|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
86\'d players
I was on the floor today when this young couple came up and asked to be put on the 4-8 list. I remember them both from yesterday. He played and she asked if she could sit behind and watch. I said yes. So back to the story. They both asked to be put on the list today. I called him to his seat and he took it. A few minutes later she was called and went to get chips. About 15 minutes later security came to me and I was told she tried to buy chips with a counterfiet $50 bill. She of course said she got it from her husband and he said he got it at the cage. This to me is very believable since I know he played the night before. Both were taken to security for statements and I went along to make sure everything was ok. In the process of the statements it was discovered he's 23 and she's.. 20! She never actually made it to the table to play so she was not arrested but he was perm 86'd for contributing and she was permed for underage in a casino. It was believable that he received the $50 from the cage so he was given a real $50 bill on the way out the door. If she sat at the table and played 1 hand she would be under arrest for underage gaming. The moral of the story?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
She needed a better fake ID?
Hop off the high horse. Nick |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
High horse? WTF are you talking about?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
[ QUOTE ]
The moral of the story? [/ QUOTE ] rednecks and poker don't mix. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
Actually, she's a law student. She was more concerned if she was charged it would show up on her record and harm her in the future. About as far from red-neck as you can get. Very nieive is more like it. Security didn't even check her I.D. until she wrote down her age as 20 on the statement form.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
If security did not check her for an ID, and she was never told, could she not just claim ignorance and say that she believed it was an 18+ casino?
Would you seriously arrest her? -Todd |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
[ QUOTE ]
If security did not check her for an ID, and she was never told, could she not just claim ignorance and say that she believed it was an 18+ casino? [/ QUOTE ] Mississippi gaming law states that anyone under the age of 21 caught gaming, MUST be arrested. No questions asked. If your under 21 and don't have I.D. your just asked to leave. (They can't prove your under 21) If she made it to the table and placed a bet before they found out she was under 21 it would be out of my hands. It's also clearly marked that you must be 21 when you walk in. [ QUOTE ] Would you seriously arrest her? [/ QUOTE ] Not up to me. I'm not security or gaming. On a personal note I feel like gaming is for those 21 and over. It makes me sick to even see people bring kids to the buffet. A casino is adult entertainment and no place for kids. I love the game of poker and its great that T.V. has brought a whole new generation into the game. For those that are under 21? If you can find a legal place to play thats great but most casinos are 21 and over and I strongly support it staying that way. The vast majority of under 21 year olds don't have earning potential to sustain any kind of loss. This can lead to big problems down the road, credit for example. The legal age was set for a reason. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
[ QUOTE ]
On a personal note I feel like gaming is for those 21 and over. It makes me sick to even see people bring kids to the buffet. A casino is adult entertainment and no place for kids. I love the game of poker and its great that T.V. has brought a whole new generation into the game. For those that are under 21? If you can find a legal place to play thats great but most casinos are 21 and over and I strongly support it staying that way. The vast majority of under 21 year olds don't have earning potential to sustain any kind of loss. This can lead to big problems down the road, credit for example. The legal age was set for a reason. [/ QUOTE ] I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it was convenient for casinos in many states to be 21+ in order to make it easier to get a liquor license. There's your reason. Maybe just my take though, but it is quite a coincidence. It always saddens me to hear how many people are so dead-set against allowing people under 21 to play, and in essence implying that they aren't capable of understanding the inherent risk that any form of gambling takes. 18-year-olds are old enough to sign up to fight in the military, and that carries, as we know, the greatest risk of all. Yes, you are correct sir, many 18-year-olds don't have the earning power to sustain high losses. Then again, so do a lot of the 30-year-old construction workers who take their Friday pay to the casino and throw away more than they can afford, too. Therefore, I suggest a system of only allowing people who can prove that they can afford a loss of $X, with X being a percentage of their (verified) income, to play at all. This will solve your moral dilemma of whether or not to allow someone who is allowed to drive a car, fight a war, and elect the most powerful elected official in the world, the right to spend their earned money however the hell they please. I hope that I, as a poker player who started when I was 17 years old and turn 21 this upcoming Tuesday, do not sicken you as much as people who bring children to a buffet. Uneducated gambling is the problem, not 18+ gambling. [off soapbox] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
[ QUOTE ]
The legal age was set for a reason. [/ QUOTE ] How is the federal government's strongarming of states through transportation funding relevant to the issue at hand? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 86\'d players
[ QUOTE ]
The legal age was set for a reason. [/ QUOTE ] As noted above it is a pretty artificial reason. I personally still marvel at how people stomach the 21 drinking age (and 19 smoking age, at least here in AL). An 18 year old can be drafted to fight for our country, but isn't allowed to have a smoke or a drink (or play a round of cards)? I understand you have some financial incentive to card these folks (i.e. you can lose your job). However I see absolutely no moral reason for a stance like this. Just another case of our politicians mucking the place up. |
|
|