Gee thanks Periles, i missed the point again. Oh well, will keep on trying

Fortunately The Age and Derryn Hinch disagreed with you. with readers, you win some, you lose some.

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/crown-can-bust-and-still-not-lose-20120321-1vkdk.html

That's an interesting conclusion to draw from the article you posted, Chris Lewis.

>>Fortunately The Age and Derryn Hinch disagreed with you<<

Where is the disagreement? In quoting your and Tim Costello's position, alongside that of the Gaming Commission and the Casino, the Age takes no editorial position at all.

The Age article also points out that there has been no change at all in the principles involved:

"Gamblers lost more than $1.3 billion at Crown casino last financial year."

Sadly, I couldn't track down Derryn Hinch's views on the subject. Even a search on his HumanHeadline web site yielded only the message "Your search for 'blackjack' returned 0 results"

But since you are described by the Age as "gambler, Chris Lewis", let me ask you this: what it is about losing money in a Casino that is so attractive, that you are able to discriminate between the different methods they use to extract it from you?

Nice of you to assume i have lost more than I have won at Crown. You are some know-all.

In any case, if you think it is fine that Crown can further stack the odds in its favour, then i have nothing to discuss with you.

Like I said, the vast majority will agree that Crown's behaviour is wrong. As Derryn Hnich said, Blackjack Plus is Crown's worst move ever. Most of the people that rung up and voted on the Age poll were apppalled by Crown (97%).

My article was not about banning Crown, it was about how a govt lets Crown get its own way on many occastions for the sake of profits and more tax revenue

Chris,

The whole reason for Crown's existence "is" for the sake of profit and more tax revenue.

I think Pericles nailed it.

Poirot,

I realise that too.

But if people did not raise what Crown does every now and then, then just imagine what it would do. Why not increase the take to 20% per $100.

My point was to argue that the rule changes clearly discriminate against smaller punters.

If punters are guaranteed to lose, and most will, then why does Crown need to have different rules for smaller players (a bigger take). It is just greed.

I am certainly glad i raised the issue. It forced Crown to go on radio and cop some truthful criticism from Hinch.

Sure govts are in bed with casinos and so on, but that does not mean we have to accept it based on comments that "stupid" people are going to lose anyway.

i suppose if we are to accept that gamblers are stupid, which i do not, then maybe we should also have little sympathy for people paying too much for housing because govts now depend more on stamp duty and so on.

I think, that because govt is just one player in a democracy capable of reason and stupidity, that most issues deserve attention, especially when billions of dollars are involved.

I could have written an even more agressive attack on the govt's role with casinos, but i was a bit careful not to be a hypocrtite since i have been to Crown probably on 30 occastions over the years. I have also won on about 75% of occastions, but that does not mean I should not have some sympathy for those who lose and only face an even tougher battle to get ahead.

Gambling is promoted by govt. Hence, it has some duty to promote fairness, even if it maybe a false illusion.