Homestead_World

When Ed Thorpe published his book Beat the Dealer in 1962, outlining a simple strategy to gain an advantage over casinos by blackjack “card counting”, casinos considered anyone who might apply Thorpe’s method to be cheating. While largely untested in court, very little progress was made towards changing the belief that advantage gambling was illegal over the next twenty years.

Legalization of Advantage Gambling

On November 22, 1983 Steven Einbinder and Tony Dalben were playing blackjack at the Golden Nugget Casino, located in downtown Las Vegas. They were videotaped engaging in certain activities, which led the casino to the conclusion that Einbinder and Dalben were violating the Nevada cheating statutes.

Specifically, Dalben was seated in the 1st base position at a blackjack table, where he could occasionally observe the dealer’s hole card. Dalben allegedly transmitted that information to Einbinder with hand signals. Einbinder then made bets of up to $700 on the basis of Dalben’s signals.

Steven Einbinder and Tony Dalben were arrested and charged with cheating. They appeared in the Las Vegas District Court, where the Court found that Einbinder and Dalben only used their powers of observation to gain an advantage over the casino. Since the information about the dealer’s hole card was made available through “sloppy” dealing practices, the District Court found them not guilty.

The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court. On December 18, 1984, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld that decision. Here is the decision:

******
Respondents were charged with cheating at gambling and other related felonies. The facts of the alleged offenses were essentially undisputed. In particular, the evidence showed that respondent Dalben was lawfully seated at his position at the blackjack table, that he did not use any artificial device to aid his vision, and that he was able to see the dealer's "hole" card solely because of the admittedly "sloppy" play of the dealer. Respondent Dalben then communicated his information to respondent Einbinder. The district court ruled that respondents' conduct did not constitute a violation of the cheating statutes. We agree.

Cheating is defined as the alteration of the selection of criteria which determine the result of a game or the amount or frequency of payment. NRS 465.083, see Sheriff v. Martin, 99 Nev.. 336, 662, P.2d 634 (1983). We have considered the briefs and the record, and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel. We conclude that in this case the district court correctly found that respondents' conduct did not constitute cheating at gambling. Accordingly, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
******

The particular language of the decision opened the door to advantage gambling in Nevada. Specifically, as long as a person used his powers of observation without the aid of an artificial device, his activities would not be considered cheating. Note also that the Court seemed to have no problem with Dalben signaling Einbinder. Urban legend in Las Vegas has it that signaling other players at a gaming table is not legal, yet clearly that’s not the case.

In the following years, Nevada courts consistently held that various other specific methods of advantage play were likewise not illegal.

Players’ Rights

Despite the fact that advantage gambling involves no illegal activity, casinos still don’t like it. Casinos reserve the right to ask players to leave the casino if they are suspected of being advantage gamblers, and in extreme (and rare) cases casinos still have advantage gambling players arrested for cheating.

For the most part, advantage gamblers who have overstayed their welcome are asked to leave casinos politely, which is called a ‘back-off’. The pit boss normally approaches the suspected advantage gambler and says something like, ‘Sir, your blackjack game is too strong for us. You are welcome to stay at our casino and play any other game you like, but no more blackjack.’ Advantage players should, of course, take their chips and go elsewhere once receiving a back-off.

In more extreme cases, usually when a great deal of money is involved (say, greater than $10,000), a casino might have a player arrested for cheating. So how can a casino have someone who didn’t break any laws arrested? Simple, if a casino is willing to swear-out a complaint saying that the advantage gambler was cheating, the local police are willing to book him. The advantage players must arrange bail and the ordeal is a genuine hassle, but the local district attorney will not press charges. The bail money is, of course, eventually returned to the advantage gambler. However, some casinos are now learning that there is a risk to swearing-out a complaint against someone who didn’t break any laws – the casino can be sued!

Players have been recently fighting back against casino detainment and unlawful arrest. Advantage gamblers now appear to have gained the upper hand legally, since advantage gamblers have been successful in a number of recent civil lawsuits against casinos. The most notable lawsuit of this kind is the Grosjean/Russo case.

Grosjean and Rosso were playing blackjack at Caesar’s Palace in 2000. They discovered that a blackjack dealer was revealing his hole card when he checked for a dealer blackjack. Since advantage gamblers in Nevada can expect protection from the Einbinder/Dalben decision (entered some 16 years prior this event), there can be no realistic defense for detaining and arresting someone for hole carding in the year 2000, but that is exactly what happened.

Evidently Caesar’s Palace wasn’t really sure how Grosjean and Rosso were able to win, since the initial accusation and arrest was for card bending. It was later confirmed by video tape that card bending never occurred. In reality, since Caesar’s Palace didn’t know exactly how Grosjean and Rosso were winning at that time, Grosjean and Rosso were actually detained and arrested for winning. Of course arresting people for winning has a nasty side effect for casinos; it makes them look like sore losers.

According to the facts presented in the case, Griffin Investigations listed Grosjean as a known card bender, among other things, in their infamous “Griffin Book”. The Griffin Book is a series of infamous publications that advise casinos of known cheaters and advantage players. Grosjean was identified by the Griffin Book, and Caesar’s Palace ultimately had Grosjean and Rosso detained and arrested based on information contained in the Griffin Book.

Once cleared of criminal charges, Grosjean and Rosso filed a civil lawsuit against Caesar’s Palace and Griffin Investigations. Grosjean and Rosso prevailed in that lawsuit, reportedly receiving $25,000 each in actual damages and an undisclosed settlement from Caesar’s Palace for punitive damages. This was a huge victory for advantage gamblers that has shaken the entire gaming industry.

Even more shocking to the gaming industry was a loosely related incident where Grosjean was detained at the Imperial Palace in 2001. Grosjean wasn’t even gambling at Imperial Palace during that incident, yet was detained for questioning. Grosjean filed a lawsuit against Imperial Palace for wrongful detainment. In 2004, Grosjean prevailed in that case and a jury awarded Grosjean $99,990 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. While the punitive damages were later capped by statute at $300,000, Imperial Palace was still liable for nearly $400,000.

The result of the current legal trend is that several casinos have learned a very hard lesson about how to treat advantage gamblers. Players can count on the fact that casino security personnel have been retrained in how to avoid lawsuits like Grosjean’s case. As a result, gamblers can expect to be treated in a more democratic fashion in the future.