Casino takes card-counting case to Indiana Supreme Court
- Thread starter Speedy99
- Start date
Possible U.S. Supreme Court intervention?
Possible U.S. Supreme Court intervention?
"How long? Not long!" --- Dr. King
Speedy, thanks for sharing.
CP, my 2 cents are different from yours. Donovan is a defender of American way of life. We, the Americans (Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, James Grosjean, CP, etc...), who perform the best, must be rewarded, NOT punished.
The best parts of the news have to do with the Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule:
"Indiana casinos argue they are private businesses and should have the freedom to maintain order on their properties. Their argument is based on the common law belief that a private business has the right to turn away anyone it chooses...
...However, the appeals court held that because the gambling industry is heavily regulated, the casinos don't have a common law right to exclude customers..."
Here is my dream. APs will be unbannable in U.S. The Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule will not applicable to all casinos nationwide after U.S. Supreme Court takes on this case. It is likely that Indiana Supreme Court will thumb down on Grand Victoria Casino (GVC). GVC will be pissed and take the case all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. If my prediction comes true, then all bona-fide APs will be unbannable in U. S. because U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on this case will be the supreme law of the land.
Possible U.S. Supreme Court intervention?
"How long? Not long!" --- Dr. King
Speedy, thanks for sharing.
CP, my 2 cents are different from yours. Donovan is a defender of American way of life. We, the Americans (Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, James Grosjean, CP, etc...), who perform the best, must be rewarded, NOT punished.
The best parts of the news have to do with the Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule:
"Indiana casinos argue they are private businesses and should have the freedom to maintain order on their properties. Their argument is based on the common law belief that a private business has the right to turn away anyone it chooses...
...However, the appeals court held that because the gambling industry is heavily regulated, the casinos don't have a common law right to exclude customers..."
Here is my dream. APs will be unbannable in U.S. The Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule will not applicable to all casinos nationwide after U.S. Supreme Court takes on this case. It is likely that Indiana Supreme Court will thumb down on Grand Victoria Casino (GVC). GVC will be pissed and take the case all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. If my prediction comes true, then all bona-fide APs will be unbannable in U. S. because U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on this case will be the supreme law of the land.
ABenzio
AB,
Most casinos will freak out and you will see the games so bad you will not play them.
I had a discussion with a gaming manager a few weeks ago about a 2 deck cut on a hand shuffled 6d. They just could not understand about the money they are losing in hands per hour and admitted a fear of ap's,,,their shuffle is also very time consuming, they have a very unreasonable fear. Believe me, you don't want any more Ustons or Donovan wrecking games because they want publicity and their 15 min. of fame.
Casinos have to have the security to boot a player and then competition will give true AP's great opportunitys.
At all the BASH's no one received a barring and many usually played all out, and that has been at 3 different casinos with great games, so you can play with abandon, at least at some places.
CP
Abenzio said:
Possible U.S. Supreme Court intervention?
"How long? Not long!" --- Dr. King
Speedy, thanks for sharing.
CP, my 2 cents are different from yours. Donovan is a defender of American way of life. We, the Americans (Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, James Grosjean, CP, etc...), who perform the best, must be rewarded, NOT punished.
The best parts of the news have to do with the Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule:
"Indiana casinos argue they are private businesses and should have the freedom to maintain order on their properties. Their argument is based on the common law belief that a private business has the right to turn away anyone it chooses...
...However, the appeals court held that because the gambling industry is heavily regulated, the casinos don't have a common law right to exclude customers..."
Here is my dream. APs will be unbannable in U.S. The Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule will not applicable to all casinos nationwide after U.S. Supreme Court takes on this case. It is likely that Indiana Supreme Court will thumb down on Grand Victoria Casino (GVC). GVC will be pissed and take the case all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. If my prediction comes true, then all bona-fide APs will be unbannable in U. S. because U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on this case will be the supreme law of the land.
"How long? Not long!" --- Dr. King
Speedy, thanks for sharing.
CP, my 2 cents are different from yours. Donovan is a defender of American way of life. We, the Americans (Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, James Grosjean, CP, etc...), who perform the best, must be rewarded, NOT punished.
The best parts of the news have to do with the Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule:
"Indiana casinos argue they are private businesses and should have the freedom to maintain order on their properties. Their argument is based on the common law belief that a private business has the right to turn away anyone it chooses...
...However, the appeals court held that because the gambling industry is heavily regulated, the casinos don't have a common law right to exclude customers..."
Here is my dream. APs will be unbannable in U.S. The Innkeeper's patron-exclusion rule will not applicable to all casinos nationwide after U.S. Supreme Court takes on this case. It is likely that Indiana Supreme Court will thumb down on Grand Victoria Casino (GVC). GVC will be pissed and take the case all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. If my prediction comes true, then all bona-fide APs will be unbannable in U. S. because U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on this case will be the supreme law of the land.
Most casinos will freak out and you will see the games so bad you will not play them.
I had a discussion with a gaming manager a few weeks ago about a 2 deck cut on a hand shuffled 6d. They just could not understand about the money they are losing in hands per hour and admitted a fear of ap's,,,their shuffle is also very time consuming, they have a very unreasonable fear. Believe me, you don't want any more Ustons or Donovan wrecking games because they want publicity and their 15 min. of fame.
Casinos have to have the security to boot a player and then competition will give true AP's great opportunitys.
At all the BASH's no one received a barring and many usually played all out, and that has been at 3 different casinos with great games, so you can play with abandon, at least at some places.
CP
No, no, no. We're talking about a court of law here. A casino may refuse to allow someone to play on suspicion of counting (or for any other reason or no reason at all I would guess), but they cannot prove someone is counting in a courtroom setting unless someone admits to it, or does something obvious that gets caught on camera such as writing down the count or using fingers, etc. So my point is that even if such a law were passed it would be unenforceable. They couldn't simply take someone to court and say he looked like a card-counter, not to mention that I don't see how it could possibly benefit a casino to pursue card counting as a legal matter. In fact if a casino did indeed take legal action against an alleged card counter, I would think they could be counter-sued for slander/libel and/or defamation of character. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that would be the case.
At any rate the casino pursuing this matter is being even stupider than Mr. Donovan was in admitting to it. The attention this is getting is not going to shed a positive light on their business! They come off sounding like thugs that just want to take everyone's money and can't stand it when someone simply leaves with peanuts on a few occasions. It will however draw attention to the fact that anyone can count cards which will most certainly hurt their profitability as more and more people will now be able to learn to play the game properly.
At any rate the casino pursuing this matter is being even stupider than Mr. Donovan was in admitting to it. The attention this is getting is not going to shed a positive light on their business! They come off sounding like thugs that just want to take everyone's money and can't stand it when someone simply leaves with peanuts on a few occasions. It will however draw attention to the fact that anyone can count cards which will most certainly hurt their profitability as more and more people will now be able to learn to play the game properly.
Okay. I skimmed over the article the first time and misunderstood exactly what this was about. After re-reading it I'm really confused. I'd always thought that any business anywhere could refuse service to a customer as long as it isn't based on race, sex, age, sexual preference, etc...basically I thought any business could refuse service to a white male and no one else! 
So while in theory I would support their right to ban someone I still don't see what they think they can gain by doing so. He obviously hasn't taken much (if anything) from the casino's profitability. He said he makes about $6000 a year playing BJ at several different casino's.
So while in theory I would support their right to ban someone I still don't see what they think they can gain by doing so. He obviously hasn't taken much (if anything) from the casino's profitability. He said he makes about $6000 a year playing BJ at several different casino's.
He must have been playing at a 5 dollar table. If I continued at this pace, and I'm stuck with 15 minimum I would have just under $13,000.00. However my average was trending up at the end of 2009.
As for cheating, when I started up last November, I watched a shoe from shuffle and jumped in on a positive deck. My intention was to make my $20.00 bet under the best conditions. I even waited one more hand. I won $44.00 on a couple hands and left. That's as close as I can get to a card counter cheating, but I don't cross one way streets without looking both ways.
I think the Grand Vic went into bk protection and having debt issues. I read some banks are acting like that shark on Family beneath the two swimmers talking about how he was going to eat this one and then the other one and snarfing up casino interests through foreclosure.
I support the gambler.
As for cheating, when I started up last November, I watched a shoe from shuffle and jumped in on a positive deck. My intention was to make my $20.00 bet under the best conditions. I even waited one more hand. I won $44.00 on a couple hands and left. That's as close as I can get to a card counter cheating, but I don't cross one way streets without looking both ways.
I think the Grand Vic went into bk protection and having debt issues. I read some banks are acting like that shark on Family beneath the two swimmers talking about how he was going to eat this one and then the other one and snarfing up casino interests through foreclosure.
I support the gambler.