Advantage gamblers lose case against Control Board agents

[Cubswin]

Advantage gamblers lose case against Control Board agents
Las Vegas Review-Journal link (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-16-Tue-2004/business/25269414.html)

CARSON CITY -- A pair of "advantage gamblers," who use dealer or casino mistakes to increase their odds of winning, lost an appeal Monday to the Supreme Court seeking the right to sue two Gaming Control Board agents for wrongful arrest.

The court, in a brief order, agreed with a lower court ruling that Michael Russo and James Grosjean could not sue the control board and two of its agents, Roderick O'Neal and Charles Pointon, for damages stemming from an incident four years ago at Caesars Palace.

The actions of the two agents "were not so sufficiently egregious as to strip them of the qualified immunity that they are entitled to under statute," the court said.

The two men sought to sue the board and its agents after their 2000 arrests following a win of about $18,000 playing a table game at Caesars Palace.

Russo was jailed for about 12 hours and Grosjean was jailed for four days.

Grosjean is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Chicago and author of "Beyond Counting," a "how-to" gambling manual on beating the odds in casinos.

The men, through their Las Vegas attorney Bob Nersesian, have also sued Park Place Entertainment Corp., now called Caesars Entertainment, and its Caesars Palace resort. That lawsuit is in progress.

Nersesian said he was "flabbergasted" by the ruling because the claim made against the agents was that they concocted evidence, such as card-bending, to justify the arrest of the two men.

Nersesian said he will seek a U.S. Supreme Court review on the federal issues raised in the case.

The case started on April 21, 2000, when Grosjean was handcuffed and detained by security guards at Caesars Palace for allegedly cheating. Grosjean was allegedly winning a card game due to a "sloppy" dealer and his own "hole carding," where a player tries to gain an advantage by catching glimpses of a blackjack dealer's unturned cards.

In a separate incident involving other gaming control board agents, Grosjean was detained for half an hour, searched and cuffed at the Imperial Palace in Las Vegas after walking through the resort but not gambling.

In a lawsuit in that case filed against the hotel, Grosjean recently won a $400,000 judgment after a jury trial.

A jury found that Grosjean's rights were violated by the casino when security guards at the Strip hotel-casino detained him and roughed him up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court rules against two gamblers
Las Vegas Sun link (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2004/nov/16/517834031.html)

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Monday rejected the claim of two gamblers that they were illegally arrested by state Gaming Control Board agents while playing cards at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas in April 2000.

The court said agents Roderick O'Neal and Charles Pointon were immune from suit since they were carrying out their duties.

Michael Russo and James Grosjean, described in court records as skilled gamblers, started to play three-card poker after they noticed that an inexperienced dealer was exposing his hole card. Grosjean won more than $18,000 before officials of Caesars detained and questioned them.

Agents O'Neal and Pointon also questioned them and accused them of bending the cards. They were arrested on charges of cheating at gambling. Russo was in jail for 12 hours and Grosjean spend more than four days confined. They said they spent $23,000 in legal fees and the charges were dismissed without going to trial.

Russo and Grosjean filed suit against the Gaming Control Board and the agents. District Judge Lee Gates dismissed the suit and the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court said the law "grants qualified immunity to state officials who, in the discharge of their duties, exercise discretion, whether or not that discretion is abused."

In this case the court said the agents were conducting an investigation and "their actions were inherently discretionary."

Earlier this month, Grosjean won a $400,000 judgment in district court in Las Vegas against Imperial Palace for wrongful imprisonment.

The incident at Imperial Palace occurred about 10 months after the one at Caesars Palace. At that time, Grosjean was stopped, handcuffed and detained by Imperial Palace security for 47 minutes before releasing him.

[soah]

Thanks for posting this.

[bernie]

Given this is Nevada, it doesn't suprise me at all. Nor should it suprise the 'authors' of the book. But them manufacturing a shocked answer looks better. They know they were going uphill. Any lawsuit involving the gambling industry in Nevada is.

Who do they think fuels the money for the politicians and courts in that state?

No, it's not a suprise.

b

[TruePoker CEO]

I have to ask if you skipped the part about the guy winning a $400,000 judgement against the Imperial Palace in a suit against the casino in THAT incident.

These guys had an excellent attorney working for them. If you ever have a similar issue in Las Vegas, call him for counsel. (That is a purely unsolicited recommendation.) You may not win $$ against the State, but the casino may still be held liable.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask if you skipped the part about the guy winning a $400,000 judgement against the Imperial Palace in a suit against the casino in THAT incident.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i saw that. Out of how many of these types of lawsuits do you think are successful? I didn't say it was impossible. I said it wasn't suprising that they lost.

Ken Uston had some great lawyers too. His suit is pretty well documented even though it was awhile ago. Both his AC and Nevada suits. AC he won, Nevada he lost. Much still hasn't changed in that regard. The casino industry is still the biggest PAC in nevada. Their influence is all the way across the board. It goes all the way up the ladder. You can't be shocked when they rule for their bread and butter in a case.

b

[TruePoker CEO]

Bernie, the guy WON $400,000 against the IP. The TYPE of suit he won was against the casino, not the State .... but the money spends the same.

Unless, Mr. Neresian, who is a fine attorney, prevails in federal court, on some sort of due process grounds or unreasonable search & seizure ... this time around or next, suits against the State will not be won. (I happen to like the unreasonable search and seizure angle, a State cannot waive a magic wand to grant discretion to its agents to repeal the 4th Amendment as it applies to the States.)

The industry is strong in Nevada, witness the recent Hard Rock advertising dispute where it backed down the Gaming Control Board, arguing on 1st Amendment grounds. However, that logic cuts both ways .... The Gaming Control Board cannot breach the 4th Amendment either.

(Personally, I feel that the gaming industry in Nevada SHOULD be allowed to 86 someone who is counting down or whatever. Competition is the answer. Their House, their Rules.

I do however believe that 86ing someone is as far as it should go. It is not a criminal matter to play too well, but I have no issue with a casino barring anyone's play, on any grounds ezcept things like race, gender etc as forbidden by the Constituion or law. All they have to do is tell the player, "Sir, you are not allowed to play blackjack here anymore, you are welcome to play any other games or use our restaurants" I have heard that line used with great success. Other casinos allow counting, so long as you do not try and kill them, generally limiting the variance on your bet size.)

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that the gaming industry in Nevada SHOULD be allowed to 86 someone who is counting down or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are other countermeasures a casino can take other than barring someone. AC has them. They used to force a counter to flatbet as you mentioned, or no midshoe entry for instance. The idea of cardcounting and a beatable game brings lots and lots of losers who think they know how to do it to the tables. Overall, with the limits and possible countermeasures possible to use, casinos would benefit far more than they would lose to a counter.

I have an issue with not allowing someone to think at a table. It's not cheating. Even though they come as close as possible to calling it that.

BTW...Ever read the book SuperCasino?

b

[soah]

The fact that players may not be barred in Atlantic City has made the games there unbeatable. Six and eight deck shoes with poor penetration. Most counters prefer that the house have the ability to bar players, since the alternative is simply unbeatable games like those found in AC.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that players may not be barred in Atlantic City has made the games there unbeatable. Six and eight deck shoes with poor penetration. Most counters prefer that the house have the ability to bar players, since the alternative is simply unbeatable games like those found in AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the casinos in AC are not making any money on BJ tables?
Doubt it.

If you're not allowed to beat it if one has the ability, why make it beatable at all?

b

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
Given this is Nevada, it doesn't suprise me at all. Nor should it suprise the 'authors' of the book. But them manufacturing a shocked answer looks better. They know they were going uphill. Any lawsuit involving the gambling industry in Nevada is.

Who do they think fuels the money for the politicians and courts in that state?

No, it's not a suprise.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

This lawsuit was not against the gaming industry, it was filed against two individual members of the Gaming Control Board. I'm not entirely surprised by this ruling (which is that the officials have immunity from the result of their actions while doing their job). I am rather disappointed though, in that these individuals were extremely negligent in the performance of their duties and are immune from the consequences of it. They arrested two players solely on some libelous information that they had received from Griffin (that one of the players was a "known card bender".) They even went as far as to claim that there was evidence that the aces and tens in the deck had been bent, which actually would indicate that the players WEREN'T cheating -- they were playing Three Card Poker, not Blackjack. Tens are a completely worthless card in 3CP, and there is absolutely no benefit to marking them. Grosjean wrote an extensive article on the entire ordeal which you can probably find with the help of Google.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that players may not be barred in Atlantic City has made the games there unbeatable. Six and eight deck shoes with poor penetration. Most counters prefer that the house have the ability to bar players, since the alternative is simply unbeatable games like those found in AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the casinos in AC are not making any money on BJ tables?
Doubt it.

If you're not allowed to beat it if one has the ability, why make it beatable at all?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand. No players can beat the games in AC for any significant hourly rate because the rules/pen are so poor.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're not allowed to beat it if one has the ability, why make it beatable at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Marketing.

Slots, craps, roulette, baccarat, &c are not beatable, but people still play those games. All it takes is rumors and gossip and "secret knowledge" about how blackjack games are really beatable to get the fish to come in and play.

I don't think it's in the AP's interest to educate the public about the specifics of AP.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand. No players can beat the games in AC for any significant hourly rate because the rules/pen are so poor

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point. You don't have to offer 'beatable' BJ to still make the masses want to play it. They will still play. Just like they play all the other pit games that are stacked against them.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
All it takes is rumors and gossip and "secret knowledge" about how blackjack games are really beatable to get the fish to come in and play.

I don't think it's in the AP's interest to educate the public about the specifics of AP.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if they made it 'secret knowledge' that it is actually unbeatable, there are many who will still think it is beatable. They'll think it's just a contradicting rumor. Most of the ones who will know this, will still play. Just like they do pit games.

I see hoards of people on busy nights playing the 8 deck with full tables quite a bit.

b

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand. No players can beat the games in AC for any significant hourly rate because the rules/pen are so poor

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point. You don't have to offer 'beatable' BJ to still make the masses want to play it. They will still play. Just like they play all the other pit games that are stacked against them.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would argue that lack of beatable BJ is what stunted AC's growth while Vegas continued to thrive. But I'm too young to have my own thoughts on that; I can merely repeat things that I've read. But at least we understand each other.

Oh, and before it was proven that BJ was beatable, it was not a very popular game. Now it accounts for what, like half of all table game space? The fact that it can be beaten is why it appeals to people, even if they don't know how to beat it. Granted lots of people still play the games with 6:5 payoffs and all sorts of horrible rules, so who really knows what they're thinking...

[andyfox]

"the law 'grants qualified immunity to state officials who, in the discharge of their duties, exercise discretion, whether or not that discretion is abused.'"

Huh? Doesn't discretion mean lack of abuse?