A big lawsuit award awaits the lucky player

who can prove that the casinos passed around photos or other negative information about him resulting in him being baked off. The casinos are liable if their actions against a player denies him his right to make a living. We are not speaking of barring from their own property. They now are trying to interfere with third parties. Just like backrooming stopped once the lawsuits began so will photo sharing.

Many companies will never give a negative recommendation for any former employee because of the lawsuit that would surely follow. This is similar to this situation.

Next step is finding an attorney who will take the case on a contingency basis. That won't be easy. I've been part of three different groups that contributed in an attempt to pursue this issue in court. Nothing ever got off the ground. If you get something going for real I will contribute.

Didn't they back off a counter in the first episode and then fax his info out to other casinos to let them know he was in town?

To bad the show wasn't "reality" as they claimed, however I would suspect it could help establish the practice as SOP.

at Hard Rock in Vegas during some documentary on casinos. We need very little in proof as far as that goes as the Vegas SIN is very well known. And in the case of Griffin and Biometrica, both the publisher and the contributing photographer can be held liable. The photographers are the casinos themselves, and that is where the money is. So they are the ones that will fork over big eventually.

It is unlikely the big case will involve a professional player or ordinary recreational bj card counter. More likely they will one day make the mistake of doing this to some very wealthy person or person of influence who simply knows how to count cards and does it for fun occasionally. It will then make newspapers and this person won't care how much they have to spend to pursue it legally. The casinos will then lose more money than what ever imagined money they've saved through their illegal tactics.

are the hot set-up for us. We need to take pictures of things that are illegal or inappropriate. Something should be done with the info acquired.

While it may not be as simple as it appears today, many legal experts believe that what I said is correct. As more and more case law in this area goes through the courts it will be just a matter of time before such a case is made. One of the reasons it has not gone forward to this point is because the player deprived of playing was not able to show substantial damages. If a player could show a regular $100,000 plus annual income, then there are many damages to sue for over a player's career.

In the case of Tommy Hyland and his teams it appears that the problem is that they would have to identify those involved in their operations to take a case forward and they do not want to do that. As an individual I would accept a huge court award in lieu of not playing if that were the case.

This will eventually happen, just a matter of time.

There are other techinical problems but I seriously doubt this is one of them. A lawsuit with some names and pictures would do very little to inhibit these players. Most are already well known, have been in Griffin and on numerous SIN flyers, and most have numberous backoffs. Serious players know that it would be in their long term best interest to go ahead with any suit with a high probability of success.Hyland has money and has tried numerous angles.

But something with a great financial cost and a minimal chance of success is just not positive ev. The cost likely far exceeds what would be optimal for most bankrolls when you consider the risk/reward ratio.

Use of image is well established in publishing law. The wrong avenues have been explored as far as legal action, in my opinion.

Giving out private financial information without permission is also illegal. I know casinos do quite a bit of this as I get offers for pre-approved platinum credit cards sent to me in the names of my casino aliases all the time.

I am interested in establishing alias(es) for my casino play. I am not interested in breaking any laws, but could you direct me to any sources of info on how to establish aliases? It seems most casinos require a photo id, so I guess that is my first step. Any help would be appreciated.

Paladin Press sells many books on the subject. The methods range from perfectly legal to blatently illegal. They also publish books related to other topics of interest to counters, such as disguise techniques, storing large sums of cash safely, use of offshore accounts, and many other contraversial topics that have both legitimate and illegal applications.

I bought a publication called "ID by Mail" and it was only a pub with mulitple advertisements to purchase other books. The dang thing set me back $20.00! I don't want to buy MORE advertisements, I want useful information. Do you know the best place to find that?

Purhaps you or others here could recommend a specific publication(s)

Thanking you in advance,

Radar

(btw, thanks JB for steering me here)

You wrote:

While it may not be as simple as it appears today, many legal experts believe that what I said is correct. As more and more case law in this area goes through the courts it will be just a matter of time before such a case is made.

Could you cite one or two of these "many legal experets" who agree with you. It would aslo help if you culd provide a reference to where they said that?

BTW, is your claim based upon State Law or Federal Law. If State Law, are your experts commenting on Nevada.

came from an attorney friend (and longtime 21 player) who has discussed this with other attorneys. Their consensus view is that this is a winnable case and will eventually be pursued when a case with substantial damages (loss of large demonstrated income over several years) is presented. As for what specific law, he gave me his legal opinion not quotations from statute books or case law.

that I would have made at least twice as much money if not for these flyers. I struggle to get in 400 to 500 hours of play per year. Without information sharing I know I could play 1000 to 1200 hours per year easily. I don't know exactly how I'd go about proving this.

But use of one's image for commercial purposes with out a signed release is a crime whether it costs you money or not. We are private citizens. We are not public figures or celebrities who are exempt from this protection.

It is one thing for a lawyer to agree with you. It is quite another for him to say, "Hell yes, I'll take the case on a contingency basis. This is a slam dunk."

is providing a case with substatial damages where the player does not being made public. If you claim you make less than 6 figures few will be interested. The big money for a long establidshed player will get the contingency. This is not as difficult or expensive as a personal injury case, as the facts are evident.

If I were very conservative in the estimates, say I would have gotten 200 hours of play more per year for the last six years that would be a few hundred thousand of expectation. Pro players seldom play under their real name. Why on earth would they mind it being made public? You could get your face on the evening news with a big caption that read "card counter" under it and the chances are 50:50 at best that it would cost you a single backoff if you played in Vegas two weeks later.

This is an overall affect, not the affect of a single case of flyering. I'll go to some town that has 3 or 4 casinos. I'll get 6 hours of play in at one of them and get backed off. Then I figure that over the next two days, before going home, I can put in 4 or 5 hours at each of the other 3 casinos. But at each I'm backed off as soon as I sit down because of this illegal communication. So it costs me 10 to 15 hours, two or three thousand dollars, on that one trip. And it may cost me another 20 hours of play that I could have gotten at the other casinos in town latter that year. This happens several times per year to serious active players.

I am not interested in recovering lost income. I am interested in putting an end to the practice. It is blatantly illegal. Further, I would have no trouble raising lots of money for legal fees and expenses from like minded pro gamblers if the right attorney presented the right plan in the right jurisdiction that looked like a winner.

People who are serious enough that they need such information should be connected with circles of serious advantage players and would not have to discuss this type of thing in public. Nobody who has really intelligent answers is going to post such information here, nor email it to a stranger. Work on developing your circle of private contacts.

to think that in NY if you bring a case and lose you are not liable for the 'winners' legal fees ?

If this is so does this same rule apply anywhere else in the US ?

thanx

I see the error of my ways and understand, fully, what you are saying...

Still learning, obviously.

Radar