^pretty standard imo

There'd be no issue if they made a "whites-only" casino? Or a "no jews" casino?

B&M mods, I'm not sure why this wasn't moved from NVG when it was originally posted. Asleep at the wheel ldo.

Sorry for any clean-up you might have to do.

If you are sitting there and betting the minimum and then covering the table when banking it is called "chasing the bank". It is frowned upon by card rooms as you are taking away a seat for an actual player.

There are rumors that M8trix and their corporation have funds illegally co-mingled, but there is no proof of it that I know of.

Aside from the San Jose Gaming Division, there is also a state division that licenses the corporation, all their employees, and the card room. It is the California Gambling Control Commission. If you believe you were wronged you can direct a complaint to them with an email here: complaints@cgcc.ca.gov

1. The "Corporation", otherwise known as TeamView Inc, has their own office at M8trix. It was originally supposed to be near the count room. The City objected to the proximity to the count room.

2. As mentioned, there have been rumors that GC owners are involved with TeamView, which would be illegal, but nothing has ever been proven.

3. The Corporation runs things. They tell the Floors when to open/close a table. That includes kicking poker players off of a (Calfornia Games) table that they had been playing on.

4. Notice they always get Seat 1? If nobody else takes the bank, the game "breaks and restarts with the Dealer/Player position in Seat 1".

5. Document what happened. Send to: City Police Gaming Division. Cal. Gambling Control Commission. Mercury News.

such a sketchy casino... sorry to hear about the situation. I'd be hitting up the gaming commission for sure

this x1000

If you defined this a little more I'd probably be willing to give you very good odds relative to your stated position.

too bad you didnt get banned from the commerce; a 1 year ban there lasts 24 hours.

that sucks, but as far as the legality of barring you; it is legal, because it's their house, and they make the rules. they can always come up with something, or make it up as they go along.
if they are responsible for a breach of some state or local law, it prolly doesnt have much to do with them barring you.

I think the argument that you and your friends are essentially acting like a corporation without a license is very weak imo. The corporation pays a fixed rate in exchange for a permanent reserved seat at every table and secondarily office/breakroom access for personnel within a casino. Did you and your buddies try to put a reserved sign down at a seat at every table or takeover office space? I do not see how a few buddies playing at few tables with a shared bankroll can in any possible way be construed as acting like a corporation without proper licensing. The key defining characteristic of a corporation is the reserved seat that is rented-- not a large or shared bankroll. This is all assuming worst case scenario where you and your buddies were yelling updates from table to table, vocalizing your running shared bankroll profits/losses. What this casino wants to aggressively protect is exactly what is explicitly outlawed in California-- House gambling. What is legal is player to player equal opportunity gaming. If players exercising their banking is inconvenient to the corporation or lowers overall profit that is too bad for the corporation/house. There is no exception to the legality of player versus player wagering based on profits of one player (corporation).

I would think this indicates a relationship between the corp and the casino that should theoretically not be allowed. The casino should be indifferent to who banks and the corp should not have the authority or ability to request someone else be booted for banking. My guess is an investigation is in order and you'll find improper financial relationships between the corp and the casino, or the corp and the casino staff.

+1000 and 500 likes.

I know of one Casino in Southern California where the owner and senior managers have huge if not all the shares in the corporation.

A well known pro came in and tried to bank, all they did was put 6 people at the table betting table max against him. They eventually booted him and his posse out.

Quick check, did the corporation have special "drop" chips for which they paid collections with that you couldn't use?

You'll win too, but you won't get a nickle in damages since there are none.

Or thrown off the Coronado Bridge.

Those corporation is pretty stupid IMO. What they should do is to put card counter against those guys and set pen at 5.5/6 or smth like that. That would slowly, silently and efficiently transfer all those guys money to corporation

Banker is not obligated to cover all bets iirc. If you've been betting $20 and then throw out a $200 bet, it's not getting covered. It's not like you see in the movies where the fake whale can come over to sit, it ain't Vegas. The tables are usually packed and there's sometimes a waiting list.

Have you ever played blackjack in a California casino? I doubt it.

Try hooking up with a local TV news department. They are always looking for stuff like this and they should have no problem exposing the obvious, and getting the authorities involved. Get 10-15 guys and hopefully they get banned too with the cameras running.

Most likely this will expose somebody in city hall letting this stuff go on unabated.

The quality of some of the replies in this thread would give any NVG thread a run for its money. If you don't understand how table games in CA card rooms work, you should refrain from putting your 2 cents in.

Regarding the OP, the casino might be in the wrong here. You should most definitely complain to the CA gaming commission and maybe consult an attorney that specialized in gaming.

Also, with a $3k bankroll you were destined to go broke. The variance for doing this is enormous because you have to overcome the collection for both your mandatory bets and your banked hands, plus the -EV bet (hopefully you know perfect basic strategy for the rules they have).

I've looked into this pretty thoroughly and feel that you have to have at least $300 in action at the table to make it profitable but for a reasonable hourly you need to be able to bank bigger action. I personally wouldn't do so without at least a $50k bankroll, and even then your RoR is probably high.

You don't sue them for being barred. You sue them for avoiding regulations and try to get a pit bull lawyer to prove a connection btw the corporation and casino.

If there is no connection, then the casino has no motivation to bar you. Achieves the same goals but gets around the issue of the Casino being able to bar you for any reasons.

zero

DrawingDonkey, this thread was in NVG at some point, so that's what you're seeing.

any updates?

also how is this beatable when you have to pay like $2 to be the banker and you only bet $200?

The banker can bet enough to cover all bets, usually much more than $200.

Perfect strategy is at worst a 2% edge for the banker. Most people don't play perfectly.

Why do you type "PERIOD", just use punctuation and we read with our eyes. They would certainly loose the court case on both counts (abusive banning and bypassing regulations) if you can prove they banned the players because they wanted to protect a business the house had no business being involved in.

While the law most likely states, employees or shareholders shouldn't play in their own games, have hidden share in the casino games, offer a game as house vs players etc.