To answer the first part of this question, we returned to a similar one we answered in this column back in August, 2006. Here's what we wrote then, which still holds true.
Card counting is not illegal anywhere in this country. In fact, it's illegal for it to be illegal in New Jersey, which long ago banned casinos from barring card counters from playing at the blackjack tables (see QoD 10/17/2006 on the life and times of Ken Uston). Of course, the A.C. casinos have taken drastic enough countermeasures that card counting there is difficult at best, such as using eight-deck shoes that are shuffled early and prohibiting mid-shoe entry.
While not illegal in Nevada -- as long as you're not using a device that helps you track the cards -- the casinos are private property. Hence, the owners, bosses, or their representatives have the right to "back off" or "bar" anyone they want to for any reason at all.
When backed off, a blackjack player is asked not to play, as happened to you. In many cases, a player is told that he's welcome to participate in any game in the casino except blackjack. Barring -- also known as being 86'd (see QoD 11/05/2008), being read the Trespass Act, or being trespassed -- entails a boss or security guard telling a player that he's not welcome anywhere in the casino ever again. If you're barred and you return, you can be arrested for trespassing.
Is this discrimination? Card counters have always thought so. However, it doesn't fit the legal definition of discrimination, since card counters aren't members of a race, religion, nationality, political affiliation, etc. In other words, they're not covered by discrimination laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Over the years, many card counters have been "backroomed," meaning bosses or security guards have forced them into a room or office away from the casino. There, they grab IDs, take mug shots, and generally intimidate (many card counters, back in the bad old days, were also assaulted). We don't know of any state in the U.S. where it's legal for a business establishment to detain a customer, unless he or she has committed a crime and the business representative is making a citizen's arrest (basically, holding the person until the police arrive). So, in theory, you can be detained if you're caught cheating, but you cannot be detained for card counting.
That's not to say it doesn't occur, though, and several court cases lately have resulted from exactly that happening to blackjack players. Some casinos are tolerant of card counting, especially if the bets aren't too big and the spreads (the difference in size from one bet to another) aren't too outrageous. Others are so intolerant of it that they become aggressive in tossing out anyone whom they suspect. This often manifests in their evicting someone who wins even a little money at the 21 tables, counting or not.
Native American casinos are a different story altogether, especially those within reservations. In these situations, the tribe is the law, and the tribal police enforce it. Players have fewer rights, and little recourse after the fact in the case of disputes. The local police won't come, because it's the tribe's land and they have no jurisdiction. You can't sue them either, except in a tribal court. It's touchy.
As to the second part of your question, this is something we've also visited before (QoD 06/16/2006):
To clarify the scope of these [casino] bans in the corporate age, we checked with someone we know who's been 86'd from many a casino. His understanding was that you're barred only from the specific property where the incident takes place.
However, we like to be thorough, so we called security at Harrah's, MGM Grand, and the Orleans, and each time were told categorically that a ban in one of their properties applies to the whole group, and that's not just limited to their casinos in Nevada. So, if you get banned at the Rio in Las Vegas, according to information from Harrah's security, you cannot play at Bally's Atlantic City, Caesars Indiana, or the Horseshoe Tunica, either.
So which is it? We contacted the Chief Deputy Attorney General for the State of Nevada, in the hope of getting a definitive answer. Here's what he had to say on the subject: "It depends on what's told to the patron when he or she is eighty-sixed. Security could tell someone that he's trespassed from more than one property." But, by extension, if the sweeping nature of the ban is not specified at the time the warning is read, then in theory that person is free to enter sister properties unless or until he's read the warning separately there.
Armed with this additional insight, we called another casino at random, the Aladdin (now Planet Hollywood), and questioned security there. The extremely helpful source concurred with the Attorney General's office, namely that it depends on what you're told at the time you are trespassed. If the person who reads you the trespass warning merely refers to the property that you're standing in at the time, then that's the only place where the ban applies. However, if you're told that you're also banned from other properties, then you are. So if you're being read the act and the person administering doesn't specify, don't ask for clarification about where the ban applies.
This made sense, but still seemed a little vague. So, still in search of the definitive answer on this murky subject, we turned to the Gaming Control Board. Here's what we were told: "Some properties have corporate security officers, whose authority stretches across all properties owned by that corporation and who can legitimately effect a group-wide ban. It's up to individual properties to decide how much authority their security officers have."
Still, if the property you're asked to leave is part of a group, the property's representative must name all the properties in the group when he or she reads the trespass warning. If they do and you then enter another property in that group, you can be arrested for trespassing.
Realistically, even if the respresentative doesn't specify the other properties during the barring, it'll be your word against his or hers. If the police get involved, the cops (as cops do in Nevada) are likely to take the side of the casino. The more likely scenario, however, is that you'll simply be read the trespass warning at the second property, and any other property in the group that you subsequently attempt to enter, until you're unambiguously barred from them all. If you make any trouble during the process, expect to be photographed (either with a CCTV or a hand-held camera) and your image circulated among all properties in the group.
For those who want to know more about this whole subject and the down-and-dirty particulars relative to the battle between players and casinos, we have an excellent book to recommend. Written by the number-one attorney defending advantage players, Robert Nersesian's Beat the Players: Casinos, Cops, and the Game Inside the Game is a fascinating account using real-life examples that have been recently litigated.
