FoolsGold wrote on June 27, 2008 06:25 AM: >for a bank to offer a customer a drink
>and then have them sign loan documents

Its more like: ply the customer with several drinks, advance him the loan funds, refrain from making him sign loan documents then because the bank knows he is drunk, let him squander the loan money... and THEN once he is sober, force him to sign the loan documents.

Sure he is "a big boy" now and should be able to handle his liquor as well as his markers, but if the casino failed to promptly present the markers for his signature, they failed to do so for one reason: they knew he was too drunk to know what was going on.

FoolsGold wrote on June 27, 2008 06:01 AM: This is a terrible stain on the reputation of the industry.

I have every confidence that the casino's surveillance tapes will show just how many cheques were issued and I do hope the camera also shows just how much alcohol was consumed. Each will be relevant in determining what transpired.

An alcohol-induced misperception by the player should not result in this sort of thing at all. The fact that the then-sober player felt intimated by the encircling hordes of Harrah's employees is reasonable. The player's other fears may be more suitable for a mob-run "old Vegas" but fears that are unsuitable for todays atmosphere can still be reasonably perceived fears.

The root cause of this is most likely alcohol consumption and the casino's issuance of markers to a player who is too drunk to know what is going on. The casino's attitudes in forcing the markers to be signed is nothing more than a continuation of the initial greed of the casino in allowing an intoxicated player to stay at the tables.

Steve wrote on June 16, 2008 06:33 PM: Stinker,

You appear to be the only one who used logic and came to the correct conclusion. The posters prior to your post all appear to be a group of total morons incapable of understanding absolutely anything about personal responsibility.

greedy local business owner wrote on June 16, 2008 03:30 PM: What would the consequences be for a bank to offer a customer an alcoholic drink and then have them sign loan documents? Do ya think the customer might have a case against the bank for unscrupulous business practices?

Steve Haver wrote on June 16, 2008 03:24 PM: In my experience, physical sequence of events when a player (who has a line of credit) asks for more chips at a table game:
A. Player asks for a specific amount, and shows ID.
B. Pit calls cage, to verify player's line of credit.
C. If this checks out, supervisor gives table dealer a "lammer", indicating amount of marker; table dealer gives player requested amount in chips.
D. Several minutes later, marker is physically delivered to table; player is expected to sign it.
E. Marker is returned to cage; "lammer" is removed.
F. From that point, marker is handled as if it were a check; failure to pay it is definitely a criminal offense.

If, after (c) but before (d), player lost chips and walked away, casino would presumably have a CIVIL action, but not a CRIMINAL case, against player.

Normal procedure, in event player lost all chips prior to signing marker for them, would be to insist that marker be signed prior to providing any additional chips.
In reported case, Harrah's "may have" continued to deliver chips, without requiring marker(s) to be signed. (Provable from videotape and/or accounting records). Trying to prevent player from realizing how much he was losing.
Had casino NEVER received signed marker, and brought civil action against player for $3.5 million, "they knew I was intoxicated, etc." might have been held to be a valid defense.

Stinker wrote on June 16, 2008 02:34 PM: What a bunch o' whiners, probably losers all, yeah?

First off, the casinos are places of business offering gaming to customers coming thru their doors. Those credit customers ASKED to have their line of credit by applying for it, as a courtesy that they don't hafta bring their own funds each time they visit.

Secondly, markers are not loans; simply stated, a marker is a personal check that the casinos hold for a period of time, a courtesy to the customer to allow the customer to pick up that check before depositing it to the bank as a personal check, this is all clearly stated on the credit application as well - a personal check is deposited next business day, a marker is held for a designated period of time before deposit, but both items are essentially personal checks, not loans.

The casinos have always had the most favorable odds in the gaming aspect, so why should the casinos babysit the lushes that wanna cry fowl because of an alcohol addiction and "didn't know what they were doing"? Lame. The casinos have been burdened by law to monitor the drunks, but the drunks don't cry when they've won $1.5 mil - "oh no.. what did I do? How am I gonna get all this cash back to the farm?"

That's why it's called gambling. Suck it up and be responsible and stop crying foul because you're not always winning.

If ya can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch

urnuts wrote on June 16, 2008 02:30 PM: This guy is dumb*ss. It amazes me how people come to Vegas; lose millions of dollars and then claims he was forced into signing a marker. If the mob was still running Vegas, he would have never made it back to Wisconsin. The good old boys would have thrown him out of the plane.

Dave wrote on June 16, 2008 01:51 PM: Great profits for the gaming industry. Liquor your players up and then entice them with gobs of credit. When they lose that money, sober them up and force them to pay off the marker.

2zero wrote on June 16, 2008 01:43 PM: The solution is simple! Make the "marker" the sole responsibility of the casino, that is to say make it a LOAN (a line of credit).

Today, and only in Nevada, the "marker" is a legal check. As a check if you do not pay the legal system (County Attorney's Office) comes after you for a "bad check"; a felony!!! This is crazy.

If the casinos did not have the legal system to do their "collections" they would be much more careful on who and when they "loaned" money or so called "markers".

End this practice now!!! Our government should not be in the business of collecting money and making felons out of people the casinos made losers!!!!

Frank wrote on June 16, 2008 01:24 PM: One night I won $2.50 on a slot at the Palace Station and no one axed me if I wanted to fly home. This scenario is all too confusing. Does he owe $2.5 mil, on not? and, if so. how does the casino collect??

Read All Comments