Why not ban casino markers altogther?

Casino companies love to call their casinos "stores". No other retail store that I recall will issue you a check when you wish to buy merchandise or services. Sure, they jump all over you to accept an instant application for a "store" credit card, but payment of balances on those store credit cards is governed by Federal banking law, not state or local laws. And non-payment of overdue credit-card balances does not carry the threat of prison sentences or non-forgiveness in bankruptcy proceedings, right?

AB

of a small, very small, percentage of the patronage spoil the "store" for the rest of us - as a user of markers for many many years now, I for one can attest to the value and benefits of using markers instead of constantly withdrawing and redepositing cash from the humble account, carrying that cash around or stashing it away, risking the loss of said cash through misplacement or thievery, or finding yourself in a casino venue unexpectedly with scarce funds - remember, the usual marker "minimum" is at least $500, so most marker players are usually playing off of a larger than average bank and should have the financial sophistication to understand the process

If instead of handing you a check, they brought to your table a small electronic credit card processing terminal, and then they processed your card in your presence. You could sign the form, then be given chips to equal the amount of whatever the amount entered on the credit card slip! You would have a copy of the slip for your records.

You would still have the same convenience as now, but with the additional protection of Federal credit card regulations as opposed to check-writing regulations.

AB

is the "vig" the credit card companies extract - moreover, I could possibly get potentially worthless airline miles for using my card in such fashion, without the vig, you are right, I'd just hit the money machines scattered throughout the casinos, assuming that they would dispense sufficient amounts for my bankroll (many machines have a ceiling on extraction amounts for any 24 hour period, often as low as $200)

The casino would have to pay a small percentage to the credit card company, but how would that affect you in any meaningful way (unless you carried a high balance over more than 30 days)?

AB

I have read our posts in the thread below, as well this one. And I want to say that I think you make some good arguments.

But it seems to me that these are arguments for brining back debtors prison. That is, it seems to me that these same arguments could be made for any form of credit. If Master Card could throw people in jail, then I have no doubt that interests rates would be lower for everybody. The fact that defaulting on these debuts is not criminal "spoils it" for all of us.

What I think you think to address is why debts owed to casinos should enjoy special privilege, indeed the highest privilege, relative to other creditors?

While I do think our social policy regarding debt collections are a bit too lenient, I do think that bringing back debtors prison would be going too far.

sum it all up very well. Why indeed should casino/stores be afforded these special privileges?

AB

I really do not understand why casino debtors do enjoy the protections of federal law.

After reading the thread tonight, I went to my file of recent casino mail. I had two really sweet letters soliciting me to apply for "casino credit". They included a an application form. It is titled "CREDIT APPLICATION". It looks just like a legitimate credit/load application. It uses terms like "CREDIT LIMIT".

One of these letters is from a Midwest casino, and I am not quite sure what the laws are there. It may actually treated as credit, and not as euphemized check-cashing.

But the other one is from a Vegas casino. It extols the virtues of credit, pointing out that in LV, "Check cashing is a very difficult process". Then explains that if you use your "credit line", you have30 days to pay it off with no-interest.

In my view, this is clearly an offer for a loan. "No interest for 30 days" is not check-cashing. I really do not understand how this could not be considered a loan under current law.

I'm very much opposed to the proposed bankruptcy amendments that (fortunately) have been kicking around Congress for 4 years now since those amendments are very anti-consumer and are very credit card oriented (who are the lobbyists promoting the changes) - all I'm saying in my posts is that the casinos have (a) structured their "credit" transactions so as to legally fit within a criminal statute, and (b) at least in Nevada, have had statutes enacted that include casino markers within the "hot check" laws - now, query, do you believe anyone supporting criminal penalties for passing a hot check is also a supporter of debtor's prisons? If so, then most every merchant that I know is a debtor's prison advocate. If someone purchases a product by intentionally giving you a bad check, hasn't that person in essence stolen your product through deception or fraud? Why do you believe purchasing casino chips through signing a marker the same situation?

every credit card cash machine I know charges a fee to extract $$$$, usually a hefty fee -hence, I avoid them like the plague

I want to answer you question:

now, query, do you believe anyone supporting criminal penalties for passing a hot check is also a supporter of debtor's prisons? If so, then most every merchant that I know is a debtor's prison advocate. If someone purchases a product by intentionally giving you a bad check, hasn't that person in essence stolen your product through deception or fraud? Why do you believe purchasing casino chips through signing a marker the same situation?

The issue is: What is the difference between a Loan and a Bad Check. Why can't MasterCard define all their transactions as "Checks", and then try to imprison anyone who defaults?

As I mentioned in other threads, I have in my hand now a letter from a LV host encouraging me to apply for "Credit" at this casino, and telling me that if I take out a marker I have Thirty days to pay it off, with no interest!

This is an offer for a loan! It should be treated as such.

If the player came in within their regular checkbook and wrote a check, then I think it should be treated as a check. If a person borrows money, it should be treated as a loan. It seems to me that markers fit into the second category and not the first.

They offer you ability to use a marker as you describe. Then after you play awhile they bar you. Would the legal system say taht you do not have to pay off losses if they denied your play?

Bert

Setting aside the (hugely) different legal framework of loans and checks in various countries, I submit that when I write out a check to MathProf, MathProf is supposed to be able to cash it any time he wants, even immediately. If my check is bad, then I have clearly written out that check fraudulently, since I knew that it would bounce. (I am supposed to know my account balance now, when I write out the check.)

But when I take out a loan from MathProf or a bank, I'm supposed to repay it at some later time. Even if that time is tomorrow, it's a different, distant time, from the time that we agree to the loan. I have every right to invoke a change in circumstances, when I'm unable to pay it, and although my excuses will have to be scrutinized in order to be proven as being in good faith, I don't think that I can be acused for fraud, at least not before a thorough examination. This is because I can plead that now, when I write out the loan repayment, I don't know for sure what will happen tomorrow. I trust that I will be able to repay, and that's why I'm agreeing, but this is a trust expressed in good faith (unless proven otherwise).

(Casino markers are to be treated as loans, in my opinion.)

a casino marker is, in effect,an extension of "credit" to you by the casino because until the marker is paid (whether by getting it back through the payment of chips or cash or by the bank to which it is presented) the casino has not received a contemporaneous exchange of cash for chips - if you want to be even more technical, when you give the casino cash for chips, you have in effect extended the casino "credit" since until they cash the chips for you, they have your money and you only have some intrinsically worthless clay discs that are not legal tender - so, referring to "marker privileges" as credit is not entirely incorrect, though I agree the casinos use the term very loosely - the same is true for a check, until the check clears, the person accepting the check has technically extended you "credit" for your purchase - you often hear folks here in Texas refer to "instant credit" or "immediate credit" privileges at their banks, which means that the bank will allow them to withdraw cash from their account or honor their own checks written against the account before the checks they have deposited into the account have cleared (in other words, before the account contains "collected funds") - as I've stated, the "criminal" element of either transaction is a function of intent and knowledge, to-wit whether at the time the check or marker is issued you knew or should have known that it would not be paid - now, addressing the more traditional credit transaction, if you borrow money or purchase goods on credit terms without any intention of repaying or misrepresenting your financial ability to repay, then you can be convicted of fraud, and the criminal penalties for such fraud are much more severe than the hot check penalties - course, it is much more difficult to prove that you had no intent or ability to repay the "credit"

and reverse the "credit" roles here - if (a) a casino simply refused to cash the chips it had issued to you and for which you had handed over your hard earned greenbacks, or (b) knowing that it did not have sufficient cash in its cage or elsewhere to cash your chips at the time you "buy in" at the table, it nevertheless takes your Jacksons, issues you chips, and when you go to cash out tells you that it doesn't have the money to pay you? Is there anyone on this board that thinks either of the foregoing scenarios is merely a civil debt collection matter and shouldn't be criminal? As mentioned in a post below, when you receive chips for your cash you are effectively extending the casino "credit" for a brief period until the chips are cashed (I read somewhere that for many years, even in Nevada, the casinos had no legal obligation to redeem their own chips because the courts would not enforce gambling obligations, but that has changed now) - if you don't believe either of those scenarios should be criminal, then perhaps you should also revoke the laws protecting the patronage from casino misfeasance, such as requiring casinos to maintain adequate cash reserves to redeem chips, while you are revoking the hot marker statutes since in some ways its the converse situation - and, can't you folks tell I'm having loads of fun with this topic and have probably exceeded my bj21 good will credit limit with my ad nauseum posts?

I agree with a lot of what you have said. I realize that when you buy checks from a casino, you are essentially giving them credit. That is why they call them checks.

I don't know about your comments on instant credit. I see stores up here periodically advertise "instant credit". I think what they do is actually open a credit line for you. It isn't "instant", it may take them 5 minutes to run a credit check. But with our modern electronic society, they can actually evaluate a credit application in a few minutes.

I also am aware that there are criminal penalties for fraud in taking out loans under false pretenses. However, in the non-casino world, this seems to be very hard to prove and is almost never prosecuted.

Many American are completely incompetent with respect to the management of their own finances. A person who winds up in bankruptcy or has other consumer debt problems typically has, at some point, borrowed money which they can never repay. They get into trouble, and they start borrowing card A to buy the interest on Card B. They borrow from card C to pay back card A, etc, There comes a point where a realistic balance sheet would show that they have simply have more debt than their income would ever allow them to pay off. But they keep borrowing. I don't think we send such people to prison, claiming they "defrauded" the credit companies.

Again I think that it should be harder for casinos to prove fraud than for conventional creditors. Master Card doesn't give people free drinks in an attempt to get them to borrow more money. Sears doesn't remove all the clocks from their stores, in the hopes of keeping people buying longer.

I am particularly bothered by the alcohol. Imagine I give you lots of free drinks, and encourage you to borrow more and more money from me. Then when you can't pay it all back, I turn around and accuse of fraud! I think I should be laughed out of court.

But now if I were a casino.

First, I appreciate your posts on this subject. I think it is an interesting topic to discuss, and it useful having a casino shill here to give us their side of the picture. : ) (I hope you take an offense at being called a shill. None is intended. In Detroit, that is what call "Devils Advocates" : )

There are a couple of things which distinguish you case from the marker case. One of which is that casinos are a business; they are not consumers. We do treat business transactions differently than consumer transaction. Business are usually required much more competence in managing their affairs than consumers are. We have many laws that protect consumers which do no apply to business transactions.

Secondly, even in your are I think the incarceration of individuals involved would be difficult to prove. I am not completely familiar with the procedures which regulators impose regarding the monitoring of cash reserves. But I presume that casino officials have to file some regular formal reports on this subject. If a casino official deliberately and willfully filed a falsified report, then I think that person should be criminally liable.

But most consumer cases do not involve the deliberate and willful filing of false reports. Let us take a closer analogy. Suppose that the casino has adequate cash reserves when they take their regular inventory. But all of sudden they have a run. A whale who played there last monthly comes in, doesn't play, but cashing a lot of checks. Then a team of hi-rolling card counters descends on the places. All the casino officials go berserk trying to figure what is going on, and they don't realize that the team has won so much that they no longer have reserves on hand. Then someone hits a big jackpot on a slot machine.

I can see where a casino might slip into a situation where they can't redeem the checks. I think it would be very hard to criminally prosecute the officials, since it seems they were just guilty of negligence and not willful fraud.

Again, I don't understand all the procedures and regulations which apply here, so some of the details of may post may not right.

I appreciate your posts regarding the detailed thinking of what logic is behind these casino transactions. Makes sense to me now why they call chips "checks". If nothing else, it makes you more aware of the legal implications on both sides. Thanks.
Good Luck,
Slowhand

though, as my Green Chip "member" bio has stated for many years in the interest of full disclosure, I have represented large publicly held casinos in legal matters, including "marker" issues - there are a great number of areas (barring card counters being the most significant, probably) where I believe the casinos act unconscionably and I like nothing better than separating casinos (including those I have represented) from their benjamins through legitimate means

as for protecting the consumer from deceptive business practices, I am all for that as well - I just happen to think that the "marker" practice is deceptive - for crying out loud, just read the damn marker sometime or, better yet, read Comp City by Max Rubin, who explains the whole process excellently - and, since most casino credit applicants have sizable bank accounts, I don't "buy" their lack of financial sophistication to understand what a marker truly is