Casinos Start List of Problem Gamblers

[shawn703]

LAS VEGAS - The world's largest casino company is creating a list of problem gamblers who would be barred for life from all Park Place Entertainment casinos, company officials said Tuesday.

Problem gamblers on the list would also lose any jackpots they win on return visits to Park Place casinos, which include Caesars, Bally's and Hilton properties.

"By creating this innovative, industry-leading program, we are making the strongest possible statement about our company's commitment to responsible gaming," said Bernard E. DeLury Jr., Park Place executive vice president and general counsel.

People can be placed on the company's "Responsible Gaming List" by voluntary self-exclusion — or involuntarily if casino employees learn any of its patrons are problem gamblers.

A barred person could be kicked off casino property and forced to forfeit all winnings, and will not be able to receive credit, cash checks or receive complimentary services.


more...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_us/barring_gamblers_1

[Old and In the Way]

1. Will they forfeit losses, too?

Wonder if Bill Bennett will be barred?

[shawn703]

2. Sounds kind of shady to me...

While at first glance I think it's decent of them to try and keep people with problems from gambling everything away, the part where they forfeit their winnings if caught seems like stealing to me. Maybe it would be fair if the casinos would say they'd also refund their losses if caught, but no mention of that. Also, what's to keep them from putting people on the list at the spur of the moment? (For example, some lucky guy keeps betting the house limit and keeps winning, casino managers put him on the list immediately and confiscate his winnings.)

[PaDUer]

3. Yes, so they use the people to spend...

then put them on the list and keep what they've won!
Sounds like a shakedown to me..

[pinto]

4. let's see....Bennett, um n/t

[thebigidea]

16. "Bennett: "Damn!"

[no_arbusto]

5. Possibly connected to this?

Seems like a CYA move as a result of the recently expanded Patriot Act.

The new provision in the spending bill redefines the meaning of "financial institution." The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, car dealers and any other business whose "cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61341,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

[mbperrin]

6. Problem gamblers? You mean

people who WIN? So you have to take their money away?

Yeah, sure, makes sense. That would be a problem.

[radwriter0555]

13. That's who they want to ban, the gamblers who WIN.... since apparently

winning isn't QUITE what they had in mind?

That's almost sad!

[Bushfire]

7. offered by one gaming conglomerate, won't have much effect

nationwide. There are plenty of options for the problem gambler from Native American casinos, riverboats, to state run lottos.

Employees will be reluctant to get involved as their tips come mainly from regulars. There is also the Title 31 program in place from years ago that keeps track of large currency transactions, way before the Patriot Act came along.

[hang a left]

9. I have heard of few of the Indian gaming casinos here in

San Diego have those facial recognition gizmos that identify people in their casinos.

[Bushfire]

10. probably more than just San Diego casinos have those

when you talk about revenue in the millions, most indian casinos can afford them. using them to their advantage, or disadvantage is entirely voluntary.

[TankLV]

8. Remember, gambling is only a problem when your LOSING!

Of course, then it a "problem" for the casino company.

[denverbill]

11. Damn, that's one way to steal from your customers.

If anybody actually wins money from a casino, the casino just labels them a problem gambler and steals back their winnings.

[Bushfire]

15. voluntary problem gamblers don't equal legit non-voluntary gamblers

so please don't lump the two together. people with problems deserve intervention, and if holding back their winnings when their name is cross checked on the casinos computer system is not fair to the casino. can you expect security guards, or other employees to spot those who put themselves into a self ban if the management never shows their pictures to front line employees?

[iverglas]

12. not a new idea

http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=9739

Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino <Iowa> has withheld nearly $100,000 in slot-machine jackpots over the past 15 months from unlucky winners who weren't supposed to be in the casino. A Prairie Meadows spokesman said the 34 jackpots worth $94,111 withheld since July 2002 represent only a small portion of the slot jackpots paid each day.

In the case that the article reports, the barred gambler trying to claim his winnings had been excluded because of a fairly serious incident involving "profanity and a physical confrontation" with a patron and security guard.

Problem gamblers who sign a "request for voluntary trespass" are treated just like the troublesome group in that they are prohibited from claiming any jackpot that isn't automatically paid by one of the machines.

... Before July 2002, unclaimed winnings at Prairie Meadows were held for three years and then forwarded to the state treasury.

"I wish it would go to treatment programs in some way," said Lisa Pierce, director of the Central Iowa Gambling Treatment Program. "There's so much that we don't have that we need as far as services."

Manning said the casino has earmarked its $94,111 for future donation to a program such as Pierce's, although no recipient has been identified.

In Ontario, the govt. does earmark a few million a year for gambling addiction treatment.

I do agree that if a casino decides to adopt such a program, there must be an effective way of actually keeping the individuals in question out of the casino, rather than just confiscating their winnings if someone happens to notice them but keeping anything they may lose.


A note on the inclusion of casinos in the Patriot Act: I believe that this would have to do with how easy it may be to walk into a casino with a fistful of dirty cash and convert it into gambling chips. A much easier way to launder money than taking it to the bank; a casino interested in doing said laundering would just show the cash as received in exchange for chips, and the chips as gamblers' losses, part of the casino's regular take. Just as a pawn shop could show, say, $10,000 as the price received for a valuable antique no one ever saw that was actually worth the 25 cents the pawn shop paid for it, or a beauty salon could record payment for $500 worth of haircuts every day that it never gave, thus converting $150,000 of dirty money every year into clean, taxable income (a scenario I guessed at correctly in one of my favourite Brit mystery series ;) ).

.

[FredScuttle]

14. Park Place = Captain Ahab

tryin' to kill those whales...