Monday, January 22, 2007

After losing a pile of money at an Atlantic City casino in July 2004, a
frustrated gambler drove directly to the Casino Control Commission
headquarters and put his name on a list of people banned from the city's
casinos. It's a decision he immediately regretted - even more so when he
learned that in this case, what happens in Atlantic City does not stay in
Atlantic City. The state Casino Control Commission, which is identifying the
man only by his initials, S.D., rejected his bid yesterday to become the
first person allowed to gamble in the state again after placing himself on a
list of people barred for life from casinos. The self-exclusion list was
established in 2001, intended as a way for compulsive gamblers to avoid the
temptation of Atlantic City's casinos. People who ask to be added to the
list can choose to be banned for one year, five years or life. The
commission said that about 525 people are on the voluntary list now - about
half for life. The list is not available to the public, but casino owners
use it to bar those listed from entering casinos they own outside New
Jersey. In an industry dominated by a handful of casino owners, there's
plenty of sharing. S.D. is not a compulsive gambler, one of his lawyers
said, but he was merely impulsive the day he signed onto the list.
"He lost some money that day at one of the casinos," said lawyer Gerard
Quinn, who would not say where his client lives, except that it's within
driving distance of Atlantic City. "He had some other stresses in his life.
He impulsively went and signed up. It took a few minutes." He chose the
lifetime ban. Within an hour of putting himself on the list, Quinn said, his
client was on the phone trying to have his name removed. The commission said
no.

And the news got worse, Quinn said, as S.D. started getting letters from
casinos outside Atlantic City telling him he could no longer play there,
either. That pretty much ruled out family vacations to Las Vegas.

Quinn and attorney Lloyd Levenson yesterday asked the Casino Control
Commission to take their client off the list, arguing that he did not know
when he signed up that casinos outside New Jersey might use it, too. In a
4-0 vote, the commission rejected the effort.