"Arrested" for winning"

[notes1]

the government controls whether a casino is allowed to be built or not. why more casinos, more government revenue.

[DaBurglar]

Market saturation has long been evident. Discussion of market
saturation is itself saturated. Market forces will usually take care of
it, as we just saw in AC. With Revel, NJ got stuck with a large bill of
course. As long as taxpayers are not on the hook, build away America. 


the government controls whether a casino is allowed to be built or not. why more casinos, more government revenue.Well. this is one convoluted and varied topic within a topic......certainly "Government" (at the State & Local levels) is a primary force behind whether or not specific casinos in specific neighborhoods get built or not, and certainly the prospective Tax Revenue that such businesses can promise is the main reason local & state government approves such projects......it's a Faustian Bargain at best, and at worst it can result in the absolute, unmitigated DISASTER that was the REVEL in AC, NJ.       The bigger truth about politicians (of BOTH parties in this case) and casino projects is this:   Most will go along with such projects not because of the future TAX revenues per se (which do not materialize in full for SEVERAL YEARS AFTER a project is approved and begun), but rather the IMMDEIATE SHORT TERM benefit of all those construction and service jobs that come along with EVERY casino construction job!     Most state and LOCAL politicians are only looking at the SHORT TERM (i.e. the NEXT election cycle), and JOBS now, and the corresponding political benefits,  will always TRUMP longer term issues and benefits (like how and where and what to spend the new Tax revenue on!)But when we say "Government" controls if they are built or not, this is a ambiguous statement......in truth, usually the PEOPLE (i.e. VOTERS) have at least initial control or  "SAY" over whether a casino even gets off the ground or not......Look at what happened here in Massachusetts!     There were Several voter REFERENDUMS between 2011 and early 2013, and then a RE-vote/Second Referendum in 2014, about whether or not Massachusetts even would have casino gambling, let alone how many and WHERE the casinos would be built.     Once the voters said YES, though, the politicians and bureaucracies went into high gear and started allocating money and dividing up the "spoils"......In AC, NJ when "Conservative republican" Governor Christie & friends ramrodded the Revel "package" through and arrogantly pushed the monstrosity to completion with the mantra ("If you build it they will come"), they effectively hastened the DOOM of all of AC as well as cost NJ taxpayers untold amounts of money (and the city of AC itself thousands of JOBS and its very existence!)     Revel simply cannibalized existing business among the other 10 casinos at the time, and was one of the most egregious economic disasters in the history of ANY State in America.

[DaBurglar]

I would be willing to bet a buck that the reason for the rules are some other gambler in the past had themselves self excluded, gambled anyway and then sued the casino, for allowing them to play. some wonderful lawyer took the case and maybe even won. I made this same general "Assertion" a while ago notes1, when I was relating an incident I witnessed in the BALLYS AC poker room, whereby they hauled out a guy who was self excluded from the property, right in the middle of a POKER game!    There was a lot of discussion and buzz after the incident and both the poker room manager and the table dealer I was at sought to clarify the situtation as well as CALM everyone down, since most of us sympathized with the player who was roughly handled and escorted OUT.A certain self appointed "Police Poster" on this forum took it upon himself to "research" this very issue that you broached, regarding self exclusion and a casino's potential LIABILITY if such a patron is allowed to actually GAMBLE on said property after self excluding.......let us see if we can coax that "Barney Fife of VP.com" to reply to your post above........I believe his "research" spoke to the very heart of the issue you raise here with your statement.......

[billryan]

After such a polite request, I'm sure that poster is just jumping at the bit to help you out.

[Lionqueen]

Didn't Bob say he was coming back in August? (If that's who you are talking about).

[Tedlark]

No Lionqueen, Bob was not the one being talked about.

[DaBurglar]

Didn't Bob say he was coming back in August? (If that's who you are talking about).Bob who?

[OTABILL]

Getting back to the original subject matter, I agree that if anyone is banned from a casino for whatever reason, they should be charged with trespassing and should not benefit financially from violating the rules. No reimbursement and glad that the money won is donated to a fund to help problem gamblers.

[DaBurglar]

I've changed my mind.....put 'em all in the BLACK BOOK.   They deserve it....Seriously, this whole idea of "Gambling addiction" is a crock.....just like Sex addiction and Food Addiction and any other purely psychological addiction.     People don't want to face up or accept responsibility for what befalls them when their behavior and habits totally ruin their lives.....It's either that, or I am going to start ranting and creating a "movement" (as in BOWEL) that targets America's addiction to GUNS as the cause for all the Gun violence and death in this country.     NOTE:  Notice I specified PURELY PSYCHOLOGICAL ADDICTION.....things like Booze or drugs are different (although these two have been far too "diluted" to where people freely and without consequence claim relief from responsibility.)  These are substances which produce PROFOUND, REAL chemical changes in the brain that are not naturally occurring, and result in TRAUMA when they are abruptly discontinued.     No one undergoes "Trauma" when they cannot get to the casino, or when they cannot get to the drive thru at Taco Heaven or whatever their favorite junk food dispensary happens to be, etc.

[FloridaPhil]

If developers and investors are willing to build casinos into a market that is already saturated, I say have at it.  As long as no public funds are used I don't see the harm.  They can always turn them into condos or Trump Towers.  If you're a subcontractor on one of those projects, better get your money in cash up front.  I suspect most already know that from personal experience.