Regarding the sentiments below (if trespassed and a player returns to the casino to play, they are "wrong")...
First of all, my apologies if I've missed some of the thread; I have been very busy lately and haven't read all the posts on each digest, and am just now getting into this particular subject.
I've been barred at casinos when I played blackjack and counted cards. I've returned to several of them to play again (although eventually even these changed their games to make them less desirable to play), and have been recognized once (that I know of) on a return visit and promptly cashed out and left before being approached, and once at another place where the same host who barred me the first time came up to me again and said "I thought I told you not to play blackjack here anymore" to which I replied "I didn't know you meant forever, but I was just playing for a few minutes while waiting to meet a friend, I mostly play video poker now" (the truth) and that was the end of (1) the conversation and (2) my attempts to play blackjack there.
There was some mention in the post about suffering the consequences of returning to where you are barred -- My question is, what are those consequences, legally? Can they now have you arrested for a "second offense"? Or what? And are there actual cases where the consequences have gone through the entire gamut (e.g. civil lawsuits, criminal court, or whatever) and how did the matter end up? Are the consequences civil, or criminal? In particular, are there key elements (such as how many return attempts are made, level of play, pro vs recreational advantage player, etc. etc.) that seem to make a difference in how it might be handled? (understanding, of course, that every casino and every case is different in some way, but are there some common elements?).
The reason I ask is just curiosity, since I myself had returned to casinos where I'd been barred, and played again, and really never thought too much of it, except that they might ask me to leave again. In fact, I was never asked to avoid entering the casino, only to stop playing blackjack there ("you are welcome to play the slots or shoot craps, etc." was a common statement, although one host added "but you don't strike me as a crapshooter").
I don't know if there are "levels" of trespass, some barring you completely from entry into the facility for any reason, and others just barring you from certain games -- and I don't know if the law backs up such "levels", or if the lower levels are just a "courtesy" (in quotes because the term doesn't apply very well in this context) extended by the casino instead of a total "do not come in here."
I probably never would have tried returning again after the "second" barring, so I don't know if there's a point where one crosses some line and is in more serious trouble than just being asked to leave or stop playing.
Incidentally, I do agree that if someone is trespassed and returns, they should not expect to be allowed to play again (since no one has an absolute right to play to begin with, apparently, at least in Nevada), and depending on the answers above, I may also agree that they should reasonably expect a possibility of some "consequences" of their attempted return. The question is, what are those consequences... e.g., if I get a speeding ticket and then speed again, I can reasonably expect to get another ticket - sooner or later - and if I get "caught" enough times (the penalties come with getting caught, not with speeding), I can expect the consequences to go beyond getting tickets. I know the ticket doesn't mean that I shouldn't have been speeding that time, but that it's OK to try it again in the future.
And of course, if someone's making big money with their advantage play, the risks they may be willing to take in terms of consequences may be justified, and as long as one has a reasonable way to guess what the consequences might be, including the most extreme among those, then it's up to the individual to make a judgment as to what they'll try to do, just as it's up to me to decide when to drive faster than the speed limit, and to suffer the possible consequences if I choose to drive fast.
--BG
=====================
> 2b. Re: LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning
> advantage ga
> Posted by: "Luke Fuller" kungalooosh@gmail.com
> kungalooosh
> Date: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:54 pm ((PDT))
>
> Bob said, "Nobody here found anything wrong with her doing
> it the previous
> 20 times...."
>
> That is completely false.
>
> If Laurie played in a casino, in which she was trespassed
> (whether on a
> casino offer or not), she was wrong. Period. It
> makes no difference
> whether she was 'caught' or not.
>
> Laurie and anyone else who enters an establishment after
> being barred are
> wrong for doing so and should pay the price for their
> actions.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
