Visitreno Forum Index Visitreno
Visitreno.com's message board
There's a lot of information on the
MAIN SITE
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sands Regency attempts to cheat blackjack player out of $400

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Visitreno Forum Index -> Reno Comments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lvbear584



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Jul Tue 11, 2006 10:49 am    Post subject: Sands Regency attempts to cheat blackjack player out of $400 Reply with quote

Originally posted on Fezzik's Place:

http://forums.lasvegasadvisor.com/messageview.cfm?catid=36&threadid=200356

I recently got the details on this. A player had been winning at a single deck game with "double 9, 10,11 only" rules. The pit was getting anxious and was closely watching his play.

The player got A8 vs. 5 and doubled down receiving a duece. The dealer made a 17. The dealer went to pay the player, and the female casino shift supervisor stopped her, and the supervisor said "he lost, don't pay him". The pit boss said, "he has 21, pay him". The shift supervisor overruled him saying "at the Sands you can double down ONLY on 9, 10 or 11. Therefore, your Ace must be counted as 1 only. You have 11. You lost.

UNbelievable!!! Nevada has had dozens of double on 8,9,10 or 11 AND double 9,10,11 games only. EVERY ONE of them would know this doesn't override the Ace being allowed to be counted as 1 or 11 AFTER the double down.

The Shift Supervisor claims there is a special rule at the Sands that is different. Unbelievably, rather than pay the player the $400 win, rather they SHUT THE GAME DOWN for 2 hours after the player insisted gaming be called. Meanwhile, player after player watched incredulously as they walked by at this blatant cheating attempt by the casino.

NOTE TO GAMING. Rather than just rule this as a $400 patron dispute payment to the player, surely some fine can be imposed for this blatant cheating attempt obviously targeting a player assumed to be skilled.

NOTE TO SANDS. FIRE THE SHIFT SUPERVISOR IMMEDIATELY. OR reassign her To the janitorial dept or perhaps the tabacco industry.

NOTE TO PATRONS. Avoid the Sands Regency RENO at all costs. Dozens of Reno/Tahoe places that appreciate their customers, treat them with respect, and don't take cheap shots at them trying to cheat them!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stan_allen



Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 1129

PostPosted: Jul Tue 11, 2006 2:05 pm    Post subject: The Sands-y Shores of Reno Reply with quote

Fascinating story - my inner lawyer wants to know if there's any way this story can be verified, since it appears to be merely a message board anecdote.
If it's true, I'll be among the first to condemn the Sands, but they should probably be given an opportunity to defend themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JD



Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 956

PostPosted: Jul Tue 11, 2006 5:09 pm    Post subject: Sands & BJ Reply with quote

I read it on the internet, so it MUST be true.

This story would be more believable if it had a date, time, shift, name of dealer, pit boss, etc.

Until I see that, I'm not sure the Sands really exists...except I spent two nights there last week. I will say the had a great band in the Marguarita Bar...." Retro Grade". I recommend them.

JD

(no...I did NOT hit a royal at the bar this time). Best free $ 200 popcorn ever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lvbear584



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Jul Tue 11, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: Details of cheating attempt Reply with quote

Quote:

This story would be more believable if it had a date, time, shift, name of dealer, pit boss, etc.


The cheating attempt took place Saturday July 8, 2006 at approx 12:20 PM. The casino executive who ordered the dealer to cheat the patron is Monika Davis, on day shift. The floorman is Ralph Aramanda. The dealer is Sooneun, last name unknown. The cheating attempt was witnessed by another supervisor, Mike P, who refused to give his last name.

The Gaming Control Board enforcement agent who responded to the victim's call for help and is the investigator on the case is Jim Carlile of the GCB Reno office, telephone 702 823-7250. The Gaming Control Board's case number is 06-1302.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
john
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 1181

PostPosted: Jul Wed 12, 2006 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh sure, Bear. Confuse the issue with facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jerry



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Jul Thu 13, 2006 12:11 am    Post subject: john, john, john Reply with quote

Ease off, John. Count your blessings (and mine). Think about it.
Here is a post and four replies about something bad in REno and neither you nor I were mentioned. Sounds like a first to me.

Oops, I ruined it, didn't I?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lvbear584



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Aug Wed 02, 2006 4:33 pm    Post subject: Gaming agent ruled in favor of the casino Reply with quote

Originally posted on www.BJ21.com Green Chip:

... Here is the original report from the player:

Three suits were watching me play at the Sands Regency, and they were making me uncomfortable. I was planning to leave at the next shuffle, because they were sweating the action so badly.

This little casino allows double on 9, 10, 11 only. This is stated in a sign on the table. With $100 bet, I doubled an Ace, eight. The dealer made a 17, and turned over my double down card, which was a 2, for 21. The dealer started to pay me, but a female suit said to the dealer, "Don't pay him; he has eleven. He lost." Another suit said, "No, he has 21 -- pay him." The third suit said nothing. The dealer was confused and did nothing. The three suits quickly huddled, then announced that Sands Regency has a “special rule” that if you double on Ace, eight and draw a 2, you have to count the Ace as a one; you forfeit the right to deem it an eleven. Therefore, my hand lost.

I have never heard of this rule anywhere. Apparently neither had the dealer and at least one of the suits. After some discussion, the female, who I later learned was the shift manager, held firm. I offered to call the hand a push, take my bet back, and leave, never to return. No. I called the Gaming Control Board, and spoke with Enforcement Agent Cindy Martinez, who told me, "That's absurd; they have to pay you." She said she would send an agent to the casino.

While waiting for the agent, I demanded that the "evidence" be preserved unaltered. To my surprise, the shift manager complied with my demand, resulting in the game being shut down for ninety minutes pending arrival of Agent Jim Carlile. I informed a few patrons who wanted to play the reason the table was out of operation. One patron incredulously told the floorman, "This is bull----. The guy has 21. How can you not pay him?" Two patrons walked out the door after I explained what had happened. The guard didn't say one word to me, and the cocktail waitress brought me liquid refreshments as if I was still playing. The situation was actually quite humorous. I photographed the cards with my cell phone camera. No one said anything about it.

Agent Carlile arrived and took verbal statements from me, the dealer, and two of the suits. He said he would seize the surveillance video. The agent asked me to complete a written statement, including any supporting documentation about game rules, and send it to him. He said he would issue a ruling by mail within thirty days, but for now, the dealer could take my $200. She did.

Sands Regency does not have blackjack rules on its website. I understand the logic of the casino's position, but I think it's silly. It carves out a single exception to the generally understood rule that an Ace is one or eleven, at the player's discretion. This exact sequence of cards is the only time this "exception" would result in a changed result of a hand. I later filed a written complaint with Gaming, which subsequently ruled in the casino’s favor. I haven’t decided whether or not to appeal this decision.


----------------------------------------------

Following is a copy of the player’s complaint. Linked below is a copy of the written ruling the player received from the Gaming Control Board.

----------------------------------------------

State of Nevada, Gaming Control Board

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT -- Case number 06-1302

The only matter in dispute is whether a licensee has the right to change a fundamental rule of blackjack, denying a player the option to deem an Ace to be a one or 11, without a specific notice to patrons of the rule change. The mere indication on a small sign that the licensee permits doubling down only on 9, 10, and 11 is not sufficient warning of the licensee’s intent to apply this bizarre “rule.”

The attempted “rule change” is of such magnitude that it changes the basic math of the game. Knowing that receiving a 2 on an Ace, 8 double down would result in the hand being counted as a total of 11 instead of the obvious 21 would preclude a rational player from making this double down. By obscuring the “rule,” the licensee is attempting to profit from the ambiguity it created. The Board should not allow this to happen.

Nevada Gaming Regulation 5.012 states, in pertinent part:

2. Payoff schedules or award cards must accurately state actual payoffs or awards applicable to the particular game or device and shall not be worded in such manner as to mislead or deceive the public. Maintenance of any misleading or deceptive matter on any payoff schedule or award card or failure on the part of a licensee to make payment in strict accordance with posted payoff schedules or award cards may be deemed an unsuitable method of operation.

The licensee claiming it does not have to pay off an obvious winning hand changes the payoff schedule of the game of blackjack, and is designed to mislead or deceive the public.

Nevada Gaming Regulation 5.011 states, in pertinent part:

5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action. …

10. Failure to conduct gaming operations in accordance with proper standards of custom, decorum and decency, or permit any type of conduct in the gaming establishment which reflects or tends to reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the gaming industry.


Attempting to profit from an absurd interpretation of a common game rule is not within proper standards of custom, decorum and decency, and reflects or tends to reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the gaming industry.

Nevada Gaming Regulation 23.080 states, in pertinent part:

23.80 Posting of rules. The rules of each game shall be posted and be clearly legible from each table and must designate: …

5. Other rules as may be necessary.


In attempting to make a major rule change to a basic rule of a common casino game, the licensee should have posted this rule. Nevada does not publish rules of blackjack, so we need to refer to other authoritative sources.

The website BlackjackInfo.com publishes Blackjack Rules:

2.2: Values of the cards

In blackjack, the cards are valued as follows:
An Ace can count as either 1 or 11, as demonstrated below. …

The Ace can be counted as either 1 or 11. You need not specify which value the Ace has. It's assumed to always have the value that makes the best hand.
(emphasis added)

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-rules.php#2.2

There is no exception for a double down on Ace, 8 that receives a 2.

Mohave Community College in Bullhead City, AZ offers a dealer training course that trains many dealers for employment in Laughlin, NV casinos. The course is run by experienced casino personnel. Enclosed are copies from the Blackjack Handbook published by the college. From Page 5:

VALUE OF CARDS …

3. Any Ace shall have a value of eleven unless that would give a player’s or Dealer’s count in excess of 21, in which case it shall have value of one.


There is no exception for a double down on Ace, 8 that receives a 2.

The licensee claims that by posting a rule permitting double downs on 9, 10, and 11 only, the patron forfeits the right to avail himself of a universally known and understood tenet of blackjack; i.e., the right to deem his Ace as a one or 11. The licensee has not posted this purported change to a basic rule of the game, resulting in an ambiguity. Sands Regency is the only casino in Reno that restricts double downs to 9, 10 and 11, further obscuring the purported rule change (see Current Blackjack News, July 2006 issue attached).

It is well-settled in contract law that an ambiguity should be resolved against the party that created it. Contra proferentum has been held determinative in resolving ambiguity in a contract that, like the agreement here, is drafted by one party and offered on a take it or leave it basis without meaningful negotiations.

Where a contract is open to two different but equally probable interpretations, it is interpreted against the author, especially if there is a power imbalance between the parties. (emphasis added)

The conduct of gaming in a casino is essentially a contract between the licensee and the patron. The licensee has “authored” the contract. The licensee has created the ambiguity. The ambiguity should be interpreted against the author of the words and not against the other party. There certainly is a power imbalance between the parties.

Courts resolve ambiguities in various ways … when the ambiguity cannot (otherwise) be resolved. In such cases, the nondrafting party to a contract is protected by contra proferentum -- "against the proffering party." The principle of the doctrine is that ambiguities are always interpreted against the drafter of the ambiguous language. (emphasis added)

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jhv3q/Contracts_2005/supp/sophisticated_lady.htm

The licensee is the “drafter of the ambiguous language.” The ambiguity must be resolved against it, and in favor of the patron. The Sands Regency's purported "rule" attempts to carve out an exception to the commonly understood "Ace is one or eleven" rule that would apply only to a specific hand, and would only apply at a casino that restricts double downs to 9, 10, and 11. As previously noted, Sands Regency is the only casino in Reno that has this specific restriction.

The only hand in blackjack where this purported "rule" would change the result of a hand is with the exact combination of three cards; Ace, 8, and 2. No other card drawn to a double down on Ace, 8 would change the result of the hand because of the purported "Sands Regency rule."

Therefore, the commonly understood principle of blackjack, as stated in the dealer training course referenced above:

Any Ace shall have a value of eleven unless that would give a players or Dealers count in excess of 21, in which case it shall have value of one.

… would have to be changed to read as follows:

Any Ace shall have a value of eleven unless that would give a players or Dealers count in excess of 21, in which case it shall have value of one, except in a casino that permits doubling down only on 9, 10, and 11 in the case of a double down on Ace, 8, and drawing a 2, in which case the Ace does not have a value of eleven, but instead has a value of only one.

Clearly this would be absurd. The courts and the Supreme Court have always chosen interpretations which do not lead to an absurdity over the one which leads to an absurdity (the absurdity doctrine).

http://www.answers.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum

I respectfully request that the Board order the licensee to pay me the $400.00 in dispute.

I have reviewed this voluntary statement and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

/s/

--------------------------------------------

The Gaming Control Board agreed with the casino's position, as shown in the ruling linked below.

http://bj21.com/al/sands_regency_gaming_letter.jpg


To make the image in the link larger, left click over the text.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
irishsetter



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Aug Thu 03, 2006 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not that I needed one, but ANOTHER reason not to patronize the Sands.

Title of the thread should be changed to Sands Regency SUCCESSFULLY cheats blackjack player out of $400

Tell your friends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stan_allen



Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 1129

PostPosted: Aug Thu 03, 2006 8:41 am    Post subject: Gambling, the law, the gaming control board, and you Reply with quote

All that for a $200 hand? You'd really, really think that the casino would have better things to worry about.

I like the memorandum on points and authorities (Statement) submitted to the board, but I'm not suprised that they'd rule in favor of the casino, which I suspect reserves the right to play by whatever wacky rules it thinks up.

As patrons, we are of course, free to take our money elsewhere, and if this is the Sands's actual "Rule", then we know one more place not to bet our blackjack money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
spinner



Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Aug Thu 03, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: OK you have me believing Reply with quote

After reading all that, and the excellent case the patron put forth, I am somewhat shocked at the response from the Gaming Control. But we can vote with our dollars, and that is a good reason why players will go elsewhere. It is disheartening to see another Reno Casino try to run out yet another high limit gambler. I feel that Reno really only wants the low level guys that have tendency to drink too much and play without any knowledge.

I am glad this is getting some visibility on this site, and it is a shameful act by the Sands. They should have overridden the supervisor and paid the guy. I used to go by the Sands occassionally, but I will forever take them off my list (along with Harrahs, Reno).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hifi



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 13
Location: Cupertino, CA

PostPosted: Aug Thu 03, 2006 9:52 pm    Post subject: And Harold 'n Bill Spin One More Time... Reply with quote

...in their graves, that is. When they were building their empires in Reno, my mom (now 86 yrs. old), recalls a time when Harold Smith, Jr. would deal 21 for kicks and sometimes continue to hit his hand until he busted so that everyone would automatically win. In a nutshell, that's the difference between Reno in its heyday and the desolate gaming destination it has

Based on the Sands logic, if you doubled down on A,9 and caught another Ace, you don't have 21, you have eleven! Actually, they shouldn't have let the guy double on A,8 because he actually had 19! It has always been assumed that an ace is 1 or 11 depending on if it makes your best hand...if it would bust it, it must be a 1.

I wonder how much money the Sands will lose from those of us who will not show our face in there, vs. the $200 they gained from this foray into the Twilight Zone.

hifi
_________________
Moving in stereo...with no static at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
dedhd



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Aug Sun 13, 2006 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that since the player was allowed to double down, then his hand was counted as a nine, when dealt a two that made it eleven. I'm not so sure that the casino was wrong, I know that will be an unpopular opinion but .....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
$$4me



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 19
Location: Bay area

PostPosted: Sep Sat 02, 2006 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A 8, if he double down, wouldn't he have to show his two cards, and why didn't the supervisor stop it if it was against the rule. I haven't play black jack in a long time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bama



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 89

PostPosted: Sep Thu 28, 2006 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Horrible story! I will stay away from the SANDS!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Visitreno Forum Index -> Reno Comments All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group