It was a generic "you", Chris Lewis.

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

I asked you as a representative of the gambling class, as I thought I had made clear with the preamble...

"...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?"

I doubt that your reasons would be much different from that of your neighbour at the card table.

Any thoughts?

>>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%)<<

Yep. 97% of Age readers who gamble at the Casino. Good sample.

But the idea that it is "Crown's worst move ever" is worth exploring.

Where, in the spectrum of Casino/gambler relationship does Harry Kavakas fit? Was Crown's habit of of dropping him a cardboard box with "up to $50,000" in it as "lucky money" as he boarded their private jet that ferried him to and from the Gold Coast, a more acceptable business practice than introducing a new gambling game for penny-ante players?

http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-paul-barry-biggest-loser-harry-kakavas-and-problem-gamblers-2249

And stop stealing my ideas...

>>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.<<

I think that would be a very constructive move in addressing the issue of problem gamblers. They would run out of cash more quickly, and come to the realization that losing is a factor of time, not luck.

This regime would only apply to the little folk, of course, high rollers would still get the red carpet treatment, and "better" odds. Because - here's the thing - lower margins on high volumes are just as good as high margins they can squeeze out of the weenies.