An article I found on the web...

A fun article from the web that I thought I would Share. Here is a little excerpt.

...The lawsuit asks a judge to award Franseschi $74,000 and to
force MGM to include a disclaimer on California advertising
that reads, in part: "It is the policy and practice of MGM
Mirage particularly to target skillful and/or winning players
and bar such persons from gaming at our properties; only losing
players and/or unskillful players ... are not subject to being
targeted to be barred from MGM Mirage casino properties."...

The full article can be read at:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-reodd&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040303%2F0940065094.htm&sc=reodd

It was hard to bring up earlier so here is the copy of the article:

Gambler Sues Las Vegas Casino for Barring Him

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Los Angeles lawyer who claims he was thrown out of Las Vegas last year because he was too lucky has sued MGM Mirage in a bid to force the casino to warn prospective gamblers that they can be barred for winning too much.

Ernest Franseschi Jr., a frequent gambler, accused MGM officials of surreptitiously photographing him while he played blackjack at a high-stakes table at the chain's New York New York casino last March.

Franseschi claims casino officials circulated the photo to other Las Vegas casinos after he left the blackjack table with thousands of dollars in winnings.

When he returned about an hour later to resume playing, casino officials escorted him to the door and told him he was barred for life from MGM casinos.

Franseschi, who describes himself in the lawsuit as a "better than average blackjack player," said he was ejected from three other Vegas casinos on the same day within minutes of sitting down at the blackjack tables.

He sued MGM and its casinos in Los Angeles Superior Court for invasion of privacy, defamation and allegedly violating California's unfair business practices laws.

The lawsuit asks a judge to award Franseschi $74,000 and to force MGM to include a disclaimer on California advertising that reads, in part: "It is the policy and practice of MGM Mirage particularly to target skillful and/or winning players and bar such persons from gaming at our properties; only losing players and/or unskillful players ... are not subject to being targeted to be barred from MGM Mirage casino properties."

An MGM spokesman said the company was familiar with Franseschi and his lawsuit.

"This lawsuit has no merit and we are confident we will prevail," MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman said. "We, like any other business, reserve the right to refuse service."

Franseschi, who plays blackjack as a hobby, said casino officials did not accuse him of cheating, but of counting cards to determine which had been played -- a practice that is not illegal.

"You don't even need to count cards. There are some obvious runs ... and it's patently obvious that there is nothing wrong with being able to figure that out," he said.

MGM Mirage, a top hotel and gaming company, owns and operates 14 casino resorts across the country and in Australia and the United Kingdom.

� Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

I speak of those casino people who profit by making sure only grandma and drunks are allowed to play. In the article above we get this quote:

MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman said. "We, like any other business, reserve the right to refuse service."

WELL, Guess what? This is still America and WE reserve the right to fully and completely INFORM the uninformed gamblers and casinio visitors of the world what is really going on here. IT IS NOT A FAIR GAME IF ONLY LOSERS ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY.

Moral termites such as these casino "spokesmen", mislead the public by implying that they are running a legitimate business available to all when it's really only a scam to invite those who cannot win. They make their living by scamming the elderly and ignorant.

Blackjack, as offered today, is dead. We must inform the world.

this guy needs to learn the finer points of advantage play considering he was barred from 3 other casinos in a short period of time and he returned in an hour to continue play. Longetivity is the name of the game.

we don't want LV to turn into AC.

he was barred from the other three casinos from them sharing information, the bastards (Anybody want to place odds that it was umm...ohh I dont know, other MGM-Mirage properties?).

But yeah, returning so quickly after a nice win is just plain stupid.

Those who speak of longevity at the very high levels in LV are comedians. That he did not play it the best way is a small part of the issue. As for some people it will take us laying 11:10 on winning bets before they understand what the game is now compared to what it used to be. It is now a virtual charade unless you play very small. This makes it difficult for out of town players because they must play higher to get comped to avoid paying for expensive rooms. Play long at a high limit table in LV in these times and you are history. I play a much different game today.

To let others get a real view of what goes on when playing the white chips or the bumble bees, perhaps we need a separate page for the incredible stories.

We need to keep tabs on this case; Franseschi v. MGM etal

He may not be a real pro. He may merely only know that he should bet more after he sees a more than usual amount of small cards. It's not rocket science. I got barred 3 times before I could actually keep a numbered count. Maybe he doesn't even know anything other than BS. Maybe he just got lucky.

We need to watch this case. We need to find where it was filed.

LV isn't anything special the way it is and what it's becoming. It needs some fixing.

We need to approach the gaming board and the legal profession with how this statement by casinos is being misrepresnted:

"We reserve the right to refuse service."

In "any other business" they are usually refusing service to the roudy, disruptive, or unkempt. Only in casinos are those conditions OK (if losing)but they want to stretch this to refusing service to people who act properly and do no wrong. Their case gets worse.

It appears to be a breach of some kind here and we will have to consult some of out lawyer members. What would be the case if someone who was invited to play (as has happened to me) then fell behind, then was barred? I did nothing wrong other than to be identified. It appears to me that their invitation to me was an implied offer to play. In fact, nowehere in their invitaion did it say it could pull the plug at anytime. In further fact, an average tourist would not reasonably assume that such an event could happen to me or anyhone else. It was with that reasonable presumption that I accepted their invitaion. They have breached this implied promise, maybe at a greater cost to me. Maybe my alternative (which I passed up to go to the casino for the weekend) was to go to Europe for a week. THEY have ruined my vacation through breaching their invitation at no fault of my own.

Someday this will be litigated.

They will not tell you that they bar you because you are a winning player. They will provoke an incident in which they treat you unfairly and on your loud protests, they will kindly tell you that you are being disruptive and they bar you on these grounds.
It happened to me and probably to many others and I don't see what a lawyer can do about that.
Anyway in most cases, the cost of a lawsuit will be much higher than the prejudice caused by the barring.

Francis Salmon

> Someday this will be litigated.

Ken Uston ring a bell? At least your civil rights are still intact in AC. Course the card games suck, but that's not the point (oh wait, that WAS the point.)

And by the way, "a breach of service!?" They are not refusing to sell you a car, sell you a show ticket, or serve you breakfast; they are refusing to gamble with you.

"But yeah, returning so quickly after a nice win is just plain stupid."

But after reading the article, this guy sounds like a ploppy who got lucky, won some money and got kicked out.

It has always been implied that anyone of the non-cheating public is invited to play. Nowhere have I ever seen a disclaimer saying otherwise. I have never even seen a sign or any kind of disclaimer stating anything such as; 'NO CARD COUNTING IS ALOWED IN OUR CASINO'.

Another issue is: When a player sits down at a game in a casino, what is implied as being the object of the game for the player? What is implied as being the object of the game for the dealer/house? It is well know and common knowledge to all that the object is to beat the opponent fairly and to WIN MONEY! Isn�t it also implied that it is okay to win or lose as much money as we want or allow ourselves so to do?

They have breached this implied promise, maybe at a greater cost to me.

Maybe at a REALLY great loss. What if a player was invited to play in a million dollar BJ tournament and along the course of the qualification rounds, was 86�ed from the casino? Once I got 86�ed from regular play after entering a tourney and they told me to go and get back my entry fee. Which I did. Is that damage? I�m sure it is regardless of the fact they gave the $ back. I lost my chance to win the tourney! I also lost my chance and opportunity to win $ on any of the regular play games including BJ. I could have done something else more constructive with my time. That also stands reason given all the time and effort invested in learning to play.

If we worry too much about what Uston did to AC, we're dead. AC needs to be reformed too.

Let's join forces and fight the fight with the same passion and courage as did William Wallace.

Stealth Bomber

We need to find where it was filed.

The article states it was filed in LA Superior Court.

This isn't life or death my friend.

Don't dis-honor the heroic efforts and reputations of men like William Wallace who were fighting and dieing for their very freedom and that of their families ...

... by equating them to those of you who feel a little put upon that the casino's won't always agree to bet with you under the conditions only you approve of.

Your right, AC does need re-form. Re-form from the conditions imposed upon it by indivduals very much like yourself.

Regardless of it not being a life or death situation, millions of people and billions of dollars every year are being subjected to the deliberate misleading by the casino industry.

With the Internet I can spoeak out and disseminate info on a wide range if I decide to, or if an organized group decided to..and we could stll play.

REGARDLESS, we have the power to embarass and humilate these casino chalatans into a peaceful coexistnece. As it is now they want to benefit from "21 is a beatable game" but not us. Unfair say I.

I think S.R. expects us to continue to bend over forever for these people. Maybe he is one them. If not S.R., let's here from you. What should we all do or not do and why? You have our undivided attention.

S.R., you don't seem to notice how lopsided it really is. Do you think the big casinos would quit if they had to give a little more back to their patrons? It is apparent to me that they make way more $ than they need to be content with their operations.