thinking of confronting the casino

M

Meistro

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
I recently got backed off. Here is the regulation concerning refusing an individual access to a gaming premise.



35. For the purposes of subsection 3.6 (1) of the Act, the following are prescribed as criteria for refusing an individual access to a gaming premises:

1. The individual has been excluded from premises where gaming occurs by any other jurisdiction where gaming is legal.

2. The individual has cheated at a game of chance held in a casino or at any other place where games of chance are played.

3. The individual has been denied registration or renewal of registration as a gaming assistant or as a supplier.

4. The individual has been registered as a gaming assistant or as a supplier and the registration has been suspended or revoked.

5. The individual has acted in a way that would adversely affect public confidence that games of chance and casino operations in general are free from criminal or corrupting elements and are conducted in accordance with the principles of honesty and integrity. O. Reg. 385/99, s. 35; O. Reg. 208/00, s. 12.



Do you think I have a case? I'm thinking go back and play. Get forcibly removed from the casino, with witnesses, and sue.
 
R

RJT

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
You might have a case, but you'll be doing no-one any favours with a case like this. Striping the casino of the right to bar AP's doesn't improve contitions for counters.

RJT.
 
M

MAZ

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
Yeah man, I've been trespassed at 75% of the casinos I frequent, and backed off from 100% of them, or at least have had counter measures taken against me such in places like A.C. It does not stop me from playing, and it doesn't stop them from sometimes physically escorting me off some of the premises. What they have not done yet is arrest me, or beat my ass, which I would welcome as an AP challenge. I have tried to change my appearance at times to try to look different, you know less handsome, which is no easy feat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The point is no matter how much they don't want me to play, they don't want the hassle of taking it too far either. This does not include the indian joints, I have gotten backed off from them as well, but only a very small percentage of them have 86'd me. I am a bit more wary of them. I have not at the advice of legal counsel played on barred indian soil. I do play in the joints that have backed me off, and it happens often, but they seem to be tolerant of my attempts. Maybe its because I have not caused a commotion of a lawsuit or a publicity stunt. I accept that my bridges are burning, but there's always a way through the fire if you got the balls.
 
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
I believe you said in another thread you're Canadian, so I don't know if US case law is relevant and/or can be used as precedent. However, you may want to wait until the Indiana case is settled and see what happens there. Legal fees aren't cheap.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
A history lesson

If you are a Canuck, you are certainly barking up the wrong maple tree. Back off. Think back 31 years.

The Phyrric victory of Kenny Uston forcing A.C. Casinos to let counters play resulted in the transmogrification of the game.

Before the Uston lawsuit N.J. casinos were happily offered the public BJ that was without a House Advantage (and with $5 tables too).
Flat betting, a basic strategist held the advantage. The casinos prospered and so did Card Counters who were NOT too GREEDY.

After the Uston lawsuit A.C. BJ instantly deteriorated to the point where they would soon offered some of the worst playing condition in the U.S.

Uston's huge ego got in the way. How's your's doing ?
 
Last edited:
M

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
There are two schools of thought, one is to go easy on a game and milk it for a long time or to go in two barrells blasting and take it down in one sitting.

So as Flash said, greed is a factor. In a recent post you made over 2000 units with a lot of play. If you are playing in just a couple of casinos with players cards, they will catch you and you are probably guilty of greed.

The pending decision in Indiana I think is irrelevant to most. There is precendent in other states that are not consistent with each other. So what Indiana does, who really cares? It effects Indiana, Chicago and western Ohio counters but if lawmakers are not going as far as to criminalise counting it really is not an important decision in a legal sense.

Backoffs/bannings or counting in Canadian casinos are much more agressive than in Nevada and the way they do it tends to lull counters into a sense of false security. The only legal precendent in Canada is the Hyland trial in which he and his team was ace sequencing and was charged with criminal fraud/game cheat. Much more serious than a simple banning.

The games in Ontario are bad - nothing like pre-Uston AC. In Ontario as in most jurisdictions it is illegal for them to offer games of skill. If a game can be beaten by skill they either have to change it (CSM) or charge a vig as in poker or ban those that beat it with skil. So it is essentially not the person that is committing an offense but the casino that is offending as it is offering a game of skill which is contrary to the gaming act.
 
Last edited:
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
FLASH1296 said:
The Phyrric victory of Kenny Uston forcing A.C. Casinos to let counters play resulted in the transmogrification of the game.

Before the Uston lawsuit N.J. casinos were happily offered the public BJ that was without a House Advantage (and with $5 tables too).
Flat betting, a basic strategist held the advantage. The casinos prospered and so did Card Counters who were NOT too GREEDY.

After the Uston lawsuit A.C. BJ instantly deteriorated to the point where they would soon offered some of the worst playing condition in the U.S.

Uston's huge ego got in the way. How's your's doing ?
Click to expand...
AC conditions deteriorated before Uston's lawsuit in AC. +EV games with BS were a mistake, the casinos and the NJCC realized it, and the rules (such as ES) were changed.

The current AC games (6 and 8D, S/H17) are significantly better than MANY of the Vegas games (8D, H17, 6:5, etc.) Also, let's not forget AC has the best Sp21 games in the country.

How come there are so many lousy games in LV and other venues where patrons may be kicked out at management's discretion?
 
R

RJT

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
Martin Gayle said:
The games in Ontario are bad - nothing like pre-Uston AC. In Ontario as in most jurisdictions it is illegal for them to offer games of skill. If a game can be beaten by skill they either have to change it (CSM) or charge a vig as in poker or ban those that beat it with skil. So it is essentially not the person that is committing an offense but the casino that is offending as it is offering a game of skill which is contrary to the gaming act.
Click to expand...
In otherwords - if this is where you are playing and you win, you'll still be in the same hole as all the casinos in that durastiction will be force to either change the game for the worse or get rid of it altogether. Ultimately you won't be able to play either way.

RJT.
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
#9
#9
Martin Gayle said:
...The games in Ontario are bad - nothing like pre-Uston AC. In Ontario as in most jurisdictions it is illegal for them to offer games of skill. If a game can be beaten by skill they either have to change it (CSM) or charge a vig as in poker or ban those that beat it with skil. So it is essentially not the person that is committing an offense but the casino that is offending as it is offering a game of skill which is contrary to the gaming act.
Click to expand...
NJ law has similar verbiage where a game cannot be a game of skill. That's really offensive to me. It fits in perfectly with left-wing politics, where everyone at the table is supposed to be equal and a case where one person might have more skill than another is so unacceptable as to be illegal.

Here's a short story every AP should know:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
 
S

SystemsTrader

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
Martin Gayle said:
In Ontario as in most jurisdictions it is illegal for them to offer games of skill. If a game can be beaten by skill they either have to change it (CSM) or charge a vig as in poker or ban those that beat it with skil. So it is essentially not the person that is committing an offense but the casino that is offending as it is offering a game of skill which is contrary to the gaming act.
Click to expand...
The OLG will probably disagree with you that they cannot offer a game of skill. Here is a quote from one of their very own advertisements.

"In Ontario, we deal excitement! And we at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation want to share that excitement with you.

Our gaming facilities offer skill-testing table games, a wide variety of themed slot machines, live entertainment and fine dining."

So by saying this they are challenging you to beat them. What the casinos do though is simply use the Trespass Act to bar whom ever they feel like because that is their common law right. What the casinos are really doing is abusing the Trespass Act.
 
M

Meistro

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
AM : isn't there more to that story? I seem to remember some sort of house where people would go to play chess and listen to music and stuff. Perhaps I am confusing it with another, similar, distopian criticism of egalitarianism.
 
M

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
SystemTrader,

I agree with you. OLG is crooked. Ontario gaming law is still in its infancy. The law says only games of chance can be offered. Anything involving skill should be paramutuel.

The casino is using the tresspass to property act to bar counters. If this was taken to court on a human-rights grounds or similar, the casinos lawyers will likely defend using the issue of protecting games of chance.

If a casino is using the right-to-refuse to protect them from allowing people to turn a game of chance into a game of skill they should ban those who are less-skilled. Someone unskilled at craps, roulette, slots etc will not be at a disadvantage from not knowing how to play. Someone unskilled at BJ will be at a vast disadvantage.
 
psyduck

psyduck

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
Seaclusion said:
It's simple. Nobody is supposed to win (at least in the casino's eyes), therefore it had to be skill.
Click to expand...
So some Keno winners win because they have skills?

What I meant was if a casino barred someone based on argument of the person's skill to beat them, how do they prove it in court?
 
M

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
How does a casino prove they are using skill to beat it? --- They have to bring in experts witness to explain what AP is and then show what the banned player is doing.
 
moo321

moo321

Well-Known Member
#19
#19
Back on point, DO NOT go back in there and try to create a lawsuit. Your playing career will be finished, and you may ruin things for others. It's a horrible idea.
 
D

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#20
#20
Martin Gayle said:
There are two schools of thought, one is to go easy on a game and milk it for a long time or to go in two barrells blasting and take it down in one sitting.

So as Flash said, greed is a factor. In a recent post you made over 2000 units with a lot of play. If you are playing in just a couple of casinos with players cards, they will catch you and you are probably guilty of greed.

The pending decision in Indiana I think is irrelevant to most. There is precendent in other states that are not consistent with each other. So what Indiana does, who really cares? It effects Indiana, Chicago and western Ohio counters but if lawmakers are not going as far as to criminalise counting it really is not an important decision in a legal sense.

Backoffs/bannings or counting in Canadian casinos are much more agressive than in Nevada and the way they do it tends to lull counters into a sense of false security. The only legal precendent in Canada is the Hyland trial in which he and his team was ace sequencing and was charged with criminal fraud/game cheat. Much more serious than a simple banning.

The games in Ontario are bad - nothing like pre-Uston AC. In Ontario as in most jurisdictions it is illegal for them to offer games of skill. If a game can be beaten by skill they either have to change it (CSM) or charge a vig as in poker or ban those that beat it with skil. So it is essentially not the person that is committing an offense but the casino that is offending as it is offering a game of skill which is contrary to the gaming act.
Click to expand...
I looked up ace squencing to refresh my memory and how could that be called game cheat when all you do is watch the card at your own table?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top