Casino takes card-counting case to Indiana Supreme Court
- Thread starter Speedy99
- Start date
PrinceDragon
Well-Known Member
:laugh: I like this guy.
creeping panther
Banned
Donavan
Donavan is an ASS.
CP
Should have kept quiet and moved on. I will guarantee that these casinos when faced with the realization that they cannot protect a game will make them unbeatable by an AP.Speedy99 said:
Donavan is an ASS.
CP
Possible U.S. Supreme Court intervention?
Possible U.S. Supreme Court intervention?
"How long? Not long!" --- Dr. King
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.Speedy99 said:
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.creeping panther said:
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.
creeping panther
Banned
ABenzio
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
AB,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.
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
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
How in the world can they prove that someone is counting cards unless some idiot is counting out loud, on his fingers, or admits to counting cards.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
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.21forme said:
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.
I see your point, however, what they are fighting for is the right to exclude a patron at their discretion, as any private business can do, as long as it's not discriminatory (race, religion, etc.) They really don't need to prove someone is playing at an advantage in a non-cheating way.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
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!21forme said:
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.Leaveawinner
Banned
Donovan said he usually wins $75 to $100 in a five- to six-hour session. My $55.00 in 3 hours is looking mighty nice.
creeping panther
Banned
Hey
CP
Both you guys are making far more in that period of time than you would be on a $10,000 CD....so do not knock it, just look at it in a different light. Donovan can make $500 a week on a part time job, tax free.Leaveawinner said:
CP
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
I think you mean $500 a month.creeping panther said:Both you guys are making far more in that period of time than you would be on a $10,000 CD....so do not knock it, just look at it in a different light. Donovan can make $500 a week on a part time job, tax free.
CP
creeping panther
Banned
He
CP
SAID A HUNDRED IN A 5 TO 6 HOUR SESSION, 5 days a week, $500 a week, part time, or if retired, very nice.21gunsalute said:
CP
Leaveawinner
Banned
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.
creeping panther
Banned
Right
:laugh:
LV Bear said too:grin:
CP
Mr. Donovan, remember to claim those winningsLVBear584 said:
:laugh:LV Bear said too:grin:
CP
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
"Donovan, who wouldn't talk specifically about his suit against the Grand Victoria, says he wins about $6,000 a year at blackjack in Indiana and other states."creeping panther said:
That would be $500/month.