Forgive the cross post -- some read only the private GC pages, others only the free pages, and some read both. I apologize in advance for my efforts to reach a large audience with this essay.
Dear Blackjack Community,
The issue of casinos barring and harassing high level proficient players, and our possible counter-actions, is one that recurs from time to time on these boards. The range of proactive ideas that have been brought forth, and the counter arguments, are well known. Nevertheless, I want to summarize several of the counter-arguments before I continue.
To begin with, some argue that any action taken against casinos, to further the rights of proficient players, simply violates the basic right of casinos, as private businesses, to do what they wish to counters. The argument is that, as users of a service provided by a business, the business has the right to refuse service to anyone, and thus we have no implicit rights.
Another common argument is that any action taken against casinos that is successful will only lead to the further deterioration of the game, in the manner that �Uston destroyed New Jersey.�
Many who might otherwise support such action argue that anyone involved in such an action is automatically well known to the casinos, and thus his days of high-level play are over.
There is the argument that any action, whether in Nevada court, or in the Nevada legislative branch, will automatically fail, as these organizations are �owned by the casinos.�
And finally there is the argument that the games will continue to get worse, because the casinos don�t owe the public beatable games to begin with. Witness the onslaught of SF-21, 6-5 Single Deck, CSM�s and the like. Any games that happen to be beatable at the present moment must be preserved.
In spite of all of these intelligent, and well-formulated arguments, some of which are quite persuasive, I continue to believe that such an action (legal or legislative) is possible, can be successful, and may improve the quality of the game.
The game is already effectively dead for high-level players, and the rest of us green chippers make do with the crumbs we are tossed. A professional wage is simply impossible for all but an elite few as the game stands at present. The damage proficient players could do to the casino bottom line, if unleashed in mass, is insignificant. There is simply no precedent for a group of skilled participants in an activity to be barred in favor of the unskilled. In no other business is an entire class of law-abiding citizens forbidden from participating in a public activity offered by the business.
Many claim that it was Uston who was responsible for destroying blackjack in New Jersey. In fact, instead of casinos having the ability to take direct action against proficient players, their actions were restricted. The games may be poor, but they are still profitable. The quality of the games does not owe to Uston. There is no competition between the three corporations that own the casinos in New Jersey. They have steadily raised the table minimums, while reducing comps, effectively increasing the bottom line to the point where the AC casinos now out-gross the major LV Strip casinos. But the main reason is lack of competition. The fact that there are no other games that can compete with NJ means that these casinos can get away with what they are doing. A similar situation is occurring in Detroit, where that city�s casinos now have a higher per/player take than any other casinos in the country.
Casino harassment of proficient players continues. Some casinos are taking actions against proficient players that are more than simple barrings, the behavior of these casinos is illegal. I have posted two such accounts on my website, www.cardcounter.com. With this background, I shall now discuss the possible avenues of direct action.
Legislative action
All businesses are regulated. The first line of regulation is the "Business license" which sets forth terms that a business must abide by in order to keep doing its thing. This license can be revoked. Another line of regulation is the tax law, which is enforced by IRS. Yet another, State laws regarding business, which are upheld by the courts and law enforcement agencies.
Gambling is a major public issue, and it takes legislative action for such businesses to be sanctioned. The state is not an abstract entity. The state is "the people of the state." The State permits and regulates gambling, but the public's interest is rarely addressed. The casinos have their lobbyists, political connections and attorneys (more than we can possibly know) - all a business expense to protect their interests. The public has little to no one to fight for them (save the anti-gambling lobby, which is certainly not a position we would back).
Casino Corporations cannot just go into any state and open their business. The argument that states that a company/corporation can do what they want (harass or bar law abiding customers), is like saying the meat industry can sell tainted meat, the auto industry defective cars, the drug industry - anything they wish to put on the market, Wall Street firms without the SEC, and so on.
Government regulation is a necessity to the fair operation of businesses and corporations in society. The Gaming industry has skated for a good while without public input or public protection. It is absurd that a person can be trespassed at a casino or hotel because he has gray matter.
We can go to the Legislature and Gaming Commission. We can ask that they set rules or create laws that forbid casino management from discriminating against law-abiding players.
It will be state law, federal law and State Commission Rules & Regulations that will ultimately affect proficient players and the general gambling public. Thus the correct approach is political attack. We should forget thoughts of pickets, law suits, or boycotts. It is very hard to get people to take direct action of this sort. Lobbying only takes a few people.
The casino corporations know about this vulnerability and that is why they hire their people to lobby at all levels of government. They appreciate "Governmental Control" of gaming, as long as they can turn the screws on the key people in the government. But the public has major interests in gambling as well. The issue of gambling stirs the blood of political constituencies and thus the media. It is not a silent issue, it is a major issue -- and we can use the same political machinery used by the mega-gambling corporations for our cause just as well.
Legal action
The problem we face is that we have no "Bill of Rights." Our civil rights are being violated -- we are being discriminated against on a daily basis in casinos. Discrimination occurs when a class of law-abiding people are systematically excluded from a public activity. We are made to feel like crooks and cheats for having skill. As a result we have to take measures that cut into EV and decrease the pure pleasure we derive from playing the game. In addition there is the humiliation of being approached by armed guards and being questioned and interrogated in public view.
In Uston's day many issues of civil liberties had not yet been won in court. Today it is much different, and a new case may find much more support. The issue for proficient players is if such an action would in effect ruin the game. That is, do we have to take what we can get -- be thankful for the morsels of quality BJ we are tossed? Let me argue that such a case would not affect quality.
The experts would testify to the bottom line monetary damage the counters could do. It would become clear that the response of the casinos in terms of the measures they are taking against counters is out of proportion to this damage. The impeccable credentials of the team assembled would bring credibility to this group, the way other sports are made credible by the excellence of their professionals.
The case would get a lot of publicity. The proficient players would get public sympathy as fighting the "evil money mongering casinos." This public awareness would also bring attention to the poor quality of the games, and the weakness of the new variants, as experts testified. This general education of the public would bring a backlash against the casinos, effectively forcing them to reinstate the quality games they had even 5 years ago.
The judge would rule that the casinos must allow everyone to play the games as they currently exist, and the public would expect the good games to return. In addition, education about the game would force the casinos to offer better (not worse) games, as the public started demanding decent conditions.
Other forms of action
There are a few other lines of attack, including media campaigns, picketing, direct conversations, and lobbying. Although such actions are possible, they do not go directly to the source of change, and as such are slower and more likely to fail in and of themselves. However, they can certainly be used as components of a larger campaign.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay is not idle dreaming. There is an active group of highly proficient blackjack players that are seriously bent on taking action. This group is expanding, and contains top players, scholars, businessmen, law enforcement agents, lawyers, and others. However, as this group understands the possible repercussions on the blackjack community, and the delicacy, timing, financial, and legal support such an action requires, they are not in a hurry. They wish to do this the right way. They want to restore player�s rights while maintaining or improving the quality of the game, and getting the monkey of �cover� off of everyone�s back.
--The Mayor
