If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Have a gambling problem? Well sign a paper to be banned from gambling. But gamble anyways and lose big dollars. But when you win? No money for you, as you are banned from gambling   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 40
    More: Stupid, Supreme Court of British Columbia  
•       •       •

5102 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-11 12:20:24 AM
This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!
 
2013-01-11 12:33:56 AM
Haghdust lost about $200,000

Sh*t, I wish I had 200 grand to blow gambling.
 
2013-01-11 03:11:17 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.


The exclusion agreement did not inform the gamblers that they could never win, so there goes your theoretical disincentive.

Also, a gambling addict would probably be attracted to the challenge of sneaking into a casino; to such a person, gambling after sneaking in might well feel like "beating the house" even though he's losing money.

So yes, the exclusion agreement is stupid... or cunning.
 
2013-01-11 03:22:41 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!


But does the program state "you forefit all winnings", or "you are not allowed inside casinos'?

Because taking their losses does, I think, imply that they are cool with them being in the casino and gambling.
 
2013-01-11 03:23:11 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!


You will never win
 
2013-01-11 03:24:52 AM
"Joyce Ross launched a suit last fall after losing more than $330,000 in savings and borrowed money at two casinos despite being in the program. She claimed the corporation and casinos didn't do enough to keep her from gambling"

I recognize that compulsive gambling is a mental illness, but really?
 
2013-01-11 03:26:20 AM
Hmm. What are the odds?
 
2013-01-11 03:26:53 AM
Despite what people might think based on Hollywood's portrayal of casino security, there's no super-high-tech-semi-magic system in place that can somehow identify and cross-reference each and every one of the thousands of people who come and go each day.

Unless casinos are turned into fortresses where every single person is ID'd at the door, it's completely unrealistic to expect that they'd be capable of stopping all self-excluded gamblers from entering. The fact that "Haghdust was caught several times and Lee once during their exclusion period" indicates that the casino(s) actually did a pretty darn good job of living up to their end of the bargain.

Even if the agreement that the problem gamblers signed doesn't explicitly state "We will withhold any winnings that you get if you manage to sneak in", surely there must be some sort of overall rule like "Anyone who is not authorized to be on the premises is excluded from collecting winnings" to apply to under-age gamblers and others.
 
2013-01-11 03:26:55 AM
I think I'm going to end up reading about this again in a Bathroom Reader before long.
 
2013-01-11 03:28:05 AM

mllawso: "Joyce Ross launched a suit last fall after losing more than $330,000 in savings and borrowed money at two casinos despite being in the program. She claimed the corporation and casinos didn't do enough to keep her from gambling"

I recognize that compulsive gambling is a mental illness, but really?


The problem is that the casinos are supposed to keep said people from gambling, but don't. They only keep them from collecting winnings from gambling.
 
2013-01-11 03:33:41 AM
Not sure why the casinos wouldn't pay up.  It's not like they aren't getting that money back again.
 
2013-01-11 03:39:12 AM
img90.imageshack.us
What gambling might look like.
 
2013-01-11 04:10:40 AM
I had to bail my boss out of jail once because he punched a video blackjack dealer in the face and then broke a bottle over his own head. He's banned too.
 
2013-01-11 04:15:42 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: I had to bail my boss out of jail once because he punched a video blackjack dealer in the face and then broke a bottle over his own head. He's banned too.


Huh?
 
2013-01-11 04:19:12 AM

Perducci: Despite what people might think based on Hollywood's portrayal of casino security, there's no super-high-tech-semi-magic system in place that can somehow identify and cross-reference each and every one of the thousands of people who come and go each day.

Unless casinos are turned into fortresses where every single person is ID'd at the door, it's completely unrealistic to expect that they'd be capable of stopping all self-excluded gamblers from entering. The fact that "Haghdust was caught several times and Lee once during their exclusion period" indicates that the casino(s) actually did a pretty darn good job of living up to their end of the bargain.

Even if the agreement that the problem gamblers signed doesn't explicitly state "We will withhold any winnings that you get if you manage to sneak in", surely there must be some sort of overall rule like "Anyone who is not authorized to be on the premises is excluded from collecting winnings" to apply to under-age gamblers and others.



Did you see this gem from the article: Joyce Ross launched a suit last fall after losing more than $330,000 in savings and borrowed money at two casinos despite being in the program. You don't think they carded her and got her name when giving out loans, twice? The casinos lost any sympathy they deserved at that point.
 
2013-01-11 04:27:15 AM

oren0: Did you see this gem from the article: Joyce Ross launched a suit last fall after losing more than $330,000 in savings and borrowed money at two casinos despite being in the program. You don't think they carded her and got her name when giving out loans, twice? The casinos lost any sympathy they deserved at that point.


I think it's more of a misunderstanding on your part, based on a confusing wording. Casinos, as far as I know, cannot lend money. It more she lost more than $300.000 in savings and borrowed money.....at two casinos.
 
2013-01-11 04:47:22 AM

Yes this is dog: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: I had to bail my boss out of jail once because he punched a video blackjack dealer in the face and then broke a bottle over his own head. He's banned too.

Huh?


The miracles of technology!
 
2013-01-11 05:21:40 AM

Perducci: Despite what people might think based on Hollywood's portrayal of casino security, there's no super-high-tech-semi-magic system in place that can somehow identify and cross-reference each and every one of the thousands of people who come and go each day.

Unless casinos are turned into fortresses where every single person is ID'd at the door, it's completely unrealistic to expect that they'd be capable of stopping all self-excluded gamblers from entering. The fact that "Haghdust was caught several times and Lee once during their exclusion period" indicates that the casino(s) actually did a pretty darn good job of living up to their end of the bargain.

Even if the agreement that the problem gamblers signed doesn't explicitly state "We will withhold any winnings that you get if you manage to sneak in", surely there must be some sort of overall rule like "Anyone who is not authorized to be on the premises is excluded from collecting winnings" to apply to under-age gamblers and others.


Only the nice casinos that don't want to get screwed over by card counters/cheats. But most do it the old fashion way. The dealers know when someones winning more then they should.
 
2013-01-11 05:24:13 AM
The program is voluntary.

Either they want to stop gambling, or they don't. And if they do - not being able to win would be a real good incentive, no? I'm not painting the casinos as angels, they certainly seem more than predatory enough for some kind of smackdown - but this ain't a one-sided story.
 
2013-01-11 05:48:14 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!


Of course mostly when they win, they have lost the money soon after, so this is probably not actually helping deal with their addiction - in fact it is making it worse because they are still gambling but lose more money more quickly as they dont have the wins to offset the losses. If not going home with any money after a gambling session was going to cure them, they wouldn't have reach the step of having to get banned from casinos in the first place.
 
2013-01-11 06:07:41 AM

pion: mllawso: "Joyce Ross launched a suit last fall after losing more than $330,000 in savings and borrowed money at two casinos despite being in the program. She claimed the corporation and casinos didn't do enough to keep her from gambling"

I recognize that compulsive gambling is a mental illness, but really?

The problem is that the casinos are supposed to keep said people from gambling, but don't. They only keep them from collecting winnings from gambling.


Is it really a gamble if there are no winnings to be had? Sounds to me like the casinos are doing it right. If they want to keep giving them money without a chance for a payout then the casino has fulfilled their end of the deal. In all honesty, it is pretty douchetastic.
 
2013-01-11 06:13:06 AM
I used to work in a casino, and it was not uncommon to see people bolt for the door upon hearing a slot machine "hit" for a big one.
Around here people with gambling problems can get themselves "voluntarily trespassed" which means that they are banned for life from any casino in the state and are subject to arrest if caught on premises.

Which means that they can't cash out, and can only collect what is dispensed at the machine.
 
2013-01-11 06:16:03 AM

Perducci: Despite what people might think based on Hollywood's portrayal of casino security, there's no super-high-tech-semi-magic system in place that can somehow identify and cross-reference each and every one of the thousands of people who come and go each day.


I actually worked at Turtle Creek Casino up near Traverse City, for a summer. During orientation they did tell us that their security cameras could identify black listed individuals busted for cheating the moment they walked in the door with facial recognition. They also did claim to have the second best camera security system for any casino nationally... so I can't speak for all of the other casinos. They may have also just wanted the reputation for the technology without actually utilizing it. I also never saw anyone or even heard of anyone getting busted because of this technological wonder.
 
2013-01-11 06:20:46 AM
You know, there is a lesson for those two in there, but they just can't see it.
 
2013-01-11 06:25:06 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning.


First, that would require that they are aware of the program (what good is a doomsday machine if you don't tell anyone?!?).

Second, the thrill of winning is not necessarily the driving force in gambling addictions. Winning is rationally good, but if addictions were based on rational processes people wouldn't be nearly as likely to become addicts. Often it's the risk itself -- the possibility that they might lose -- that drives gambling addicts.
 
2013-01-11 06:31:06 AM

ModernLuddite: Because taking their losses does, I think, imply that they are cool with them being in the casino and gambling.


I doubt the casinos aren't losing any sleep over they money they took in from them, sure. But the implication only holds true if the casinos were aware they were there and just didn't do anything until they won big. TFA says they were both caught and ejected multiple times, so at least on the surface it seems the casinos were actively trying to keep them out at least some of the time.
 
2013-01-11 06:35:02 AM
Don't know much about gambling, but the few times I've been in a casino, you could put money in a slot machine all day long without seeing another face - but to cash out required a croupier. So I can at least see how this might have happened, and have zero sympathy for those who lost their money.

I guess in the end it's going to come down to how "legally binding" a voluntary trespass is.
 
2013-01-11 07:51:24 AM
The agreement is to not allow them to gamble. The gambling occurred in the past. All that exists between the casino and these individuals now is a debt. The casino is just pissed that it is the casino who has to pay out (as is the case whenever a casino has to pay out)
 
2013-01-11 07:52:20 AM
How much would it cost to buy a small video blackjack machine
and put it in your home?
After you lose all your money open it up and go again.
 
2013-01-11 08:14:41 AM
mynotetakingnerd.files.wordpress.com
"You can have the money and the hammer, or you can walk out of here. You can't have both."
 
2013-01-11 08:15:10 AM
I just decided to take a look at the website detailing our voluntary exclusion program.

http://gaming.mdlottery.com/responsible-gambling/voluntary-self-exclu s ion-program/

In our training we are told the same thing about not being entitled to any winnings, but I don't see it on their website. We also add the criminal aspect to it, which I don't know if they do up there. If you are caught in a casino in MD you are charged with criminal trespass and arrested on the spot.
 
2013-01-11 08:16:43 AM

wikid one: I just decided to take a look at the website detailing our voluntary exclusion program.

http://gaming.mdlottery.com/responsible-gambling/voluntary-self-exclu s ion-program/

In our training we are told the same thing about not being entitled to any winnings, but I don't see it on their website. We also add the criminal aspect to it, which I don't know if they do up there. If you are caught in a casino in MD you are charged with criminal trespass and arrested on the spot.


Hooray link fail...
http://gaming.mdlottery.com/responsible-gambling/voluntary-self-excl us ion-program/
 
2013-01-11 08:51:48 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!


As someone whose ex-girlfriend's mother was a gambling addict, let me just say that you have no idea how gambling addiction works.
 
2013-01-11 09:05:43 AM
So, if the casino declares the winnings invalid because these people are banded, then that should mean that the losses are invalid as well.

I assume the casino will be cutting checks to these people to cover their losses, right?

/crickets
 
2013-01-11 09:48:48 AM

fusillade762: Haghdust lost about $200,000

Sh*t, I wish I had 200 grand to blow gambling.


My ex wife blew 32 grand at the boat that we DIDN'T have. They'll cash a check no matter what...

/farking biatch
 
2013-01-11 10:55:50 AM
First, let me say, I prolly shoulda read the article, that's what I get..

yukichigai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!

As someone whose ex-girlfriend's mother was a gambling addict, let me just say that you have no idea how gambling addiction works.


Second, speaking as a former gambling addict, my anecdotal data cancels out your anecdotal data.
 
2013-01-11 11:35:56 AM

jayessell: How much would it cost to buy a small video blackjack machine
and put it in your home?
After you lose all your money open it up and go again.


I used to have a game in my Widows 3.1 box called "Dr. Blackjack", who would teach you and give you hints as you played the game. When I had lost down to 10K in the hole, a popup box came up from the doctor saying "You've lost enough. Go on home." The final lession from Doctor Blackjack.
 
2013-01-11 11:48:49 AM

mllawso: "Joyce Ross launched a suit last fall after losing more than $330,000 in savings and borrowed money at two casinos despite being in the program. She claimed the corporation and casinos didn't do enough to keep her from gambling"

I recognize that compulsive gambling is a mental illness, but really?


Actually this is true. I work closely with the Problem Gambling department at my hospital.

The casinos ignore the list because addicts are some of their most profitable customers. Some studies report something like 40% of casino profits come from addicts.

They biatch and complain that following the list would be "too complicated" but they maintain their own list of casino cheats (card counters, etc) and deny them access/kick them out as soon as possible.

Little know fact: Gambling addicts have the highest suicide rate of any addiction, including drugs.

Online tools self help for problem gamblers and family and friends affected: https://www.problemgambling.ca/gambling-help/HomePage.aspx

There's a quiz, worksheets, monitor your gambling tools, etc. Pass it on!

/Canadian Farkers only, Monitor your gambling app on Apple, Andriod, and Blackberry.
//It was made with Canadian tax dollars so we have to keep it country specific
 
2013-01-11 02:52:47 PM
Dear subby (and so many others),

http://grammartips.homestead.com/anyway.html
 
2013-01-11 04:59:25 PM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This isn't as stupid as you might think at first. The whole point for gamblers is for them to try and capture that high of winning. If they are guaranteed to never win, gambling loses its appeal.

/bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling by the end of the day!


Actually addicts are actually chasing the loss, not the win. That's why the win is never "enough". The win is a high only because it offers more money to lose.

padraig: ...

I think it's more of a misunderstanding on your part, based on a confusing wording. Casinos, as far as I know, cannot lend money. It more she lost more than $300.000 in savings and borrowed money.....at two casinos.


Yes, they do lend money. Yes it probably wasn't markers, probably outside loans.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report