) and have had no problems in a dozen or so appearances."
The problem is that there is insufficient money to be made betting red.
The table was $15 to $1,000. Of course once the suspected Card Counter
is told that his/her wagers are restricted to 10-1 in Red, the other patrons
are smilingly assured that their higher level action is assuredly quite welcome.
You said:
"can I ask what your spread was before you were restricted, flash? A 1-10 spread seems doable to me. My everyday spread is 1-12 ($25-$300), so I could live with a 1-10 spread. I have never been bet restricted in AC, but have once (earlier this year) been half shoed. After avoiding that casino for a while I have once again began playing there (unrated of course) and have had no problems in a dozen or so appearances."
The problem is that there is insufficient money to be made betting red.
The table was $15 to $1,000. Of course once the suspected Card Counter
is told that his/her wagers are restricted to 10-1 in Red, the other patrons
are smilingly assured that their higher level action is assuredly quite welcome.
DAMN those casinos for allowing you to spread 1-10 while being "barred" and still make a little money forever while card-counting lol.FLASH1296 said:
A few thousand similar "barrings" later, they won't even miss the thousands an hr they are losing from barring card -counters who are still playing profitably while being "barred".
No big deal - just never heard of an AC "barring" that might still allow a player to play with a potentialy profitable spread lol.
Anybody else ever been barred from AC but yet allowed to continue to play with a spread?
Blue Efficacy
Well-Known Member
I think the regulations say they have to let you play with at least a 1-10 spread.Kasi said:
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Yes that's my understanding too, that the court ruled that casinos cannot decide on their own that a player cannot play any game. There's a state exclusion list (mostly Mafiosi and convicted cheaters) and an age restriction and those are the only restrictions I know of.Grisly Dreams said:
This could have implications beyond advantage play. If a player is perceived as drunk/disorderly/rude they may have no way to defend against it by refusing to deal to you like they would in LV or an Indian store, and instead may have to resort to arrest to get rid of you if you are acting out.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
Hmmm
Persons who are disorderly, threatening, etc. are ordinarily surrounded by Atlantic City security goons, taken by the elbows, and physically moved out of the casino. They are very rarely arrested.
I was once at an Indian Casino where I saw a patron throw his drink in the Pit Boss' face and punch him in the mouth.
As he was losing smartly (pun intended) betting black, they let him continue playing !
Then again I was in MS recently when I saw a guy go for the throat of a dealer. He was wrestled to the ground and held there until the local gendarmes removed him in handcuffs.
This guy was a very light player and was seemingly left without funds.
Persons who are disorderly, threatening, etc. are ordinarily surrounded by Atlantic City security goons, taken by the elbows, and physically moved out of the casino. They are very rarely arrested.
I was once at an Indian Casino where I saw a patron throw his drink in the Pit Boss' face and punch him in the mouth.
As he was losing smartly (pun intended) betting black, they let him continue playing !
Then again I was in MS recently when I saw a guy go for the throat of a dealer. He was wrestled to the ground and held there until the local gendarmes removed him in handcuffs.
This guy was a very light player and was seemingly left without funds.
ihate17
Well-Known Member
Casino tolerance towards the unruly
If you are a high rolling, drunk on your butt, big loser who has plenty of funds and is busy insulting the whole casino staff or worse while losing, your continued play will almost always be welcome. Had you been a lower roller who commits 1/20 the amount of sins at the table, the casino will tell you to leave. Greed is the key and management will permit their employees to be verbally (in rare cases physically) abused in order to fleece that abuser. Make that guy a $5 player and management will step right in and protect that same employee.
ihate17
In the world of one size fits all, casinos need not apply.FLASH1296 said:
If you are a high rolling, drunk on your butt, big loser who has plenty of funds and is busy insulting the whole casino staff or worse while losing, your continued play will almost always be welcome. Had you been a lower roller who commits 1/20 the amount of sins at the table, the casino will tell you to leave. Greed is the key and management will permit their employees to be verbally (in rare cases physically) abused in order to fleece that abuser. Make that guy a $5 player and management will step right in and protect that same employee.
ihate17