Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The Pro-Gambler, Poker Pro's Included

4 The Pro-Gambler, Poker Pro's Included

Within the posting titled "Source Page" you will find that I related to you that, "most state's follow Nevada and New Jersey models as these were the first states to set the tone, with New Jersey following Nevada.  This fact is evidenced in an article found in the Miami Herald, "Florida gaming commission to follow N.J., Nevada models." (See Miami Herald in "Source Links" to the right)."

I felt some background research on my part was needed to give my opinion some further basis in fact and law. I also needed a respite after posting "Low Down Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal (Shame)." So, to all the Pro's, I give to you my opinion as to why the real pro's flock to Las Vegas. Some knowingly, and some just by chance, but there are benefits and downsides to everything in life, especially a gamblers life.

First lets take a look at the law and what it says. In this posting I will deal with the so called models, those being Las Vegas and New Jersey, respectively.  Both have statutory laws for the regulation of gaming. Nevada has the "Nevada Gaming Control Act," and New Jersey has it's own "Casino Control Act."  I find that it is best to remember that the "Act's" are the statutory laws as passed by the State Legislature. The "Act's" in turn empower the "Regulations" that are promulgated by the "Agencies" created by the Act's. (E-I-E-I-Oh what DA?)

The agencies are the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. The legislators say: "Ok, we've petitioned the public and they said that its ok for this State to have legalized gaming, now we can't sit around and make up rules for gambling so lets  pass the buck." They create a State agency, give it a name, and tell them to make up the regulations that will be empowered by the "Act."

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe those of you that are Pro's and have a legal background can chime-in by way of comment to correct any miss-step's I make. (Vanessa Selbst, Tiffany Williamson, and others HOLLA!)  I find a huge contrast in the two states gaming acts. One holds: "Since casino operations are especially sensitive and in need of public control and supervision, and since it is vital to the interest of the State to prevent entry, directly or indirectly, into such operations or the ancillary industries regulated by this act of persons who have pursued economic gains in an occupational manner or context which are in violation of the criminal or civil public policies of this State."

That State referred to above is New Jersey. My focus is the phrase "pursued economic gains in an occupational manner," that resound in the "Professional Gambler" to me.  What do you think? Is New Jersey saying we don't want pro gamblers in our casino's? You tell me and the rest of John and Jane Q Public, does N.J. casino's treat you, as a pro, with the proverbial "ten-foot pole." (Comment, Holla, Tweet, Something, let us know, be bout it!)

Test the source for yourself, click in the "Source Link" to the right "The Act" and go to Article I of the N.J. Casino Control Act, 5:12-1 (b) (9). Please finish reading this posting first, because you want all the facts don't you? I've downloaded the Nevada Gaming Control Act and searched it to see if the word "occupational" is used in the same context, as used in New Jersey.  As you can guess from the tenor of this blog, Nevada does not use the word or phrase "pursued economic gains in an occupational manner," in the same context as New Jersey. So, those in Vegas, get your pro gamble on. (See "Source Page" click link to NVGCB)

HOWEVER, I did say there were benefits and a downside. The downside may be that although Las Vegas appears to welcome the pro, their laws appear to make it easier for them to "eject that ass" oop's!, pardon me, I meant to say exclude you.  Those that followed the "Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino" trilogy below, saw that New Jersey casino's loose their common law right to exclude do to the Casino Control Act. Said fact was settled within Uston v Resorts. (See Uston v Resorts blog below, ¶ 3 subsection (B)).

Nevada's Gaming Control Act differs in that NRS 463.0129 ( e) (3) (a) clearly states: "This section does not: Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason;" Hey! Are you paying attention, it says "does not abrogate or abridge the casino's common-law right to exclude or eject any person from the premises," that means unless you keep your cool when someone "sucks-out" or you get "River-ed" they (da casino) can eject you. Note I have not read into NV's meaning of ejection, in New Jersey they have a two tiered system so to speak and depending on who you ask.  In Jersey and depending on what you do, they may ask you to leave, meaning for that day, or they may do what the casino terms a "formal eviction," which has yet to be defined by law.  They appear to think it means when security tells you what management told them to tell you, or they call Gaming Enforcement and they give you a summons to appear before the Atlantic City Municipal Court.

You don't want to miss when I discuss the whole Municipal Court thing, especially considering that the Supreme Court of New Jersey has said that no Municipal Court, especially in South Jersey, should have any dealings in any casino matters.  That's from a case called Knight v. Margate. (I spell Homework, delay the turkey for the curious)

For those of us that have to do our own cooking for this "Thanksgiving" coming upon us tomorrow, I will close here so that you can get back to the bird and or make plans as to where you can get a meal.  Friday, I will also get back to cooking that goose I got in my oven. Till then have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving and keep the gaming knowledgeable! TheCasinoGamingOracle

No comments:

Post a Comment