Category: Blackjack

A Funny Thing Happened on My Way to the Forum

By James Grosjean

(From Blackjack Forum Volume XXI #1, Spring 2001)
© 2001 Blackjack Forum

[Ed. Note: Last year, when I published James Grosjean’s first book, Beyond Counting, I wished that I could tell you the story that follows. I couldn’t. In fact, I only knew a small portion of what had happened when this casino surveillance department, to harrass two professional gamblers for a win, falsely accused them of cheating on a game. Now, James relates the whole story. — Arnold Snyder]

[Follow-up note from A.S.–Since this article was first published, James Grosjean has been voted into the Blackjack Hall of Fame. He is the author of Beyond Counting, one of the great works on professional gambling.]

Easter 2000

“Brighter days are ahead, young man.” What nerve he had trying to cheer me up. He was the one who had already missed one insulin shot because of the apathy of the jail guards, and no remedy was in sight. I smiled. He had caught me in a down moment, but of course he was right. And, I couldn’t help but be pleased that he had called me “young man.” I guess it’s all relative; he was quite old.

At that moment, I was bored more than anything else. It was Easter Sunday, there was nothing to watch on TV, no one to talk to, nothing to talk about, because I was sitting in a “holding tank” at the Clark County Detention Center. My “crime”? I am a professional gambler who is good at a card game. Very good.

Money Eyes

That Friday morning started like every other day that week: Wake up on the couch at Mike’s place and get ready for the Vegas heat. The addictions kick in right away: Mike always wants to swing by Starbucks first, I want to hit the games first. We strike our usual compromise. I’ll check one or two particular games high on my list, and if they aren’t immediately available, then we’ll go grab some coffee.

Checking on a particular game is in fact the only reason I am still in Vegas. I was scheduled to leave four days ago, but after my ex-partner Fredo betrayed me to a bunch of Vegas hustlers, I am hanging around town monitoring things, verifying the extent of the damage, but that’s another story (“The $80,000 Game”). Though my ex-partner already broke our deal, I am still keeping my word to not divulge that game, not even to Mike, with whom I’ve been staying all week. So, Mike and I hit the Strip a bit before noon, and I tell Mike that I’ll check on a few games and meet him at Caesars in about ten minutes.

Not much is happening at Caesars. Mike is checking out a game. It looks beatable, maybe an edge around 3%–6%. Perhaps it isn’t worth the exposure, but if we can pop it for $500–$1000, I could afford a muffin with my latte, so we decide to experiment a few hands. I sit in one seat, then another, with Mike playing here, then there. The dealer is definitely flashing, but she is a bit inconsistent, and I don’t want the frustration. Surely there are better games out there.

We are about to leave, when we see a new dealer come to the table. She watches for about 15 minutes, learning the game for the first time. We’re willing to teach her a few things. Then, to our amazement, she says this will be her table for the day, until 7 p.m. Where I’m from, a dealer would receive instruction away from the table, then watch an experienced dealer for a while, then deal for a few hours with an experienced dealer shadowing, and only then would the dealer be “signed off,” if competence has been demonstrated. Could Caesars be so arrogant to think that they could just tell a dealer the rules of a game for 15 minutes and then assign her the table?

After only a few hands, we know that our new dealer Steph is a “superstar,” so we start right in: “So, Steph, how long you been dealin’?” “What other games do you deal, Steph?” “Is today your Friday, Steph?” “Steph, would you mind filling out a questionnaire so that we can add you to our files. Please attach a passport-size photo, too.” It is going to be a good Friday.

In terms of the numbers, the SCORE of this game is around $5000. We are underbetting, though, because we are afraid that Caesars might not be able to stomach the action. We don’t want them to banish Steph to the roulette wheel, or worse, kick us out. Mike has been half-joking about wanting to win enough this week to buy a boat, so he is betting around $400 per hand. I am betting less, about $300 per hand; I want that muffin with my latte.

Steph says that she has been dealing ten years. Really, it’s more like a week, 500 times. Apparently no one has ever shown her how to hand-deal a game. Or perhaps she underestimates the training of our eyes. She isn’t giving it up too blatantly, just a bit off in the angle of her wrist when she snaps her hole cards. Not much, really just enough to give us a 35% edge.

After a couple of hours, I am getting quite used to the speed, the angle, the lighting, the design of these cards. I am very pleased with my play. I have made some gutsy calls, and though my chip pile is only treading water, my eyes are on the money. Beating the card game is always the easy part.

On the dead roulette game behind us, there is a nosy dealer who keeps trying to see our cards. If we had a third teammate, we’d send him to play roulette. It’s important to turn observers. This dealer is nosy to the point of being rude, and is costing the crew some tips, at least from me.

At around 4 o’clock, after three hours of play, Mike and I are ahead $18000, right at expectation. I am up only $800 of that, and we are not splitting, but I have enough for my muffin. I turn to Mike and whisper, “Now the question is: At what point do we leave?” Mike answers, “At 7 o’clock? What are you talking about? Where are you gonna find a game as good as this?!” That isn’t the point, but our decision is made for us about 15 minutes later.

The Tap

With no prior warning or indication of heat, we suddenly get the tap on the shoulder. We are told to step away from the table. We are the only ones playing (probably why the tap came at this moment), and we know we’ll be barred, so without much more than a “Sure, what’s the problem?” we step back and stand there, surrounded by three security guards. Our chips are still sitting on the table, and I’m relieved when they say we can take our chips, an indication that they are going to bar us, but that that will be the end of it. We put the chips in our pockets, and then continue to stand there. And stand there. For twenty minutes we stand there by the table, as security waits for instructions. In the distance there are suits on phones, and it sounds like Gaming Control agents are already on the premises, and have been here for an hour or so watching us play.

We have dealt with incompetent Gaming Control agents before, but in the end, they will have to concede that we have beaten the game legally, and we’ll be out of here, off to laugh about it over coffee. The guards will not answer any of our inquiries about what is going on, and why it is taking so long. They say only, “Thank you for your patience.” In the past, I have recommended that players in similar situations proceed to the exit with cautious confidence. In general, that’s still my advice, but I also always say that each situation is unique, and the player’s response must weigh all factors carefully, and quickly. Here, Mike and I consider it, but agree that there is no chance we could leave. The exit is far away, and we are surrounded by guards. There is no doubt in my mind that any move to the exit would be denied by the Caesars grunts, and the situation would escalate. Worse, the guards would then claim that we “tried to escape” or “created a public disturbance,” or some nonsense. It is clear: we have to stay cool, be sharp, and hope that the Gaming Control agents are not complete morons.

After twenty minutes of staying cool and being sharp, a suit comes over and asks for our names and birth dates. He is apparently a Caesars person; we have no obligation to tell him anything. I hope Mike realizes this, and, true to form, Mike fires off an alias right away, and the guy writes it down. Then I give an alias: “Jack Pozzi, 7/6/51.” Having given names, I’m expecting the guy to read us the Trespass Act and then kick us out. Then the unthinkable happens. The suit announces, “I’m taking you into custody for cheating,” and with that we are handcuffed and led through the casino to a back door.

I have been interrogated once before in my career, surrounded by security and threatened with handcuffs on another occasion, and chased on many other occasions, but the outcome was always just another story for a cocktail party. Nothing like this has ever happened to Mike or me.

While the incompetence of Caesars and Gaming Control cannot be overstated, I don’t understand how they could believe that we were cheating. I think that the more likely causes are envy, malice, and the libelous records of the Griffin Detective Agency regarding Mike. As we are led through the casino, past the gawking eyes of civilians, I am furious, stunned, and a bit nervous. It is comforting to have a partner, the truth, and the law on my side.

The Back Room

We are led into a small room with a desk and a bench. The bench has a metal bar on each end, perfect for handcuffing two prisoners. On the wall are two signs quoting the Nevada Revised Statutes supposedly giving them the right to imprison legal players. (For those of you who are not lawyers, I’ll translate: In the interpretation of Caesars and Gaming Control, if you win a lot of money, they have “probable cause” to arrest you for cheating.) On another wall, facing the bench, is a camera with a sign saying that the room could be recorded by both visual and audio equipment. Sitting on the desk is their in-house still camera. Only a few months ago, a card counter was handcuffed at Caesars. I wonder if he was brought to this same room.

After a moment, guards and suits come, and each of us is searched, and all of our stuff is placed on the desk. It’s a hole-card player’s toolkit: $23000 cash, $80000 chips, 30 player’s cards under different names, 2 baseball caps, 2 pairs of sunglasses, and a bottle of eye drops. They don’t seem surprised that there are no illegal devices in our possession. They are going to have to think for a while longer on what they can fabricate in the way of “probable cause.”

The suits go away, and we are left handcuffed to the bench, guarded by one or two uniforms at all times. As the minutes tick by, I keep my eyes glued to that desk. The guards can’t stop ogling the heap of money and chips, and they all joke, “We should go playing with you guys sometime.” Yeah, right.

At one point, Cod, a guy whom we had not seen previously, comes storming into the room, walks straight up to Mike’s face and yells, “Lemme see your hands, front and back! I’m the guy who’s going to take you to jail!” Mike shows the guy his hands, and the guy yells, “Both sides!” [Uh, hello, dude, Mike just showed you both sides and you were too busy gloating to look.] What is curious about the moment is that the guy is yelling in Mike’s face, even though we have been calmly sitting there handcuffed the whole time. It is disturbing to see how gleeful the guy is about the prospect of taking Mike to jail, and more worrisome that he announced with conviction that he will take Mike to jail, even though the body search turned up nothing, and we have not yet been questioned by anyone. The most curious thing is that the guy leaves the room without saying anything to me, or even acknowledging me. He clearly has a burning desire to hurt Mike. The guy probably has determined that Mike is the “big” player. His envy is showing. He is just a small Gaming Control agent who naively equates sadism with power.

Mike, though, is weakening. He looks depressed, and is hanging his head part of the time, and then getting chatty with the guards, telling them he’s a professional player, and so on. At one point, he even mentions my book [Beyond Counting, RGE, 2000], and I have to hush him and hope the guards didn’t notice. This is not yet the moment to divulge information, and the guards are just peons anyway. I want him to keep his mouth shut, or talk about the weather, and help me keep an eye on our stuff. Unfortunately, being handcuffed on opposite sides of the bench, and probably being recorded by both video and audio, I am having difficulty communicating with Mike.

It is not clear what is going on, but we surmise that Caesars and Gaming Control are reviewing videotape of our play. At about 6:10 p.m., I look over at Mike, and we decide that having been handcuffed for an hour and a half, and with Caesars and Gaming Control apparently still unable to figure out anything, the quickest way out of there is to tell them how we beat the game. Hole-card play is legal, after all.

When the head of Caesars security comes in the room, Mike just lays it out for the guy, explaining that we were playing a break-in dealer who was poorly trained. I give the executive summary: “If you’re playing a card game, and you know your opponent’s cards, you’re going to win. It’s totally legal.” The other guards nod and agree that if the dealer isn’t doing the job right, it isn’t our responsibility to fix it, and why shouldn’t we take advantage? The security chief just says, “That’s very interesting,” and leaves the room.

Now that they know how we beat the game, it shouldn’t be long before we get out of here, and I’m hankering for coffee and a muffin. It’s almost dinnertime, after all.

“Good Cop, Bad Cop”

At about 6:30 p.m., the agents come in and say that they want to question us, me first. They uncuff me and lead me into an office, where GCB agent Duck sits at the desk, Cod stands on the side, and a Caesars uniform stands in the corner. I am glad she is here, because she is the one person who seems to have a shred of integrity. They Mirandize me and say that I don’t have to talk to them, but it is quite clear to me that if I do not talk to them, they will just throw me in jail. At this point, I’m still thinking that cooperation will lead to their grudging admission that while we are not desirable Caesars patrons (i.e., we are not losers), we were playing legally. Since these are actually “officers of the law,” I agree to talk to them, triggering a “Good Cop, Bad Cop” shtick that makes Laurel and Hardy look like Shakespearian thespians.

First, the harassment begins over my identity, since I am not carrying ID. In the back room, I already gave my real name and Social Security number, but Bad Cop isn’t satisfied: “How tall do you say you are?” he asks, his tone dripping with sarcasm. “I don’t know, 5’ 10″? 5’ 11″? I got my driver’s license long ago, and I don’t know if the physical description is quite right.” Then he gets loud with me: “No! Here’s what I think: You’re not ‘James Grosjean.’ That’s just some guy you know.” Apparently, Bad Cop isn’t interested in the truth, but that’s all he’s going to get out of me: “Well, I am. I was a lot lighter then, too.”

Then, Bad Cop tries to get some dirt on me: “So where else [besides Caesars] have you played this week?” OK, the only point of this question is so he can call up those places and have me barred all around town, and get more videotape to figure out who my associates are, how we play, and so on. I tell him: “I don’t see how that’s productive,” and seeing Bad Cop’s head about to explode, I turn to “Good Cop,” who dismisses that line of questioning. Bad Cop asks: “What other games do you play?” I tell him that I play lots of games, anything with an edge. I try not to get specific. “Where did you stay last night?” Again, they’re looking to hang me at other places, but the truth hurts: “I slept on Mike’s couch.”

Having told them I’m a statistician, I start spouting numbers about hole-card theory. I’m giving the guy the statistical edge for this scenario, and that scenario. I don’t think Bad Cop has ever interrogated a statistician, and he’s getting frustrated. They’re not questioning my numbers, but they are obviously unsatisfied. Then I say, “Anyone sitting on the left half of the table could have seen those cards.” With that, Bad Cop triumphantly yells, “So you’re cheating, because you’re using information not available to everybody at the table!” By his interpretation of the law, a counter at third base, or even a BS player at third base, would be cheating, because he uses hit-card information that is not available to the first-base player. The guy is obviously not a legal scholar, nor am I, so I just say, “That’s not what the law means. The point is that I’m no special guy. Anyone could have sat down in that seat and seen this dealer’s cards. It’s totally legal. It’s described in the book, Blackjack and the Law, by Nelson Rose and Robert Loeb.”

Oh, boy, Bad Cop doesn’t want to hear citations: “Well that’s a book. You’re in the real world now!” I see, so in this “real world” of Gaming Control, the law isn’t relevant. He continues on this line of argument: “You’re going to put all this on a book?” and again he says the word “book” with utter disdain. “I have no choice. That’s how we were playing. I’m cooperating as much as I can.” With that, he again has the look of triumph: “Aha! You’re cooperating ‘as much as you can’.” Even when he twists my words, his argument is flaccid. After a bit of further frustration, he says, “I’m not talking to you anymore.” OK, now comes “Good Cop.”

“Well, I’ve looked at the cards, and the aces and tens are bent.” Ah, finally they have figured out something to fabricate, but duh, we weren’t playing blackjack. Why would a cheater bend the aces and tens? I again try to explain to him that with full hole-card information, bending the cards would be useless. He’s not disputing any of my hole-card information, but he’s sticking to his garbage: “Mike has a long history of [card bending].” With that, he shows me a libelous page from the Griffin book with Mike’s picture. Now I know that they really want to get Mike out of the game, and they don’t know what to make of me, and then “Good Cop” confirms that by saying: “We’ve never seen you before, and we’re surprised. You and Mike seem to be from two totally different worlds. How did you meet each other?” Without going into the long story, I just answer, “At the tables.”

So then “Good Cop” pretends to give me some “career advice”: “With your education, you’ve got a bright future ahead of you. If you go get a job, you could make $80000 a year.” I interrupt him by saying, “Actually, it would be more than that.” He continues: “But I can tell you this: if you’ve got a felony on your record, then you’re not going to get hired. They’re not going to say why; they just won’t hire you.” At this point, Bad Cop is still festering, and I’m starting to put “Good Cop” in the “Bad” category as well. He’s desperately trying to get me to roll on my partner, and he’s saying that the tape shows a “subtle move” by Mike where he could be bending the cards. He admits that the “move” is very subtle, which tells me that the tape shows the truth, that there’s absolutely nothing there. It was a hole-carding play, pure and simple. They don’t accuse me of making this “move,” but I think their strategy is to get me to somehow incriminate Mike, but I’ve already told him that I was not bending cards, Mike was not bending cards, and that our win was right at expectation given our edge from hole carding. Now Bad Cop wants to get back into it: “Get Russo in here! Keep ’em apart.”

So they lead me out of the room and make me stand facing the wall while Mike enters for his interrogation. Then they take me back to the back room, and recuff me. Not wanting to talk to the uniform about anything gaming related, I get him going on some macho stuff: tanks and military background. After a while, Mike returns, and we sit for a while. We’re worried. We don’t know if the whole “the cards are bent” is just a bluff to try to get us to accuse each other of things we didn’t do, or whether some Caesars or GCB guys actually tampered with the cards and bent them. It’s obvious that they hate Mike, but we’re still hoping that the truth will be enough to set us free.

After a few minutes, the badges come into the room, and the unthinkable happens: “We are going to arrest you for cheating and take you to the Clark County Detention Center.” Now that this announcement has been made, Bad Cop is on Cloud 9. He starts gleefully counting up the cash and chips again, now that they will be seized as evidence. After counting Mike’s money silently, with us watching along, he looks up and asks Mike, “Well, how much?” Then he looks and points over at me and says, “I know you know” [as if to say, “No help from the audience.”] Then he says he’s going to give us some advice, and it is: “When you get to CCDC, don’t let ’em know that you’re in there for a gaming offense.” “Good Cop” comments that we’d better keep our pants on real tight at CCDC.

The GCB agents are about to confiscate all of our cash and chips, and then they have a private word outside the room with a Caesars person, and then come back in and announce that they will confiscate only our cash, our Caesars chips, and our baseball caps. Our non-Caesars chips will go with us to the Card Counter Detention Center, where the Las Vegas Police Department will take custody.

Before leaving the Caesars back room, they use the in-house camera to take a front shot and profile shot (without our permission). It’s about 9:30 p.m. We’ve been held captive for about five hours already.

Friday Night at The Joint

Still handcuffed, we get into the GCB car and drive to CCDC, which is only a few blocks from the Fremont Street Experience. One at a time, we are processed by LVPD, who inventory all of our stuff and ask some basic questions. Meanwhile, Bad Cop is hamming it up with the LVPD, telling them that we were bending the Aces and Tens (BC: “That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!”). I don’t trust these cops, and I’m keeping an eye on all my chips sitting on the table, and then the cop checks off the box on his form saying that my “Attention to officer” is “Poor”! Well, excuse me, having never been to jail before, I don’t know the drill, and the verbal instructions are mumbled and vague. Having been stripped of our watches, wallets, and other personal items, but still wearing our street clothes and shoes, we enter The Tank.

There are about 20 guys in the tank, which is a room with a dirty, concrete floor, a wooden bench around the perimeter, a toilet in the corner, a TV with a plexiglass shield, and three phones. The first thing I notice is that there are apparently people sleeping or hiding underneath the wooden benches along the wall. How pathetic, or so it seems. I don’t like the fact that one guy, who looks like a gangbanger, seems to be drooling over us, and I hear him mutter, “Look at the homies they just brought in here.”

Each of us received his “sheet” listing the charges, arresting officers, and so forth. Finally, we get to see the official charges: “Cheating at gambling,” and, since there are two of us, “Conspiracy to cheat.” Each is a felony charge with bail set at $3000, so we need to find someone with $12000 to get us out.

Our first priority is to get on a phone. One phone is apparently broken, and half the people in there are trying to use the remaining two. The phones are finicky. If all goes well, we get a dial tone, dial the number, wait as the number is processed, then hear the tones as the computer redials the number. If someone answers, a pre-recorded voice announces, “This call is coming from the Clark County Detention Center. To accept the call, press 1.” Often the phone doesn’t work, blasting static or computer gibberish, and we have to hang up and start over. It takes some time before we figure out all this, and we don’t want to display our ignorance by asking too many questions. What is clear is that the phone will not allow any long distance calls, 800 numbers, pager numbers, credit cards, or calling cards. Cell phones can sometimes be reached, but the software controlling the phones is apparently adaptive, because the same jail phone would subsequently reject calls to that cell number with a message: “The number you have dialed is blocked.” Basically, the only numbers we can call are local, Vegas home numbers.

That limits our options. The big stumbling block is that Mike, though he lives in Vegas, doesn’t know anyone’s home number. He has these numbers programmed into his cell phone, so he never dials them personally! There is one local number, though, that both of us know — our lawyer’s. He has done some civil work for us, and we could sure use him now. The problem: he went on vacation in Hawaii a few days ago. But, with only one number to call, we call it. We leave messages with his answering service. We try, then get back in the phone line to try again a few minutes later.

There is a list of bail bondsmen on the wall, but unless we can get someone on the outside to bring collateral, the bondsman isn’t going to put up the $6000 to get one of us out. If we could reach someone on the outside, we wouldn’t need the bail bondsman! By some miracle, on the nth try, our call is relayed through to our lawyer in Hawaii. I give him some long-distance numbers to call, and through the fraternity of skilled players, he arranges for a player to come down and post bail for Mike. The guy doesn’t have enough cash to get us both out, but if he gets Mike out, Mike can fetch some money to get me out. This guy and Mike had a falling out in the past, but in crunch time, the vile, illegal actions of the casino bring players together. I have no doubt he’ll bail out Mike, but how long will it take? It is about 3 a.m. Saturday. So much for a good Friday.

We try to nap a bit on the concrete floor. Additional arrestees have arrived, so the room is quite crowded. I try to stay away from the gangbanger, who keeps eyeing me hungrily. We don’t want to talk to anyone about our case; it is no one’s business. Contrary to popular belief, the first question isn’t, “What are you in for?” Here and there I gather that the guys are in here for various offenses — drugs, theft, driving-related crimes, and outstanding warrants in other jurisdictions — but for the most part, each guy is in his own hell, and doesn’t care about anyone else’s problems, so there isn’t much personal inquiry. New people arrive, some of whom have the same, age-old questions: “How do these phones work?” “How do you get bailed out?” “When do we get food?” Having been here a few hours already, we are no longer at the bottom of the totem pole, so we give some expert answers to the newbies.

After a few hours, we are called to be photoed and fingerprinted. The fingerprints, both ink and laser scan, will be sent to the FBI. They’ll check their files to try to identify yours truly, John Doe. I don’t think there are many professional card players running around in the FBI files, so I have no idea what will happen after the FBI check turns up nothing. Texas hold’em players wind up on ESPN, celebrated by the media, personally congratulated by old man Binion, anointed with titles and honors, and photographed with a $1 million cash prize. I get photographed with a number in front of my chest. The $800 I won was from Caesars.

Breakfast comes around 4:30 a.m., now Saturday morning. This is the first food we have had since Thursday night. Each of us receives a plastic tray with a carton of milk, some orange wedges, some eggs, and some waffles (I think) soaking in syrup. The oranges and milk are welcome, and I dare to eat the eggs, but the waffles? Yeah, right. Others immediately ask for my waffles, and there is much bartering of food — the prison economy begins.

When my name gets called out, I am not as excited as Mike was earlier, when we thought bail had been processed. Now I understand that I am in the pipeline, and it’s just my turn to see the jail nurse. As the only non-tattooed people in here, we don’t want to appear soft, so I like the fact that they call out my name as “John Doe.” I am the only John Doe in the tank. Don’t mess with me. The nurse asks about drug use, diseases, medications, and takes my blood pressure. The highest it’s been in my life. Correlation does not imply causality, but I suspect that jail has something to do with it.

As the morning wears on, I become annoyed that the TV is set to a channel that seemingly shows “Cops” several times a day, and some other “court” shows. Having witnessed the apathy of the LVPD, and the malicious incompetence of the G.C.B., I find it nauseating to be subjected to “Cops.” Mike is taking this hard, I think, so it is fortunate that his bail was posted, around 4 a.m. They tell us it could take 24 hours to process, but there is a certain relief in the inevitability of it, that in a day or less, he will be free.

At around 11:30 a.m., my name is called again. Now it is time for my ROR interview. As a John Doe, I can’t be released on my own recognizance, and this potential avenue of release (only three avenues — bail, own recognizance, and judge) will be terminated if bail is posted, which I expect to happen as soon as Mike gets out. Nevertheless, I let the clerk fill out the ROR interview form with names of friends who could vouch for me. I don’t name any family members, because I don’t want them to panic if they receive a call from the Clark County Detention Center. My friends will worry, but not panic. Though I don’t take the option, I think it is a good deal that you can list your wife to vouch for you. (I think that’s a good deal.)

As I am escorted back to the tank, I see a glorious sight — Mike is being escorted out. His bail has been processed and he is leaving! I give him last instructions to get my ID from his apartment and bring it to the jail. I am quite nervous about being left alone, but Mike can do more for me on the outside.

The Shower Room

I call Mike soon, and he has found my ID, but won’t be able to present it to the jailers until 3 p.m., Saturday afternoon, when the desk opens to outsiders. When he does so, they refuse my ID, saying that as a John Doe, they must wait until the FBI verifies my prints. Well, yeah, but that’s because most John Does don’t subsequently present their legal identification! But there is no point arguing with a bureaucrat. In answer to our inquiry about why the FBI is taking so long, their answer is that the FBI is closed over the weekend — a lie. I tell Mike to try during another shift.

Meanwhile, I am moving through the CCDC pipeline. My name is called, and I stand in a line in the hall, apparently to go take a shower. I have no desire to take a shower. The guards seem to treat this as a service, like, “You’ll get to have a nice shower, and some new clothes.” Yeah, right. Not only am I about to go take a shower, but the guys in my line are from other holding tanks, so I don’t know any of them. The guy next to me in line is protesting; he wants to get help for the burning sensation in his penis. The guard’s expert medical advice: just let the hot water run on it, and it’ll feel better. Great, we have to take a shower with Mr. STD over here. The guy keeps wailing, and everyone in our line is thinking, “Please get this guy out of here.” Our prayer is answered.

So, we proceed to the shower room, where we surrender our clothes to the guard. We are given towels and some lye soap, and we take turns in the three showers. After time is up, we line up for inspection, still naked. One by one, we have to open our mouths and raise our arms for the guard. Then we have to lift our testicles. Then we have to turn around and bend over. I’m in here for being good at a card game.

Each of us is issued the jumpsuit, some loose blue pants and shirt (emblazoned with “CCDC,” of course), and a pair of rubber slippers. They give us a toothbrush and, inexplicably, our choice of comb or pick.

It angers me that their procedures, and in some cases, the holes in those procedures, threaten my safety more than is necessary. We have already showered — why do any of us need combed hair? Why are they satisfying a cosmetic purpose at all, especially by supplying devices that can be fashioned into weapons? And, the guard makes the mistake of leaving the room before us, so one or two of the guys do smuggle towels out of the room under their shirts. They could have smuggled other things.

Tank Two

After showering, we are returned to a new holding tank. This one is a bit more spacious, clean, and bright, but otherwise it is the same — a concrete floor, a wooden bench around, a TV with a shield over it, a toilet, and phones. I call Mike to tell him that I have been showered and moved to a new holding tank, where all of us have the CCDC team uniform. There is still no progress on bailing me out. Mike is told that a John Doe cannot be bailed out, so it doesn’t matter if he can put up the $6000 or not; we have to wait until they can identify me. He is getting the red-tape job from hell, and can’t do much for me, but it is so comforting to have someone on the outside, someone trying.

I look around, sizing up this new group: a few Spanish speakers; an outgoing, black kid; an old man with diabetes; a meek Russian whom I met in the previous tank; a tall, aggressive, white guy who has been around the block (he laments how boring it is that “None of us have ‘equipment’ yet.”); and a few others who don’t seem noteworthy or threatening. Black Kid and White Guy are the two who are potentially the most dangerous.

Mike is still trying to give my ID to the Booking Sergeant, and I’m trying to pass the time. Time passes slowly on the inside. The best thing to do is try to sleep. The air conditioning is too strong, so it’s a cold day in hell. By this time I’ve discovered that the best place to sleep is underneath the wooden benches along the wall. It’s a bit darker, more sheltered from being stepped on, and it’s out of view — the best way to stay safe is to go unnoticed.

Dinner consists of something inedible. I give my sugar packets to Black Kid, who’s hoarding them: “These are worth 10 cents a piece upstairs.” I hope I’ll never see “upstairs.” Meek Russian tries to give his milk away to White Guy, and as he holds it out, Thirsty Guy grabs it, at which point White Guy says, “You better watch what you’re grabbing. I believe he was giving that [milk] to me, and I find [your grabbing] offensive.” A bit later I try to placate White Guy by offering a milk I saved from the previous meal. I tell him the milk is no longer cold, and so he declines, but he is appreciative. Now I have to discreetly throw away the milk, because I don’t want to anger White Guy by allowing someone else to drink the milk that he has “dibs” on.

As the hours creep on, I begin to think that I won’t get out over the weekend. The FBI supposedly won’t be able to verify my prints until Monday, and I won’t be able to see a judge until Monday at the earliest, so I’m stuck. I don’t know how long I can last in this room, but I am curious to see if we’ll have any special food tomorrow, Easter Sunday. Yeah, right.

Breakfast at 4:30 a.m. is the same old stuff. A piece of cake. A hot dog. A milk. As Sunday wears on, I am looking forward to the Lakers game that will be broadcast this afternoon. That will kill three hours. The trick is turning the channel. The guard promises to fetch the remote to change the channel, “if she has time.” Yeah, right. We wedged plastic spoons underneath the plexiglass shield to change the channel before, but the spoons were removed during a sweep of the room earlier today.

Together with St. Thomas (who is from the Caribbean), I am able to use our CCDC-issued combs for the same purpose, and the holding tank crowd is quite pleased with our handiwork. The TV reception is horrible, but it is something. Were I at home, I would watch this game anyway, but I find that it’s a completely different experience to watch the game with people I don’t know, mostly criminals, sitting on a concrete floor, with no food and drink, with no freedom, and with uncertainty over what will happen to me. The game ends. I don’t know which team won.

I call Mike frequently, and try to nap, using one slipper as a pillow and the other as a hip cushion against the concrete. My hip is already bruised. I am starting to get hungry, but I am glad I haven’t eaten too much, because going to the bathroom is something I want to minimize. There are three or four guys in the room who have rolls of toilet paper, because they have taken the communal supply and co-opted the rolls for use as pillows. Asking these guys for toilet paper isn’t something I want to do, but no one can hold out forever.

Late that evening, “John Doe” is called. I am going “upstairs.”

Room 9A — RFB at CCDC, Compliments of Caesars

They tell me to grab a bedroll, which is a sheet, a blanket, a toothbrush, soap. I am then escorted to Room 9A. Now this is more like it! Here is my RFB comp from Caesars. This is a large, carpeted, L-shaped room. In the middle of our wing are cots, and I am assigned to one of them. The other wing of the L has tables and chairs to serve as a cafeteria area during meals. Around the perimeter are wooden doors to cells. The doors have only a small window, so the cells do afford privacy, but privacy terrifies me. There are staircases leading up to a balcony around the perimeter, with more cell doors. All together there are about 50 cells. In terms of physical accommodations, this is better than some youth hostels I’ve stayed in long ago.

Of course, it isn’t the physical accommodations that I care about. There are rules posted on the wall, and I quickly and discreetly read them when I get into the room. The main rule that I learn right away is that except for free time (one morning session, one afternoon, and one evening), I am to stay on my cot at all times. During meals we may leave the cots, but only according to the instructions of the guards, and only to enter and exit the line to receive a food tray. Phones may be used only during free time. There are some books on a shelf, and during free time we may pick up books and bring them back to our cot.

Mike informs me that I am scheduled to see the judge Monday morning at 7:30 a.m., so I expect to spend only Sunday night in Room 9A. Yeah, right.

Black Monday

Our 4:30 a.m. breakfast Monday morning is the usual. Crazy Guy is on the cot next to me, so I gave him my extra bread. I don’t want to appear weak, so there are occasions when I trade food instead of giving it away, but then I discreetly throw away the food I receive, because I’m not about to eat anything that another prisoner has touched. After picking up a tray, eating lasts about five minutes, and then we must queue up to return the trays.

Then everyone goes back to sleep. In three hours, I’ll be before a judge. I don’t understand how the judge is able to release me either. If Mike can’t bail me out because I’m unidentified, how can a judge release me if I’m unidentified? Our lawyer isn’t sure how this will work either.

At 8:30 a.m., I awake in a panic. Would they have let me sleep through my 7:30 appointment with the judge? I calmly ask the guard what is going on, because I was supposed to see the judge at 7:30 a.m. “I didn’t call you, because your name’s not on my list.” I can’t believe it. What is going on? I ask if he sees “John Doe” on any list, but of course, all he can tell me is, “This is my list, and you’re not on it, so I didn’t call you.”

I call Mike, who went to the courthouse, expecting to see me. He, too, discovered that I am not on the Monday list. The clerk had erroneously told him that I was scheduled for Monday morning. In fact, I am scheduled for Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. I can’t tell you how gut-wrenching it is to expect release on Monday morning, and then find out that it’s going to be two more days. Even then, would release be certain? I don’t know how I will last two more days. Time stands still on the inside.

“Arnold, Hold the Presses!”

During free time, Cot People are allowed to walk around, and Cell People may leave their cells. Some people play chess, dominoes, cards. Not me. I learn that it’s not wise even to watch others play these games. These folks are territorial, and defensive about strangers watching them play. I make a small joke at the chess table, and Irritable Addict doesn’t think it’s funny. When he starts commenting about how I’ll make a cute couple with this other guy, I nonchalantly slip away, with a vow to avoid the chess players. Luckily, it will take only a few minutes before Irritable Addict gets angry at someone else or something else.

I don’t like the fact that the prisoners have access to “equipment” now. When free time ends, and the prisoners scurry back to their cots and cells, there are quick exchanges of contraband near the cell doors. In some cases, I suspect that drugs are being exchanged, but even money is contraband. Prisoners have access to pens, pencils, and other items that can easily be fashioned into stabbing weapons. There is a pencil sharpener mounted on the wall, available during free time! Cell People there long enough are able to acquire razors! I still think that the safest thing to do is to stay on my cot and keep to myself. Expecting to be there only another two days, I think it is less important for me to make friends than to avoid making enemies.

So I decide that the best way to stay on my cot, even during free time, is to pretend to be reading books. If I can find something good on the shelf, I could even read it. Too much to hope for to find Feller, Volume I, but I’ll settle for any classic. Most of the titles are best-selling mystery thrillers, and I am in no mood. So, I pick up the only classic I can find, The Great Gatsby. I read it long ago in high school, and now I reread it, with better comprehension than the first time. My teacher would be proud.

Since it no longer seems possible to expedite my release, the next order of business is to get a hold of Arnold Snyder somehow. He is about to publish my gaming book, Beyond Counting, and now in light of what has happened, I need him to delay the publication. I need to update some of my advice for players; I need my lawyer to review certain passages; and I need to make sure that the cover is going to be professional-looking, just in case I ever have to face a jury and use my book as evidence. I can’t make long-distance calls, so I tell Mike to call Arnold. Mike does not know Arnold, and in fact, I have never met Arnold either, so this is all quite bizarre.

We make the lucky discovery that if I call Mike using the jail phone, Mike can use Three-Way Calling to get Arnold on the line as well. Arnold tells me that the book is supposed to go to the printer tomorrow, but, out of legal necessity, I tell him, “Arnold, stop the presses!” I need him to wait until I get released, get home, review passages with my attorney, make necessary revisions, and give him a new printout. This will cause a delay of about a week, but it is necessary. [Delaying Arnold’s pipeline may also cause a delay in the release of the second edition of Blackjack Attack, but I hope Don Schlesinger and the readers of that book will forgive me.]

It is ironic that while other prisoners are using their free time to call family and friends, I am calling my publisher. Arnold also agrees to testify as an expert witness on legal advantage play, if it ever comes to that. I can’t say how uplifting it is that a man I have never met would do that for me. It makes me want to fight.

Once per week the prisoners with money in their accounts may fill out order forms for the “commissary.” The following day is like Christmas, with each prisoner receiving his goodies in a big plastic bag. The bags are filled with junk food, stationery, and toiletry items. Giving them candy bars is one thing, but the big sheets of plastic are scary.

One morning, prisoners with shoes may spend an hour out in the recreation yard. I still have only my rubber slippers, but I would not participate anyway. On TV at least, the rec yard is where bad things happen — fights and stabbings. I sleep on my cot.

Some of the prisoners have hobbies. Artist Guy does portraits and nature scenes, sometimes selling illustrated envelopes to other prisoners. Rose Guy made out of toilet paper the most beautiful rose I have ever seen. It has a stem with thorns, and perfect petals. It is the scariest rose I have ever seen.

I finally get word that the FBI has processed my prints. I have no idea how they can release me if the FBI database search turns up nothing. In the end, don’t they have to use my driver’s license, and if so, couldn’t they have used it days ago? Mike posts my bail right away, but it could still take 24 hours to process the bail. Having finished Gatsby, I embark on some lighter reading, a teen “novel” called This Place Has No Atmosphere.

As little as I have in common with any of the guys here, there is one unmistakable bond that we have — we are prisoners, and the guards are guards. After one meal, a couple of guys go to the sink to drink some water, which is not unusual. This particular guard, though, has issues: “There’s no water unless I say so. Sit back down! You just cost everybody half an hour of free time in the morning.” The guard is trying to get us to blame these two prisoners for our loss of free time, but the unanimous feeling among the prisoners is that the only one to blame is the guard. He enjoys the capricious exercise of authority, and such behavior only strengthens our collective resentment of him and his office. Furthermore, we know he is bluffing, because he will not be on duty in the morning to enforce the half-hour reduction in free time. The guard is as weak and foolish as he is sadistic.

As time passes, I become afraid that I will progress to the next step in the pipeline — getting assigned to a cell. Being confined to a cot for most of the day may be safe, but having a roommate? I’m not into gambling.

LVPD Thieves

I am awakened by a tap on the shoulder. My bail has been processed! I will be free in minutes. Not so fast. First I have to get my clothes back, so I am taken to a holding tank, as dingy as the first one. I sit there waiting with a few other guys. Why it is taking so long is a mystery, but a common mystery on the inside. After nearly an hour, a guard comes to process us, and he fetches our bags one by one from storage.

When his bag is returned, Shoeless Guy is missing one shoe. The guard says, “If it’s not in the bag, then you didn’t have it when you got here.” “I came in here with two shoes,” says the prisoner. Then the guard asks, “What size was the shoe?”! The guard goes back to the storage area to “look for the shoe.” Meanwhile, the prisoners speculate that the guard will just go and steal someone else’s shoes from a bag. Sure enough, the guard returns a few minutes later with a pair of shoes. Shoeless Guy takes the shoes, and gives up arguing about his missing shirt. Another eternity passes, but finally we all have clothes.

I agreed with Mike that I would call him and make a beeline for his car when he comes to pick me up. We are worried that cops on the inside will tip off their mugger friends on the outside that we are being released with a stash of chips. We don’t want to tarry and give muggers that chance.

As a guard escorts me down the hall to the property window (like a casino’s cage) to get the rest of my stuff, he says, “There’s a hole in the outer bag, but the inner bags are sealed.” I get to the property window where they produce the bag with my stuff. I see the bags of chips inside the bigger bag, which indeed has a hole in it. I don’t think much of it, and sign for my stuff, and then get escorted to the lobby.

As I wait for Mike in the lobby, I decide to count my chips. When I take out the inner bags, I have a sinking feeling when I see that the inner bags are not sealed, as the guard said. They are just Ziploc bags. I count all the chips, and sure enough, $2000 is missing!

I immediately complain to the guard in the lobby, who summons the other guards, including the Watch Commander. I had been escorted to the lobby, and remained in the empty lobby the entire time. Furthermore, the lobby is being filmed. I offer to let them search me, to show that I do not have the four missing purple chips in my possession.

Naturally, instead of having the slightest concern that a felony theft has occurred in his police station, Watch Commander just says, “You could have counted it back at the window, but you signed the paper.” I argue that I signed for $54,000, not the $52,000 that is in the bag. Further arguments are useless, because the bottom line is that Watch Commander is completely apathetic to my loss of $2000. Looking in his eyes, it is clear that there is nothing I can do, and nothing that I could have done to get that $2000.

Even if I had counted it down at the window, so? There’s $2000 missing. The cops will back each other up. There will conveniently be no film or access log of the property area. They will claim that the $2000 was never there (“You must have come in here with only one shoe!”) To get the money would then require a lawsuit. While $2000 is a nice bonus for a corrupt cop, it’s just small enough that it is not worth my effort. Even if the money could be recovered in a lawsuit, lawyers would eat up most of it. And, with a double felony charge pending, can I risk stirring up animosity by fighting with the LVPD?

By this time, Mike shows up, so we just chalk it up as a business expense, and hop in the car. It’s graveyard shift, and after 4½ days in jail, the Vegas lights have an eerie glow.

The Dream Team

Our court dates are scheduled for exactly one month after our release from jail, so Mike’s is several days before mine. Our first order of business is to get lawyers, and we are in full agreement that we will spare no expense in fighting. All of our legal advisors say that each of us should have a lawyer, so, we retain the two top criminal lawyers in Vegas, in addition to our lawyer-friend on vacation in Hawaii. But they are criminal lawyers, with little understanding of my background, and the nuances of legal, skilled play.

We have seen a group of baccarat players go to jail because of the incompetence of their lawyers, who knew nothing about legal skilled play, so we decide to add none other than Robert Loeb to our team. He’s a criminal lawyer, but also a gaming lawyer and author. And, I know Mr. Loeb personally, having first met him two years earlier at a blackjack table! He will understand the nature of our case at many levels.

The first court date in late May will only be to schedule a Pre-Trial Hearing before a judge, probably in late summer. If the judge decides that there was Probable Cause, he will schedule a date to enter a plea a few weeks later. When we enter a Not Guilty plea, they will then schedule a trial, probably several months after that. So, a trial might not be until December or January, but it is still hard not to think about what would happen there. Were the Gaming Control agents prepared to lie and say that the cards were bent? Worse, had they already bent the cards? The videotape would show no bending, but would they get Griffin “experts” to testify about “subtle moves” and other nonsense? Would a jury of uneducated gamblers have any appreciation for the fact that what we do is legal, and that Gaming Control agents are hardly the unbiased, third-party experts that they pass themselves off as. Naturally the Caesars bosses would lie to protect their careers. In another story (“A Night at the Maxim”) we have court documents that show a casino lying to the Gaming Control Board in an effort to avoid redeeming our chips, so we have no doubts about the corruption of the casinos.

We analyze and overanalyze every scenario. The biggest hypothetical, and one that is relevant to every defendant: If they offer a plea bargain, will we take it? Of course we’re innocent, but what if the prosecutor takes his option to bypass the Pre-Trial Hearing in favor of a Grand Jury? In a Grand-Jury hearing, we would not be present, and even our lawyers would not be present. The prosecution makes its case, and with no rebuttal, it’s quite easy to convince a Grand Jury of probable cause, especially when the prosecution witnesses are prepared to lie and tamper with evidence. So then we could suddenly find ourselves facing a jury that knows nothing about skilled play. Suddenly our use of alias player cards will look “suspicious,” and no doubt our back-room testimony will be taken out of context and twisted. With the truth on our side, and plenty of evidence on our side, we’d be overwhelming favorites, but what if there’s even a 1% chance that a jury could be erroneously convinced that we are cheaters? Is it worth a 1% risk of destroying our lives with felony convictions, or should we admit to something we didn’t do and accept some kind of plea bargain for “Misdemeanor Theft” or something?

It is not an easy question. The ideologue in you may say, “I would never accept a deal where I had to admit to crimes I did not commit.” A piece of me says that same thing, but is it that easy? A felony conviction is so much worse than a misdemeanor, and no matter how innocent you are, facing a jury on a felony charge is gambling. If someone on the casino side tampers with evidence, are you still confident? Vegas is a “company town,” and you would face an uphill battle all the way. Even finding experts to testify in your defense is difficult, because many of the experts either want to retain their anonymity for playing purposes, or they now do casino consulting, and will not “betray” their new taskmasters. Even if you want to fight, and are confident that you’ll ultimately win, a trial process of a year or longer is stressful and costly.

The Phoenix

I won’t tell you my decision to that hypothetical. In the end, we never had to answer. The May court date came and went, and the charges were never filed by the District Attorney. I guess the DA is not interested in fabricated cases. Perhaps he didn’t want to face our Dream Team of Bill Terry, Richard Wright, Robert Loeb, and Lawyer X. It cost us $23,000 to retain the four lawyers through the Pre-Trial Hearing. The Pre-Trial Hearing never occurred, so I guess that’s the best money we ever spent. So much for my muffin.

In the interrogation, I think the GCB agents thought that an academic would be easily intimidated. Perhaps they thought that handcuffs and jail would chase me out of the game forever. What do you think?

Afterward: Lessons

There’s a moral to every parable. This one has many. The great irony of casino countermeasures and intimidation tactics is that they often backfire and lead to innovations by players. As a player, I am so much more dangerous now. As a teacher, perhaps I’m more dangerous still. I will share the lessons that I took away from this incident, but you must decide what is relevant to your own circumstances. The lessons are both from the things we did right, and the things we did wrong.

1. Memorize the local numbers for a lawyer and for some friends. If these friends have access to cash, so much the better. Your cash will be confiscated.
2. While I don’t want casino personnel to see my ID, I do want the police at CCDC to see my ID, to avoid being booked as a John Doe. There is a way to have your cake and eat it, too. Contact me if you want to know.
3. If you carry lots of cash and chips, realize that this gives the casino personnel, GCB, and LVPD more loot to confiscate and steal. Also, an inventory of chips tells GCB agents other casinos where you’ve been playing. (In my case, the funny thing was that while I had chips from casinos throughout Vegas, I had barely played at any of them on that trip. Some of the chips were from over a year earlier. I wonder if the GCB guys wasted time checking these other places.) There’s a tradeoff here, because carrying an inventory of chips and cash facilitates play. The game sometimes demands spontaneity.
4. Hold the cards as gingerly as possible, using only one hand, so that the GCB cannot accuse you of bending (cheating). It’s probably best to pick up the cards in the middle. Put them down so that it’s clear that the corners are not jamming the table.
5. Do not hold anything in your hand, not even money or chips. When I was paid a purple chip for winning a big hand, I held it in my hand. In interrogating me, the GCB agents wanted to know what was in my hand, insinuating that I had a cheating device! Don’t assume that the tape will show what’s in your hand. They may have the wrong angle; they may be focusing on your partner; they may not be zoomed in enough. In this case, I don’t know what it looked like on tape, but I wouldn’t at all put it past these GCB guys to tell a jury that the object in my hand is most likely a cheating device in their “expert opinion.”
6. Your partner’s heat comes down on you. There is no doubt in my mind that we were arrested because my partner was libelously listed in the Griffin book. I knew this, and it was my choice to play with him. In the future, I would think carefully about whether it’s worth playing with someone so hot. Or, at least, if I think we should leave a casino, and he wants to keep playing, I’ll leave without him.
7. Even if GCB gets involved, don’t say anything to them. When they said they wanted to interrogate us, I assumed that they were trying to make an objective decision about whether to arrest us. I agreed to be interrogated, because I assumed that these were honest people. I was wrong. The decision to arrest us had already been made, but they were hoping to get some dirt to hang us. Anything you say can and will be used (and twisted) against you. And, they will ignore things you say that do not suit their purpose. They’ll threaten to take you to CCDC. So what? You’re going there anyway, and if you have ID, you’ll be out of there in 12 hours.
8. If they ask you where else you have played, don’t answer. Of course, you shouldn’t be talking to them at all.
9. If they ask you where you are staying, don’t answer. If it’s a hotel, they’ll just call up that joint and get you barred there. If it’s your friend’s house, they’ll use that to try to fabricate a “conspiracy” case.
10. Don’t get flustered if they say, “Your partner said [this] and your partner said [that].” They will lie about what your partner said, in an attempt to intimidate you, fluster you, trick you. They used this ploy with us, lying to Mike about what I had said (I said I had slept on his couch, but they told him that I said I slept at a casino hotel. They didn’t even ask me how I got to the Strip from the airport, but they told Mike that I had said he picked me up.) Unfortunately, it is legal for them to lie during interrogations, so you should expect it. Of course, you should not allow them to interrogate you.
11. When you get released from CCDC, count everything before you sign. When they steal your money, you still will be powerless, but I’m curious to see what their story will be at that point. In my case, they had no story to explain the missing $2000, nor did they accuse me of hiding it; they merely said that I signed the sheet, so I had no legitimate complaint. So, next time, I want to hear their story when you count before signing.
12. Don’t talk much in jail.
13. Don’t eat food touched by other prisoners. One guy in our holding tank had hepatitis.
14. Even if you are jailed with a partner, hire one lawyer for the initial stages. If the DA never files the charges, you will have saved money by not hiring too many lawyers. If the DA does file charges, there will be plenty of time to hire additional lawyers once the Pre-Trial Hearing is scheduled, or even after that. We jumped the gun in this regard. The process is quite slow. If you end up having to go to trial, then don’t skimp on your legal defense, but don’t get too ahead of yourself thinking about a trial and juries and the like. That’s a lot of unnecessary stress and money. Small steps — small steps.
15. If an incident like this does happen, don’t let it deter you from playing. Most places are not like Caesars. Don’t be paranoid. If you play wisely, you can minimize this risk. Just know that it can happen. ♠

Interview with Tommy Hyland

by Richard W. Munchkin

(From Blackjack Forum Volume XXII #1, Spring 2002)
(From RWM’s Gambling Wizards, Huntington Press, Las Vegas 2002)
© 2002 RWM

[Note from A.S.: Richard W. Munchkin is the author of Gambling Wizards: Conversations with the World’s Greatest Gamblers, and, like Tommy Hyland, a member of the Blackjack Hall of Fame.]

[Note from RWM: Tommy Hyland runs the most successful blackjack team in the history of the game. For twenty years he has trained and tested card counters, then sent them into casinos with piles of money. He fully expects them to be truthful when it comes to reporting their wins and losses. He says, “We’ve made a lot of money by trusting each other.”

Tommy Hyland enjoys the high life at the casinos. They provide him with first class airline tickets and limousine transportation. Arriving at a Las Vegas Strip casino for our interview, I give the front desk the name that Tommy is using this week. I ride a private elevator to a luxury suite. Tommy greets me at the door. This cavernous suite with its marble floors and gold fixtures is larger than my home and probably cost more to build.

I glance in the bedroom and although huge, it looks like a college dorm room. Books and papers are strewn everywhere, and a battered set of golf clubs occupies the second bed. “Let’s order room service,” he says. After all, the casino is paying.]

In the Beginning

RWM: Do you remember the first bet you ever made as a kid?

Tommy Hyland: Seems like the first gambling I ever did might have been a bet on some sports event. We also used to pitch coins against the wall at times.

RWM: At how old?

Tommy Hyland: I’m going to guess I was in fifth grade, maybe ten or eleven years old. We used to pitch nickels, dimes, quarters against the brick wall. The closest one would win and take the other guy’s coin.

RWM: Did you practice at all? Did you try to get an edge?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah, I think we did practice. Might have flipped by ourselves sometimes. I used to bet on myself in sports a lot, shooting baskets or other games. What else did we do? Golf.

RWM: How old were you when you started playing golf?

Tommy Hyland: I think I was about ten or eleven. We used to play for a soda or a dollar or something.

RWM: Where did you grow up?

Tommy Hyland: New Jersey.

RWM: Did your parents gamble?

Tommy Hyland: My Dad gambled but nothing serious. He liked to go to the racetrack a few times a year. He liked to play golf for a dollar or two-dollar Nassau. He used to be a pretty good pool shooter. Bowling too. Just once a month, or something like that.

RWM: Did you play a lot of sports in high school?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah. Basketball, golf, baseball. I played pretty much everything.

RWM: Once you got into high school, did you start betting sports?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah, but not to a great extent. In high school, I’m ashamed to say now, I was the house in giving out the parlay cards. I used to get one from a guy and I’d photocopy it and back my own cards. It’s pretty much the only time I’ve ever been the house. I’ve always been a player. Some guy at my Dad’s work had them, so he’d bring them home. The payouts were so bad, I raised them.

I think there were other guys doing it, but they were just returning the standard payouts, so I eliminated the competition. I made money for a while: Thirty dollars a week, or fifty dollars a week, something like that. Then, I remember I got the bright idea of trying to create more business. I made up my own spreads on high school games. Apparently they were pretty bad. I got waffled one week and I remember having to sell my pool table. I lost about four or five hundred dollars and I think that was the last time I did the cards.

RWM: How did you get into blackjack?

Tommy Hyland: By the time I was in college, in Wittenburg, Ohio, I was playing cards all the time. I played a lot of poker and I got interested in gambling in general. We used to golf a lot for money. I was basically being a bum. I was supposed to be studying political science, but I was on the golf team. I was playing golf and shooting pool and playing cards. I’ve always been an avid reader and I just picked up some books on blackjack. I started reading them and my roommate and I started practicing.

RWM: Did you also pick up books on poker?

Tommy Hyland: No, I never really did. I was beating the game there, but I remember in college the game kind of deteriorated. There were a lot of bad debts. I gradually got out of playing poker. We were playing a little backgammon. I wasn’t any good at either poker or backgammon, but I was better than the guys I was playing with. Based on what I know now, I was horrible.

It seems like we got Revere’s book from the bookstore. [Playing Blackjack As A Business by Lawrence Revere.] My roommate and I started practicing blackjack, and he was more interested in it than I was. He was from Ohio, but he stayed at my house for Christmas break. I lived about fifty miles from Atlantic City. This would have been 1978, I guess, Christmas ’78.

The Hyland Blackjack Team is Born

RWM: So Resorts had just opened.

Tommy Hyland: Yeah, it opened earlier that year. My roommate stayed at my house for about ten days and he drove down to Atlantic City and back every day. I went down with him two or three times. We’d memorized basic strategy, but we really couldn’t count. I didn’t have any significant result, but he won. That was when they had early surrender and you had an advantage off the top.

I guess he was able to count a little bit, but he won eight out of ten times or nine out of ten. He won several thousand dollars. He’d always been a loser in our college gambling, a heavy loser. I said, man, if this guy can win all these times, there might be something to this. So, after I went back to school, I started practicing more and reading. We only had the one book as I recall.

Then I guess I went down to Atlantic City on and off. I thought you had to be a memory expert to keep the count. That it wasn’t really possible to do it yourself unless you had some extraordinary gift.

Revere’s book, and even with the later books, they don’t actually tell you how to physically do it. They really don’t say how you get your speed up or anything like that. It was pretty confusing. Some of Revere’s charts were great. They’re still good today, his color charts. But the physical act of counting wasn’t explained properly.

A friend and I would sit next to each other and I’d count the high cards and he’d count the low cards. We’d whisper after every hand what he had and what I had and then we’d get a count. We did this for hours and hours. We were winning. We did really well. We both put in a thousand dollars and after several months we had three or four thousand each.

RWM: How much were you betting?

Tommy Hyland: We were way over-betting. I know you had to play a five-dollar table back then. There weren’t any two-dollar tables. Resorts International was the only casino open. I’m going to guess we were betting five dollars to fifty dollars, or something like that. We were fortunate not to tap out.

Then we met a guy who told us about a new book by Stanford Wong [Professional Blackjack]. He came on our table and he realized we were counting. He’s the one who told us you have to wait until the person on first base gets his second card, and then you start keeping the count and canceling out. So we started practicing, and obviously after a little while we were able to do it ourselves.

Then we met two other counters. They each had a few thousand dollars. By this time I’d read Ken Uston’s book [Million Dollar Blackjack] which talked about the teams. Having a team seemed really glamorous to us. We decided to trust the other two counters.

My recollection is we each put in four thousand dollars. Now we had this massive sixteen-thousand-dollar bankroll. We started really firing at them. This would have been about October of ’79. We didn’t realize you could keep books. We used to each start at the exact same time. We’d each have $4,000 and we’d agree to all play until a certain time.

Back then it was pretty hard to get barred betting small. I guess we were betting up to a hundred or two hundred at this point. We usually played at night. We’d start at eight p.m. and we’d play until almost closing, and then go over to their apartment and split up the money.

We didn’t keep track of hours. We just all assumed we were all going to play the same time. We didn’t do it by win or anything like that. We just whacked it up each night. It seems like we did this about four or five nights a week for quite a while.

Then we met this annoying guy, Not Too Smart Art. He was pestering us, pestering us. Oh, can I get on your team? He thought we were big shots now. He begged us and begged us to get on the team and we brushed him off a few times and finally we decided to put him on the team. Our bankroll was maybe up to twenty-five grand at this point, plus he put in an equal share. So now we had maybe a thirty-thousand bankroll. It seemed like we won pretty regularly.

Like I say, he begged for two weeks to get on the team and then every time he played he won, so he said, “Oh, I should have kept playing on my own.” That’s what I remember about Art. Just complain and complain: “Why’d I ever get on this team? I should have taken a shot on my own.”

RWM: By this point, did you guys know anything about how much to bet?

Tommy Hyland: A little bit. I could figure out a little but I’m not super sharp at math. I think that by the “Experiment” we had a forty or fifty thousand-dollar bankroll. That was in December ’79. [In December 1979 Resorts International experimented with allowing card counters to play unmolested. The casino was not allowed to bar anyone from play and would not shuffle the cards until two-thirds of the shoe had been dealt. The experiment lasted two weeks.]

We crushed them during the Experiment. After the Experiment, I wanted to keep playing, maybe go to Vegas. The other guys had gotten Stanford Wong’s book, Blackjack In Asia. They decided to go to Asia. That’s when I started teaching all my friends from the golf course. That’s kind of how I got into the whole team thing. We had fifteen or twenty guys by the end of 1980. I’d teach them, test them, and put them on the team.

RWM: What percentage of guys would actually test out?

Tommy Hyland: Pretty much everybody I tried to teach. I just looked around to see which people I thought were honest. I made some poor judgments and ended up with some bad people, but over the years I’ve been fortunate to have mostly good people. I’ve never really found anybody that – there’s maybe like one out of twenty that I tried to teach that I just gave up on.

After a while I just gave people a basic strategy card and showed them how to count, then said, “Come back when you have basic strategy memorized and you can count down a deck within thirty seconds.” Some of those people never came back. Pretty much everybody else was able to learn the rest of it.

RWM: So you started teaching these guys, and you became the administrator of the team?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah, then we’d just play with my money and when we’d win a certain amount we’d whack it up. We did it in a really simplistic fashion, and I know there were lots of inequities in the way we did it. It was either unfair to investors or players.

I didn’t really know much about bankroll requirements. Sometimes the way I structured it we had the wrong incentives. You’ve got to be really careful how you structure a bankroll. It can be pretty bad if something extreme happens. If you start losing real bad and you don’t have it structured properly nobody wants to play. That’s happened a lot in the past.

RWM: What happened with the first big losing streak?

Tommy Hyland: These things all seem to run together. I was always pretty lucky. I remember meeting a couple of other guys who were much better blackjack players than we were. They were much more knowledgeable, but they were having some tough luck and were struggling.

They couldn’t believe how we just always won. During some fight–maybe the Holmes-Cooney fight, or one of those fights a long time ago–we won several hundred thousand just over a weekend. I think we had twenty players out here, and eighteen or nineteen of them won.

RWM: Have you ever had a bankroll that crashed and burned?

Tommy Hyland: I remember we got involved with a guy named Rats Cohen. I always admired people who were really sharp with math and things like that, because I wasn’t that good myself. This guy Rats talked a really good game. I was a young guy, kind of impressionable, and he was pretty impressive.

He had an apartment in Brigantine. He brought me over and showed me this computer equipment. All he needed was a bankroll and we were all going to get rich.

We took one-third of our bankroll and gave it to him. There were all kinds of delays. There were never really any significant results, and he kept asking for more money. His players seemed very skilled. I liked his operators, but the money just disappeared. He was buying four-hundred-dollar eyeglasses and a real nice apartment. It was a nightmare. He was also superstitious. He seemed to not always bet the money mathematically. That bankroll was a disaster. I think we ended up losing two-thirds of our money.

I think that’s when we lost early surrender in Atlantic City. My recollection is we ended the bankroll, and a few of us came out here to Vegas to play, and shortly after that I ended up joining up with Pitts & Red and a few others.

The Blackjack Computer Plays

RWM: How did playing with computers come about?

Tommy Hyland: We’d been hearing about them. We rented a house out near Sam’s Town, and we ordered the hardware from a guy. I remember all of us were in this house, or maybe four out of the five of us, and we had absolutely no furniture. We had one table and we all slept on the floor. I slept in the bathroom because we had no curtains either. That was the only room with a tinted window, so it was a little darker.

We were playing blackjack on a bankroll, but we were waiting for these computers to come. They came with the boots and all, and we’d practice every day in this house. We did really well with the computers. We made a lot of money.

In 1985 they made it illegal to play blackjack with a computer in Nevada. Computers were a relatively new thing. They weren’t used in everyday life the way they are now. The hidden blackjack computers had been glorified in a Sports Illustrated article. The story made Ken Uston and Keith Taft sound like two entrepreneurs blazing a trail through Nevada making money.

It said right in the Sports Illustrated article that the FBI had ruled that these weren’t cheating devices. When Nevada passed a law against them, my mind set was that the only reason Nevada was ever able to get it passed was because the casinos control all the politicians. Clearly they should be legal. You’re just using the information that’s freely presented to you, and it would never be illegal anywhere else.

I had our lawyer at the time check to see if there was any law in the Bahamas that prohibited us from using them, and there wasn’t. So we continued to play everywhere else in the country with the computers, except in Nevada. We were playing in Atlantic City and in the Bahamas and maybe some other islands in the Caribbean.

The casinos were starting to figure out how to spot the computers. They’d look for people with boots, with their feet moving, or sitting with their feet flat on the floor.

At Cable Beach in the Bahamas they caught me with a computer and pulled me into the back room. The casino manager was there, and some Bahamian police that were assigned to the casino. They asked me to pull up my pant legs. When I did they saw the computer. They said, “You’re in a lot of trouble. We make a nice casino down here for you Americans to enjoy yourself and this is the kind of thing you do.”

The casino manager didn’t even seem upset; it was the Bahamian police that seemed really upset, or maybe it was just part of their act. My wife was on the beach. She didn’t even play blackjack at the time. When she came into the hotel they grabbed her and detained her. They took all the money I had in a safe-deposit box. They held me and started combing the books to see what they could charge me with. They held my wife for about thirty-six hours. They put her in a cell with somebody that was being charged with murder. They did all kinds of things designed to intimidate me.

They finally decided to arrest me, and put me in the central lockup with ten other prisoners, in a really filthy situation. I was in there for two days. It looked like a real serious situation. They were talking about trying to keep me in jail for five or ten years.

Somehow I got word to my lawyers in Las Vegas. My two lawyers came down. They weren’t allowed to practice there, so they hired a Bahamian lawyer. There was no real law down there. The only thing they understood was money. Everybody you ran into was figuring out how they could get some of the money. I think they had a $140,000 of mine and they were trying to figure out how they could all whack it up.

So anyway, my wife got out of there. She flew home. There were all these negotiations. We negotiated that I’d plead guilty to some sort of fraud and get a suspended sentence. It was clear they weren’t letting me out of there. I wasn’t going to win any trial down there, so even though I hadn’t done anything illegal or unethical, it was clear that I had to pay them off and get out of there.

The lawyer negotiated this deal where they kept about half the money and they returned the other half. Then, right when I was supposed to sign the agreement, this Bahamian lawyer said, “By the way, when you get the other half of your money back, I want twenty- five-thousand of it. We had paid him fifteen-thousand-dollars and he’d only worked about two hours at this point. He had me over a barrel. We decided to do that too. I lost close to a hundred-thousand dollars.

I also ended up going to an actual court proceeding. With their accents you couldn’t even understand what was going on. It was amazing. You’d have to be there because you couldn’t imagine. They might as well have been speaking in a foreign language. I didn’t know what was happening. I don’t know what I pled guilty to. My lawyers assured me that it wouldn’t matter. That it would never be recognized in the U.S. as anything.

RWM: But it showed up in Canada?

Tommy Hyland: Well, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn’t show up anywhere on a computer or anything. But it got a lot of publicity, and the Canadian casinos used this to get our group and me out of there.

Apparently, Canada’s immigration laws – if you’re convicted of a felony in another jurisdiction that would be punishable by more than ten years in jail in Canada, you can be deemed as not admissible into Canada. So the Canadian casinos, together with Canadian immigration, tried to do this. I was able to win this case and I’m allowed in Canada.

RWM: Was this just harassment?

Tommy Hyland: Yes. A bunch of my friends were counting cards and were exchanging the information through signals. The Canadian casino in Windsor tried to make this out as some sort of fraud. These were people who played for me.

I tried to go up there and get them out of it, and I was talking to the press. Public sympathy was obviously on our side. This was a big deal in Windsor. It was the front-page story three or four days in a row; all about this trial and about these people who’d been accused of cheating. Once the press got a hold of it and interviewed the people involved, they were on our side and so was public sentiment. I think the casino tried to bring up the incident in the Bahamas to stop our momentum. They tried to make me out to be a convicted felon.

RWM: Wasn’t there something from that Bahamas incident involving Gambling Times Magazine?

Tommy Hyland: Right. At that time the publisher of Gambling Times wrote this article, the tone of which was kind of I told you so. He used to be partners with Rats Cohen and I think they had a falling out. Now he took this high moral position that these computers were unethical.

He wrote this article where he basically exaggerated what happened to me in the Bahamas, and said that I was sexually assaulted while in jail. We sued him for libel, but we lost. New Jersey had a high standard. You had to prove that it was deliberately malicious or something. So he just said that that’s what he’d been told.

RWM: You talk about using the press. Didn’t you even hire a lobbyist at one point?

Tommy Hyland: All we want to do is play a game according to the rules that a casino lays out. That’s always been my view. The casino can make any rules they want. We’ll either beat the game or we won’t play it if we don’t think we can beat it.

Even though we operate ethically and legally, casinos are constantly harassing us. Unfortunately, it’s been necessary to hire lawyers and yes, we even hired a lobbyist. The casinos are very powerful and they’ve gotten a lot of laws passed that are probably not in the best interest of the public. We hired a lobbyist a couple different times to try to get our views heard by the New Jersey legislature.

On Running a Blackjack Team

RWM: Do you think that running a blackjack team is the same as running a small company?

Tommy Hyland: I’m sure there are lots of similarities. One of the main differences I’ve noticed is that people, when they meet blackjack players, can’t believe that we just hand each other massive amounts of money. A player comes back and says how he did. He might say he lost $20,000 or $50,000 and we just say, okay. We write it down; we believe him.

That’s probably the biggest difference that comes to mind. People just can’t believe that we don’t lose all our money from people stealing it. We’ve had a few bad incidents, but most of the time we’ve been pretty successful. We’ve made a lot of money by trusting each other. I may not even know a person, but if he knows a few people I know and they’ll vouch for him… We’ve loaned large amounts of money to people we hardly knew just because other people could vouch for them.

RWM: Didn’t you have trouble at another island casino?

Tommy Hyland: St. Kitts, yeah. It’s an island in the Caribbean. That’s been pretty much where all my foreign play has taken place. I’ve played most every place in the Caribbean. I went to this island, St. Kitts. They only had one casino. They had a pretty good game, maybe six or eight blackjack tables. I got friendly with the casino owner. This guy took an active role in running the casino. He was always on the floor; sometimes he’d push the dealer out of the way and say, “Let me deal for a while.” He got to like me while I was there. I played golf with him every day. I was doing pretty well. I won almost $30,000 in the course of four or five days.

On the last day, he saw me walking through the lobby and called me over. He said, “Tommy, you’re going back to Philadelphia in the morning aren’t you?” I said, “Yeah.” He said, “Would you mind giving something to a friend of mine back there?” I said, “Sure, I’ll do that for you.” He said, “Come on with me to my room and I’ll get it.” So I went with him to his room and he went to a desk. He reached in a drawer, pulled out a gun and pointed it at me, and he said, “I know who you are. I know what you do. I want the money back that you won.”

He had a piece of paper, it was a Griffin report, and he was reading from it. Tom Hyland, alias so-and-so, card counter, card-counting team. He’s reading from it and he says, “I want my money back,” while he’s holding this gun. I was young and foolish at the time, and I said to him, “I can’t give it to you. It’s not all my money. Besides, I won it fair and square. You do whatever you have to do, but I’m not going to give it to you.”

RWM: That’s pretty ballsy with a gun pointed at you!

Tommy Hyland: I’d hand it over in about three seconds nowadays. So he said, “OK, we’re going for a walk then.” It was night. We walked out of his room and he started prodding me with the gun in my back. We were walking down this narrow stone path. After we took about twenty steps I said, “I changed my mind. You can have your money back.”

RWM: Do you think this guy really would have shot you?

Tommy Hyland: I doubt it… Maybe. He ran that whole island. He might have been able to do it. He was flabbergasted by the whole thing and he was really pissed. I think he was also hurt. He thought we were friends. So, we walked back to the main building. He went to the office and said, “Give him his safe-deposit box.” The girl gave it to me. He said, “Count out $30,000,” because I had what I started with also. I said, “I think I only won $29,000.” He said, “All right, count out $29,000.” I gave it to him and he said, “OK, have a nice trip. See ya’ later.”

Then, he went back toward his hotel room and I was all shook up. I went back to my room, which was right across the way from his, and I saw him leave. I don’t remember exactly how it happened, but I was with somebody else and I said, “I’m going to go in there and see if I can find my money.” I went into his suite and looked around for the money, but I never found it. When I got back here I tried to get a lawyer and write nasty letters and call the Prime Minister, or whatever he was called on that island. I never got any satisfaction. It was lost.

RWM: Have you had other incidents where money has been stolen from you like that?

Tommy Hyland: Unfortunately, we’ve had a fair number of these incidents. I also remember one of my teammates got his money taken in Aruba. He was down there with his girlfriend and the casino got a flyer from Griffin saying that he was a computer player. By this time we would never play with a computer anywhere we weren’t sure it was legal. We would never have taken a computer to the Caribbean at this point. It would be a ridiculous thing to do.

He was down there in Aruba just counting cards. They insisted he had a computer. They searched him. They searched his girlfriend. They searched his rental car. They searched his hotel room. He had front money on deposit, and they said, “We know you had a computer; we just can’t find it. We’re keeping your money.” Coincidentally, I think that was about $30,000 also. He did the same thing I did. He made inquiries, but it was lost. It didn’t look practical to go after it.

RWM: Tell me the treasure map story.

Tommy Hyland: That’s when I was playing with Spike. This is before we had the bad incident in the Bahamas. We were all traveling back and forth to Freeport and Nassau to play. They had a high limit and they had a good game for these computers.

We didn’t want to carry massive amounts of money in and out of the country, and couldn’t really figure out how to leave it down there for the next guy. So Spike decided to bury it a couple miles away from the casino. He drew this map for himself, because he was planning on going back there. But then he got tied up with other things and he didn’t really want to go back to the Bahamas to play.

I did want to go, so he asked me to get his money down there. He said, “It’ll be easy; you can’t miss it. All you gotta do is find this spot, and from there you follow the map.” Well the map left a little to be desired. Spike had landmarks that were out in the water on another island, and you were supposed to figure it out from there. My wife and I took probably an hour or so to find this money. When we did, the box he put it in was all rotted, the money was moldy and smelled terrible.

We took it into the casino to play and they said, “Where did you get this?” It was about $140,000.

RWM: Has carrying cash become a big problem in the U.S.?

Tommy Hyland: It seems like it. Especially traveling through airports. Driving the interstate with money we’ve had problems and I’ve heard of other people having problems. They passed these laws to supposedly stop money laundering and drug dealing. People don’t realize how much the laws also affect the law-abiding citizen.

Some of the ways the laws are written, local police who stop people with money and confiscate it benefit directly. So they’re anxious not to give you the benefit of the doubt. There have been some real horror stories. These drug agents, police, and custom agents prey on people that don’t speak English. They find any excuse to take their money, and then it’s a nightmare to get it back.

RWM: Let’s talk about the Griffin Agency. What was your first experience with them?

Tommy Hyland: My first experience with them was when I got barred at the Sands back in the early ’80s by a guy made famous by Ken Uston’s book. [The Big Player by Ken Uston and Roger Rapoport]. A guy named Herb Nunez. He pulled me into the back room and forced me to have my picture taken. I found out several months later that there were flyers out on me, that I was now in the Griffin Book.

RWM: Did you notice an immediate effect when you walked into new casinos?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah, I found that now, instead of being barred because they recognized my style of play, frequently when I got barred they would call me by name or something like that. I don’t think back then I knew how all this Griffin stuff worked, and I was kind of taken by surprise by some of the things they knew.

The bad thing about the Griffin Agency is a lot of these foreign jurisdictions don’t really understand card counting. Sometimes Griffin doesn’t really make much of a distinction as to what activity you’re up to. They see you in a Griffin book and they explode. They figure you’re a scam artist and you’re cheating them out of money.

That’s led to a lot of nasty incidents. The other thing they do is when they list me or some other old time player today, they always put them in there as a computer player. Well, none of these people have used computers since the laws were passed against them. They only used them when they were legal. So a lot of times in these foreign places, the casino either legitimately thinks you have a computer or they use this as a guise to search you, harass you, and take some of your money, claiming they know you had a computer.

That’s what happened to my teammate in Aruba. The reason he lost his money was because he was listed in the Griffin Book as a computer player. They don’t make any distinction that you only used a computer when it was legal.

RWM: Isn’t that libel?

Tommy Hyland: You would think so. Some other card counters and I have tried to sue this Griffin Detective Agency. We never seem to get anywhere. Libel and slander are some of the toughest cases to win. If they can prove you’re a public figure, you have to prove it’s deliberately malicious. Somebody like me, even though my name wouldn’t be known by the general public, for purposes of the case I’d be a public figure, because I’m a well-known blackjack player. Someday I’m sure Griffin is going to get what they deserve. Hopefully somebody will win a big case.

I’m sure if some sheriff in the middle of Kansas sees this picture that looks like a mug shot, and finds out the casino is holding you, he’s going to treat you as some sort of criminal. Right on the top of the page it says Cheating Activity, and then it has your picture. Then they just happen to mention that you’re a card counter.

But I don’t want to overemphasize the effectiveness of the Griffin Agency. They hurt us a little bit, but I can play more blackjack than I have time for. I can’t play in every single casino that I want to. Particularly in Atlantic City I’m really well known but that’s not because of Griffin. It’s not a big factor for us. We can all play pretty much as much as we want to. We just have to move around.

RWM: Do you wear disguises?

Tommy Hyland: These days I don’t wear any actual disguise. I try to change my appearance so I don’t have to go to a lot of trouble each time I go out and play. I don’t quite have the energy to do that. I’ll dye my hair and grow a beard, or get my hair curled, cut it short, grow it long, things like that. I have ordinary features and an ordinary build, and people seem to forget my face fairly easily.

RWM: Didn’t you get barred once as Santa Claus?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah. That was back in Atlantic City, where they used to do this three-step process. The first time you got barred they’d tell you that you were welcome to play any other game except blackjack. The second time they’d bar you they’d say you weren’t welcome on the premises at all. And if you got barred a third time you’d get arrested for trespassing.

I think at the time I had already gotten the second step from Harrah’s, so I got the bright idea on Christmas Eve of dressing as Santa Claus. I was just going to fire away from minimum to maximum. If they barred me they would treat it as the first step. They wouldn’t have any idea who I was.

And that’s what happened. There were four or five of us in there at once. One guy heard a floorperson on the phone say, “I got a guy betting two hands of a thousand down here. Got a guy over there betting purple chips, and Santa Claus is really going crazy.”

It was pretty funny and it worked out perfectly too. They just read me the first warning, and they were laughing while they did it. They thought it was pretty funny. They took it in the Christmas Spirit.

RWM: When you did go to the trouble of wearing a disguise, did you ever go black, or Asian, trying to change your race?

Tommy Hyland: I never did that. The best disguise I ever had was when I went to Hollywood and got a couple wigs from this guy Ziggy, who’s a famous wig maker. I guess he made wigs for a lot of the Hollywood celebrities.

This was a long time ago, maybe fifteen years ago. He was the only guy who could make a realistic looking bald wig. I paid $2,500 for this balding blond wig. It looked really good. Nobody ever realized it was a wig. I got a lot of play out of that. It was worth more than the $2,500 I paid for it.

I also got fake teeth from Mike Westmore, who I believe won an Oscar for the make-up in the movie Mask. They were a little uncomfortable. I remember going back to him to modify them. That was probably the best disguise I ever had. I had to have my eyebrows dyed. They had to keep re-dying them. I had this spirit gum to attach the wig. It took a good hour to get ready to go play. My wife used to have to put it on me. You couldn’t put it on yourself.

RWM: Any other particularly outrageous stories that happened in casinos?

Tommy Hyland: When I first was playing I wasn’t the sharpest guy around. I’ve learned a lot over the years from the people I joined up with. A lot of the stuff we did wasn’t particularly profitable, but we used to have a lot of fun.

We would all go into these Atlantic City casinos at the same time. Twenty guys would just go in and bet. We really didn’t care if we got barred. We would just all go in there at the same time, figuring they couldn’t get everybody at once, because they had this really elaborate procedure that they were required to do. They had to come over and pull you away from the table and read you this card, and only a certain person was authorized to do it. We figured if we had fifteen or twenty of us, they couldn’t get everybody at once. That used to be fun.

RWM: When did the law change? When were they no longer allowed to bar you for counting cards?

Tommy Hyland: That’s when Ken Uston won his case. I guess that was in 1982.

RWM: And did that hurt the games? Was it better for you when they could bar you?

Tommy Hyland: Some people think that. I don’t. I know a lot of card counters like it where they’re allowed to bar you. They think the rules are better, the games are better.

I’ll always campaign for no barring. I just don’t think it’s right that they should be able to do that. And we’ve certainly made plenty of money in Atlantic City since they haven’t been allowed to bar us. It’s much more comfortable to play when you’re not worried about getting hauled off to some back room, or getting arrested or harassed.

As far as I’m concerned, and I’m sure most people agree, if you’re playing blackjack there, Atlantic City is the place you’re least afraid of some sort of casino nastiness. The worst that can happen is they’re going to shuffle the cards on you. I like that feeling.

RWM: You’ll no longer play out of the country?

Tommy Hyland: I’ll play out of the country. I won’t play in those ridiculous places anymore. I won’t play in the Bahamas or any of those islands, but I’ll play in Canada. I’ve played in Australia. I don’t plan on going to Europe, but I’d play in some of those countries. All the countries that I view as civilized.

It shocks me that some of these guys with all kinds of money will go to these crazy places to play blackjack, just because they have a good rule or something. It just doesn’t seem worth it to me. Boxer was talking about going to Russia to play. They have some great game there or something. That just seems like insanity to me.

RWM: On your team, do you have different people who do different things?

Tommy Hyland: We have different levels of skill. That’s another thing about this Griffin Agency that makes me laugh. We have people that can barely pass our test. Griffin makes them sound on these flyers like masterminds. They’re interested in self-promotion. If the Agency makes these people sound real dangerous, like all Einsteins, the casino is likely to renew their subscription. Most of our players are just regular card counters.

RWM: Have you branched out into other forms of gambling?

Tommy Hyland: I do a lot of sports betting. I don’t bet my own opinions, but I have some people’s opinions that I value and I’ll bet money on games.

RWM: One of the things that Alan Woods mentioned was that computers have changed everything in gambling.

Tommy Hyland: That’s true. Unfortunately, I’m computer illiterate. I don’t use a computer.

RWM: Do you use it to analyze games at all?

Tommy Hyland: We use Stanford Wong’s program, Blackjack Analyzer. That’s great. You used to have to try and figure out win rates by hand, and make all these assumptions. In the old days you’d ask knowledgeable people, what do you think this game is worth? Now there’s no more of that nonsense.

RWM: The sports betting that you do, is there a computer model involved in that?

Tommy Hyland: I’m sure these guys do computer work. I’m not really privy to it. I’m not an active participant. I just bet my money and they get a share.

RWM: Alan mentioned a horseracing story that you did together.

Tommy Hyland: I collaborated with Alan on that. We made $27,000, and the horse’s name was House Speaker. I’m not sure if that was the horse that won, or that was the horse we pumped so much money on. Back then there was no pari-mutuel betting in Las Vegas. You’d bet at the race book and the money didn’t go into the track pool at all. They would just pay you off at track odds up to a certain amount. They would pay as much as ten or fifteen to one.

You could bet money at the track on a bad horse and make him the favorite, and make the true favorite a long shot in Las Vegas. That’s what we did. We went to Keystone racetrack in Philadelphia, three or four guys from our blackjack team. Then we had friends in Vegas, I guess we had our watches synchronized. We bet as much as we could on the worst horse in the race, to show. This was a small track so it didn’t take much money to pump it up. As long as the best horse finished in the top three we would win. It paid a small amount to win and paid a monster show because there was relatively no money on him in the show pool. All the money was on this 50-1 shot.

That was fun. I believe our total take, split about twenty ways, was $27,000. It was not a big deal, but we got stories in the newspaper. Both in the paper out here and in the Philadelphia paper. “Still investigating. It doesn’t appear that there was any illegal activity.” I think it was done maybe a few more times with the dogs in Arizona, but that got to be an old trick. You couldn’t bet a lot of money to show or to place in Nevada after a few more of those incidents.

RWM: How did your parents feel when you first started playing?

Tommy Hyland: They were pretty conservative. They were hoping that it was only a phase and that I’d grow out of it and get a real job. My father is deceased, but my mother accepted it. She’s used to it now. My mother actually is pretty amazing. She’s eighty-seven years old and she still plays golf or tennis five times a week. They did a special on the Philadelphia eleven o’clock news sportscast; they did a feature on her playing tennis. She still moves around pretty good.

RWM: Are there more benefits to playing on a team than just evening out the fluctuations?

Tommy Hyland: Yeah, there are a lot of great things about playing on a team. There’s the camaraderie. You have somebody to travel with. You learn things from each other. You share information. It seems like you can really come up with ideas when you have a team. One guy has the germ of an idea, and he bounces it off somebody, and this guy adds to it, and all of a sudden you’ve got a great project. There are advantages to playing on your own, too. I’ve never really played on my own, but there are a lot of successful people that have done that. There are not really many people out there that play blackjack as their sole source of income on their own.

RWM: Any more stories come to mind?

Tommy Hyland: I’ll tell you my famous one. It’s not really famous, but Wong asked me if he could use it when he was giving one of his talks. This is when we were playing mostly in Atlantic City. I had these old friends that grew up in my neighborhood. They had a son who was a little younger than me, and he was going to college. He asked me as a way to make money in the summer if he could come and play blackjack for me. He was a real smart kid and I knew he was honest. So I said sure, I’ll teach you how to play.

I taught him how to play and he played Atlantic City and he did well. Toward the end of the summer he decided he’d make a trip to Las Vegas. One of his first plays was at the Sands. He was winning and winning and he couldn’t lose a hand. They didn’t have anything bigger than hundred dollar chips in the rack, so he had all these black chips piled up, maybe seven or eight thousand dollars worth in front of him.

The shoe went negative and he decided to count his money to see how much he was winning. He took all his chips off the table, and as he was heading to the restroom, he noticed a security guard looking at him. Now he had heard from guys who came back from Las Vegas about getting barred, and he heard about people getting roughed up in the back rooms. So he ducked into the restroom, went into a stall, and shut the door.

He pulled out his chips and was counting his money while sitting on the toilet. All of a sudden there was a knock on the stall door. He opened up the stall, and there was this big security guard. The guard looked down at him and said, “What are you doing?” He had all his chips, and he was fumbling around, and he said, “I was just counting my money.” And the security guard said, “In the ladies’ room?”

Another time… when I first started out we were really aggressive and we used to get barred all the time. Most times we wouldn’t say anything while we were being ushered out the door, but sometimes we’d ask them why, or say all kinds of things. Every situation was different.

One time, one of our players was in Puerto Rico and he was down $4,700. The casino manager came over and said, “We don’t want you to play blackjack anymore.” A lot of times how we’d respond if we were losing was, “Well, are you going to give me back the money that I lost?” And of course they would always say no. Well, this time, the casino manager said “OK, we will,” and he gave him $4,700 back! He gave him the $4,700 and he said, “OK, just never come back in here again.” That was at the old Ramada in Puerto Rico on the main drag there.

How Casinos React

RWM: You mentioned being backroomed. Does that still go on?

Tommy Hyland: There don’t seem to be many backroomings, but there’s still a lot of nastiness that our guys have experienced. The popular thing nowadays is to electronically lock you out of your room. Your plastic key card suddenly doesn’t work. So it’s the middle of the night, you go up to your room, and you can’t get in. You go the front desk and you say that your key doesn’t work. They check on it by looking on the computer, where there’s a note to call security or the casino manager. They bar you and stick you with a hotel bill even though they promised to comp it.

I hate to get people comps anymore, because things just always seem to go wrong. We actually have a rule that you’re not allowed to get room comps for people that aren’t on the team. I’m afraid people play too conservatively, because they’re afraid of getting kicked out of their rooms. That’s just foolish on the casino’s part, because we just get more determined to beat that place. It hasn’t happened to me, but it’s happened to other guys.

RWM: But you think barrings have become much more civil in the last five years or so?

Tommy Hyland: In general.

RWM: What about in these little places that have sprung up all over the country?

Tommy Hyland: Casinos are afraid of litigation. It does seem like most places go out of their way to be nice about it. And we’re nice about it too. I’m always nice about it. I’ll always go back eventually, but I won’t try to push it in their face. I won’t go back the next week, or something like that. I’ll stay out of there what I consider to be a reasonable period of time – six months or a year. I’ll never just go back out of defiance.

I don’t think it’s ethical that they bar you. I don’t think it’s legal. No place is going to intimidate me into not going back. Well, the islands have definitely intimidated me. I’ve decided not to go to them. But no place in the U.S. is going to intimidate me into not playing blackjack. If they have a good game and I think I have a chance of fooling them, I’m going to play.

RWM: If your son came to you and said, “I want to be a professional gambler,” what would you tell him?

Tommy Hyland: That actually is a realistic possibility. He just turned twenty. I don’t think he wants to do it for his career, but I think he does have an interest in playing. He’s a real good golfer. I think he’s hoping to make his career in golf.

I think blackjack is a great profession. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it, not just because you can make a good living at it, but I think it’s the perfect way to make money. It seems to me that you’re taking the money from greedy corporations. The more influence they get in a particular area, I think the worse off that area will be. I think the money is better off out of their hands. I think you’re on the good side of the equation.

I mean, I would never want to be the house. If somebody told me I could make $10,000,000 a year working for a casino, I wouldn’t even consider it. It wouldn’t take me five minutes to turn it down. I wouldn’t be interested. I don’t like casinos. I don’t like how they ruin people’s lives. The employment they provide, I don’t think, is a worthwhile thing for those people to be doing. They’re taking people that could be contributing to society and making them do a job that has no redeeming social value. That’s my view.

RWM: In your case, your son has the benefit of having you to teach him, but if it were somebody who wrote you a letter from out in the hinterlands, who said, ‘I want to become a professional gambler,” what would you tell him to do?

Tommy Hyland: I actually get that a lot. The thing I really get a lot is, strangers asking to get on my team, or for me to back them. I’m not interested in that. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of really bad stuff written on blackjack. I’d try to steer them to the right books. Emphasize that you have to have a bankroll that’s discretionary money.

It’s a tough grind. It’s not a sure thing. I’m more optimistic than most people about blackjack. I think it’s clearly possible for somebody starting out at blackjack to make quite a bit of money. It’s certainly not as hard as playing poker, or trying to beat sports betting. The good thing about blackjack is that it’s cut and dried. There is not much subjectivity to it. If you follow the books and you’re a reasonably intelligent guy, there really isn’t any reason you can’t make money.

To me the contrast between blackjack and poker is clear. Poker you have the benefit that you can put in as many hours as you want. You’re not going to get barred. But, to make twenty or thirty dollars an hour at poker you have to be quite good. You have to beat a lot of real sharpies, guys who have been playing for years. To make twenty or thirty dollars an hour at blackjack is easy. You can do that after one month of study, as long as you don’t make mistakes. As long as you learn properly and you have the bankroll, that’s a very low win rate at blackjack.

RWM: How do you think the game has changed? Do you think it’s gotten better or worse?

Tommy Hyland: The individual games have definitely gotten worse, although there are still places with really nice rules around. I think that right now, it’s a great time for blackjack players. There are so many casinos, it seems no matter how well known you are as a player, you’re always going to find somewhere to play. I think the state of blackjack is good. ♠

Blackjack Insurance on Good Hands May Be A Good Idea After All

By Peter A. Griffin

(From Blackjack Forum Volume VIII #2, December 1988)
© Blackjack Forum 1988

[Note from Arnold Snyder: In the December issue of Blackjack Forum (Vol. VII #4), Marvin L. Master conjectured that if your card counting system indicated that the insurance bet was dead even, it may be advisable to insure a “good” hand, since this play would tend to reduce fluctuation. Marvin’s logic is clear. If the dealer does have a blackjack, then you will lose a bet you expected to win. Taking insurance would save this bet on one third of these hands, and on those hands where the insurance bet loses, you still expect to win your initial “good” hand. Thus, bankroll fluctuations are reduced. Here now, to lay this controversy to rest, is Peter Griffin’s final word on whether and when you should take insurance on “good” blackjack hands. More probably, this article will give nightmares to players who consider attempting to work out Griffin’s insurance formula when playing. Griffin shows that it is sometimes advisable to insure good hands—in order to reduce fluctuations—even when the insurance bet has a negative expectation! Unfortunately, most dealers only allow a couple of seconds for the insurance decision. So, the simplest answer is: Marvin was right! Insure your good hands when it’s a dead even bet.]

Marvin L. Master asks the question: Should you, to reduce fluctuations, insure a good hand when precisely one third of the unplayed cards are tens?

The answer depends upon what criterion for “reducing fluctuations” has been adopted. Griffin, in his monumental epic The Theory of Blackjack, shows that there are occasions when a Kelly proportional bettor would insure a natural with less than one third of the unplayed cards being tens.

Theoretically, this criterion could also be used to analyze whether to insure 20 and other favorable holdings. However, the answer is dependent upon both the fraction of capital bet and the distribution of the non-tens remaining in the deck.

An approximate calculation based upon what would seem a reasonable assumption in this regard suggested that 20 should be insured, but 19 not. Precise probabilities for the dealer were not computed, and the answer could well change if they were, or if a different fraction than assumed were wagered.

Another, more tractable, principle to reduce fluctuations also appears in The Theory of Blackjack: When confronted with two courses of action with identical expectations (the insurance bet here is hypothesized to neither increase nor decrease expectation), prefer that one which reduces the variance, hence average square, of the result.

This proves particularly easy to apply here. Let W, L and T stand for the probabilities of winning, losing, and tying the hand assuming insurance is not taken. In this case the average squared result is

ENx2 = 1 – T

If insurance is taken the average square becomes

EIx2 = 1/3 02 + W(1/2)2 + T(-1/2)2 + (L-1/3)(-3/2)2 = (W + T + 9L – 3)/4

Insurance will have a smaller average square if

W + T + 9L – 3 < 4 – 4T

Equivalently

W + 5T + 9L < 7

Or, subtracting

5(W + T + L) = 5

4L – 4W < 2

L – W < .5

L < W + .5

This will clearly be the case for player totals of 20, 19, 18, 11, 10, 9 and 8 if the dealer stands on soft 17. If the dealer hits soft 17, 18 would probably still be insurable, but not 8.

Returning to the Kelly criterion, the interested reader would be well advised to consult Joel Friedman’s “Risk-Averse” card counting and basic strategy modifications. Among Joel’s astute observations is that if a player confronts an absolute pick ’em hit-stand decision he should hit rather than stand. The reason is that he thereby trades an equal number of wins, (+1)2, and losses, (-1)2, for pushes, (0)2, thus reducing fluctuation. ♠

Interview with A Vegas Hole Card Player

by Richard W. Munchkin

(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXIII #1, Spring 2003)
© 2003 Blackjack Forum

What is a Blackjack Hole-Card Player?

Not all professional blackjack players count cards. There is a very small group of professional gamblers using a technique with a much higher advantage.

These players are known as “hole carders.” If a blackjack player knows the dealer’s hole card his edge with perfect play is 13.06% according to Beyond Counting, by James Grosjean. Even with cover plays to mask what they do, the edge can be close to 10%. 10%! Card counters will fly off to Third World countries in the midst of a civil war to play a game with a 2% edge. Why isn’t everyone playing these games? The answer is: It ain’t easy.

For every one hour spent on the table playing, the hole-card player may spend ten hours scouting. He spends hours and hours walking in and out of casinos, often in hundred-degree heat, checking dealers for the slightest leak. Most players, even if shown a dealer who is flashing, would not be able to spot the hole card anyway. Hole carders spend hundreds of hours training their eyes to see something that flashes by in a fraction of a second, often cast in shadow.

With this high advantage comes more risk. In my interview in the Winter 2003 issue of Blackjack Forum, attorney Bob Nersesian pointed out that one of the problems card counters face is that even some police officers think card counting is illegal. If they think that about card counting, you can imagine their response to professional gamblers playing the hole card.

Hole-card players have been beaten, harassed, and jailed on trumped-up charges. In the 1980s, two hole-card players were taken into the back room of the Horseshoe Casino and beaten to within an inch of their lives. Both suffered broken ribs, and one had a ruptured spleen.

In the Spring 2001 issue of Blackjack Forum, James Grosjean recounts his frightening tale of spending four nights in Clark County jail after telling Gaming Agents he was seeing the dealer’s hole cards. In this interview you will learn that you had better not disturb other gamblers as you are being assaulted by casino security!

But wait a minute, playing the hole card is not, I repeat, not illegal. In more than one case the courts have ruled that it is the casino’s responsibility to protect its games. If a sloppy dealer flashes the hole card, there is nothing wrong with a player taking advantage of it. It is also not illegal for that player to signal that information to any other player.

But, to quote Bob Loeb, “The real world doesn’t always follow the law” (Blackjack and the Law, by I. Nelson Rose and Robert A. Loeb). So, if you have the eyes of an eagle, the patience of a saint, and a pair of asbestos underwear, then hole-carding may be for you.

For a look inside this subset of the world of professional gamblers, I interviewed RC. RC is a long-time, highly successful hole-card player and Las Vegas character. Knowing RC may be bad for your health. Dealers have been fired for knowing him, and one friend, who has never played blackjack, has been labeled a cheat in a Griffin flyer. The friend’s crime? Having lunch with RC at a casino buffet. Though RC has been assaulted, arrested, and labeled a cheat, he is quick to laugh, and take it all with a grain of salt.

Beginning of a Blackjack Career

RWM: How did you become a professional gambler?

RC: When I was in my early twenties, I used to come out here with friends. I’m from New Jersey. One of the guys in the group was a lawyer and he knew how to count cards. He was a green chip player. I was about 22. I was fascinated watching him play, and get heat. I thought it was interesting. I have family that has lived here since the ‘60s, and I moved here in ’87. That’s when I got interested, and started reading the books. I read Uston and Wong. I got all the books, and Blackbelt in Blackjack was my favorite. The first count I learned was the Zen. I’ve always had a lot of respect for Arnold. I enjoyed his writing style.

When I started, I was strictly a card counter. I got a regular job, but then on my days off I would go out and play. Of course, every time I played I won. This was strictly counting for red chips. I said, “Boy, this is easy. I can make more than I make at my job doing this.”

RWM: What kind of work were you doing?

RC: I was a bartender at Palace Station. So I quit my job and became “a professional gambler.” Then I met a guy in the gym, J, and he was a player so I hooked up with him. He was my biggest influence. We were partners for years and years. He is a bit of a character.

RWM: Most professional gamblers are.

RC: Anyway, J showed me the hole card. J and I were low-level players, and we used to mostly count cards. We didn’t actively search out hole-card games, but if we came upon one, we would play it. We used to stick to downtown Vegas and we met a lot of the other local players. We were really well known down there.

I started with $5000 to my name. I built my bankroll from $5000 to $17,000. I found a frontloader at the Golden Nugget. I fired away on the game, thinking, “How can I lose?” She wiped me out. I had to start all over again. [A frontloader is a dealer that exposes the hole card from the front. The person sitting in the center of the table can spot it.—RWM]

RWM: Did you get broke a bunch of times?

RC: I went broke twice. The first time was when I lost the $17,000. I went back to New Jersey for a year. My family knew what I was doing, and they hated it. My father owned restaurants. He said, “Come back and run one of the restaurants. You have to think of your future.”

It was the typical parental response. I always resisted, and then I went broke. I went back and ran one of his restaurants for a year, and hated it. I thought, “I have to get back to Vegas.” I saved up some money and came back. I lost it, and took a $300 cash advance on my credit card. I built that $300 into the bankroll I have today.

RWM: When you went broke that second time did you take a more cautious approach with your bankroll?

RC: If I went bust on that $300, I was going to quit. J always says that my story is the most unbelievable story he knows. Then in 1991 the bosses on graveyard at the Golden Gate didn’t believe card counting worked. When we started playing at the Golden Gate, they knew we were hole-card players, because they had seen some Griffin flyers. They didn’t care. They said, “Don’t do it here.”

Our routine was to get up at ten at night and go to the gym. We’d go right from the gym in our sweats to the Golden Gate at two a.m. when graveyard started. We’d play every night from two to ten. We did this six or seven days a week. Betting red chips I built my bankroll back into five figures.

Then a player named Tip found out about it, and brought his whole team in there. I met a lot of players during that time. One of Tip’s players we used to call Rainman. He kind of drools all the time. Tip would come in and take up a whole table by himself. The limit was $200, and he would bet from two hands of $50 to seven hands of $200. Tip and Rainman won $15,000 each on the same night, and that was the end of it.

I befriended a couple guys on his team. That is when I started playing more on the Strip. They were really impressed because I had these hole-card games. They said, “How can you see that?”

I had a small bankroll so I asked them to ask Tip if he was interested in a deal. I would read the game and take some percentage. Tip wanted to pay me $50 an hour so I said, “No thanks.” [Tip was a member of the original Czech team, and is mentioned in two of the interviews in Gambling Wizards. He is still active in advantage play, and would make a great subject for a future interview. Tip, if you’re reading this… –RWM]

RWM: When did you stop counting cards and start to specialize in hole cards?

RC: When the Golden Gate ended the free-for-all. It was nice playing at the Golden Gate because we didn’t have to look over our shoulders. We played zero cover. I used to get thrown out of the Horseshoe betting nickels. I went from one hand of $5 to two hands of $10, and the boss told me if I did it again I was out of there. This is the world-famous Horseshoe, which supposedly would take the biggest bets in the world.

At the Golden Gate they knew what we were doing, and they didn’t care. Having that part of the cat-and-mouse game gone was nice. It made us lazy. Once that ended we had to get a little more ambitious. Someone mentioned that there were good hole-card games at Circus Circus, and it was true.

RWM: I’m surprised that you hadn’t gone down to the Strip before that.

RC: We did once in a while, but we had so many little things going on downtown that we stayed there. I didn’t know much, and J is kind of a crazy character. I didn’t know the right way to do things. I used to think that since I was just betting nickels they wouldn’t throw me out. I found out that wasn’t true. I got thrown out of all the clubs downtown for counting cards. I still run into pit bosses today who remember me as a card counter from 15 years ago.

So at the end of 1991 we moved on. At that time there were ten hole-card games on every shift at Circus Circus. In the early ‘90s there were games everywhere.

RWM: Did you travel?

RC: We would make four or five trips a year to Reno. We made a lot of money in Reno.

Hole-Card Play and Heat

RWM: What was the first big barring?

RC: Stardust in maybe ’92 or ’93. We had a girl who was 100% and I was on third base reading the game. [100% means that the spotter could see the hole card 100% of the time. This is unheard of today.—RWM] J came up and bet $100 money plays. He never bet more than two hands of $300 and won $16,000.

I was kicking him to bet more money. The floor woman was totally clueless. It was really busy, and nobody was paying any attention. We were having a great old time. The graveyard bosses come in and start taking the count. The boss comes up and sees J with all these chips and says, “What the fuck is going on here?” The heat started coming so J and I both got out the door. I went in a week later and they 86ed me.

RWM: You’ve had some nasty things happen.

RC: I’ve had a few bad ones. My first big backrooming wasn’t really nasty, but it was unpleasant. I was playing the Golden Nugget in Laughlin. They handcuffed us and had us in the back room for two hours waiting for Gaming to show up.

This turned out to be one of the brightest Gaming Agents I have had contact with. He said all the right things. He said, “The casinos don’t like what you’re doing, but it is not illegal.” They wanted to take our picture and I said they couldn’t take my picture without my consent. The Gaming Agent said, “He’s right.” It was quite unusual for a Gaming Agent.

I got arrested at Boomtown. That was pretty bad. And I got beaten up a bit at the Eldorado in Reno. I could have sued for that one, but I didn’t.

RWM: What happened?

RC: We were playing, and had beaten them for a bunch of money. We went back in the next day. They started milling around, and I knew the heat was coming. I was betting $5 a hand, and I picked up my chips and headed for the door. There was a security guard at the door and I heard over the walkie-talkie, “grab that guy.”

I broke into a bit of a jog to get out the door. The security guard was waiting at the door. I was really into weight lifting back then, and I just bowled this guy over. He went tumbling out the door, and it was snowing out there. Well, there were two more security guards outside and they all jumped on me. I wasn’t throwing punches, but I was throwing the guys off me.

Eventually there were 5 or 6 of them and they handcuffed me. After they had me handcuffed they started beating on me. They were pounding me on the back of the head. Then they dragged me into the back room. They said that I was taking advantage of one of their dealers. They said, “”You could have at least worn a different hat.” I was wearing the same hat that was in the picture from the night before. The security guard kept saying, “You’re going to jail.” Yeah, sure I’m going to jail. They 86ed me and let me go. I could have sued, but I couldn’t be bothered.

RWM: What happened to you at Boomtown? [Now the Silverton.]

RC: J called me to play a game. The game really wasn’t that good, but I I was getting very lucky. I was getting 20 every hand. My girlfriend was with me, and we played an hour and won $5000. I went to cash out and they slapped the cuffs on me.

They accused me of cheating and called Gaming. They said that J and I were working in collusion with the dealer. They sent a woman who was the opposite of the Gaming Agent I ran into in Laughlin. She said, “We’ve got you on tape playing this dealer before.” This was the first time I had ever played this game. She said,” We have you on tape from three weeks ago.” I knew it was not me so I said to her, “Are you sure that’s me? I knew who it was so I said, “Did you notice on the tape that the guy in the old tape was right handed, and I’m left handed?” She said, “Uh uh, it’s you. It’s you.”

So I spent the night in county jail. The court system takes forever. When you are charged with a felony, you go for the arraignment, then you go back for the plea, and then the preliminary hearing. In the middle of it our judge got arrested for something so we had to get a new judge. That delayed it even more.

RWM: I’m amazed they were prosecuting this case. Why wasn’t it thrown out?

RC: In retrospect, I made a really bad decision. My bankroll was in five figures at the time and I didn’t want to spend $300 an hour on a lawyer. I felt the case was a complete joke. They charged me with conspiracy. What conspiracy? I had never seen this dealer before in my life. How were they going to prove I was in a conspiracy with this guy?

The dealer took a lie detector test and passed. My uncle is an attorney in town. He’s not a criminal attorney but he is an attorney, so I used him. My poor uncle, I dragged him to court six or seven times just to get to the preliminary hearing, and I wasn’t paying him anything. We got to the preliminary hearing and the dealer and his lawyer were there. He ended up taking adjudicated prosecution, which basically is if you stay out of trouble it gets dropped. I was wondering why he even took that. We had two felony charges against us, cheating and conspiracy. If I got convicted I would have to do time. I was surprised the dealer took that. I wanted to fight it all the way.

RWM: Wouldn’t that inhibit the dealer from ever dealing again?

RC: It did. He can’t ever deal again. I realized we had to make a deal because he could turn on us. He could decide we had ruined his life, and decide to lie about what happened. Gaming hated us so much they could say, “We’ll let you deal. We’ll drop everything. We don’t want you, we want them, so just say this.” We plead to trespassing, I got my money back, and six months later it was dismissed. That was the biggest hassle I ever had.

RWM: You mentioned a story where a Gaming Agent had a dealer deal to him to see if he could see the hole card.

RC: That happened to a guy I know. They arrested him and the dealer and said they were colluding. The Gaming Agent had the dealer deal to him and he said he couldn’t see the hole card so they must be cheating. Unbelievable. 99.9% of the people wouldn’t be able to see the hole card if I showed them where to look. In this case, it was a tough game, and the average Joe would never get it.

Blackjack Hole-Carding Skill

RWM: What percentage of people do you think can see a hole card?

RC: It depends on the game. Some games are ridiculously easy, but those are very rare. When they are too good, that is when the pit is going to pick up on it. A guy will be standing in the pit and look over and see the hole card from another pit. That game won’t last very long. The best game is a game that is tough to get. That way it is a lot harder for the pit to pick it off. They suspect that is what is happening, and they come out and look but they can’t see anything. They conclude that isn’t what we are doing but meanwhile we’re getting it.

Suing to Protect Player’s Rights

RWM: Recently you had a problem at the El Cortez.

RC: I had been in there playing with a BP, and we beat them pretty good. We made a bunch of plays, and finally one night the boss came up to the table and pushed the chips back at my BP. The boss said to him, “You, hit the road.”

Then he pointed at me and said, “Him, I want him taken in the back room, photographed, and 86ed.” Now, I’ve been around a little while and I know how to handle myself better. I got up and said, “I’m not going in the back room. You have no legal right to detain me. I’m walking out the door.” The security guard said, “This is a private institution and we can detain you if we want for trespassing.” I said, “No, you can’t.” He said, “Yes, we can.” I said, “Well, I’m leaving.”

I went to the door and they blocked my way. I tried to get through, and once again, it started. I’m not going to start throwing punches, because I know they will turn around and say I assaulted them. They tackled me, got me on the floor, handcuffed me, and dragged me to the back room. I started screaming, “Someone call the police. I’m being kidnapped.”

My BP called the police, and Bob Nersesian. [Bob Nersesian is an attorney in Las Vegas who handles cases for players. He was interviewed in the last issue of Blackjack Forum.—RWM] They took me in the back room and emptied my pockets. I was telling them I wanted them to call the police and call Gaming. They said, “You were cheating. We’ve got you on tape trying to look at the dealer’s hole card.” I said, “That sounds like a personal problem to me. If I’m cheating, please call Gaming, or please call Metro. Why am I back here? You have no right to take me back here.”

Eventually they said, “Gaming said you don’t have a device, so you’re not cheating. We’re not going to call Metro. If you want to call Metro, you call them on your own time.” To the shift boss, I said, “Wade, you have a big problem” He said, “We’re going to do you a favor, and let you go.” I said, “You’re going to do me a favor? I don’t think so. I want the police here. You just assaulted me. It’s too late. You should have thought of that when I wanted to walk out the door.” Hopefully this is all on the audio from the tapes of the back room. Bob [Nersesian] called right away and said, “I want all those tapes held.” We’ll see what happens with that. They finally trespassed me, and let me go.

I went outside. Metro still hadn’t come so I called again. Eventually two bicycle cops pedaled up. Apparently they had already talked to security. You know they have some kind of relationship. They are there 86ing vagrants practically every day.

Of course, I don’t expect the cops to arrest the security guards. All I wanted was a report filed because I knew I was going to sue them. I said, “I want to file a report.” The cop said, “I’m not filing a report. Were you counting cards? Counting cards is illegal.” I said, “Could you please show me that statute?” One of the cops pulls out a little cardboard card and he pointed to NRS 465 and said, “Right here. Cheating at gambling.” I said, “Where does it say that card counting is cheating?” He said, “Well, hmm. I don’t know, but I know it’s cheating.”

One of the cops was being very belligerent. He said, “You’re lucky I don’t arrest you for blocking traffic on the sidewalk.” I asked for his badge number and he said, “No, I’m not giving you my name or my badge number.” I had scrapes on my knees and handcuff marks on my wrists. I said, “I was just assaulted and I just would like to file a report.” The cop said, “Well, I’m not doing it.”

I called Bob and told him what was happening. Bob said to get their names any way I could, or any other information I could get. I happen to see their names on their bikes. Then another van pulled up, and I thought maybe it was someone of higher rank. I went over to him and I said, “Could you explain the law to these guys?” He said, “It’s his case. I have nothing to do with it.”

The cop that told me card counting was illegal called Gaming. He talked to a Gaming Agent and after he hung up he said, “I have to apologize. You’re right, counting cards isn’t illegal.” Then he said, “I’m going to go in and look at the tape. If I see that they illegally detained you, then I’ll cite them.” Hallelujah! I waited outside for about twenty minutes. They came out and said, “You’re under arrest.”

RWM: For what!?

RC: Disturbing the peace. When security was detaining me I was yelling, and that was interfering with people trying to gamble. They couldn’t concentrate on their gambling because of my screaming. I know a Gaming Agent; who works out in my gym. I told him the story and he was hysterical. He said, “99.9% of the time they just summons you.” I got sent to city jail for the night, which is unheard of.”

RWM: Are you suing Metro as well as the El Cortez?

RC: Oh yeah. Initially it was just Jackie Gaughn and the Metro officers. But I think that when Bob read the written statements, he added the security guards. I think the shift boss is named also.

The Blackjack Hole-Card Plays

RWM: I heard a story about you having an altercation with Andy Anderson. [Andy Anderson used to work as a Griffin Agent. He has since split from Griffin Investigations and started his own company, C.V.I., which is the database sold with Biometrica.]

RC: Yeah. I was playing at the California Club, and they called Griffin. Andy comes in and he’s watching me and smirking. When I was young I was a lot more aggressive. I said, “What the fuck are you looking at? You want a date? What are you staring at?” I got up and walked right into the pit and got in his face. I said, “You want to come outside, motherfucker? I’ll rip your head off.”

The shift boss said, “Just calm down. Just go, just go.” I left and I didn’t think much of it. I happened to be friends with a floorman at the Nugget. He said, “What happened at the California? You really scared the shit out of Andy.” I went and talked to one of the other guys there. He said, “You shouldn’t have done that. You really scared him. He’s really worried you’re going to do something to him. If they’re going to bar you, just leave. They’ll forget you in six months. You’re a good player, and you’ll make a lot of money in this business, but don’t do stuff like that.”

RWM: Did you take that advice?

RC: Well, one time a buddy and I were playing at the Sahara. They sort of got hip to the play. One of the bosses was a real smart-ass. We had left separately, and the boss decided to follow my BP out to the garage. I came out behind him and saw him following my friend. The boss turned around and saw me. He came up and got right in my face and said, “Oh, what a coincidence that you’re both parked in the same area of the parking lot.” He had a big smirk on his face. I looked around ad noticed he didn’t have any security with him. I grabbed him by the collar and said, “You have got to be out of your fucking mind.” He turned white as a ghost and said, “Calm down. We didn’t bar you.” I’ve calmed down a lot since those days.

RWM: What about players? Did you ever get into altercations with players at the table?

RC: Not where it ever got physical, but many arguments were an eyelash away from a fight. A lot of times your BP is making all kinds of weird plays. You get a superstitious ploppy that blames his losing on the weird plays of the BP. The ploppy then starts badgering the BP.

One funny story happened in Reno. My BP had fifteen against the dealer’s ten up, five in the hole. My BP stayed and the dealer hit fifteen with a six. The guy on first base started chewing out my BP. He wouldn’t stop. I was sitting quietly on third base acting like I don’t know my BP. He kept going on and on, and finally I just exploded. I said, “If you don’t shut your mouth, I’ll rip your head off.” The guy just said, “Okay.”

My BP was a lot more mild-mannered than I was. My BP was losing and I was supposed to be acting like the money doesn’t have anything to do with me. But I just couldn’t take listening to this idiot go on and on.

RWM: You often need a particular seat to see the hole card. What do you do if a tourist is in the seat you need? Have you ever bought a seat from a player?

RC: Oh yeah. One time I was in the El Cortez and a guy was in the seat I needed. He was betting $2 a hand. I offered him $50 for the seat and he wouldn’t take it. How much was he expecting to win betting $2? There are different things you can do. They don’t work on everyone. Weird plays drive some people off. I had one teammate who was well known for his gaseousness. Wheelchair [another well-known blackjack hole-card player] is famous for spilling orange juice on guys.

RWM: How did you meet Wheelchair?

RC: J and I were in Circus Circus one day, and we saw one guy pushing another guy in a wheelchair. What do you know, they pulled up to one of our games. At that time there were a bunch of guys named Mike who were playing hole cards. So there was Big Mike, Eyeglass Mike, and he became Wheelchair Mike. Then one day J and I were in the Barbary Coast and this guy comes up and sits right in between us. We start talking and that’s how we met.

Personal Life

RWM: Do you find that being successful in Vegas you become the target for a lot of scams? Have guys tried to take shots at you?

RC: That happened more when I first started. I’m pretty good at judging people. I have a friend who had a lot of shots taken at him. He almost fell for a gold mining scam in Central America. I’ve never been the type to look for the get-rich-quick scheme. I’m willing to grind my way to prosperity.

RWM: How did being in this business affect your personal life? When you started dating your wife, did she know what you did for a living?

RC: My wife, yes. When I started, my girlfriends didn’t care for it at all.

RWM: You would tell them what you did for a living?

RC: Yes. When I moved here I was engaged to a girl in New Jersey. When she camehere, I would go out to play graveyard and be out all night. They don’t believe you. “I was out counting cards.” “Yeah, sure you were.” She got upset and moved back to New Jersey. I started dating a dealer after that.

RWM: Would you tell her, a dealer, what you were doing?

RC: Yeah. She was Korean, and she hated it. But I really have never had any trouble with that in my relationships. My girlfriends after her were fine with it. I know that’s a big problem for other people. But three dealers have been fired because I dated them.

RWM: You weren’t playing at their tables, were you?

RC: No, just the fact that they were seen with me got them fired.

RWM: I would think that would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

RC: They can fire you for any reason when you’re a dealer. There is no union or anything to protect them. They don’t tell them that is why they are being fired. I dated a dealer at the Fremont. We went to dinner at an Italian restaurant, and one of her bosses was there with his wife. The next day she was fired. About five years ago I was dating a girl at the Las Vegas Club. We beat them for about $20,000, and they fired half the shift.

RWM: What do your parents think now?

RC: They’re fine with it now. Drive back from Vegas in a Lexus and… Wow.

RWM: What about your wife’s family?

RC: My wife just told her mother a few months ago. Her family’s attitude is that as long as I’m good to her then everything is fine. I tell a lot of people that I’m a professional poker player. Everyone seems to know that there are people who make a living at that. I don’t tell a lot of people I play blackjack, because then you get hit with a zillion questions.

RWM: Will you teach you kids to play when they get old enough?

RC: I plan to. I don’t think I’d like them to do it professionally, but sure. Why not?

RWM: Do you play poker?

RC: No. If someone really started quizzing me I wouldn’t even be able to bluff my way through it.

RWM: Why didn’t you ever take it up? There isn’t any heat.

RC: It’s too much of a grind for me. It seems boring, not my style.

RWM: How many people do you think are out there playing hole cards?

RC: There were a lot of people 15 years ago, but then the games really dried up. A lot of those guys dropped out of sight. It’s not easy.

RWM: Have you branched out into other things?

RC: A little bit. I did a little in sports, and slots. Slots drive me crazy.

RWM: Have you traveled much?

RC: I’ve been almost everywhere in the country. I don’t like to travel much anymore. I don’t have to play every day. I’m kind of comfortable now, and we had a baby recently. I’m tired of it. Winning is still enjoyable, but the rest of it has really gotten old.

Hole-Carding Tips

RWM: How is it that you can still get a good game after 17 years in Vegas?

RC: It’s the casinos’ incompetence. Some guys are sharp; fortunately for us the majority aren’t. It always amazed me—the stupidity on the other side. And that is the only thing that has kept players in business for as long as I’ve been doing this. I love the misinformation that comes out on the Griffin flyers. It’s hysterical.

I was eating at the Rio one day with two of my buddies from the gym. We came out of the buffet and were surrounded by security. They told us not to play and then a flyer comes out that these guys are part of a 21 cheating team. These guys had never played blackjack in their lives.

RWM: I don’t understand how that can’t be slander or libel. They’re calling these guys criminals.

RC: I talked to a lawyer about it. They always ask, “What are the damages?” We used to see flyers all the time linking people we didn’t know to us. The other thing that was funny was, we used to play at the Barbary Coast a lot. I can’t tell you how many times we would be playing there, and they would bar some guy on our game for counting. They wouldn’t say a word to us. They would bar some guy who was moving his bet around a little, but who didn’t know a thing about counting.

RWM: Do you think the game is getting a lot tougher?

RC: A little bit. They have gotten a lot better at identifying known players.

RWM: Have you tried disguises?

RC: I never have. I’ve thought about it but never did. I can still get a decent game.

RWM: What have you done to contribute to your longevity? Is it because you have a thick skin about being barred?

RC: That, and I try to pick my spots. I have a good memory for faces and people who might be a problem. I’ll stay away from them. If I find a game where I have a problem, I don’t go in myself to play. I’ll find other people to play it for me. I’ll wait for turnover. I’ll wait for spots where I know I’ve never seen those bosses before. Those are the places where I’ll personally go in and play. I try to minimize my risk by staying away from people I know are going to be problems. Even if I think they might not remember me, I still stay away just so the game will last longer.

RWM: When you find one of these games, is your approach to milk it, or to hit it as hard as possible and burn it out?

RC: It depends on the spot. I’ve had some games in local joints where I decided to milk it. I have had games I milked for a couple of years. If it’s a big Strip casino, we usually blast away in those situations. You can make a big score in those places.

RWM: What’s the biggest bet you’ve made?

RC: Two hands of $5000.

RWM: What’s your biggest win in a session?

RC: $120,000.

RWM: Biggest loss?

RC: $50,000, and it was a very small casino. [laughing] And they fixed the dealer. [“Fixing” a dealer means that the boss corrected the dealer’s sloppy card handling, so that the dealer stopped exposing the hole card.—RWM] We had won almost $40,000 a couple days earlier. Then we lost fifty and they figured it out and fixed the dealer.

RWM: Do you have any advice for the green chippers out there?

RC: Don’t quit your day job.

RWM: Do you run into guys out there who are trying to make it counting cards? Do you think it is still possible?

RC: I think it is extremely difficult. When I started as a counter, I only played single deck. There were single-deck games everywhere. I can’t believe the way they treat some counters. What are they doing backrooming a counter? It’s ridiculous. All they have to do is say, “Take your action down the street.” If I were starting out today, and all I knew was counting, I might do it recreationally but to try to make a living… No way.

One thing that’s going on now is really bad. There are a couple of players out there who used to play together. They had a bunch of big scores together, but then they had a falling out. There have always been arguments in the past, but these guys are doing things like ratting each other out to the casinos.

That kind of thing used to be unheard of. They’ll see each other playing and call surveillance and tell them about the guy. I got an email from one of these guys telling me not to play with so-and-so because they were going to rat him out all over town. They said I’d go down with him. I said to these guys, “What are you doing?” That kind of stuff is just bad for business. It makes things bad for everybody.

RWM: What do you see yourself doing in ten years? Do you think you’ll still be playing?

RC: Probably a little bit. I’ll pick my spots. I don’t think I could ever totally quit. If I go too long without playing, I start to get withdrawals.

But I have started a business. My brothers are all professionals. One is a doctor, one is a lawyer, and one works for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. I had a part-time job a few years ago as a personal trainer. I was always into bodybuilding, and I enjoy helping people improve their fitness.

That’s how I met my wife. It’s great that she isn’t in the business. She hates going to casinos. I love that about her. I was never a gambler of any sort. I wouldn’t bet you $5 on a football game. It was only after I found out that blackjack was beatable mathematically that I decided to look into it. I’ve known since I was a kid thatI wouldn’t end up in some 9-to-5 life.

RWM: I just have one more question.

RC: Shoot.

RWM: Where are the secret hole-card games?

RC: [laughs] Those games go with me to my grave. ♠

It’s Not Paranoia If…

by James Grosjean

(From Blackjack Forum XXIV #1, Winter 2004/05)
© Blackjack Forum 2004

[Author’s Note: In my description of the trial against the Imperial Palace (IP), quoted matter comes from direct trial testimony given under oath, available in the official court transcript, which we expect to make available online in the future (or which can be purchased from the court reporter, Sonia L. Riley). Questions and answers are not necessarily presented in the same order as the trial testimony, and I have sometimes made minor editing changes for clarity or length.

I try to indicate these changes using brackets for changed words, such as replacing “he” with “[Grosjean],” or ellipses for omitted material. I include numerous excerpts that are not part of the logical flow of the trial, or are not even relevant to the incidents at the IP, but which I feel are important to educate our community, reveal the stupidity and corruption of the actors, or entertain the readers.

After jury selection, then opening statements, there are six witnesses: GCB Agents Paul Stolberg, Anthony Vincent, and Philip Pedote; IP Security Supervisor Donnie Espensen; Plaintiff James Grosjean (thank you, thank you); and former GCB chief Ron Asher (the supposed “expert witness” on the relationship of the GCB and its licensees, and the law enforcement aspects of the case).

“Bob” refers to my attorney, Robert Nersesian, who is assisted in court by co-counsel Thea Sankiewicz.

“IP” when preceding a quote refers to Paul Thomas, the lawyer representing the Imperial Palace.

“Court” refers to statements made by the Honorable Judge Lee Gates.

Also present in the courtroom at all times is Mike Morrill, the risk manager for the Imperial Palace.

Letters after juror numbers refer to the games at which they gamble: VP=Video Poker, BJ=Blackjack, B=Bingo, H=Hold’em, G=Gambling at an unspecified game, N=None. Juror numbers in bold represent those ultimately selected for the jury.]

It’s Not Paranoia if …

Las Vegas, February 28, 2001. Mike and I have already met with two lawyers to discuss a possible lawsuit regarding the Caesars Incident from April 2000. Now the lights are coming on as we enter the night in Las Vegas. I’m not in town to play, but it’s what we do. Enough lawyers—it’s time to take care of business on the blackjack tables.

No games at Casino Royale. Nothing at Harrah’s. This ain’t all glamour and showgirls and penthouse suites. We’re about pounding the pavement. The Imperial Palace? Maybe we’ve got something. Naturally, the dealer goes on break and then to a shoe game, so we’re going to have to wait 80 minutes before we even have a chance to check it out. After a nap in the sports book, we hit the floor again at about 11 p.m.

Mike and I split up and scout the blackjack pit from opposite sides. If nothing pans out, we might be headed to O’Shea’s in a minute. But not just yet. Is that security guard looking at me? Sometimes an errant look is enough to tell you it’s on. It looks like it’s on, but how can it be? I’m not playing. The pit doesn’t even know I’m here. I’ve never played much at the Imperial Palace. I don’t exist. But anything can happen in Vegas.

The security guard is loitering in the middle of the heavily trafficked main aisle on the casino floor. He must be there for a reason. I move across the aisle to confirm that his gaze follows me. I meander over to the slot machines. Does he think I can’t see his furtive glances? It’s on.

I could easily sprint out the door and make it to freedom, but Bob Loeb, my friend and attorney, has advised me that to do so escalates the situation both practically and legally. Why should I be considering running from anything? What is going on?

I have no choice but to walk out and hope the security guard leaves me alone. What are the odds of that? As I exit the main doors, I can hear the guard behind me. He orders me to stop, but why should I? I have nothing to say, and he has no legal authority over me. I keep walking. I’m in the driveway now. Freedom is so close. Then I hear the order over his radio: “Detain him!”

Five feet from the sidewalk. The goon finally gets in front of me. He puts his hands on my chest and starts yelling. I try to walk around him, saying, “You have no right to detain me—I wasn’t even playing.” “Yes, I do!” he counters. Good one.

This goon is about 6’3″, outweighs me by about 75 pounds, carries a gun, and is violent. Though legal, resistance is futile. He twists my arm behind my back, then pushes me into the concrete wall. With my face pressed against the wall, he starts putting handcuffs on, and then I look down the driveway to see five more security guards running out. Their trophy subdued in cuffs, they triumphantly march me back into the casino and into the elevator. The bravado begins right away as they start touching my pockets and one of them says, “Smack his head into the wall.” How can they get away with this?

I am taken to the Lineup Room and forced to lean with my head against the wall and legs spread behind me. For the next nine minutes, all of my possessions are taken out of my pockets and put on the table behind me. The guards are enjoying the festive atmosphere. The goon who had originally detained me says, “He broke my damn watch!” to which another guard replies, “Add on another charge!”

They finally let me sit, and the security supervisor, Donnie Espensen, gives me some vague line about how I might be someone they’re looking for, and that they’re checking on it. What is going on? Could I have just had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? I read a book once that says, “There’s no luck in this business.”

I sit and wait, and sit some more, and wait some more. No one tells me what’s going on. Espensen has already looked at my passport and knows who I am. I ask the guards to remove the handcuffs. They refuse. After about fifteen minutes in the Back Room, a couple of guys in leather jackets walk through, peruse my stuff on the table, tell Espensen they’ll see him tomorrow, say their goodbyes. A few minutes later Espensen says, “Well, they think you’re somebody, but apparently you’re not.”

What? I ask, for the second time, to be released from handcuffs. Espensen refuses and retracts, saying, “We need to make sure you’re not the person we’re looking for.” A few minutes later, he tells me that I’ll be released after he fills out a field interview card, including my passport number, home address and phone number, and Social Security number.

A few minutes before midnight, they finally release me. Espensen tells the security guards that they should escort me to the door, but that I am not 86’ed [barred from the property], since this is apparently just a case of mistaken identity. What is going on?

In the days that follow, I can’t make up my mind about what happened. What are the odds that of all the random people that could have been mistakenly detained, they grabbed me? They had to know. But then, why didn’t they bar me? Perhaps they wanted to stick to their “mistaken-identity” story. But then, why detain me at all if they aren’t willing to bar me? They don’t need a justification to bar me; they can just do it.

Besides, they could stick to their mistaken-identity story and just say that “to be safe” they would bar me. That would do the trick. So did they know who I am, or was this an accident? As we would learn in the months ahead, those aren’t the only two possibilities, and the truth is even darker and more shocking than any of us would have imagined.

Mike and I once asked Richard Wright, a criminal defense attorney, whether we could sue for the Caesars incident. Mike and I like to mimic his cynical, almost-mocking reply, which was, “Who ya gonna sue??” In the months that followed, only one answer emerged—everyone.

Las Vegas, October 18, 2004. I am sitting alone in the back room at 528 S. 8th Avenue, the law offices of Nersesian & Sankiewicz. In the VCR is a surveillance tape from the Imperial Palace. On the table is the three-volume transcript of my deposition, taken about ten months earlier. Trial starts tomorrow. Our lawsuit against Caesars Palace, the Griffin Detective Agency, the Nevada Gaming Control Board, GCB Agent Charles Pointon, GCB Agent Roderick O’Neal, the Imperial Palace, and IP Security Supervisor Donnie Espensen has been bifurcated so that only the IP portion will be heard tomorrow. I’m relieved that we have to attack only one head of the hydra this time.

After three and a half years, it’s odd that we’re actually going to trial tomorrow, but was it not inevitable? Does the IP expect me to bite at their token settlement offer of $10,000? Split with Mike and Bob, my end would be only $3000 or so, before expenses, which already exceed that amount. If I were interested in making $3000, I would just go over to the IP to play blackjack. Sure, if the IP offers a big number, say $50,000, I’d probably take it, but the beauty of my position, and now I’m divulging our secret weapon, is that I don’t care about money.

In high school I did Model U.N. and Model Congress and Mock Trial. In college I took a philosophy class called “Justice.” I was an editor for a nonpartisan political magazine. I want the system to work. Las Vegas is an embarrassment to the United States, and not because of the gambling or the sex. I hope it’s true that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. This cancer must not spread.

Jury Selection

Las Vegas, October 19, 2004. District Court #8, the Honorable Judge Lee Gates presiding. It’s time for voir dire, the jury selection process. Mike and I had considered hiring a jury-selection consultant to help, but in the end decided that Bob, Thea, and I could exercise sufficient insight and wisdom. Thirty or so people are sitting in the jury pool. Eight are randomly selected to come forward. We will alternate with the IP in exercising up to four rejections of jury candidates. We might be able to reject a candidate “for cause,” without having to use one of our four precious challenges. Some would argue that the case will be won or lost right here. Let’s get it on.

Prospective Juror 227 [Dale K.]: “Let me just explain something to you. Being brought up in the Midwest, let’s say, and the values that my parents instilled, coming out here to Nevada was like a complete turnaround. … I sit here and I look at what’s going on with law enforcement, it’s like Metro is like one big gang thing, you know. It’s like, always, me first and then… Back there was never like that. You never locked your doors or anything. It’s so different out here, and you know, it’s hard — it’s hard to comprehend, to tell you the truth. I don’t understand the concept that these people have out here that they can’t respect some people first…

They can’t respect people first. It seems like the first thing they do out here — and I go by what they show on the news is — about three years ago, there was a lady that Metro tried to detain, they ended up throwing her on the ground on hot pavement in the middle of the summer, and she’s all burned up, and she’s telling them she’s getting burned, and they don’t care. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand the mentality of these people out here. It’s like strong arm first, and then …”

Court: “Shoot and ask questions later?”

227: “Exactly. That’s the way it is. That kind of mentality I was not used to. … I’m going back to last year, … Somebody evidently walked in [to a casino], security didn’t like it, and they roughed them up. Here again, I don’t understand that. They rough up first, and then they ask questions later.”

IP: “Do you believe that the culture shock that you had … would cause my client to say I don’t want this guy as a juror?”

227: “Truthfully, I would — I really have a preconceived notion about security in the casinos. … I’m going back to what happened a year ago at Gold Coast, for example. Here again, it’s on television, they showed surveillance videos, and I think it was an advantage gambler that that was the term that they used at the time on TV, and they — as far as I’m concerned, instead of them just asking him to leave, they physically abused these people and took them in the back, handcuffed — these people were handcuffed and everything, and that just — that’s not right to me. … they had these guys pinned right down cuffing them, and they were right down on the floor and they had their knees in their back. And I’m saying if this is just an advantage gambler, why are they doing this? This is not right.”

For this guy’s diatribe to be the first thing heard in court is a miracle for us, but, as Bob writes to me on his legal pad, “He’s gone!” [Dismissed by IP, #2]

Prospective Juror 169 [Timothy J.]: A former 16-year aeronautical engineer from California with a party rental business and a coffee service business. Now a 2.5-year Vegas resident and loan officer. He pleads financial hardship, because he works on commission and would not receive any salary for a four-day trial, and needs to support a wife and five children. His wife worked at MGM until recently. [Dismissed, along with five others for financial hardship.]

Prospective Juror 007VP [Scott F.]: A former Air Force pilot for twenty years, now a pilot for United Airlines, living in Vegas for 11 years, originally from Ohio. Previously served on a jury for a murder case, coincidentally heard by Judge Gates.

Bob: “Is anyone here particularly happy about [the Patriot Act]?”

007: “As an airline pilot — some of that because of 9/11, because it helps protect us; so, there are aspects of that — yeah, I would guess I’m in favor of it.”

The guy’s got a smirk plastered on his face, he’s ex-military, he looks like he thinks this is a waste of his time to be here, and he likes “aspects” of the Patriot Act. I tell Bob that the guy has a bad attitude, and bad attitudes have got to go. [Dismissed by Bob, #3]

Prospective Juror 001 [Douglas P.]: A 3.5-year resident of Vegas and real estate agent. Formerly a 25-year electrical engineer in California. Was sued by his neighbor after he filed a complaint about a barking dog. Sued his former employer for wrongful termination.

Court: “Can you follow the Court’s instructions on the law?”

001: “Yes. I should say — I don’t know if it matters — I’m a registered libertarian. … this involves constitutional rights, and that’s a big thing with libertarians, and that’s why I mentioned it.”

Bob: “Did you do programming and code as well?”

001: “Yes.”

Why did this guy have to open his mouth about being a libertarian??!? Godspeed. [Dismissed by IP, #4]

Prospective Juror 002 [Lawrence A.]: A CPA born in Las Vegas, with a brother who does real estate and personal injury law.

Bob: “Does everyone here recognize that generally casinos do put out games where they have an advantage and the casino is playing with an advantage? … Well, they all nodded their head yes except for Mr. A., who I think gave me the eye, only in the sense that sure, that’s what they do.”

Educated, reasonable, with a touch of cynicism towards casinos — nice knowing you, Lawrence. [Dismissed by IP, #6]

Prospective Juror 003HE [Richard F.]: A 2-year resident from Southern California, a retired paper manufacturer. On six previous juries, twice as foreman.

IP: “Do you have any opinions as to how casinos treat advantaged gamblers, any preconceived notions?”

003: “From what I understand, they prefer them not to play. If they find by their security or surveillance they think that someone is an advantage gambler, they ask them to leave.”

IP: “Do you agree that a casino should have the right to decide who is allowed to play?”

003: “Yes.”

That’ll do.

Prospective Juror 004BJ [Nancy V.]: A 7-year resident from Chicago, now a nurse. Her daughter is a pit boss for Coast Casinos. Her brother-in-law has been in casino security for 20 years, and is now at the San Remo.

Court: “Did you ever talk to him about his work?”

004: “Frequently. … You wouldn’t believe some of the stuff. It’s unbelievable. Some of the stuff I wouldn’t even want to mention.”

Court: “Why, because it’s lewd and lascivious or just —”

004: “That too.”

Court: “What about issues involved in this case, arresting people in hotel casinos?”

004: “What about it?”

Court: “Did he ever talk about arresting people who were playing cards?”

004: “Right.”

Court: “Advantage players and that sort of thing?”

004: “Right. … I can’t speak for all security people, but I feel like — I’ve been in casinos all the time, and when you go in a casino and you’re not suspicious and don’t do anything wrong — I’ve never been bothered; I’ve never been spoken to by security. I think security does a good job, but there may be some that are bad, I’ll grant that.”

Court: “What’s an advantage player?”

004: “That would be someone who can count cards.”

Bob: “When your brother-in-law talks to you, has he ever spouted off about how some other security officers just went off or were nuts and he just couldn’t believe that they did stuff?”

004: “They have a pretty good crew there. He doesn’t have any problems there.”

Bob: “Has he ever brought it up at other places where they might have problems and you discussed that with him?”

004: “Not that I recall.”

Gee, she’s been in casinos all the time, and she’s never been bothered. I wonder why that could be. [Dismissed by Bob, #1]

Prospective Juror 005N [Theresa M.]: A 25-year resident, an accountant for a masonry contractor. Brother is a corporate attorney in Washington, D.C. I’ve heard enough about this hotshot brother, which is making me think she’s got a big attitude. The jury box ain’t big enough for her attitude. [Dismissed by Bob, #7]

Prospective Juror 006VP [Dolores D.]: A 13-year resident from Hawaii who works in casino credit at a Strip casino.

Bob: “You mention that you occasionally would gamble. … Do you win?”

006: “Well, once in a while.”

Bob: “Do you think that the [casino reality] shows are real or staged?”

006: “Staged.”

A touch of cynicism we can handle.

Prospective Juror 008VP [Howard F.]: Born in Las Vegas, an equipment service technician at a fast food restaurant. Wife is a pit clerk at a Strip Casino.

Court: “Have you ever heard her discuss what they refer to as advantage gamblers?”

008: “No, sir.”

Bob: “Do you watch American Casino or Casino?”

008: “No.”

IP: “You heard the questions that I asked about security officers …”

008: “I believe a security officer has a certain duty, and as long as he’s not overstepping his duty or his job description, I have no problems with it.”

Solid answer.

Prospective Juror 009N [Marie M.]: A 3.5-year resident, from the New York/New Jersey area, director of food and beverage at a Strip casino, formerly worked at some “very high profile restaurants in New York City.”

Court: “Do you have any preconceived ideas or notions about any of these issues that this case is about?”

008: “No. I’d like to hear the facts.”

Bob: “Do you watch any of those reality shows?”

008: “The Apprentice, Casino, and the other casino show.”

Bob: “Why don’t you gamble?”

008: “It just never really fascinated me. I have no interest.”

Bob: “It’s not a moral question?”

008: “No, not at all.”

Bob: “Are advantage gamblers discussed at those [daily security briefings]?”

008: “Truthfully, I never even heard of the term until I walked into this room today. … I’m a food and beverage person first.”

I like food and beverage.

Prospective Juror 010N [Marissa S.]: A 12-year resident from Colorado who teaches kindergarten, with a BA from Macalester College, and a teaching certificate and ESL endorsement.

Bob: “Why don’t you gamble?”

010: “I work hard for my money, and I save it. It just doesn’t appeal to me. The casinos — it’s dark and it’s smoky and it’s crowded. It’s just not a very pleasant experience for me.”

Bob: “If I were to use the phrase ‘the Nuremberg defense,’ do you know what I’m talking about?”

010: “Yes.”

Court: “Do you believe that people have to blindly follow orders given by police departments or police officers or that they can question them?”

010: “They can question them. … [if a police officer] came up and asked me to do something, I personally would do it, but I don’t — imagine ever finding myself in a position where a police officer would do that.”

A bit of a prude, perhaps. A woman who “[works hard]” for her money, as if we don’t. A woman who can’t imagine being in a situation involving police officers. That’s dangerously close to the attitude that “the police don’t just stop anybody; you must have been doing something.” [Dismissed by Bob, #5]

Prospective Juror 012VP [Jeniece M.]: A 4-year resident from Colorado, who lived for four years in Vegas nine years earlier, works with her husband in an independent floor covering business.

Court: “Do you think people should be able to bring lawsuits if you feel they’ve been wronged?”

012: “I think there’s too many lawsuits going on for reasons that are, you know — I mean, there’s a lot of frivolous lawsuits. … I’m talking about like neighbors or something.”

Bob: “If two people are working together, would you feel that … both of them have to do everything for either of them to be responsible, or are they both responsible for what they do together?”

012 [without hesitation]: “They’re both responsible for what they do together.”

[Accepted, but released by Judge during trial for illness.]

Prospective Juror 013N [Jodie B.]: Has lived in Vegas since age three, now a middle-school teacher at “a Title One school.”

Court: “[What have you heard about advantage gamblers and where and from whom?]”

013: “I grew up next door to a professional poker player, one of my cousins is a card counter who is not allowed in casinos here, and same with my roommate.”

Court: “So, your roommate is not allowed in casinos either?”

013: “He hasn’t been banned specifically from casinos in Las Vegas, but he and his wife have come to an agreement that it’s not a good idea for him to go in.”

Court: “What kind of game does he play?”

013: “Poker.”

Court: “You can be an advantage player in poker?”

013: “Poker and 21.”

Bob: “[Why don’t you gamble?]”

013: “I would rather not throw away my money, and I think gambling often takes advantage of the hopes of others.”

Bob: “Would you agree that [your friends] are not problem gamblers because gambling is only a problem if you lose?”

013: “That’s one way of putting it. I can see why a casino would not want them in their room, and I can also see why one might not want to play at a table with them because it certainly changes the odds.”

Bob: “At 21, if you know?”

013: “Less so there.”

Bob: “You don’t have friends that cheat, though, do you?”

013: “It depends on your definition of cheat, especially when it comes to card counting and 21.”

Bob: “Why? … [If] somebody who you might remotely know might be cheating at something, what would they be doing?”

013: “It depends on whether they’re dealing or playing, dealing from the bottom of the deck. … If they’re playing, possibly counting the odds and swaying figures in their direction, instead of the house’s direction, because I won’t lie to you, casinos aren’t built on people winning.”

Bob: “What would the player be doing that you would see as cheating?”

013: “There’s an understanding with any gambling unit, it’s a game of chance, and any time that somebody is doing something extraordinary in their mind, such as keeping track of figures, then that’s taking away the chance of the game.”

Bob: “And you personally would view that as cheating?”

013: “Yeah.”

Bob: “One of the questions I had asked earlier of the panel as a whole dealt with whether or not you would recognize that generally when you walk in, it’s not a 50/50 game with the casino, right?”

013: “It’s not.”

Bob: “And the casino is playing with an advantage?”

013: “Yes.”

Bob: “And you know what card counting is?”

013: “Yes.”

Bob: “Just very straightforward, is card counting cheating?”

013: “In a casino?”

Bob: “Yeah.”

013: “Yeah.”

Bob: “And you believe that in your heart of hearts?”

013: “Yes.”

Bob: “Your Honor, I’d ask that she be excused for cause. She has an opinion that is directly and four-square contrary to the law.”

IP: “Your Honor, may we approach and discuss this?”

Court: “No … Let me tell you what, can you [Prospect 013] … follow the law and put aside your own personal opinion?”

013: ‘I believe so.”

Court: “All right.”

Bob: “I would renew my cause objection.”

Court: “Denied. She said she could follow the law. As long as she can follow the law and put aside her personal opinions.”

013: “Yes, sir.”

IP: “Thank you, Judge.”

Bob: “Do you believe that a casino could take somebody into a back room for doing something that you call as cheating but is not cheating under the law?”

013: “It depends on the facts and how the person reacts at being asked to leave.”

Bob: “What do you understand are the rights of the casino?”

013: “The casino is a private establishment with the right to refuse service to anyone and the right to ask someone to leave. And if in doing so, that someone either refuses or throws a fit that may either damage the casino’s reputation or possibly cause the disturbance to other patrons, then the casino may need to take further action.”

Bob: “You’re sort of studied on this. Who did you get that from?”

013: “I’m also a rights activist. You mentioned the Patriot Act earlier. I’m a human rights activist and was very vocal and active around the university and things like that.”

IP: “Do you have any preconceived notions about the Imperial Palace?”

013: “Yeah. … Most of them have to deal with the late owner of the Imperial Palace and various myths and unmyths about him and his personal affiliations.”

IP: “Do you consider them myths or do you consider some of those things true?”

013: “I consider them true, especially looking at the architecture of the building.”

IP: “Would that affect your ability to be fair to the Imperial Palace?”

013: “I don’t think so.”

IP: “Do you know how [your cousin was] getting the advantage?”

013: “He is a card counter and hard core 21. … And the other one is a poker player, and he was used at best advantage for dealing.”

IP: “I’m sorry?”

013: “The other one is a poker player. He’s at best advantage with dealing.”

IP: “In dealing. Can you explain that a little bit more?”

013: “Amazing things with sleight of hand.”

Court: “That’s not advantage, that’s cheating.”

013: “Yes, that’s why he doesn’t play here.”

This is the only prospect that I do not like and do not respect. She says she’s a rights activist, but she is apparently trying to escape her civic duty. By saying that card counting is cheating and that the late owner of the IP was a Nazi, she hopes to offend both sides, so that someone will bounce her. Let me get this straight: The cousin is a “hardcore” counter, but card counting is cheating? The roommate is a professional poker player, but has decided with his wife that it’s not a good idea to go into the casinos, and he gets his edge in poker by cheating while he’s dealing. This prospect is either confused, stupid, or disingenuous. [Dismissed by IP, #8]

Prospective Juror 014G [Mary M.]: A 13-year resident from Massachusetts, UNLV graduate, and third-grade teacher, formerly had a restaurant in New Hampshire.

Court: “Do [any of the previous questions] apply to you?”

014: “I did know a professional gambler.”

Court: “When you say ‘professional gambler,’ what does that mean to you?”

014: “He didn’t have a job and that’s what he did, he gambled.”

Court: “Do you know what kind of games he played?”

014: “I think he played a lot of video poker.”

Court: “You can be a professional gambler with video poker?”

014: “Um-hmm.”

Bob: “As an acquaintance, did you have any preconceived notions about this [professional], whether he was a bad guy, good guy or anything like that?”

014: “No; he was a very nice guy.”

Bob: “Do you have any preconceived notions that hotel security has any kind of special rights or authority in Nevada?”

014: “I believe they have more authority than a civilian and that they are protecting me as well as the other patrons.”

Bob: “Do you distinguish between the casino protecting you and the casino protecting its own bottom line?”

014: “I wouldn’t have a reason to think of it from that perspective. What, that they would be abusing my rights?”

Bob: “No, not necessarily. … it seems to me you think that casino security, if they’re undertaking actions, are doing it to protect other patrons. Would you recognize that casino security sometimes might take actions solely to protect their own income?”

014: “I hadn’t thought of it. Possibly.”

Bob: “And you teach your students what the Bill of Rights is and what civil rights are, right?”

014: “Yes.”

Bob: “Do you emphasize how important those rights are?”

014: “Yes, I do.”

IP: “You’ve been to the IP before?”

014: “To see shows. … The shows are good.”

Court: “The plaintiff may exercise their fourth and final peremptory challenge.”

Bob: “If I waive, there’s no retakes, that’s waiving the fourth challenge, right?”

Court: “Correct.”

Bob: “Your Honor, we would like to thank and excuse [Prospective Juror 005].”

We’re now out of challenges, and there’s an empty seat in the jury box. At this point, I leaned to Bob and whispered, “We’re gambling now.” Bob chuckled.

Prospective Juror 015 [Regina S.]: A 15-year resident from Colorado, a claims manager for work comp, formerly at MGM/Mirage. A risk manager for ten years.

015: “I’ve worked really closely with the vice-president of security at the hotel, the MGM, actually, at all of the properties.”

Court: “Because of your close association in the past with folks who work in security, would that affect your ability to be fair in this case?”

015: “I honestly believe it would, yes.”

Court: “All right. You’re excused.”

Whew, we’re out of bullets, but our enemy committed suicide. [Dismissed by Court.]

Prospective Juror 016 [Galan A.]: A 15-year resident from California, a physical therapy student, with final exams over the next two weeks. [Dismissed by Court.]

Now Prospective 013 pipes in: “For secondary schools in Clark County, the quarter ends on Thursday of next week, so right now my kids are in the last crunch for getting everything in the grade book by Friday.”

Court: “Can’t you call in for a sub?”

013: “Yeah, I can, but that doesn’t mean we’ll get one.”

Court: “You have to wait. Let me see how we do.”

Prospective Juror 017N [Cyndy A.]: A 12-year resident from “all over,” now working doing third-party liability work for a medical insurance company. Out of challenges, we lucked out when the 10-year casino risk manager, Prospect 015, admitted bias and got herself dismissed by the Court. Now, here comes the mother of all nightmares.

Court: “Have you ever worked in the hotel casino?”

017: “Yep.”

Court: “Which one?”

017: “Quite a few.”

Court: “Doing what?”

017: “Security.”

This is the worst twist that I could have imagined  that after running out of challenges, our jury is filled with a casino risk manager [that bullet dodged] and a casino security employee!

Court: “Because you worked in security, would that affect your ability to be fair in this case?”

017: “No.”

Court: “If security was shown to be lacking or have done something wrong, would you be able to find against them?”

017: “Definitely.”

A ray of hope? She said “definitely,” instead of a simple “yes.” We’re grasping at straws.

Court: “What did you do with [card counters]?”

017: “I never actually dealt with any of those. Mostly, we dealt with drunks. … I worked at Southern Nevada Women’s Corrections Facility as a corrections officer for a little over a year, and then I tried out security in the casinos, but I didn’t stay with it.”

Bob: “Which casinos did you try that out at?”

017: “Sante Fe, Monte Carlo, Nevada Palace, I believe.”

Bob: “So, you held three security jobs.”

017: “Closer to probably five or six, but I don’t remember the other ones. They were very short-term.”

Bob: “While you were there, did you find that security at the casinos recognized and respected the rights of the patrons?”

017: “No.”

Bob: “Do you know what a hole carder is?”

017: “No.”

Bob: “Did the casinos regularly tell you that your job was to protect the casinos?”

017: “Yes.”

Bob: “Did they highlight protecting casinos or protecting patrons?”

017: “Casinos.”

IP: “You were asked if casinos respected rights of patrons or something along those lines. Did you say that they did?”

017: “They’re more for the casino.”

At this point, we are possibly between a rock and a hard place, or possibly between a pillow and a soft place. We have Prospect 013, who says that card counting is cheating, but who claims to be a rights activist who believes that the former IP owner was a Nazi. Then we have Prospect 017, who worked in casino security, but who seems to be disgruntled and [properly] cynical about that career — a potential jackpot for us . We have no remaining challenges, but the IP has one. Who will they reject, if anyone? IP: “Your Honor, we would thank and excuse [Prospective Juror 013].”

Prospective Juror 018B [Dolores C.]: An 11-year resident from New York, retired, whose husband works for Mandalay Bay in the sports book. She asks to be excused because she cares for her elderly mother in New York. [Dismissed by the Court.]

Prospective Juror 020N [Sandra A.]: A 28-year resident from Ohio, a blackjack dealer at an off-Strip casino, married to a dice dealer.

Court: “What’s an advantage player?”

020: “They’re card counters or they — anybody with a big bank roll can eventually take advantage, but I just feel like they’re card counters.”

Court: “Anybody with a big bank roll can take advantage?”

020: “Card counters don’t necessarily win, but if you have enough bankroll, eventually you will. I’ve been dealing 27 years.”

Bob: “Do you recognize hole carding as not an illegal activity?”

020: “No, I don’t believe it’s illegal.”

Bob: “If you were to find out sitting here that Mr. Grosjean is the best hole carder in the world, would you hold that against him?”

020: “You mean reading the hole card?”

Bob: “Yeah, getting the hole card from the dealer?”

020: “That’s not good. Would I hold that against him?”

Bob: “It’s not cheating though, right?”

020: “It’s taking advantage, yes, of a system. The casinos are for fun. They’re not for, like, trying to beat. People like to beat the casino. I don’t think you can beat them.”

Bob: “If you find out that that’s where Mr. Grosjean — you don’t think you can beat them. So, if you’re beating them, you’re doing something wrong? Would that be true?”

020: “No.”

Bob: “I’m confused.”

020: “I’m confused now. Let’s try that one again.”

Bob: “Let’s go back to the question that I asked. You find out that Mr. Grosjean is the best hole carder in the world, are you going to hold that against him?”

020: “No.”

Now the alternates:

Prospective Juror 021N [Carlos J.]: A 9-year resident from California and Mexico, now working for Republic Services. [Dismissed by the Court for financial hardship.]

Prospective Juror 023VP [Annette E.]: A 4-year resident from New York and California, now working at a credit union.

Bob: “Do you feel that security at a casino can handcuff people without legal cause?”

023: “Usually, I feel that they must have seen you doing something or you’ve done something for them to come and approach you. There’s hundreds of people in there, and they don’t just pick on one person.”

Bob: “You would agree that it’s not an excuse to point to somebody else and say it was his idea when the bank is robbed by both of you?”

023: “You’re both responsible.” [Dismissed by Court for cause, because a member of her Board of Directors also works for the IP.]

Prospective Juror 024 [Diana C.]: A 12-year resident from California.

Court: “Are you a legal resident?”

024: “No, I don’t have any residency yet, but it’s in the process.” [Dismissed by the Court for vague residency status.]

Prospective Juror 027VP&BJ [James B.]: A 4.5-year resident from Michigan, retired from a marketing career in the banking and beer industries, retired from 21 years in the Army, both active duty and reserves.

Bob: “Do you feel that security at a casino can handcuff people without legal cause?”

027: “I believe they could, but I don’t think they should.”

Prospective Juror 028N [Michelle G.]: A 6-year resident from Salt Lake City, now a homemaker, married to a Navy man.

Bob: “Does your reason for not gambling have anything to do with moral reasons?”

028: “No.”

IP: “Do you know any advantage or professional gamblers?”

028: “No.”

Bob: “Your Honor, we waive our peremptory and accept the jury.”

IP: “We will also, your Honor.”

Court: “Swear in the jury.”

And so it was done. I looked at our jury — six women, two men. Five of them gamble, mostly video poker. After using our last peremptory challenge, we see a casino risk manager, an ex-security guard, and a career dealer. The latter two make the jury, but I think it’ll be okay. If we’re going to gamble with the Nevada legal system, I’d rather face the possible stupidity of a jury, than the possible corruption of a judge. But you know, this jury looks reasonable; I daresay intelligent. After three and a half years, the world will find out what happened at the Imperial Palace on February 28, 2001.

Opening Statements

Stripped of the chit-chat, our opening statement outlines the five violations of my Constitutional rights:

1. The IP grabs and detains me with no legal reason.
2. The IP illegally searches me under the guise of doing a pat-down weapons search, for nine minutes!
3. After being instructed that there is no legal basis to hold me, the IP continues to hold me. The IP then concocts a ruse to allow GCB agents to perform an illegal search.
4. The IP then lies and extorts additional information through a “field interview card.”
5. The IP then continues to hold me in handcuffs for a few minutes to allow GCB agents time to escape.

In response, the IP lawyer opens with: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is a dispute between Mr. Grosjean and the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Imperial Palace was involved because they decided to take their dispute to the Imperial Palace. … and if [GCB agents] come in and say detain somebody, we have to do it.” Ah, yes, it really is the Nuremberg defense.

Now make me the bad guy: “[Mr. Grosjean] wrote a book where he admits in this book he is promoting deceiving casinos, deceiving dealers, deceiving pit bosses, deceiving security officers. He talks about going into a casino and getting the dealer’s trust, talking about their personal lives maybe, and then being able to look at their cards. He talks about using aliases, he talks about concealing winnings, …” Excuse me, is now the time when we remind the jury that I wasn’t even playing at the IP?

Perhaps we should wait for another gem from the IP lawyer: “The Gaming Control Board not only thinks it’s cheating, the Gaming Control Board thinks it’s a felony looking at the dealer’s card.” So, even though we all know that hole-carding is legal, because the statutes and the Nevada Supreme Court say so, the IP lawyer is now using the GCB’s ignorance and malice to suggest to the jury that I’m a felon? Did someone say “sleazy lawyer”? But he’s got more: “[On February 28, Mr. Grosjean and Mr. Russo went] to an attorney’s office because you will see that this is not the first time that Mr. Grosjean has had trouble with the way he plays.” (!) I went to an attorney’s office because I was trying to find someone to sue Caesars Palace and the GCB for arresting me on bogus cheating charges. And now, because GCB has a problem with my winning ways, and I seek an attorney, Mr. Sleazy Lawyer says that “this is not the first time that Mr. Grosjean has had trouble”?? What a beautiful circle they have created. And next time GCB arrests me, they’ll probably tell a jury, “This is the second time Mr. Grosjean has been arrested for his play.” Keep going, Mr. SL. “Following the attorney’s office, [Mr. Grosjean] goes out to Harrah’s or goes out to the Strip, and he is looking for a hole card game with Mr. Russo. They openly admit that.” Egads! We just openly admitted to doing a completely legal thing. Yeah, yeah, he’s just doing his job defending his client. His speech grows tiresome; let’s put witnesses on the stand.

But wait, wait, there’s one more. “[GCB agents] knew and, I believe, watched most of the detention, and even gave some orders on additional searches or additional looking at the items on the table. If there was a violation of the rights, they wouldn’t have done that.” Ahh, the logic! There could not have been a violation of my rights, because GCB wouldn’t have allowed that. Ahh, IP and GCB are incapable of violating someone’s rights. There’s the argument. Good one. That one is better than the Nuremberg defense. Let me write that one down. Let’s get to the witnesses.

No, no, I can’t stop. “It will be undisputed that not — had the plaintiff not behaved as he did, in other words, trying to get out of here, he would not have been handcuffed. He was handcuffed for the reasons I gave to you earlier. No one is going to dispute that. [Yes, we are.]” We almost forgot about that line of defense. A tried-and-true classic. Textbook! Chapter 2: Blame the Victim — If She Had Said Yes, She Wouldn’t Have Been Raped.

To reiterate, let’s get back to their bread-and-butter: “When we asked Mr. Grosjean, ‘What was the Imperial Palace supposed to do?’ The answer is, ‘They should have said no.’ No one is going to say that the Imperial Palace has that right. [Yes, we are.] In fact, the evidence will be to the contrary. [No, it won’t.] They can’t say no when [GCB tells] us to stop them, to detain them. [Yes, they can.]” I need Nancy Reagan to come in here and spell this out for them, but instead, let’s start with GCB Agent Stolberg.

Witness: GCB Agent Paul Stolberg

My Innocuous Activity:

Bob: Now, in the entire time — let me do the whole day. Did you ever see Mr. Grosjean do anything suspicious?

Stolberg: No, I did not.

Bob: Did you ever see Mr. Grosjean do anything that would give you probable cause to detain him?

Stolberg: No, I did not.

Bob: At any time at Harrah’s, did he do anything that would give you suspicion that Mr. Grosjean was doing anything illegal?

Stolberg: No.

Bob: When you were at Harrah’s watching Mr. Grosjean, where were you watching him from?

Stolberg: Surveillance.

Staking Out Hole-Carders:

Bob: Mr. Russo was being followed?

Stolberg: No. The subject of the surveillance was being followed originally.

Bob: And that was not Mr. Russo or Mr. Grosjean?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

Bob: So, Mr. Grosjean found himself in this gentleman’s car?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

Bob: And then they went to this gentleman’s house?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

Bob: If I remember from your deposition, you don’t want to tell me who the gentleman is?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

IP: You mentioned that there are two Gaming agents involved in your part of the investigation?

Stolberg: The surveillance?

IP: Yes.

Stolberg: Correct.

IP: And there were two Metro agents?

Stolberg: That this — just the portion when we’re at Harrah’s?

IP: Yes.

Stolberg: That’s correct.

IP: And prior to [the call to the IP], though, Mr. Grosjean had left the target of the cheating investigation with Mr. Russo, correct?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

IP: And he was followed?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

Bob: Agent Stolberg, in my prior questions, I did not mean to insinuate that Mr. Grosjean was doing any of these things in terms of hole carding and in your presence.

Stolberg: That’s correct.

Bob: I’m trying to establish why you were following him. Why were you following him?

Stolberg: I was assigned, as part of the surveillance team, to follow the two individuals. When Mr. Russo and Grosjean left the subject’s house, we were assigned to follow them.

Bob: And the two people in terms of at that house who were the target of the investigation, they were hole carders, correct?

Stolberg: It wasn’t my investigation.

Bob: Okay.

Stolberg: So, I don’t know.

Court: So, you don’t know?

Stolberg: Not for sure.

Court: Right. Okay.

So we come to learn that on the evening of February 28, I was being followed by two GCB agents and two Metro officers, because the Gaming Control Board had someone’s house under surveillance, and by visiting there, I came under surveillance. I’m not even sure whose house it was, but we think that it might have been RC. From other testimony, we infer that the house was under surveillance because the players who live there see the dealer’s hole card and signal this information to partners at the same table. That’s right — they’re wasting massive resources investigating a legal activity. I guess GCB agents don’t have anything better to do.

Stolberg’s Instructions to the IP and the IP’s Ability to Say “No”:

Bob: So, you’re up in surveillance [at Harrah’s], Mr. Russo is gone, Mr. Grosjean is gone, what did you do?

Stolberg: At that point, I called the Imperial Palace surveillance room and asked them to keep an eye out to see if the two subjects that had just left, Mr. Russo and Mr. Grosjean, came into the Imperial Palace.

Bob: Did you request that surveillance at Imperial Palace do anything if they see Mr. Russo and Mr. Grosjean?

Stolberg: Yes, I did.

Bob: What did you request?

Stolberg: I asked them to contact me on my cell phone. I gave them my cell phone number — my name and my cell phone number.

Bob: Did you tell them to pick them up?

Stolberg: No, I did not.

Bob: Did you tell them to stop them?

Stolberg: No, I did not.

Bob: Did you tell them to question them?

Stolberg: No, I did not.

Bob: Did you tell them to detain them?

Stolberg: No, I did not.

Bob: Did you allude in any way they should do any of those things?

Stolberg: Not — no, I didn’t, to my knowledge.

Bob: What would you personally need to cause the arrest of someone?

Stolberg: Are you asking me if I can do it under power of a warrant?

Bob: Under a warrant or probable cause — are those the two ways? Any other ways?

Stolberg: Not that I’m aware of.

Bob: That’s it, a warrant or probable cause?

Stolberg: Correct.

Bob: If you’re ordering somebody to arrest someone for you, is the same thing needed?

Stolberg: Again, I don’t know that I could order someone to arrest someone for me.

Bob: They can say no, can’t they?

Stolberg: Correct.

Bob: What did you tell [GCB] Senior Agent Vincent when he called [you from the IP]?

Stolberg: He asked me a question. He asked me whether I had asked the Imperial Palace to detain anyone, and my answer was no, I had not.

Bob: Anything else said?

Stolberg: I simply, you know, reiterated that I had no grounds to hold Mr. Grosjean, and unless the Imperial Palace or something had happened outside of my presence that I don’t know about, I had no grounds to detain him. That was the gist of our conversation.

Bob: From what you told the IP, there was nothing in there from which they should infer that you wanted Mr. Grosjean detained or that he was a criminal, right?

Stolberg: That was not my intent. What they inferred, I can’t tell you.

Bob: But you weren’t — it wasn’t your intent that they infer it, right?

Stolberg: My intent was that if they saw Mr. Grosjean and Mr. Russo, that they call me on the telephone. That was my only intent. What happened beyond that, I can’t say.

IP: And you gave [the IP] your cell phone number and said, “Call me back if you see them”?

Stolberg: Correct.

IP: You didn’t say why you were looking for them?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

IP: You didn’t tell the Imperial Palace not to detain them?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

The strategy is brilliant! “You didn’t tell the Imperial Palace not to detain them [emphasis mine]?” I’m lucky the IP didn’t shoot me.

Why the IP Couldn’t Call GCB Agent Stolberg:

IP: Now, after the phone call [to the IP], you went and joined the others and you made a search around the areas and met back up in front of Harrah’s, correct?

Stolberg: Correct.

IP: And then you terminated the surveillance?

Stolberg: Correct.

IP: And you went back to your office, got in your car and went home?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

IP: You turned off your cell phone by the time you got home?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

IP: Agent Stolberg, now, you can’t order somebody to arrest someone for you, but you can order somebody, a security officer, to detain somebody for you, correct?

Stolberg: I can ask them to. I can’t order them to.

IP: Was it your understanding that [Grosjean] was out on bail from the Caesars’ incident at the time of the Imperial Palace incident?

Stolberg: Following — after, when I found out about the prior arrest — actually, I wasn’t of any opinion. I didn’t know why he was out.

IP: If Vincent and Pedote ordered the Imperial Palace to not let Grosjean know that Gaming was there, that wouldn’t surprise you, correct?

Stolberg: No, it wouldn’t, [because] the surveillance we were conducting — and I’m sure I told Agent Vincent or Senior Agent Vincent that we were doing a surveillance — is supposedly a covert operation. We don’t necessarily want to tell people outside the investigation what we’re doing.

Oooohhh, I have truly reached a pinnacle in my nefarious career — I am the subject of “covert ops.”

Stolberg’s (Wrong) Belief on the Legal Status of Hole-carding

IP: In your opinion, on February 28, 2001, I should say, was hole carding illegal, in your opinion?

Stolberg: Yes.

Court: What exactly is hole carding?

Stolberg: It is where a player sees the hole card of the dealer at a blackjack table, and in my interpretation, it becomes illegal when that player then passes that information to other people at the table to take advantage of that knowledge in placing their bets, how they play their hands.

Court: So, it’s not illegal for a person to look at a hole card and then —

Stolberg: Take advantage —

Court: — for himself?

Stolberg: Take advantage of the dealer.

Court: Yeah, right. I mean, if he has a king, so the likelihood of him getting busted is greater than if he had a three or a deuce, and he played accordingly, that wouldn’t be illegal, would it, since he’s using his own intelligence and whatever?

Stolberg: I wouldn’t think it would be prosecuted. Whether it would be illegal, you’ll have to ask an attorney.

IP: [From page 19 of your deposition] Question, “So, somebody who goes out looking for a sloppy dealer, in your opinion, is a cheater whether or not they plan on signaling?” Answer, “By the statute, yes.” Is that still your testimony?

Stolberg: I would have to read the statute again, but I believe it probably is.

Stolberg’s (Lack of) Legal Research Informing his (Wrong) Belief

Court: Where do you get these interpretations from? That’s what I’m trying to find out.

Stolberg: I wouldn’t arrest somebody at a table if they were playing and they were by themselves and the dealer was making mistakes. That’s generally taken care of by the pit boss. If he sees the dealer doing something wrong, they will step up and have them stop.

Court: But where did you get your interpretation from, I’m just curious, as to what is illegal and not illegal?

Stolberg: The interpretation that I get is just from discussions with other agents and other people at the Board as far as the conspiracy part of it.

Court: I see. So, there’s no particular law that you reference that defines it?

Stolberg: Well, the law that we use would be fraudulent acts, which is taking advantage of foreknowledge of the outcome of the game.

Court: All right. Go on.

Bob: And you have never read a single decision by the Supreme Court on gaming, have you?

Stolberg: I certainly have.

Bob: Have you read Lyons v. State?

Stolberg: No.

Bob: Have you read Skipper v. State?

Stolberg: No.

Bob: Do you realize that both those cases — now, at your deposition, both of those cases were brought up, and it was represented to you that those cases affirmatively say that hole carding is not illegal. Do you recall that?

Stolberg: I recall you saying it, and I recall the other attorneys objecting, saying that it wasn’t because it hadn’t been cited.

Bob: No, sir. That was Einbinder v. State, the case that said that signaling was not illegal as well. Do you recall that?

Stolberg: I don’t recall the case names. I recall the back and forth between the attorneys.

Bob: You’ve never gone forward and asked anybody or done any legal research to find out if it’s cheating or not, and yet, you stand here today and tell the jury that you believe it’s cheating, right?

Stolberg: That’s correct.

False Accusations Are Still Damaging:

Bob: … if Mr. Grosjean not only was not convicted but was not prosecuted and the prosecutor expressly entered a ruling of no prosecution — [we’re] not going after this guy because there’s nothing here — if that were the case, that would never make it to your records and he still sits there as an arrested person, right?

Stolberg: He would be in our files as having been arrested.

Bob: How does he clear that arrest if nothing ever happened from it?

Stolberg: He doesn’t. It’s public record that he was arrested.

Witness: GCB Agent Anthony Vincent

My Innocuous Activity:

Bob: When you arrived at the IP, had you ever heard of Mr. Grosjean before?

Vincent: I don’t recall that I had. I don’t believe so.

Bob: Everything you knew about [Grosjean] that night until you talked to Agent Stolberg [later in the evening] you heard from the IP, right?

Vincent: Correct, yes.

Bob: What did you understand you were looking at Mr. Grosjean for?

Vincent: I didn’t. They just said come look at this. Again, I had no clue. They wanted me to look at a person on videotape, on live surveillance, and I said yes, I’d look at that.

Vincent’s Instructions to the IP:

Bob: Did you tell anybody to detain him?

Vincent: No, I did not.

Bob: Did [GCB Agent Pedote] tell anybody to detain Mr. Grosjean?

Vincent: No.

Bob: Did the idea of coming or detaining Mr. Grosjean come up in the surveillance room while you were watching him?

Vincent: … it did come up what should we do, what do you want us — something to that effect, and I can’t recall, but my words to him was, “Do whatever Agent Stolberg told you to do,” because I knew nothing about this individual.

The Ruse to Search Me After Admitting Lack of Probable Cause:

Bob: … This is purportedly [IP Security Supervisor] Espensen speaking per the exhibit: “If [Vincent] wanted, I told [him] I would go over and talk to Grosjean, and after a minute or so, [Vincent] could walk through, stop at the end of the table, act like we are friends and he is getting off work and saying he would see me tomorrow or something while at the same time take a look at the money and chips, then leave. [Vincent] agreed to this.” Is that your recollection?

Vincent: I don’t remember the story, but as it turns out, yes.

Bob: And all of this could occur without Mr. Grosjean knowing that Gaming was involved, right?

Vincent: Yes.

Bob: In fact, you had gotten a hold of [GCB Agent] Stolberg before you walked through the door [to the detention room], right? … What did Mr. Stolberg say?

Vincent: To the best of my recollection, it was no, I did not advise them to detain this person. Let him go, and that’s it.

Bob: [GCB Agent] Stolberg, I believe, testified yesterday that he stated he had no probable cause to hold [Grosjean] and that [Grosjean] should be let go. Would that be in accord with what you recall of the conversation?

Vincent: Yeah.

Imperial Palace’s Lies and Cover-Up:

Bob: Were you holding Mr. Grosjean?

Vincent: No.

Bob: Who was?

Vincent: Imperial Palace.

Bob: … this is part of a stipulated exhibit, and it’s a statement of a Daniel Bauer that came from the Imperial Palace in this case: “[IP Security Supervisor Espensen] described to Vincent the money and gaming chips that he found on Grosjean’s person during the weapons search. Vincent stated that he would like to get a quick look at the money and chips. [Espensen and Vincent] decided that Espensen would go and talk to Grosjean, and Vincent would then walk through and take a quick look at the money and chips. [Espensen] then departed the surveillance room. Vincent then stated that this would not violate Grosjean’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Did you say that?

Vincent: I don’t recall saying that.

Bob: That’s not something you would say, is it?

Vincent: No.

Bob: Okay. So, if this appears in an IP security report, from your perspective, this would be made up, right?

Vincent: I wouldn’t say “made up,” but, you know, maybe — I don’t know. I could only be guessing.

Bob: But that’s not something that you would say?

Vincent: Correct.

IP’s Brilliant Strategy Redux:

IP: Before Agent Stolberg called, you never told the Imperial Palace don’t search Mr. Grosjean, correct?

Vincent: Correct.

Witness: IP Security Supervisor Donnie Espensen

My Innocuous Activity:

Bob: [At this time up to that point], what had you or anybody at Imperial Palace seen that indicated that Mr. Grosjean was doing anything illegal?

Espensen: To my knowledge, the gentleman hadn’t done anything illegal.

Bob: And up until that point, what had you or anybody at Imperial Palace seen that indicated that Mr. Grosjean was doing anything suspicious?

Espensen: He hadn’t done anything that we knew of at that time.

Eliminating the “Rogue-Employee” Defense:

Bob: … that entire evening [of February 28], were all the actions with which you are familiar in full accord with the policies and procedures of the Imperial Palace so far as the security department is concerned?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Is it true that you were never reprimanded for anything that you did that evening?

Espensen: That’s correct.

Bob: [Your full] report was circulated to all of those persons? [The general manager, the risk manager, the director of security, the assistant director of security, the assistant director, and the assistant to the assistant director]

Espensen: Yes.

The Nuremberg Defense:

Bob: Now, as I understand it, as you’re here today, I understand that you are saying that

you were working under the authority of the Gaming Control Board, and you didn’t have discretion and you were doing what they told you to do?

Espensen: Well, we stopped him by their call. If it wasn’t for them telling us to stop him, he would have never been upstairs in the first place. … They told us that they want it done, and we have our procedures once we do it what we have to do.

Bob: Let me just ask, do you ever, at any place on this video [IP-provided surveillance video showing Grosjean’s initial exit from casino], see Mr. Grosjean run?

Espensen: No.

Bob: Did he appear to be resisting at all?

Espensen: Not at that point.

Bob: And now he’s in an elevator with six security officers, right?

Espensen: Yes, sir.

Bob: And he is handcuffed?

Espensen: Yes, sir.

Bob: What was he detained for?

Espensen: He was detained because Gaming agents requested us to stop him and detain him.

Bob: The directive to hold Mr. Grosjean came from you, right?

Espensen: That’s correct.

Bob: Gaming wanted him stopped?

Espensen: Yes, sir.

Bob: Meaning the [GCB agents] who were on the scene, Pedote and Vincent?

Espensen: Yes, sir.

Bob: At that time, all the information that Pedote and Vincent, the Gaming agents had about Mr. Grosjean came from you or Imperial Palace personnel?

Espensen: That’s correct.

Pointing Fingers:

IP: What happens when [Grosjean] starts to leave?

Espensen: When Mr. Grosjean starts leaving towards the front door, Agent Vincent is on the phone. I don’t remember if he’s actually talking to anybody at the time, but he’s got the phone to his ear, and he looks at me and says, “Stop him. Don’t let him leave. Detain him.”

IP: How were you feeling at the time that you were doing this with Mr. Grosjean, this entire affair?

Espensen: Very uncomfortable.

IP: Why?

Espensen: Because I didn’t really agree with what was going down.

IP: Did you think you were doing anything wrong?

Espensen: No, I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong.

IP: [Was Imperial Palace] doing anything wrong?

Espensen: No.

IP: Who did you think was doing something wrong?

Espensen: Gaming.

IP: Agent Vincent testified this morning that he didn’t tell you to detain Mr. Grosjean. Do you agree with that testimony?

Espensen: No, I do not.

IP: Is there any way you could have misunderstood him, that maybe he said something that you thought led to your decision to detain?

Espensen: No.

IP: You didn’t 86 [Grosjean]?

Espensen: No, sir.

IP: Why not?

Espensen: He’s done nothing wrong at the Imperial Palace. We had no reason to 86 him.

The Illegality of the (Alleged) Order:

Bob: Now, you heard [security guard] Gentry say, quote, “[Grosjean] told me I have no right to stop him.” Just out of curiosity in your opinion, [in what way] was Mr. Grosjean wrong? … Why did you guys have a right to stop him?

Espensen: Well, Gaming agents told us to stop him and to detain him, not to let him leave.

Bob: Would you agree that if the Gaming agents had said nothing to you about stopping him, that there would have been no right to stop him?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: The Gaming agents who had talked to you at that time got all their information from the IP. We’ve confirmed that, right?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: And that information was another agent had asked to be called, correct?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Did you stop — you’re the guy who ordered that he be stopped, right?

Espensen: I’m the one that put it out over the radio.

Bob: Did you ever stop to think to say no?

Espensen: No, sir.

Espensen’s Training in Search and Seizure:

Bob: You have some police training, don’t you?

Espensen: I have 120 hours special police training.

Bob: And in that special police training, did you learn the parameters of search and seizure?

Espensen: No, sir.

Bob: Not at all?

Espensen: No, sir.

Bob: Do you know — have you heard of the case Terry vs. Ohio?

Espensen: No, sir.

Justification for the “Pat-Down” Search:

Bob: Now, articulate [all] circumstances at the time of that search that gave you reason to believe that Mr. Grosjean may have been armed at the time you commenced the pat-down search.

Espensen: There was nothing that actually gave me any reason to believe that he was armed.

Bob: In fact, at your deposition, you said, “I had no reason to believe he was armed at the time of the pat-down search,” correct?

Espensen: That’s correct.

Bob: What’s the purpose of the pat-down search?

Espensen: Because I can’t see that he is or that he ain’t, and for our protection and for the suspect’s protection as well, we want to make sure they don’t have weapons on their person that they can use to hurt themselves or one of our people while we have them there.

Bob: Where do you get that authority?

Espensen: I don’t know that it’s an authority, it’s just our direction.

Bob: It’s part of the policy and procedure?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Everybody gets searched?

Espensen: Well, at that particular time. I don’t know what the policies are now because I’m no longer a supervisor and I haven’t kept up on the policies. … At that particular time when we bring persons up, we are to search that person, make sure they don’t have any weapons for their protection and ours, and if so, remove them from their reach.

Espensen’s Justification for Opening my Passport:

Bob: Did Mr. Grosjean have any weapons?

Espensen: I didn’t find any weapons on Mr. Grosjean.

Bob: You found a passport, right?

Espensen: I found a passport, yes.

Bob: Did you open the passport?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Were you away from Mr. Grosjean when you opened the passport, more than three feet away from him?

Espensen: Probably three or four feet.

Bob: Did you think there was a weapon in the passport?

Espensen: I don’t know if there is or there ain’t a weapon in the passport.

Bob: Why are you opening the passport?

Espensen: A passport can contain a weapon the same as anything else.

Bob: Four feet away from a guy who has got his head against the wall and is wearing handcuffs, right?

Espensen: Um-hmm.

Bob: For his protection and his safety, you open the passport; is that your testimony?

Espensen: I open the passport and anything else that may contain a weapon, yes.

IP: Can a razor blade be hidden in a wad of cash?

Espensen: A razor blade can be hidden in anything.

The Professionalism of the IP Security:

Bob: As the supervisor, did you carry a gun?

Espensen: Yes, I did.

Bob: So, you were armed?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Anybody else in your department armed at that time?

Espensen: As far as I know, the entire security department is armed.

Bob: So, [security guard] Gentry had a gun?

Espensen: Yes, sir.

Bob: [As we approach 23:16, was] that Officer Gentry saying, “He broke my friggin’ watch”?

Espensen: … It sounds like that’s what he said.

Bob: Did you hear what the other [security guard] said? … “Add another charge” is what he said, didn’t he?

Espensen: I think, but I’m not sure.

Bob: What was Mr. Grosjean being charged with?

Espensen: Nothing that I knew of.

Security Guard Gentry’s Alleged Injury:

Bob: Let’s go back and look at [security guard] Gentry for a few minutes. He seems fine, doesn’t he?

Espensen: To look at him on the tape, he seems fine.

Bob: We haven’t heard anything about him complaining about being injured or anything, have we?

Espensen: Not yet.

Bob: When you were in there, did you hear anything about that?

Espensen: No.

Bob: Do you know how it was decided that he would claim that he was injured and go off to the medical center for a wrist injury?

Espensen: No.

Bob: Do you know if Officer Gentry injured his wrist?

Espensen: I remember we did the report and he went to the clinic, but I don’t remember.

Keeping the Cuffs On:

Bob: Let me ask you something. [Grosjean] is sitting there, far end of the table; he hadn’t done anything suspicious; he hadn’t done anything illegal; you have him in your room; you finished your pat-down search; everything that the man had in his pockets is sitting on the table. Why is he in handcuffs?

Espensen: Because at the time that he was placed in the handcuffs, he shoved an officer, I understand, and the officer cuffed him because he became physical. Once they’re placed in handcuffs, we don’t release them from the handcuffs until the police or Gaming or whoever the legal authority is tells us to do so.

I shoved an “officer”? The same one who claimed his wrist was injured, even though he is shown to be perfectly healthy on the subsequent video? The way it works is: they’ll grab a player with no legal basis whatsoever; lack of knowledge or mere miscommunication is enough to handcuff, search, and detain a player, but releasing a person requires explicit legal authority. Let’s give Espensen another chance on this one:

Bob: [Referring to detention room video] Mr. Grosjean asked your officers to take his handcuffs off, right? … He was refused, right?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: At that point, [Grosjean has] been in that room for 20 minutes, and he’s been fully cooperative, right?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: He’s been conversant with you while you sat down and answered your questions forthright, correct?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Why can’t you take the handcuffs off?

Espensen: It’s customary that we don’t take cuffs off once they’re placed in custody until we release them to the police or back to the street.

Aahh, Espensen can’t take the handcuffs off because it’s “customary” that they don’t.

The Real Reason the Cuffs Stay On:

Bob: Did I hear you say in front of Mr. Grosjean, and I quote, “They think you’re somebody but apparently you’re not”?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: At that point, you’ve got a determination from [GCB agents] Pedote and Vincent that they have no reason to hold Mr. Grosjean, right?

Espensen: I think I do at that time.

Bob: Wouldn’t that be sort of the same thing as “let him go”?

Espensen: It probably was, but as I said, we don’t let them go with the handcuffs until we really release him out of our custody, back to the street.

Bob: Why aren’t you doing that right there?

Espensen: Because we’re not done yet.

Bob: Why aren’t you done yet? The cops just told you they have no reason to hold him.

Espensen: They still had more they wanted to do.

Bob: But you knew they were going to be doing that at a point in time after they said that [Grosjean] should be released?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: And you’re cooperating and going along with them?

Espensen: Yes, I am.

Bob: And Mr. Grosjean asks at … 23:26:07 for the second time if the handcuffs could be removed, right?

Espensen: I’m not exactly sure, but I believe you’re right, yes.

Bob: And again, he’s refused?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: And although you say at 23:26, “Hang on a minute,” not until 23:48 are the handcuffs actually taken off, are they?

Espensen: I couldn’t guess that you’re right. I wouldn’t know unless I watch it, but I would assume that’s the correct answer.

The Ruse to Search Me After Admitting Lack of Probable Cause:

Bob: … You came up with an idea so that [GCB agent] Vincent could see [Grosjean’s] stuff, right?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: And part and parcel of that idea was that Mr. Grosjean would be held longer while this ruse occurred, isn’t it?

Espensen: Well, if I hadn’t came up with the idea, it would have probably been even longer.

Bob: Why?

Espensen: Because they were trying to determine a way that they could get over there and see these chips without being detected, and I wanted to hurry up and get them out of there and get this gentleman set free; so, I came up with an idea.

Bob: You were being benevolent and beneficent towards Mr. Grosjean?

IP: Your Honor, argumentative.

Court: All right.

A Foreign Concept — Saying “No”:

Bob: Did you ever think to look at the cop who had just said to you, allegedly, “Well, we have to let him go, but boy, I would sure like to get a look at this stuff” — did you ever think, “You know, you said you had to let him go, and we’re the guys standing here with him in our handcuffs, we’re just going to let him go.” Did you ever think of saying that?

Espensen: No. …I don’t know if I would have thought that. They’re the authority over me, so I pretty much have to follow their direction, and I have to try to work with these people as well.

Bob: They can stop people, right? … You understand them to be police, right?

Espensen: That’s correct.

Bob: You’re a private citizen working for a private company, right?

Espensen: That’s correct.

Bob: Why is this your job?

Espensen: I work for a gaming organization, and Gaming controls the gaming organizations.

Bob: Even if you don’t know [if] you’re breaking the law, you know you can say no [to Gaming], right?

Espensen: I have to take instructions from the police department and Gaming as long as I know I’m not violating anybody’s rights or breaking any laws.

Bob: Whoever told you you can’t say no to a police officer if they ask you to do something you don’t want to do?

Espensen: As long as I want to keep my job, I follow directives unless I feel there’s really, you know, something really, really bad.

“Voluntary” Production of Information:

Bob: Now, looking at Exhibit 3, did you take down Mr. Grosjean’s passport number?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Did you take down his Social Security number?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Do you recognize that a Social Security number is somebody’s private information?

Espensen: He had a right to deny that information if he didn’t want to give it. It was asked of him, and it wasn’t on the information card.

Bob: It was asked of him while he was sitting in your security office in handcuffs being told that as soon as you get this information he will be able to leave, right?

Espensen: Yes.

Bob: Do you think that’s voluntary?

Espensen: All he had to do was say he did not want to give it.

Bob: But you had also told him as soon as you get this information, “we’ll let you go,” right?

Espensen: I told him I was going to fill out a [Field Interview] card, and as soon as we get this information completed, we’ll get you out of here.

Bob: You also got his home phone number?

Espensen: Yes.

Espensen Ain’t No George Washington:

Bob: [Playing videotape] Did you just say to Mr. Grosjean, and I quote, “Apparently, you’re not the person we were looking for”?

Espensen: Yes, I did.

Bob: He was exactly the person you were looking for, wasn’t he?

Espensen: I couldn’t tell him that, because I was instructed by Gaming not to tell him that.

Bob: So, that was a lie?

Espensen: I guess it was.

Witness: GCB Agent Phillip Pedote

My Innocuous Activity:

Bob: At any time, did you see anything on the video or on the live camera feed or have any information that would cause you to have a reason to have Mr. Grosjean stopped?

Pedote: I did not see anything to give me a reason to stop Grosjean. I did not see anything on the surveillance videotape, no.

Pedote’s (Lack of) Instructions to the IP:

Bob: [Witness reviewing Exhibit 8, GCB Agent Pedote’s personal notes from the incident] Now, let me direct you to a couple of things there. One of the problems is that when we got this, a little bit was cut off. Can you look at the left-hand margin and tell me what your interlineation is there?

Pedote: Sure. It would have said [that] [GCB Agent] Vincent said to do whatever [GCB Agent] Stolberg told them [IP] to do.

Bob: Now, you put in quotes here, “Well, if he said to grab him then don’t let him leave.” Who said that?

Pedote: Tony Vincent did, my senior agent.

Bob: Did you hear that?

Pedote: Yes, I did.

Bob: Do you have an independent recollection of that today?

Pedote: Not of the exact words, no. I would have to refer to my notes.

Bob: And the notes were written when your memory was fresh?

Pedote: Yes, absolutely.

Bob: I notice here it says, “Sergeant [Espensen] was yelling, ‘grab him, grab him,’ to security.” That’s about three lines up from the bottom? … You wrote that near the time of this incident?

Pedote: Yes.

Bob: I’m just looking at the words, “Grab him, grab him.” That sounds pretty emphatic. Do you have an independent recollection of that actually being said?

Pedote: It’s something very close to that because he was on a handheld radio, and we were looking at the monitor of what was happening on the floor of the casino. And when he grabbed the radio was when Mr. Grosjean was walking towards the front door. “He’s right there, grab him, grab him.”

IP: You didn’t stop [IP Security Supervisor] Espensen because you thought he was acting reasonably, correct?

Pedote: Correct. I assumed that [GCB Agent] Stolberg must have told him that they wanted him detained. At that time, I had to assume that. I didn’t really know anything else to go by.

IP: And it wasn’t until later when [GCB] Agent Vincent finally got a hold of [GCB Agent] Stolberg that you realized, oh, shoot, there wasn’t an order going out like that?

Pedote: Correct.

So, according to GCB Agent Pedote, and previously GCB Agent Vincent, they had no independent information regarding the situation, and instructed the IP to simply follow the instructions previously given by GCB Agent Stolberg. Stolberg previously testified that his instructions to the IP were to give him a call if the IP spotted us. Even if GCB Agents Vincent and Pedote had given the IP an order to detain, it would have had to be an illegal order, because they both say, and Espensen agrees, that they had no information about me other than that provided by the IP, and the IP concedes that I had done nothing giving them any probable cause to stop me.

The Ruse to Search Me After Admitting Lack of Probable Cause:

Bob: Were you guys trying to come up with a way to look at Mr. Grosjean’s personal effects and papers and items?

Pedote: … I don’t recall specifically who actually — I don’t recall whose idea it was. They had — once they had gotten him up in the detention room, pulled out the bags of chips out of his pants or wherever they were, and they were sitting on the table. Once we found out that they were large amounts of chips from different casinos, then obviously, as a Gaming Control Board agent, that sparks our interest. So, I knew we would like to see them, but we didn’t do anything to direct anybody to pull them out or do anything like that, if that’s what you mean. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at.

Bob: Well, and we can watch a video here, but do you recall there was frankly a ruse constructed where you guys would pretend that you’re leaving work?

Pedote: Sure, yes.

Pedote’s Justification for Looking at my Chips:

Bob: There’s nothing illegal about carrying chips, right?

Pedote: Absolutely not.

Bob: It sparks interest?

Pedote: Well, we have to make sure there are no counterfeit chips or anything like that, yes.

Bob: Counterfeit? [How about the] money in there [gesturing to his wallet]?

Pedote: I have no idea.

Bob: Do you have to make sure?

Pedote: No.

Bob: What if there’s a hundred thousand dollars in my pocket, you don’t have to make sure, do you?

Pedote: No.

Witness: Plaintiff James Grosjean

The IP’s Violence and My Resistance:

Bob: Did [security guard Gentry] do anything with your arm?

Grosjean: At that point he twisted it behind my back and started twisting me into the wall.

Bob: Assume this [demonstrating] is a hammer lock, Mr. Grosjean, is that what he did?

Grosjean: I’m not sure, but I couldn’t move my arm or anything.

Bob: He had your arm?

Grosjean: So, then he had my arm immobilized behind my back and he started pushing me, I guess, with both arms, I guess kind of pushing me into the wall, and there’s a concrete wall there with a rough surface, and he kind of pushed my face into the side into the wall, and he grabbed my other arm and started putting both my arms behind my back.

Bob: Other than trying to push around the side of him, did you resist him at all?

Grosjean: No. My arms were at my sides the whole time. I didn’t make any resistance other than trying to keep walking and get around him.

The Threat in the Elevator:

Bob: [Reviewing the video] Did somebody in that elevator say something that stuck with you?

Grosjean: Yeah, the security guard who is nearest us, whose back is to us, is on the bottom of the screen; as the elevator was moving, I don’t know what prompted him to say it, but he said, “Smack his head into the wall.”

Naturally, the IP tries to pass this off as a joke. Guess what — bomb jokes at airports don’t fly either.

IP Defense — Question my Motives:

IP: And if a casino is cheating you, you would call the appropriate authorities?

Grosjean: I might or I might not because I’ve had experiences where I thought maybe the dealer might be pulling a move on me, but I don’t really know anything about that, so, you know, I just walk away from that table. I don’t really bother trying to call Gaming, especially because I don’t really expect Gaming to, you know, take an impartial look at something like that anyway. So, I don’t bother with that. I mean, it’s happened to me where I thought something was maybe going on at the table, but I didn’t bother.

IP: I thought you called Gaming at the Maxim?

Grosjean: That’s not where I thought the dealer was cheating, that’s where the casino was refusing to pay off our chips.

IP: I’m sorry, not dealer cheating, but you would call the authorities if the casino was being unfair to you or violating the law?

Grosjean: Well, it all depends what. If we have a lot of chips and are trying to cash them out and they refuse, then yes, I’ll call Gaming. That’s the only way to try to get the money from our chips. I can’t cash them out at the grocery store.

IP Defense — Make Me Look Mean-Spirited:

IP: And you called [security guards] big uneducated goons that love to harass small people?

Grosjean: In the context I’m talking about, I look at that tape, I see six big guys with guns who are taking me in handcuffs, who are threatening me verbally and physically, and who don’t know the law; so, they’re big, they’re uneducated on the law and they’re threatening me, so that makes these guys goons, yeah.

IP: They don’t know the law but police officers do, correct?

Grosjean: Not all police officers.

IP: They should?

Grosjean: They should. Police officers who are sworn to uphold the law I would think should know the law, but many of them don’t even know the gaming laws, which is what I’m primarily concerned with and my rights.

IP Defense — Make Me Look Criminal:

IP: You agree that criminals might carry weapons?

Grosjean: I agree.

IP: And criminals can hurt people trying to detain them?

Grosjean: They can, I agree.

IP: Criminals might hurt innocent bystanders as well?

Bob: Your Honor, I thought this was the objection we just had sustained?

Court: You know — Counsel [Mr. Thomas], he hasn’t been accused of being a criminal, and you keep putting this in a criminal context. Why don’t you just say “person”? It’s more prejudicial than probative the way you’re framing the questions.

Irrelevant Topic — Detecting Hole-Carding:

IP: Hole carding can be mistaken for cheating, correct?

Grosjean: Not by a well-trained observer.

IP: Can hole carding be mistaken for cheating by a casino personnel?

Grosjean: Not by well-trained casino personnel.

IP: How about a non well-trained?

Grosjean: Poorly trained personnel, yes, they can mistake anything for cheating.

IP: If a casino suspects that somebody is cheating, then that is a felony?

Bob: Your Honor, this is all background, and it’s gone on for a good 40 minutes.

Court: True. And not only that, that last question you asked is not true. I think you misstated.

Irrelevant Topic — My Playing Apparel:

IP: And two pairs of pants and the hat, they’re standard gear for you when you’re going out to play, correct?

Grosjean: Pretty much. I don’t always carry a second hat, often.

IP: That’s to avoid detection?

Grosjean: So they can’t get a picture, disseminate it, see who I am, all those things.

IP: That’s something that a cheater might do as well, correct?

Bob: Your Honor, I mean, granted it is something a cheater might do, but that has nothing to do with this case and it’s irrelevant. We’ve had five people stand up there and say they didn’t even know who he was or why he was being watched.

IP: Your Honor, the reason he’s being watched is because of the way he plays. He was under surveillance. That’s why — if —

Bob: Your Honor, the uncontradicted testimony is he was being watched because he was with someone who was under surveillance.

IP: If you go back to the reason that he was being watched in the first place, it’s because of the way he plays.

Court: I don’t know why, but he wasn’t being watched for that reason over at the Imperial Palace.

IP: That’s absolutely true.

Court: The only reason they watched him or did anything was because someone else told them to notify them; so, sustained.

Irrelevant Topic — Barring Skilled Players:

IP: Now, there’s nothing wrong with a casino barring an advantage player, correct?

Grosjean: Nothing wrong with it at all.

IP: Is this what we call 86ing?

Grosjean: I think that’s the industry term most people use. I call it both “86ing” or “barring,” sure, they can kick me out.

IP: And being 86’d means that you’re barred from the property and should not enter the property anymore?

Grosjean: That’s right.

IP: In order to 86 you, the casinos have to read a statement to you, correct?

Bob: Objection, irrelevant, your Honor. It has nothing to do with this matter. No, Mr. Grosjean — it’s all been testified across the board, he wasn’t 86’d.

Court: Counsel, do you have any evidence he was 86’d?

IP: No, your Honor.

Court: Sustained.

Irrelevant Topic — Napping in Casinos:

IP: Now, you’ve taken naps before in casinos, correct?

Grosjean: I’ve fallen asleep before in casinos. I don’t know if I’ve ever really gone to take a nap like I did this time [earlier on the evening of February 28 at the IP] but, yeah, I’ve slept in casinos before.

IP: You realize that casinos can approach you when you’re sleeping there?

Grosjean: Yeah. And every instance where I was sleeping and they noticed —

Bob: Your Honor, objection. Irrelevant. We keep going off on these tangents that have nothing to do with why we’re here.

Court: Sustained.

Irrelevant Topic — ID at Caesars:

IP: When you went in the jail [in the “Caesars Incident” in April 2000], they entered you as John Doe?

Grosjean: That’s correct.

Court: I have a question. What’s the relevance of this to this case, what happened at Caesars Palace? Are we talking about Caesars Palace? I’m tired of this. You better come up here, or I’m going to terminate your examination. I’ve been listening to this for the last hour and a half.

Grift Sense:

Bob: Mr. Thomas was asking you about looking around at the security guard and being nervous. … With 20/20 hindsight, were you right to be nervous?

Grosjean: The way I’m — everything I see, the tape, the documents — yeah, he wasn’t there to help me out or be nice. I was the guy they were interested in, he did handcuff me, even though I didn’t do anything, they did search me, they did go through my ID. They did all the things that I feared they might do. I was lucky they didn’t beat me up, which is something they can do, so in that sense, I looked at the bright side, I guess.

Bob: Have you heard the phrase, “it’s not paranoia if they’re really after you”?

Grosjean: Yeah, I’ve heard that.

Bob: It sort of fits here, doesn’t it?

Grosjean: I think so. Like my call on it from the first time I saw him look at me turned out to be right. He was not just standing in the aisle for no reason, he was there because I was there.

Witness: Former GCB chief Ron Asher

Asher’s Credentials:

IP: Mr. Asher, could you please give the jury a background of your education, college and any post-graduate training?

Asher: As far as my education, I have a Bachelor of Arts degree from Arizona State University in political science and economics. I have a master’s degree from Golden Gate University in San Francisco in public administration, with an emphasis in criminal justice administration.

IP: Can you give the jury a background of your work history?

Asher: Yes. I started — actually, if you go back, my adult work history, I spent four years in the U.S. Navy Air Force. From that point, I went to work for the Arizona Highway Patrol, spent four-and-a-half years with them. From there, went back to school for 18 months, finished my degree, joined the FBI. I spent 20 years eight months with the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a special agent and/or as a supervisory special agent, and then retired on June 16th, 1990, and went to work for the Gaming Control Board as Chief of Enforcement for the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Remained there until June 30th, 1996, at which time I went to my cabin for two or three months, and after that, started Asher and Associates.

IP: You mention in terms of Gaming and the relationship between Gaming and hotel casinos, you have qualified as an expert before?

Asher: Yes, on the floor below.

IP: Beyond this other case, have you testified on that subject matter anywhere else?

Asher: I’ve actually provided both testimony and training in Armenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova on the subject of gaming. I’ve provided training on the Island of Tinian in the Western Pacific. I’ve spent a month there training and also helped them open a casino over there and train their investigators during that month’s period of time, and I’ve spent time in Japan working on due diligence investigations as it relates to gaming.

The Island of Tinian?? Wow, Asher has provided training there? Now I’m impressed.

Asher’s Price:

Bob: How much are you charging an hour?

Asher: I charge 175 an hour.

Bob: To date, how much have they [the IP] paid you?

Asher: Someplace between 3500 and $4,000. I don’t know exactly how much, because it’s a small portion of my work.

Bob: Well, you billed what you did on the case, right? You billed for your work?

Asher: Up through the time to the deposition, yes, sir. … Preparation for trial, I have not billed that. I have no idea how many hours I have in that.

Everybody’s Doing It:

IP: Do you have an opinion to reasonableness of that search?

Asher: That particular search, that type of search, as far as I’m concerned, is reasonable, and it’s done pretty much throughout the industry.

Cooperation Between Casinos and GCB:

IP: In terms of the Imperial Palace, do you have an opinion as to what they did in terms of their cooperation in this viewing of the evidence [Grosjean’s belongings on the table]?

Asher: I personally wouldn’t have expected them to do anything less than to cooperate with the request of the Gaming agent.

IP: What’s your basis for that?

Asher: Simply by knowing the relationship there and, you know, it’s a love — quite honestly, the relationship between Gaming and most of the casino licensees is a love-hate relationship. Most of the things that Gaming does is a negative towards the industry, but when security officers get the opportunity to cooperate with police officers, sworn police officers, they oftentimes really, really enjoy and become very, very helpful in that thing.

IP: How about the continued detention of Mr. Grosjean after [GCB Agent] Stolberg says, “We don’t have a reason to hold him?” Do you have an opinion as to that in terms of the Imperial Palace?

Asher: Again, after the agents had the opportunity to glance at, not inventory, but to glance at the materials on the desk, which — I mean, obviously, in 15 seconds what you see is yes, he’s got chips, and they might remember a few of those, but they’re not going to remember a great deal of that. Apparently, at that point, Mr. Espensen, goes out, follows the agents out, talks to them, and they said that they would like a copy of his passport, which was what he was using for his identification rather than a driver’s license. And Mr. Espensen advised that, well, it didn’t look like there was any way to get the passport, and their normal procedure would be to FI somebody, to fill out a Field Interrogation card on somebody, so he agreed to go back and get that information from Mr. Grosjean and fill it out on an FI card or a Field Interrogation card.

IP: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that was reasonable?

Asher: Again, because the agents had asked the Imperial Palace to do that, I would be surprised if they did not do that or wouldn’t have done that.

The Supposed Consequences of Saying “No”:

IP: How long were you in charge or head of the Enforcement Division?

Asher: Six years, two weeks and I don’t know how many hours.

IP: Based upon your experience, can you tell the jury what happens to a licensee like the Imperial Palace if they say no to the Gaming Control Board?

Asher: Again, it would depend on this particular case, but if the Gaming Control Board was concerned or it took umbrage with the fact that the licensee didn’t do exactly what they asked them to do, there is a possibility of them opening a separate investigation under Regulation Five, and that’s an unsuitable method of operation. And that’s done routinely if the Gaming Control Board is not happy or if they feel like there have been other regulations violated.

IP: Do you know the ramifications and penalties under that regulation?

Asher: Regulation Five violation can range anything from an oral reprimand to a written reprimand to an order to show cause to a complaint, and can end up in anything from a fine to losing your license if you don’t cooperate with the Gaming Control Board.

IP: Are there times when a casino can say no to the Gaming Control Board?

Asher: Occasionally that happens, but not normally at the working level between a security department or a surveillance department and the Enforcement Division. They’re very much afraid to tell the Gaming Control Board no.

The Frequency of Saying “No”:

Bob: When were you the chief of the Enforcement Division [of the Gaming Control Board]?

Asher: From June 18th, 1990, until June 30th, 1996.

Bob: And in that period of time, 1990 to 1996, how many times was it brought to your attention that a gaming licensee had refused a request by a Gaming agent?

Asher: I am not honestly aware that they have, that that was ever brought to my attention that they had refused a request. If you look at 463.140, it gives Gaming agents extraordinary powers, the powers to seize, to search, to do many things that a normal person cannot do in a criminal environment.

Bob: That’s only with respect to licensees’ properties, right?

Asher: Licensees’ property as well as applicants’ properties.

Bob: Licensees and applicants, right?

Asher: Correct.

Bob: People looking for a license or holding a license?

Asher: Correct.

Bob: That’s issued by the State, right?

Asher: Absolutely.

Bob: Not James Grosjean, no extra rights with respect to him, right?

Asher: There they’re operating as peace officers.

Bob: Right.

Asher’s Defense of the Nuremberg Defense:

Bob: Do you realize that Heimlich Himmler and Albert Speer stood in front of an international tribunal and they said to that international tribunal in 1946 or ‘47, I believe, “We had no choice; we were very afraid of what would happen if we did not listen to what we were told by Hitler”? … Some of them were killed and some of them — and like Albert Speer spent the rest of his life in prison, right?

Asher: Yes, that’s correct.

Bob: And you understand that I was just following orders; what is commonly known as the Nuremberg Defense is no defense, don’t you?

Asher: I understand that the circumstances and the facts of killing millions of people is very different than a temporary detention under the rule of law.

IP Defense — Blame the Victim:

Asher: Do you want me to answer as my opinion?

Bob: Yeah. Give me another opinion, sure.

Asher: If Mr. Grosjean would have simply stopped, it would have gone probably up there, he would have never been handcuffed, he would have been up there for a brief period of time. I doubt seriously that they would have even searched him, and as soon as that phone call came through, which was just a few minutes into the thing, he would have been out of there with them saying the same thing they said, “We’re very sorry to detain you. You weren’t the person we were looking for.”

Bob: But he still would have been up there?

Asher: Yes.

Bob: And he still wouldn’t have had a choice, right?

Asher: Well, his choice would have been to walk up there with him like most of us would do.

Aahh, so I can go to the back room in handcuffs, or free of handcuffs. What a choice! What about choosing to walk to the street and leave the IP?

The Asher Bob-and-Weave:

Bob: I’m not asking you to testify to any facts, sir. I’m asking you to testify to a hypothetical, which is what you are supposed to do as an expert; so, here we go again. Hypothetically, the words given to Mr. Espensen [of the IP] by [GCB Agent] Vincent were, “If [GCB Agent] Stolberg told you to grab him, then don’t let him leave.” That’s all the information Espensen has in this hypothetical; is it then unreasonable for him to detain Mr. Grosjean?

Asher: If that was the information and that was his understanding and the communication at the time, then, you know, I don’t think so, but I don’t know what he meant by that and —

Bob: You don’t think it was unreasonable?

Asher: No, I don’t think that if it was — if you knew that from some other source, but if he was under the misunderstanding — he’s —

Bob: I’m not asking for a dissertation on the evidence, I’m asking for an answer to the hypothetical, sir, and the hypothetical has all its facts. Let’s try it again. …

The “Plain-View” Defense:

Bob: Now, with the police officers coming back through and taking a look at the stuff on the table, isn’t your distinction really a distinction between a little search and a big search, rather than no search and a big search?

Asher: At that point, I would refer to it as a plain view search and plain view — it’s in plain view at that point, and the agents look at it, they don’t inventory it, they don’t touch it and they leave within 15 to 17 seconds. That’s how I would look at it.

Bob: Now, do you recognize that that stuff, from what you’ve testified, the stuff on the table is in plain view because of — and, again, based on your testimony — because of the orders of [GCB Agent] Vincent to the IP?

Asher: I don’t agree with that, sir. The order was to detain; the procedures that the IP have is a separate thing. They didn’t say detain Mr. Grosjean, take out all of his stuff and put it out on the table for us.

Bob: Oh, but you just testified that you know that that’s standard operating procedure when they take somebody into a back room, right?

Asher: I know that that’s done routinely throughout the casino industry. They pat down for weapons and they —

Bob: Empty pockets?

Asher: For protection of personal property, they lay it on the end of the table.

Bob: So, Agent Vincent would know that too, right?

Asher: I don’t know what Agent Vincent knows.

Bob: If — if the property was on the table as a result of Vincent’s order, and Vincent, when he gave that alleged order, expected that that would be where the property would end up, would you agree then that this was not a plain view search?

Asher: I would think that would be up to the Court to decide.

Bob: But you can give opinions on other stuff. Okay.

Bob: Let’s try this: What’s the Plain View Doctrine?

Asher: The Plain View Doctrine is, if you can see it in plain view as a law enforcement officer, then it’s not excluded as part of a search.

Bob: … if you go arrange something in a special way or have somebody do it for you so that you go look at it, that’s no longer something that’s in plain view, that’s something in altered view, isn’t it?

Asher: If it’s done that way, then it’s not necessarily in plain view, that’s correct.

Bob: Right.

Asher: But I think he also acted — if I remember the video, I think he accidentally knocked the chips over.

Bob: Here he says, in his own report, he says he’s moving them around so he can get a better look, right?

Asher: So they can look for 15 seconds, yes, sir.

Bob: No, they can look as long as they want. It just really wasn’t that interesting, was it?

Asher: No, I’m sure it wasn’t.

The Asher Rules:

Bob: Can you look at the jury and tell them right now that a private casino has more rights to search and seize a person than a public police officer?

Asher: As a private individual oftentimes, even as a public or as a private investigator, you don’t advise people under their Miranda warnings. I don’t have to advise when I go out and interview people under Miranda. I go out, and I tell them I’m a private investigator. I don’t play by the same rules as a peace officer.

“Voluntary” Production of Information:

Bob: And while in handcuffs, do you recall while in handcuffs for that other 20 minutes, which I take it you would agree he should have been let go, right?

Asher: Oh, absolutely. Once they said to let him go, then you release him and let him go.

Bob: You don’t go up to him and say, “I need some information on this card — I need some information on this card, and as soon as I get it, we’ll let you go,” do you?

Asher: I think it’s common policy, and I used to do it many times myself is to fill out an FI card on somebody that might some day be suspected of doing a crime or other crimes at some other date. So, that’s a normal procedure to do Field Interrogation cards.

Bob: Do procedures trump the Constitution?

Asher: That is a normal policy and procedure that’s handled in law enforcement and directives all the time. I’m sorry, but it is.

Bob: What about the question?

Asher: The question?

Bob: The question.

Asher: The question is?

Bob: Do procedures trump the Constitution, in your opinion?

Asher: The question is, the Constitution is there always, but it’s a question of whether that particular thing, filling out an FI card, is prohibited by the Constitution.

Bob: No. The question is whether or not getting information — personal information from Mr. Grosjean while he’s held in handcuffs and everybody concerned knows that he must be released is in accord with the Constitution, even though the policy says it’s okay?

Asher: I mean, if that’s your view, I can’t testify to that.

Bob: He stayed there in handcuffs, right?

Asher: He was there in handcuffs.

Bob: And?

Asher: And voluntarily —

Bob: And he had been told that they were not going to be taken off until he leaves, right?

Asher: And voluntarily provided the information that Espensen asked for.

Bob: See, here is my problem, Mr. Asher. You’re the former head of a law enforcement agency in the State of Nevada, and you actually believe that somebody who is in handcuffs, that is told that they can’t leave until they give up the information, voluntarily gives up that information when they give it; don’t you really believe that?

Asher: I believe that you look at the person’s education, you look at the person’s background, you look at the writings that he’s done in the gaming area, and I think he’s smart enough to have declined to give the information based on what’s in his book.

Aahh, it’s a twist of the “Blame-the-Victim” Defense. It’s the “The-Victim-is-Smart-Enough-to-have-Avoided-This” Defense. Or is it the “Smart-People-Don’t-Have-or-Need-the-Same-Rights-and-Protections-as-Stupid-People” Defense? I’m not sure exactly what Asher’s point is, but I can guarantee that the next time I am in the back room, things will go a bit differently.

Who Can Say “No”:

Bob: And then he goes to jail, doesn’t he?

Asher: No. Does he?

Bob: Well, they’re not taking off the handcuffs, are they?

Asher: He doesn’t go to jail. He’s already been told he’s leaving. They’re going to get the cuffs off of him.

Bob: So, he can look at them being directed by security — here we are. Mr. Asher, Mr.

Grosjean, who is a private individual being held in handcuffs in the back of the Imperial Palace, has the ability and the authority and the wherewithal, in your opinion, to look a security officer, who is being directed by a Gaming agent, directly in the eye and say no, right?

Asher: I think he has that authority, and that would have been — they wouldn’t have gone any further with it.

Bob: But … a security supervisor who is directed to detain an individual that he knows the message was, “Give me a call if you see him,” does not have the ability, the authority, the wherewithal, may I say the cajones, to look a Gaming agent in the eye and say no when they say take him and don’t let him leave. They can’t say no, right?

Asher: I can’t answer your question.

Asher Butchers Terry:

Bob: Do you know that under the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Grosjean is guaranteed the constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. And what is protected is his person, his paper and — his papers and his personal effects?

Asher: I understand that in the Constitution and in Terry v. Ohio, it is also stated that there is no way to stop the enforcement of law enforcement, but that there is an exclusionary rule that if his rights are violated at that point, that then they exclude that from trial and, I’m sorry, but Mr. Grosjean is not in trial.

Bob: So, those protections only apply if he’s arrested?

Asher: That’s not what I said. … I said that in Terry v. Ohio, which you brought up during deposition, Terry v. Ohio makes it specific to law enforcement to start with. It makes it also — Terry v. Ohio — when you look at that — …

Bob: Now, what rights are more important in this country, in your opinion, than the rights that are expressly laid out in the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution?

Asher: The right to protect society as a whole as part of that.

Bob: So, do I understand, then — and you feel that that’s a right that the State holds to protect, right?

Asher: I think after 9/11 we should be concerned about protecting societal rights, yes.

Hallelujah!! I was worried that we would go through the whole trial without someone invoking 9/11 as a justification for any and all illegal corporate and governmental activities. I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that, although Osama still runs free, the IP Security Department is on the case. I wonder if the IP has advised the Homeland Security team to put the U.S. on Red status, because I am planning a large-scale viewing of hole cards tomorrow on day shift.

Bob: Sir, do you realize that you just said that the right of the State to protect the citizens of this country trumps and overrules the rights of the citizens that are guaranteed in the Constitution?

Asher: No, that’s not what I testified to. I’m sorry. I believe in rule of law, sir.

Bob: The rights of the citizen as set forth in the Bill of Rights are the primary protections, the absolute sacrosanct protections that people in our society have, correct?

Asher: Again, I would agree with you, but I’m not a constitutional lawyer.

Bob: I’m just asking.

Asher: That is your opinion, and I really can’t — I wouldn’t care to debate you on constitutional law.

Bob: I am not for a moment seeking to equate Mr. Grosjean’s — the invasion of Mr. Grosjean’s liberty with the murder of millions of people. I am not, but I am asking, doesn’t that and doesn’t an invasion of, in your opinion, an invasion of a constitutional protection also deserve the highest protection from the State?

Asher: I was not hired on behalf of the State. I was hired on behalf of the Imperial Palace.

Asher’s interpretation of Terry v. Ohio: law enforcement (because Terry does not apply to civilians or corporations) can detain and search anyone at any time, but that if they do not have probable cause to do so, then any evidence so obtained would not be permitted in a criminal trial against the detained person.

Bob: Okay. Let’s go to what I asked first, which is, did any of them have, and I’m looking at Pedote, Vincent and Espensen — any — Pedote, Vincent and Espensen, did any of them have any knowledge of anything that Mr. Grosjean himself had done that they then relied upon to reach a conclusion of reasonable suspicion in order to detain Mr. Grosjean?

Asher: I’m not aware that they knew any more than what we’ve just said.

Bob: Which would be no, they did not have any articulable facts regarding his play, what he was doing, anything like that, right?

Asher: Again, I don’t know what they saw on the surveillance because that really doesn’t — they don’t talk about observing him on surveillance down on the floor and what he was doing on the floor, et cetera.

Bob: And you read the reports, and they certainly didn’t rely on anything there, right?

Asher: Again, I did not see anything there that they did.

Bob: Okay. You said you read [Terry v. Ohio].

Asher: Yes, I did.

Bob: Do you realize that the rule of law in Terry, after you read it, is that in order to detain an individual — detain, just stop for any reason — detain an individual, there must be articulable facts about the person’s activities giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they either have committed or may about to be committing a crime?

Asher: I’m familiar with Terry, and I’m familiar with the articulable facts that you’re talking about.

Bob: Where are the articulable facts? He’s held, right?

Asher: Pardon?

Bob: [Grosjean is] held on Gaming agent orders from what you understand, right?

Asher: My understanding is that he is detained based on an order from a Gaming agent and for temporary detention to find out if he’s wanted for anything.

Bob: And Terry talks about temporary detentions, right?

Asher: Yes, it does.

Bob: That’s what Terry is about. You reread it, right?

Asher: Several times, yes.

Bob: And in rereading it, it says that you can’t temporarily detain somebody, unless you have articulable facts about their activities, right?

Asher: Or if you do that, then that information is — anything that you gain from that is excluded from the trial in a criminal trial.

Bob: Or what you did is an illegal detention, in other words, right?

Asher: I would not — I can’t classify that as illegal in this particular case. If Mr. Grosjean or the plaintiff would have stopped when he was asked to stop —

Bob: There’s no question, sir.

IP: Your Honor, I would like him to be able to answer. He was finishing up the last question.

Court: I’m sure you would, but there’s no question.

Asher Butchers Hiibel:

Bob: So, again, right back where we were before a little bit ago, in your opinion, Terry only applies for the exclusionary rule in criminal cases but does not define what’s legal and illegal in the form of search and seizure under the Constitution?

Asher: Terry defines that you can — that if you detain or seize, that you can pat the person down to do a search for weapons for the safety of the officers, and it doesn’t go much beyond that. There are other court cases, I’m sure, that have added to Terry.

Bob: Terry also said, though, that you [can’t detain] without articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, right?

Asher: But we now know, even here, that under Hiibel that a police officer could detain and ask for an identification, but what if the person chooses not to stop?

Bob: Wait a minute, sir. Don’t misstate Hiibel to me. I was the attorney on that darn case. Hiibel actually says that if you detain for reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts, right?

Asher: Reasonable suspicion.

Bob: Based on articulable facts, right?

Asher: That a crime has been committed.

Bob: Yes. Based on articulable facts?

Asher: Again, I didn’t read it that closely.

Bob: It cites to Terry, doesn’t it?

Asher: It discusses Terry in it, yes. But, again, I can’t answer you as an attorney or as a judge, sir.

Bob: No, because as an attorney or a judge or somebody stating the law, this is an illegal seizure, isn’t it?

Asher: You would have to determine that as the judge or as the attorney.

Bob: Or as the jury.

Asher: Or as the jury.

Bob: Thank you.

Asher’s Firsthand Knowledge:

Bob: And you don’t have any firsthand information on this matter at all, do you?

Asher: I didn’t go — I wasn’t there.

Bob: So, everything you’re testifying about is based on things other people have told you and from what Mr. Thomas [the IP lawyer] has told you?

Asher: Mr. Thomas has told me very little but from reading the depositions and stuff.

Bob: Thank you.

Asher: You’re welcome.

Court: Counsel, redirect?

IP: No, thank you, your Honor, and the Imperial Palace rests.

The Verdict

Listening to Asher was tiring. It was impossible to keep up with all the illogical statements. We had too many targets to attack. The closing statement from the IP is the same. Bob, Thea, and I can’t write fast enough on our pads. We have to let many of the targets go, because the jury seems tired by now, and, we hope, smart enough to have heard what we heard. Sure enough, after less than an hour of deliberation, they contact the judge with two questions that seem promising to us: 1. How exactly did the GCB escape the lawsuit, and 2. How will punitive damages be determined?

It is less than two hours before we get the call to return to the courthouse. I’m not surprised. This one’s a no-brainer, and it’s Friday night. We all want to move on:

Court: Have you all reached a verdict?

Jurors: Yes, we have.

Court: Would you give the verdict form to the bailiff, please? We’ll have the clerk read the verdict out loud.

Clerk: Court, Clark County, Nevada. James Grosjean, plaintiff vs. Imperial Palace and Donnie Espensen, defendant. Case No. A442687. Department No. VIII.

Special verdict: We the jury in the above entitled case find the following special verdict on the questions submitted to us.

Question 1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant named below or either of them violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff James Grosjean, to be free of unlawful search or of unlawful seizure or both under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Defendant Imperial Palace, yes. Defendant Donnie Espensen, yes.

Question 2. What amount of money damages do you find should be awarded to the plaintiff, James Grosjean, from the defendants found liable in Question 1? Defendant Imperial Palace, $99,990. Defendant Donnie Espensen, nine dollars.

Do you find that any defendant for whom you marked yes in Question 1 liable to plaintiff James Grosjean for punitive damages? Imperial Palace, yes. Donnie Espensen, no.

Dated 10/22/2004.

The Punitive-Damages Hearing

On November 1, we met again in court in front of the same jury to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. A CPA testified regarding the IP’s financial position. Some exhibits were entered into evidence. Bob made a statement. The IP made an unrepentant statement, the highlight of which was: “We bring that out only because the corporate mob mentality — this is much more of a mom and pop situation. This is not Mandalay Bay; this is not Park Place; this is not Caesars Palace. This is a much smaller situation that a family built. They bought a small hotel, they built it up here.” By the CPA’s testimony, the Imperial Palace’s hotel, casino, and land is owned free and clear — on the Las Vegas Strip. “Mom and pop”?

Six of the eight jurors agreed on a punitive-damage award of $500,000, reduced under Nevada statute to $300,000, and reduced to $150,000 by Judge Gates, who felt the award was “excessive.” With the compensatory damages, the punitives, the interest, and attorneys’ fees, we hope to collect around $320,000, to be chopped threeways (Mike, me, and BobThea). When we rejected the arrogant and stingy offers from the IP, it’s not because we expected this pecuniary result. Like I said, I don’t care about money, but if money is the only way to get the IP’s attention, then I want as much of it as possible.

To date, the IP shows no remorse (they are still appealing this verdict) and the judge thinks the award was excessive, but on October 22, 2004, eight civilian residents of Las Vegas sent a message that they do not approve of the illegal activities of the Imperial Palace and the other casinos in this town (since Ron Asher gave expert testimony that the IP’s actions were normal throughout the industry). Maybe, just maybe, Bob, Thea, Mike, and I have done, or at least started, what we set out to do — change the world. ♠