I don't know current practice, which may well have changed since I visited England and its casinos over twenty years ago (maybe more). At that time, all casinos were private "clubs" - you joined and had to wait 48 hours before you could play. I was identified as a card counter (presumably, they never actually said) and on my second visit was told my "membership had been cancelled" - with no reason why, just a repetition of the fact - and was not allowed to enter.
I did get (after a long time) a refund of my membership fee (I think ten pounds). Interestingly, the rules of the game were such that it was a nearly impossible game to beat, I just wanted to experience the casino -- and the one time I played, I lost. It was my understanding that cancelling the membership was the standard approach (again, at that time) to card counters. With the rules they had, they didn't have too much to worry about; in order to beat the game, one would have needed to vary one's bet quite a bit, making you easy to identify as a card counter. In their defense, there were many wealthy patrons gambling there, and they certainly could have been at risk for big losses if they allowed a high roller to play with a big bet spread.
Of course, I've been barred from casinos in Nevada, mostly when I was losing there too; you don't have to be winning for a casino to bar you from blackjack, just need to look like you might win soon :)
--BG
2a. Re: Phil Ivey Accused of Baccarat Scheme
> Here's another article.
>
> It makes an interesting statement that casinos can withhold
> winnings if players are counting cards in blackjack. I
> wasn't aware that was the case. Maybe that is true in
> England though, in which case Ivey picked a bad place for
> this play.
>
> http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/62856/the-curious-case-of-poker-pro-phil-iveys-punto-banco-rake
>
>
