ArkAngel: Considering that when people put themselves on these lists and lose, quite often they are allowed to sue the casinos for their losses, I have no problem with this.

If you look at it another way, if casino security was actually looking for these excluded people and tossing them out immediately, they wouldn't have grounds to sue.

Perhaps we should also have an exclusion list for those convicted of DUI and ban them from liquor stores and bars.

Praise Cheesus: ArkAngel: Considering that when people put themselves on these lists and lose, quite often they are allowed to sue the casinos for their losses, I have no problem with this.

If you look at it another way, if casino security was actually looking for these excluded people and tossing them out immediately, they wouldn't have grounds to sue.

Perhaps we should also have an exclusion list for those convicted of DUI and ban them from liquor stores and bars.

That's... not the worst idea I've ever heard.

The money will now be split between programs to treat compulsive gambling, and a state fund that helps pay for transportation and prescription drugs for senior citizens.

I'm ok with this.

This ... actually makes sense. The people with gambling problems have a compulsion to gamble, and part of what drives them is "the big payoff". If the addicts know that even sneaking past the guards and the cameras won't let them keep their winnings, then they've got one more weapon against their own destructive behaviour.

Remember, the people put themselves on that list because their gambling habits were harming them. The casino giving them a big, fat, positive reward for gambling does them more harm then good. Because if they did make off with any winnings, they'd just be desperate to gamble it all (and more) back to the house again!

Trollerific headline is trollerific.

Reading the story (and working in a casino). It's not that the casinos let the players in. The players sneak in. They take all sorts of precautions so they're not caught. When you've got thousands of people on the self-excluded list, and thousands of people walking in the door there is no guaranteed way to prevent someone from making it in the door without making everyone who walks in the door provide ID and checking it against the list.

As far as the confiscating the winnings. If New Jersey is anything like Mississippi, state regulations require that the jackpots be confiscated.

At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.

BizarreMan: Trollerific headline is trollerific.

Reading the story (and working in a casino). It's not that the casinos let the players in. The players sneak in. They take all sorts of precautions so they're not caught. When you've got thousands of people on the self-excluded list, and thousands of people walking in the door there is no guaranteed way to prevent someone from making it in the door without making everyone who walks in the door provide ID and checking it against the list.

As far as the confiscating the winnings. If New Jersey is anything like Mississippi, state regulations require that the jackpots be confiscated.

At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.


That's kind of a dick move.

BarbadoSlim: BizarreMan: Trollerific headline is trollerific.

Reading the story (and working in a casino). It's not that the casinos let the players in. The players sneak in. They take all sorts of precautions so they're not caught. When you've got thousands of people on the self-excluded list, and thousands of people walking in the door there is no guaranteed way to prevent someone from making it in the door without making everyone who walks in the door provide ID and checking it against the list.

As far as the confiscating the winnings. If New Jersey is anything like Mississippi, state regulations require that the jackpots be confiscated.

At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.


That's kind of a dick move.

I don't have a problem with this. These people have been banned from the casino, and their presence is therefore illegal under the law. The fact that they banned themselves makes no difference.

Just to add to the actual voice of reason, the casino's aren't keeping the money. It's going to programs for problem gamblers. (RTFA)

It doesn't sound too bad, but the thing that makes me wonder is how supposedly card counters can get blocked from entry from a casino the opposite side of the world the day after they were caught for the first time due to face recognition software, but gambling addicts can somehow defeat this system regularly. This suggests either one of two things: that casinos are mostly bluffing about how great they are at defeating "cheats" (i.e. anyone that can actually win money off them), or they are letting them in when they could easily spot them for some reason.

BarbadoSlim: At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.


That's kind of a dick move.

Not as big a dick move as when they sue the casinos after they lose.

xria: It doesn't sound too bad, but the thing that makes me wonder is how supposedly card counters can get blocked from entry from a casino the opposite side of the world the day after they were caught for the first time due to face recognition software, but gambling addicts can somehow defeat this system regularly. This suggests either one of two things: that casinos are mostly bluffing about how great they are at defeating "cheats" (i.e. anyone that can actually win money off them), or they are letting them in when they could easily spot them for some reason.

I'm going to go with the latter. If they can make money off of it, they'll let it happen. Not sure why card counting can lead to a ban, but fixing odds on a slot machine through sophisticated software programming is perfectly legal.

BizarreMan: At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.

I hope nothing bad happens to you, but I won't exactly shed any tears over you if your property should happen to burn down and your insurance refuses to pay.

In Michigan, the casino has to split the seized cash 50/50 with the state. So, yeah. They see you, on your way out, they have you arrested for trespassing, if you win, the state gets half the cash you win, if you lose, the casino gets all the cash you lose .. and then the city gets the proceeds from processing you for trespassing, and they'll let you go for a $500 payoff.

Instead of telling another long-winded story about casinos cheating people, just take my word for it. I've worked here in Las Vegas for twenty years and the people who own them aren't any better than a neighborhood crack dealer.

James F. Campbell: BizarreMan: At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.

I hope nothing bad happens to you, but I won't exactly shed any tears over you if your property should happen to burn down and your insurance refuses to pay.

Not really seeing the problem with this, assuming that those who place themselves on the list know that this is the likely outcome should they be caught. We're talking about people who have a real problem which they have (at a time when they are rational) taken steps to fix by countering a large psychological payoff with an equivalent negative result.

I run a casino, so I'm really getting a kick...

I have no problem with jackpot monies won by self-barred people going to legitimate charities.

Having the money split 50/50 is dick move because it's kinda like a "Heads we win, Tails you lose" proposition.

Plus, the casino should be fined a days hold for letting them in. That should motivate surveillance to look at everyone.

Praise Cheesus: ArkAngel: Considering that when people put themselves on these lists and lose, quite often they are allowed to sue the casinos for their losses, I have no problem with this.

If you look at it another way, if casino security was actually looking for these excluded people and tossing them out immediately, they wouldn't have grounds to sue.

Perhaps we should also have an exclusion list for those convicted of DUI and ban them from liquor stores and bars.

Because bar owners and liquor stores have the resources casinos might to track people on lists?

Win, lose, or draw if we catch you you're going downtown. It's easier to catch someone when they win because if they're stupid and attempt to collect the jackpot they will be caught because everybody who self excludes themselves is in the computer and when it's processed their name shows up.

Everybody who self excludes themselves has to go to the Gaming Commission and fill out the form and have their picture taken. At the time it is explained to them in detail exactly what will happen to them if they set foot inside a casino. What they are signing up for. They can limit themselves for 3 years, 5 years or life. They have five days to change their mind once they sign the paperwork and then that's it.

I can empathize with people who have a gambling problem. I applaud them when they take the steps to hopefully protect themselves. But if they go into the casino anyway any punishment is on them.

BizarreMan: Win, lose, or draw if we catch you you're going downtown. It's easier to catch someone when they win because if they're stupid and attempt to collect the jackpot they will be caught because everybody who self excludes themselves is in the computer and when it's processed their name shows up.

Everybody who self excludes themselves has to go to the Gaming Commission and fill out the form and have their picture taken. At the time it is explained to them in detail exactly what will happen to them if they set foot inside a casino. What they are signing up for. They can limit themselves for 3 years, 5 years or life. They have five days to change their mind once they sign the paperwork and then that's it.

I can empathize with people who have a gambling problem. I applaud them when they take the steps to hopefully protect themselves. But if they go into the casino anyway any punishment is on them.

Quick question on the IRS bit. Is that just a requirement for all winnings and they have the ability to write it off/deal with it some way when it comes time to file?

Were these gamblers aware of the terms when the self-excluded? If yes than fine, take the winnings. Split between gambling addition treatment and aid to senior citizens? Sounds like a good use of the money.

As for the casinos being expected to find and throw the gamblers out? It won't happen until facial recognition software can pick each and everyone out. Do you expect security to remember everyone who's ever walked in? I'm sure they can remember some, if not most, but determined gamblers will find a way to get in.

Doktr Gud Brayne: Quick question on the IRS bit. Is that just a requirement for all winnings and they have the ability to write it off/deal with it some way when it comes time to file?

I'm not a tax preparer and I don't play one on TV either.

I do know that you can offset any winnings reported via W2G by the amount of your losses if you itemize deductions.

If you can provide the documentation that you didn't actually receive any money you might be able to deduct it, or possibly count it as a charitable deduction.

But that's between you and your tax preparer and I accept no responsibility for what you do or do not report on your 1040..

BizarreMan: Doktr Gud Brayne: Quick question on the IRS bit. Is that just a requirement for all winnings and they have the ability to write it off/deal with it some way when it comes time to file?

I'm not a tax preparer and I don't play one on TV either.

I do know that you can offset any winnings reported via W2G by the amount of your losses if you itemize deductions.

If you can provide the documentation that you didn't actually receive any money you might be able to deduct it, or possibly count it as a charitable deduction.

But that's between you and your tax preparer and I accept no responsibility for what you do or do not report on your 1040..

Fair enough, I guess the main question is whether or not you as the casino have the option not to report the winnings.

Doktr Gud Brayne: Fair enough, I guess the main question is whether or not you as the casino have the option not to report the winnings.

I don't know if it is optional on the casinos part. We are required to report all jackpots over $1,200 and as this is actually a jackpot where the funds are redirected to someone other than the winner I don't know all the technicalities. (That decision is above my paygrade.)

Happy Hours: dletter: Happy Hours: Prohibition for some of the population!

Yeah, for the some of the population who have proven they cannot handle it.

And what's the rate of recidivism among people arrested for DUI? Or public drunkenness for that matter? Ever done anything stupid when you were drunk? I imagine the vast majority of people who drink have had an occasion or 6 where they didn't handle it.

And just think - we could lower the limit even more. In my state it's 0.05, but we could enforce prohibition on even more people if that were 0.03. After that we can just go for zero tolerance.

This. MADD would love to see anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense banned from buying booze. After that, it would be a relatively simple matter of getting as many people as possible convicted, and we have Prohibition II.

/See TABC arresting drunks in the hotel bar where they are staying because they might drive
//I still love the beginning of that meme

In France they have a similar setup. In order to walk into the casino you have to present ID. If you're on the "do not gamble" list they don't let you in. Very simple.

gadian: OBBN: So, if the casino's can take their winnings shouldn't then they return any monies lost when they catch them? They casino's weren't supposed to let them in to begin with. I have no sympathy for anyone who goes on a list by their own choice and then ignores it. But, if they take their winnings then they should refund their losses. Fair is fair right?

This is my thought as well. Its sort of like no-loss gambling. Except for the arrest bit.

Second

Mad Canadian: I run a casino, so I'm really getting a kick...

the casino should be fined a days hold for letting them in. That should motivate surveillance to look at everyone.

I don't have a problem with this, either, although if the casino can be held responsible for letting self-banned gamblers in, then the use of a disguise or some other way to cheat the screening process should result in fraud charges against those gamblers.

/this is getting complicated

Happy Hours: Evil Kirk vs Bad Ash: Perhaps we should also have an exclusion list for those convicted of DUI and ban them from liquor stores and bars.

That's... not the worst idea I've ever heard.

It's one of the worst I've heard though. Prohibition for some of the population! Woohoo!

It's bizarre how many people turn into jack-booted Nazis when alcohol is concerned. It's like they're willing to throw away all of their freedom for the illusion of safety.

These are also the same people who are vehemently against any laws against texting or talking on a cell phone while driving.

ramblinwreck: xria: It doesn't sound too bad, but the thing that makes me wonder is how supposedly card counters can get blocked from entry from a casino the opposite side of the world the day after they were caught for the first time due to face recognition software, but gambling addicts can somehow defeat this system regularly. This suggests either one of two things: that casinos are mostly bluffing about how great they are at defeating "cheats" (i.e. anyone that can actually win money off them), or they are letting them in when they could easily spot them for some reason.

I'm going to go with the latter. If they can make money off of it, they'll let it happen. Not sure why card counting can lead to a ban, but fixing odds on a slot machine through sophisticated software programming is perfectly legal.

Because it give you and edge that you might use to win money. Casinos are not in the business of giving away money, they are in the business of making money, and if you are good enough at playing the game (which is essentially what card counting is) that you can consistently win, then they don't want you there, and casinos being privately run organisations can bar anyone they don't like.

BizarreMan: At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.

Do they still have to pay tax on a seized jackpot?

jjorsett: BizarreMan: At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.

Do they still have to pay tax on a seized jackpot?

That is between them, their tax preparer and the IRS.

The compulsion to gamble has nothing to do with chasing the big jackpot. If that was a signficant factor, winners wouldn't continue to gamble. While I have no problem with casinos refusing to pay jackpots to self-excluded players (and glad to see that they donate to anti gambling programs with those winnings rather than keep them) there should be more of an onus on casinos to prevent excluded players from playing. A little facial recognition software would solve the problem most of the time.

Let me get this straight.....a self-identified gambling addict thinks they'll be better if they make it illegal for them to gamble. Then they do so, and suffer the consequences. Seems to me that putting themselves on the banned list was an attempt at a quick fix to their gambling problem. Not too different from the drunk who swears off drink after a DUI and then finds themselves pulled over again and their car confiscated.

Mad Canadian: I run a casino, so I'm really getting a kick...

I have no problem with jackpot monies won by self-barred people going to legitimate charities.

Having the money split 50/50 is dick move because it's kinda like a "Heads we win, Tails you lose" proposition.

Plus, the casino should be fined a days hold for letting them in. That should motivate surveillance to look at everyone.

If you seize their winnings when they win, then you should have to return their losses when they lose.

I won a casino jackpot yesterday so I'm really getting a kick...

/no really, I did.

common sense is an oxymoron: At my property, a self-excluded player who makes it onto the casino floor has their winnings (if any confiscated), if they hit a taxable jackpot, it is reported to the state and IRS as a jackpot so they have to pay taxes on it, and then, they're arrested for trespassing.


That's kind of a dick move.

I don't have a problem with this. These people have been banned from the casino, and their presence is therefore illegal under the law. The fact that they banned themselves makes no difference.

If a person say wins $100,000 and it's confiscated and you tell the IRS they won a jackpot, is the IRS going to after their generous cut from the person or the casino? Imagine getting a $50k bill from money that you didn't get. That would be a dick move.