Nolan Dallas confiscated flag (5k chip)

[sellthekids]

i get BJ21.com's newsletter (Stanford Wong's outfit.) today's newsletter had a link to the 2+2 article and a follow up from Nolan:
(below as printed in the newsletter)

Footnote to the linked article, from Nolan Dalla:
I went back down to MGM again last week. This time I took the person who originally had the chip (and gave it to me). He produced ID and was with me at the cage. They still refused to pay him! Whatever legal right the MGM had to stiff me certainly does not apply to the person who originally took the chip out of the MGM. By the way, the reason they refused to pay my colleague was -- his table play was not rated and they could not verify he played at the MGM a few months ago. So, this dispute also raises questions about rights to privacy. Must every person who plays a certain level at the MGM identify himself? What happened to rights to privacy and anonymity?

[Xhad]

sellthekids: Regarding that quote, I think that if one accepts the premise that this sort of rule should be allowed to exist at all, then "Here's my friend who played here a few months ago but didn't leave any kind of record" shouldn't circumvent it.

@goodgrief:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that chips that are confiscated for this reason should not go back to the casino but to a federal fund of some kind. Most casinos have it posted somewhere near the cage that it is against federal law to use chips like currency.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, exactly what use would the federal fund have for a $5K chip that can't be cashed?

A less smartass question would be, if this rule is presumably to protect the casino against chip theft or counterfeiting, doesn't making the casino eat $5K every time this happens kind of miss the point?

[good2cu]

While I was in vegas last summer I found it EXTRMELY common to poker players transcit chips of all values for debts etc. No one I know ever had a problem cashing out a chip of any amount (even flags.) Belliago chips are accpected everyone in vegas.

[Johnny King]

Quote:

The U.S. government is very jealous and protective of its right to coin money

Ummm this right has the federal reserve and it is not owned by the u.s goverment.

[sellthekids]

i continue to turn over in my mind, how are casino patrons notified about the rules and regulations governing the use of the chips? i have NEVER signed nor even read a contract that binds me on how i can use the chips. but i have both read and signed when purchasing Disney Dollars. have i missed a large sign at the entrance to casinos that tell me that my play must be verifiable and rated so that i can cash out chips? and don't give me this "long standing" rule BS, esp in light that Nolan should "know" that this is how casinos operate. casinos are regulated businesses who should be required to adhere to set regulations and laws. the Nevada Gaming Commission has a set of rules on chips, so how are these rules presented to casino patrons? http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg12.pdf one would think that just having perfunctory rules is not akin to actually informing users of them. sh|t, the entire computer industry operates on EULAs and the annoying practice of presenting them prior to software installation. i guess cash cages need pop-up windows with the Nevada Gaming rules?

Regualtion 12.060 item 4 specifically states that the casino is required to verify the patron is a player. did Nolan not present his player's card? what is the term length for being a "patron of its gaming establishment"?

would this behavior be tolerated in any other industry in the US? doubtful.

Xhad: i would expect that Nolan knew showing up with the chips original owner would not immediately get the response he wanted. judging the history of casinos in regards to their customers, you could show up with Jesus, Buddha, & Muhammad and they would still not pay this out. casinos are in the business of keeping money. i would expect that Nolan did this to help show cause in a suit-to-be-named-later. would be what i would do - get an attorney.

[The4Aces]

I think the MGMs excuse is BS. The way i look at it the chip should be a bearer instrument. Just like a check that is written out to CASH. Or bearer bonds. Both of those 2 things represent similarities to me as far the constitutional issue. Neither of them are government issues and both still have value to anyone that isn't retarded.

[sellthekids]

here is the Nevada Gaming Control Act statute that pertains to this issue:


12.060 Use of chips and tokens.
1. Chips and tokens are solely representatives of value which evidence a debt owed to their custodian by the licensee that issued them and are not the property of anyone other than that licensee.
2. A licensee that uses chips or tokens at its gaming establishment shall:
(a) Comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies of Nevada and of the United States pertaining to chips or tokens;
(b) Issue chips and tokens only to patrons of its gaming establishment and only at their request;
(c) Promptly redeem its own chips and tokens from its patrons by cash or check drawn on an account of the licensee;
(d) Post conspicuous signs at its establishment notifying patrons that federal law prohibits the use of the licensee’s tokens, that state law prohibits the use of the licensee’s chips, outside the establishment for any monetary purpose whatever, and that the chips and tokens issued by the licensee are the property of the licensee, only; and
(e) Take reasonable steps, including examining chips and tokens and segregating those issued by other licensees to prevent the issuance to its patrons of chips and tokens issued by another licensee.
3. A licensee shall not accept chips or tokens as payment for any goods or services offered at the licensee’s gaming establishment with the exception of the specific use for which the chips or tokens were issued, and shall not give chips or tokens as change in any other transaction.
4. A licensee shall not redeem its chips or tokens if presented by a person who the licensee knows or reasonably should know is not a patron of its gaming establishment, except that a licensee shall promptly redeem its chips and tokens if presented by:
(a) Another licensee who represents that it redeemed the chips and tokens from its patrons or received them unknowingly, inadvertently, or unavoidably;
(b) An employee of the licensee who presents the chips and tokens in the normal course of employment; or
(c) A person engaged in the business of collecting from licensees chips and tokens issued by other licensees and presenting them to the issuing licensees for redemption.
5. A licensee shall not knowingly issue, use, permit the use of, or redeem chips or tokens issued by another licensee, except as follows:
(a) A licensee may redeem tokens issued by another licensee if:
(1) The tokens are presented by a patron for redemption to a cashier of the licensee’s gaming establishment or, in the case of a location having slot machines operated by a licensed operator of a slot machine route, if a patron presents them to the operator’s employee at the location; or
(2) The tokens are presented by a patron at a table game; and
(3) The licensee redeems the tokens with tokens of its own, separates and properly accounts for the redeemed tokens during the count performed pursuant to the licensee’s system of internal control required by Regulation 6, and places the redeemed tokens in the table’s drop box, if redeemed at a table game; and
(b) A licensee may redeem chips issued by another licensee if:
(1) The chips are presented by a patron for redemption at the cashier’s cage of the licensee’s gaming establishment; or
(2) The chips are presented by a patron at a table game, and the licensee redeems the chips with chips of its own, places the redeemed chips in the table’s drop box, and separates and properly accounts for the redeemed chips during the count performed pursuant to the licensee’s system of internal control submitted pursuant to Regulation 6.050 or 6.060; and
(c) An operator of a slot machine route or its employee may redeem tokens that are issued by the operator for use at another location.
6. Chips whose use is restricted to uses other than at table games or other than at specified table games may be redeemed by the issuing licensee at table games or non-specified table games if the chips are presented by a patron, and the licensee redeems the chips with chips issued for use at the game, places the redeemed chips in the table’s drop box, and separates and properly accounts for the redeemed chips during the count performed pursuant to the licensee’s system of internal control required by Regulation 6.
7. Tokens may be used only at gaming establishments operated by persons holding nonrestricted gaming licenses, including restricted locations at which gaming devices are operated by licensed operators of slot machine routes.
(Adopted: 6/87. Amended: 8/88; 12/91; 2/94.)


so my contention was as to this passage:
4. A licensee shall not redeem its chips or tokens if presented by a person who the licensee knows or reasonably should know is not a patron of its gaming establishment,....

what is the term length of patronage? the gaming statute makes no determination. Nolan presented a player's card and was a rated player. the conversation he had at the cashier cage at MGM should have ended with that. unfortunately, one of Nolan's first admissions was, "Nolan Dalla: I did not get the chip from a gaming table. I’ve had it at my home for some time." this violates the gaming code.

so, besides all of this the true issue i think that is now before gamblers is: if you get a chip outside of allowable channels or if you cannot prove your gaming activity (you are not rated) then is the chip worthless?

as a poker player, unlike a slot player, rating is much less practical. until RFID chips go into effect, many casinos do not track your poker play, e.g. your hourly rate, comps, etc. so what are we as poker players to do?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]

Xhad: i would expect that Nolan knew showing up with the chips original owner would not immediately get the response he wanted. judging the history of casinos in regards to their customers, you could show up with Jesus, Buddha, & Muhammad and they would still not pay this out. casinos are in the business of keeping money. i would expect that Nolan did this to help show cause in a suit-to-be-named-later. would be what i would do - get an attorney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be that as it may, the quoted passage clearly tries to make it sound as though wanting to have a record of when his friend played was some extra Orwellian measure on the casino's part, rather than just doing what's necessary to enforce the rule (I'm not saying whether the rule is right or wrong, just that IF it's going to be enforced I don't see any other way it could be done). It just reeks of propoganda.

[TrustNo1]

Why is a 5k chip called a "flag"?

[MicroBob]

Nolan Dall said in his follow-up post:


[ QUOTE ]
Must every person who plays a certain level at the MGM identify himself? What happened to rights to privacy and anonymity?

[/ QUOTE ]


Dan Druff said:

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, it should be perfectly legal to walk into the MGM, cash out a $5000 chip, and say that you played last year and never got tracked. Tracking is a marketing tool for the casino. It should never be a requirement to be able to get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]


100% correct.
Giving them your players-card (or even getting one in the first place) is YOUR option.
This is not a requirement.
If I want to play anonymously then that's up to me.
Still means I should be allowed to get paid.


I suspect that Nolan will be back to the NV gaming-commission with his friend on this one.
And the NV gaming-commission will probably side with the freaking MGM in saying, "Well, you can't PROVE that he played there a few months ago. Therefore we can't pay you."


Man this stuff is making me pretty damned angry.