I've been getting negative reactions from pit bosses. Should I break down and get a players card? To me, it might be less suspicious to get one and play how I want than to keep refusing.
raises red flags IMHO. Get a players card and enjoy the comps.
Playing anonymously makes very little sense unless you are banned under your own name.
You may be able to get a card in another name depending on your act and the location. Some places are religious about getting picture ID, while other places are less stringent. This tends to be more of an art than a science.
I was once pulled over for speeding and had absolutely no ID on me. The police officer gave me a warning and let me go, even though I couldn't even prove that I was a licensed driver. If one can talk their way out of showing ID to a police officer, it should not be too difficult to talk your way out of showing ID to get a card that is primarily used to track your betting action and award comps.
For bonus points, try to get a card in the name of Kenneth Uston or Stanford Wong.
one is female!
Especially, if you are a female caucasion who manages to get a Stanford Wong card.
I prefer to use the name "Bill Bennet" over "Stanford Wong".
You could try for Yuri Dumass. The PCs may be irritated if they figure that one out.
;)
Well...I have his autograph!
I don't get Bill Bennet though
Bill Bennett is a right wing wacko pundit who some consider an arbiter of conservative so-called family values and personal virtue who was exposed as a hypocrite last year in that he lost millions gambling in Vegas. He was always keen on decrying the lack of virtue and the moral turpitude of anyone who didn't tow the Republican party line. His adventures in Vegas pretty much destroyed or at least greatly undermined his credibility with much of the public he was so found of preaching to. I guess his vices are more moral than yours, mine, or ours.
To me, the Bennet case primarily was an indictment on casino management. Casino's are fond of their reputation for discretion (aka "what happens here stays here"), but this case exposed the fact that they either have very poor controls over personal information of their customers, or worse, that they would intentionally use this information to settle a political vendetta.
Sure, Bennet doesn't always live up to the values he preaches. Nobody does. This includes the casino managers and their value of discretion.
I'll agree that Bennet is not perfect. I don't know if anyone ever thought he was, least of all his enemies. My personal belief is that only a newborn child is perfect.
...this case exposed the fact that they either have very poor controls over personal information of their customers, or worse, that they would intentionally use this information to settle a political vendetta.
Despite the initial bleating by Caesars PR people that Caesars would "investigate" and take "appropriate action" against the scoundrels within their company that were responsible for wrongfully disseminating the personal information about Bennett (or anyone else), nothing further has been publicly stated.
One would think that Caesars would want to publicly announce the firings, and/or the charges brought by the Gaming Control Board against the malefactors.
The subsequent silence leads an observer to believe that nothing was done, and "business as usual" continues.
Perhaps certain folks at certain Casinos were not as discrete as they should have been, but if that's the case I didn't hear about it. I followed this story fairly closely when it was hot news, and from what I gathered, there were several journalists that got wind of his high stakes trips to Bellagio, Caesar's, etc. and obtained this information through intensive investigation. I don't think casino management was exactly forthcoming with the info. But then, they had to get it somewhere, so I don't know. Certainly I agree that lack of discretion undermines the credibility and respectability of a casino.
What I personally loved, though, was seeing the wind taken out of his smug sails. Bennett's group, Empower America, has specific positions against the proliferation of casino gambling in the U.S., which from my perspective hints at least at hypocrisy. Bennett also said after exposure that he always gave a chunk of his winnings to charities after gambling, but failed to produce any evidence that would back up this boastful excuse. On the other hand, I don't think he really won very often, so if the point is moot, why even bring up the charity bit if not as a lame justification. I would have had more respect for him if he just admitted what he did and had a credible response justifying his reasons why gambling is bad for you and me, but okay for him.
Full disclosure, I am a Democrat and I suported Clinton. I definitely have an axe to grind with the right wing radicals who are taking our country in its current direction. (As if that weren't obvious)...
Again, not making excuses, but if their "investigation" turned up no credible leads on who might have leaked it, that could explain why there were no further public statements. If someone gave that info away to the press, I doubt they would step right up and admit it, even when asked. Do you know of any firings or actions taken by the Gaming Control Board? Just curious...
Do you know of any firings or actions taken by the Gaming Control Board? Just curious...
If you mean specifically in the Bennett case, no I don't, which is why I commented on the deafening silence.
In other cases, yes, I know about firings of casino employees for wrongdoing. Once in a while the Gaming Control Board does take some action against crooked casino employees, though usually the action taken is pathetically inadequate. The Venetian cheating scandal is one such case. At least one of the crooked ex-employees of the Venetian is still in a management position in a casino in Nevada. At least two of the other crooks are running a casino in New Mexico. The Venetian fired all four of the dishonest executives, but Gaming did not attempt to criminally prosecute them, and did not even revoke their gaming work cards.
For the record, I don't like Mr. Bennett either. But that's not the point --- what was done to him could have been done to anyone.
I don't have any idea about what the law is when it comes to matters of privacy. Certainly staff cheats should not be tolerated in the least. When it comes to leaking personal info about customers, though, I don't know what the law states. Certainly it's unethical, to say the least, and perhaps such people should be let go on ethical grounds. But if there is a specific law governing the safeguard of personal information, I'm not aware of it.
At any rate, thanks for the 411. This is an interesting topic, to me anyway...
