|
|
#1
10-19-2007, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Legal Question
Several years ago, I placed myself on the voluntary self-exclusion list from Louisiana casinos (craps is the devil).
My question is this: Is there any sort of reciprocal agreement b/w LA and Mississippi that would keep me from playing in Biloxi? PS-no need to flame, I had a problem with gambling, not poker. 
|
|
#2
10-19-2007, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
[ QUOTE ]
Several years ago, I placed myself on the voluntary self-exclusion list from Louisiana casinos (craps is the devil). My question is this: Is there any sort of reciprocal agreement b/w LA and Mississippi that would keep me from playing in Biloxi? PS-no need to flame, I had a problem with gambling, not poker. [/ QUOTE ] Each Mississippi casino has it's own self limitation policy. Some casinos will exclude you if you ask but all they are required to do (or were required in 2002 when I learned about this stuff) is not send you mail, not cash your checks, not give you a cash advance against your credit card, not give you credit, and not give you comps.
|
|
#3
10-19-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
|
|
#4
10-19-2007, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
[ QUOTE ]
I had a problem with gambling, not poker. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand. Poker isn't gambling? You win every single time you play?
|
|
#6
10-20-2007, 01:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
I'd call the various casino's security departments and ask them.
|
|
#7
10-20-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I had a problem with gambling, not poker. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand. Poker isn't gambling? You win every single time you play? [/ QUOTE ] I think you understand. Why bait him? [/ QUOTE ] While his style could be better, he has an important point. Poker is gambling. It *may* be gambling with a long term edge, but its still gambling. If you have a gambling problem and an insufficient bankroll, poker can cause its share of financial difficulties.
|
|
#8
10-20-2007, 02:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I had a problem with gambling, not poker. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand. Poker isn't gambling? You win every single time you play? [/ QUOTE ] I think you understand. Why bait him? [/ QUOTE ] While his style could be better, he has an important point. Poker is gambling. It *may* be gambling with a long term edge, but its still gambling. If you have a gambling problem and an insufficient bankroll, poker can cause its share of financial difficulties. [/ QUOTE ] For sure, some folks treat it as pure gambling. I think we all know that gambling theory is an important component of poker, and we're also all well aware that poker doesn't exactly fit the definition of gambling - it's on the edge. Some pros and authorities flatly state that it's not, others insist that it is. The truth is that it depends on the definition, and as with most definitions, there are many shades of meaning. So it depends. Both of the dogmatic positions miss the point: that it doesn't really matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether God can create a problem that he cannot solve. So I wonder about the motivation behind that needlessly provocative statement that adds no value. Meanwhile, the original poster asks an interesting question.
|
|
#9
10-21-2007, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legal Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I had a problem with gambling, not poker. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand. Poker isn't gambling? You win every single time you play? [/ QUOTE ] I think you understand. Why bait him? [/ QUOTE ] While his style could be better, he has an important point. Poker is gambling. It *may* be gambling with a long term edge, but its still gambling. If you have a gambling problem and an insufficient bankroll, poker can cause its share of financial difficulties. [/ QUOTE ] For sure, some folks treat it as pure gambling. I think we all know that gambling theory is an important component of poker, and we're also all well aware that poker doesn't exactly fit the definition of gambling - it's on the edge. Some pros and authorities flatly state that it's not, others insist that it is. The truth is that it depends on the definition, and as with most definitions, there are many shades of meaning. So it depends. Both of the dogmatic positions miss the point: that it doesn't really matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether God can create a problem that he cannot solve. So I wonder about the motivation behind that needlessly provocative statement that adds no value. Meanwhile, the original poster asks an interesting question. [/ QUOTE ] The issue is that if somebody has a gambling problem it is about compulsion and obsession not whether or not they have an edge. When they are winning all will be well. When they are losing, that is when the disease kicks in. If the person truly has a gambling problem they may go to the next level of play (which may be over their head) in order to win back their money and then the next level (which will definitely be over their head) and then to the loan sharks and then the next level and then ... It is likely to have a bad outcome. While it is true that some alcoholics can go back to drinking again in moderation - it is always the advice of professionals that they do not attempt it. The possible outcomes are too costly.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
