We’ve all heard of cheaters getting banned from casinos. We’ve all heard of blackjack card counters (reminder, this is not cheating) getting banned from casinos. But have you ever heard of someone who simply gets lucky getting banned from a casino? You have now. Poker player and original author of Microsoft Word, Richard Brodie, posted on his blog that he and several other high rollers received letters from Harrah’s which stated that their business was no longer welcome at the company’s casinos in Nevada, Arizona, and California. Why? Because he got lucky playing video poker. That’s right. In a game where the casino can control the payouts, in a game where the house has an advantage even if the customer plays perfectly, Harrah’s decided that Brodie was too “lucky” to be allowed at another one of its properties. Turns out, Brodie hit three royal flushes at the company’s casinos in the past year, winning $240,000 each time. Now, Harrah’s doesn’t bother to realize that Brodie lost thousands of dollars on his way to his stretch of good fortune, nor does it care that he (by his estimate) has turned around and lost 80% of those winnings back to Harrah’s. The powers that be are afraid of his luck, which, as we all know, he can control, right? As Brodie wrote, “…kicking out players who have been lucky makes about as much sense as banning people from playing the lottery because they win it.” This is a knee-jerk reaction if there has even been one. If someone is winning too much on a game that almost entirely requires luck, then just don’t give him as many comps. Booting him from your casino? That’s just gross. The problem Brodie faces now is not where he is going to play. There are plenty of casinos in Las Vegas, and most are better than the ones run by Harrah’s. His problem right now is that the World Series of Poker is currently running at the Rio, a Harrah’s property. Since he is no longer welcome on Harrah’s turf, he has no chance to win a bracelet. Harrah’s management should be ashamed of themselves for how Brodie has been treated. They have every right in the world to refuse service to customers, but refusing service to someone because he got lucky on a game in which the company controls the odds is ludicrous and wrong.
|