Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
Any business, open to the public and offering a service, should not be able to pick and choose its customers. The only exception to this would be the customers wanting something specific that the business doesn't offer. Most gamblers, AP or not, are not asking casinos for any special treatment.
I have always agreed with this in principal. The business involves games of chance. The casino gets to set the rules so that they are at an advantage. Then they still want to not allow those few that can beat them playing fairly within the rules that the casino sets?

The casinos want to play against losing players only. How about if a football team only wanted to play against the teams with losing records? Would that work?

Now unfortunately, I did say I have always agreed in principal. The fact is the casinos and casino industry is going to protect themselves one way or another. I grew up with 2 different models. My early years in New Jersey, where the casino weren't allowed to pick and choose their customers and protected themselves by offering crappy games and conditions to all, and the last decade of my play here in Nevada, where they can pick and choose, which means players have to learn to play the cat and mouse games and identify tolerance and comfort levels to achieve any kind of longevity. Between the two models I will take number 2 all day long.
That's good to hear Kj, because Arnold Snyder has made that same point. If you don't allow the casino to back off APs, you will force the casinos to offer worse games. Snyder and many APs think Uston ruined Atlantic City for APs with all his lawsuits. They were glad he didn't succeed in Vegas. If Uston had succeeded, he'd have destroyed Vegas for APs too.

The fact is casinos have to be given the option of "picking" their customers or they would not be able to offer games that can be beat. It's that simple. If casinos would offer the juicy blackjack games all APs cry about with a cut card way back and not take any action against an AP, that casino would be run over by APs and out of business.

This, in fact, happened in Korea I think back in the 70 or 80s. Munchkin mentioned it on one of his GWAE podcast. He said APs would come into the casino and camp out at tables and go from table min to table max, and it was against the law for the casinos to do anything about it. Munchkin said you could see that wouldn't last long, and it didn't. The government had to change their laws, or they would have had to start subsidizing casinos.

Common sense tells you casinos have to have the option to back off APs or that wouldn't be able to offer games that can be beat. This is something a lot of APs struggle to understand. Arnold Snyder gets it. He does a good job explaining this in some of his books. He gets it probably as well as any person in his position. Even Don Johnson recongized casinos have to be able to back off APs

That's why Snyder has always said the key is being able to get away with it...it is not learning the math behind it. He's said something like he'd rather teach an actor to count, rather than a math nerd to act. Point being acting and getting away with it is more important than learning the skills to do it.

If an AP can't understand that then they shouldn't be doing this. Or they could just go to some gambling forum and form a grip group and complain about casinos, which is what a lot of them do. Lol.