[specialp]

They don't need to get the player to admit it. It isn't illegal, and is easily spotted in many cases. Casinos are private establishments and can either toss the player out, or if they are nice, allow them to only make the same bet every time (flat betting) which makes it impossible to make money counting. Egregious counting which makes decent returns will be spotted almost immediately anywhere that isn't asleep. More subtle camouflaged counting is harder to spot, but the return is also much less. So whenever that player starts varying their bet more, or moving to high roller tables they will get more scrutiny.

[wil421]

I think you misunderstand me. If they get the player to admit he can count cards they can just ban them and justify why they did it. The casinos even share info with each other. There are talented people who probably brag after winning a lot and get banned forever.

[PhasmaFelis]

> I think you misunderstand me. If they get the player to admit he can count cards they can just ban them and justify why they did it.

They don't to justify anything. Casino bans are not subject to judicial review.

[wil421]

To make it even weirder you can self-ban yourself statewide from casinos in most states that allow gambling. It is actually a crime for you to go back in[1]. Not sure what the punishment is.

[1]http://m.startribune.com/gambling-problem-states-let-you-ban...

[bostik]

Oh, you want to know the punishments for willingly breaking responsible gambling rules?

Huge fines, potentially followed by loss of license.

You do not want to go there. With the elevated scrutiny on gambling operators (triggered in part by the US opening up, in part by the increased competition, and in part by the receding margins) all the regulators are itching to make examples out of suitable villains.

Disclosure: I work for a [UK] gambling company and deal with compliance matters on an almost daily basis.

[jobigoud]

No, he wants to know what the punishment is for a gambler that breaks their own self-ban.

[bostik]

Ah, somehow I missed that one. Thanks.

An interesting question to be honest. I'd somehow expect any prosecution to be far too complex for the parties to enjoy court.

Sure, you excluded yourself but then went to the casino after all. Did you do that because addiction caused you to misjudge the risks? Did you go there with the intention of defrauding the casino when you lost money? (Gambling establishments that fail to prevent self-excluded customers will have to refund their losses. And if they do that only after regulators get involved, there will be fines on top.)

Proving the nature of intent for that kind of violation could be very messy indeed.

[JoeAltmaier]

Worse; they're subject to the public's opinion. A player says "They're throwing me out because I won too much! Go someplace else! These guys are bad sports!" and they may lose business. They have to have something obvious and convincing on a person, especially if that person is well-known.

[PhasmaFelis]

I understand your theory, and it makes sense. The problem is that casinos do not, in fact, do that.