cbjn reports and ethics

I order issue of CBJN about every 3 or 4 months and find it very valuable even if not always perfectly accurate. I have also been a reporter periodically and declined to submit reports to avoid the word getting out regarding a good game. But I have to shake my head and wonder about one report. The report says "very quick to bar suspected card counters".
I have played at this place for about 4 years now and I have always played a no cover, no act, table minimum to table max. For one period, the manager watched every dd cut and made sure pen was at 50% pen. One stretch they would reduce pen to about 40% pen at dd. One stretch they would pref shuffle over $100. One stretch they allowed 60% pen with no countermeasures. The staff has always been friendly and I have never been barred, backed off, etc.
What gives?

I don't have a responsiblity to offer a CBJN report on every casino/city out there. In most cases a reporter is alredy assigned. I could have offered reports to Wong (as could any qualified person) and in some cases provided a more current report than listed. I have no remote obligation to do that nor does any other person.

But when I am paid for and agree to provide a report, I provide the most accurate information I can. And I have no problem with someone making an honest make mistake in a report.

Someone posts a question on BJ21 or elswehwere asking if anyone can provide information about BJ at Acme casino in Anytown USA.

Ethical- You do not respond even though you know Acme has dd w/ 75% pen and periodically offers 2:1 on suited bj.

Unethical- You post that Amce has poor bj and is not worth playing.

It is possible that the report is completely accurate and that this place does in fact "bar suspected counters". You state that you have not been barred, but have received other types of heat. Maybe they don't suspect you of being a counter because you endured those counter-measures and (apparently) kept playing. Or maybe the PC's have a stereotype of the typical counter and you don't fit that stereotype for whatever reason.

Another possibility is that the report is inaccurate because the writer is mistaken. Maybe he/she came in, played balls-out, and got barred shortly thereafter. Maybe this place subscribes to a database and that is what did the reporter in.

A third possibility is that this place is a candy store (once you get past their tendency to hawk DD shuffles, cut pen to extremely thin levels, etc) and the reporter wants to keep this "gem" to themselves.

Only one of these three possibilities involves anything remotely unethical on the part of the reporter and given your confirmation that they implement some pretty extreme counter-measures, I am reluctant to assume that the explanation fits into that category.

That said, don't bother stopping by my favorite candy store. They sweat anything over a $5 bet and have less than 50% pen on every game. Then again, I don't report to CBJN.

when the reporter checked the tables pen was bad. When you went in pen was improved. In many places the listings are updated only a few times a year.

don't know if this meets criteria of candy store, but you have both been very helpful to blackjack players includeing myself, so here you go. can't guarentee this is still accurate but this was valid in Jan 2014 when I was backed off.

near Wyandotte, Ok. no ante.

dd, s17, das, no rsa, 1-200, 65-75% pen. good cash back and comps. not listed in CBJN. you should be able to locate based on this info but if not, let me know.

6d, das, rsa, one joker per 6 deck. house advanage about -0.3.

other promotions periodically, 2 for 1 suited, extra 25 for 6-7-8, suited, etc.