Opinion ID: 3011246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: When the `Bart Carter Shuffle' is util ized a

Text: reshuffle shall take place after the car ds in the discard rack exceed approximately one deck in number . N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5; see 14 N.J. Reg. 559 (June 7, 1982), 14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982). The CCC also has approved the use of a device known as the continuous shuffling shoe. In place of the dealing and shuffling requirements set forth in N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.5 and 2.6, a casino licensee may utilize a dealing shoe or other device designed to reshuffle the cards automatically, provided that the CCC or its authorized designatee has approved such shoe or device and the pr ocedures for dealing and shuffling the cards through the use of this device. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.21; see also 14 N.J. Reg. 559 (June 7, 1982), 14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982). The shuffling regulations, particularly the most commonly used shuffle-at-will, have enabled the casinos to lessen the card-counters' ability to deter mine whether cards remaining in the shoe are player-favorable. As we already have noted, when the cards are reshuffled continuously or prior to the dealer reaching the cutting-car d in the shoe, card-counters lose their potential advantage over the casinos because they no longer can increase their bets, secure in the knowledge that their chance of r eceiving player-favorable cards has been incr eased. The CCC also authorized one non-shuffling countermeasure after the Uston decision--an increase in the number of decks casinos are allowed to use in blackjack play. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.2. This change helped the casinos combat card-counters by incr easing the number of cards card-counters would need to track to determine whether a shoe was player-favorable. Plainly, the more cards in the shoe, the more difficult a player's task is to keep track of the cards. After the CCC authorized these initial counter measures, in 1991 it approved another regulation which provides that: 13 [A] casino licensee may at any time change the permissible minimum or maximum wager at a table game, without notifying the Commission of such change, upon posting a sign at the gaming table advising patrons of the new permissible minimum or maximum wager and announcing the change to patrons who are at the table. N.J.A.C. S 19:47-8.3(c); see also 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 2613 (Sept. 3, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3350 (Nov. 4, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3354 (Nov. 4, 1991). This regulation gives the casinos the authority to lower the betting limit whenever it identifies a car d-counter so that the card-counter will not be able to bet high when the shoe becomes player-favorable. Then, in 1993, the CCC made a further addition to its regulations which, as further amended in 1999, provides: (b) A casino licensee may offer: 1. Different maximum wagers at one gaming table for each permissible wager in an authorized game; and 2. Different maximum wagers at dif ferent gaming tables for each permissible wager in an authorized game. (c) A casino licensee shall provide notice of the minimum and maximum wagers in effect at each gaming table, and any changes thereto, in accor dance with N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.3. (d) Notwithstanding (c) above, a casino licensee may, in its discretion, permit a player to wager below the established minimum wager or above the established maximum wager at a gaming table. (e) Any wager accepted by a dealer which is in excess of the established maximum permitted wager at that gaming table shall be paid or lost in its entir ety in accordance with the rules of the game, notwithstanding that the wager exceeded the current table maximum or was lower than the current table maximum. N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.2(b) to (e); see 25 N.J. Reg. 3953 (Sept. 7, 1993); 25 N.J. Reg. 5521 (Dec. 6, 1993). This r egulation 14 clarified that the casinos could limit specifically the wagers of only those patrons identified as car d-counters, while permitting non-card-counters to continue betting at higher limits. The New Jersey courts seem not to doubt the legality of the CCC-authorized countermeasures. In particular, the trial court in Campione recognized that the practice of shuffling at will, the central concer n in this case identified by the district court, is authorized by CCC r egulation, see N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5, and affects all patrons, even those not counting cards, at a blackjack table. See Campione v. Adamar of N. J., Inc., 643 A.2d 42, 50-51 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1993), rev'd on other gr ounds, 694 A.2d 1045 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997), mod. and af f 'd, 714 A.2d 299 (N.J. 1998). Further, on appeal in Campione, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, found that the CCC authorizes the disparate treatment of card-counters. 694 A.2d at 1050. The court noted that the CCC has approved the countermeasures allowing for betting limits and permitting casinos to vary the number of boxes in which particular players can wager. Id. at 1047. Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Campione, while not expressly upholding the countermeasur es the CCC has allowed, implicitly made it clear the CCC lawfully may permit such countermeasures. 714 A.2d at 305, 308.