John C. Turmel, B. Eng., 8-37 Colborne St. E., Brantford ON N3T 2G3, Tel/fax: 519-753-0645 Email: turmel@ncf.ca Monday April 10 2006 Mr. Jay Lasychuk, Brantford Charity Casino 40 Icomm Dr., Brantford ON N3S 7S9 Email: jlasychuk@olgc.ca re: $8 session fee $25 game being deterred Dear Sir: On Saturday April 8, I was banned from the Brantford Charity Casino Shift Manager Michael Harrington for 30 days for "disruptive" speech. Ever since the Brantford poker room started using the TV screen for the past few months showing the lists for games, I have been successfully promoted the 1-chip $8/hour session fee $25 quarter game instead of the $7/hour session fee $20 game 9 times since March. A dealer can average 45 hands at a 1-chip betting game like $5/$10 or $25/$50; 40 hands at a 2-chip betting game like $10/$20 and 36 hands per hour at a 4-chip game like $20/$40. Processing four-times the necessary chips takes a full 12 minutes away from the game. Many casinos have specialty chips to permit 1-chip betting games for speed. From an engineering point of view, doing with 4 chips what can be done with 1 chip is ridiculously inefficient. Ask your dealers about the difference between dealing with a 1-chip bet and a 4-chip bet. Dealers want the Quarter game too. Considering the Big Game runs virtually all year round and $140x24x365= $1,226,4000 is earned from that table, converting it to the more efficient $25 game would earn $160x24x365= $1,400,000 a year, an extra $20x24x365= $175,000 per year, $500 per day, from that one table while providing players with 25% more hands for only 14% more session fee. Of course, more and more players were being convinced of the benefits of the $8 session fee $25 game. Unfortunately, one of your poker room managers, Brit, refuses to allow us to open a $25 game on his shift so, of course, the casino could never benefit from those of us willing to pay $8 an hour when Brit's busy collecting $7. A couple of weeks ago, I asked Brit why he wouldn't start up the $25/$50 game when there was a long list for it showing. He said "it won't happen" on his shift. Having started the Ontario casino industry, I knew he was there to cater to the desires of patrons. If a waiter ever told me I couldn't have something offered on the menu, I'd be offended and say "How dare you?" When Brit refused to let us have a service on your menu, I was offended and said: "How dare you?" He called in his superior, Fran Jackson, but she couldn't explain either why Brit didn't want to the casino to make $160 an hour instead of $140 an hour and his complaint was dismissed. The next day, when I came in and tried to register my interest in both $20/$40 and $25/$50 games, my name was added to the $20 list showing on the screen but Brit had taken the $25 list off the public board and was keeping it in writing. The new TV software wasn't being used for the $30/$60 and $50/$100 games either. They were all being kept on paper again! Imagine having all that software but needing to use paper and pencil again on Brit's shift. After Brit had gone on break, I prevailed on another member of your staff to post the 6 names on list on the TV board and it eventually grew until we did get our $8 game going despite Brit's opposition. Wednesday April 5 2006, once again, I started a Quarter list when I arrived. Brit's regression to paper and pencil had by now been abandoned and by 5pm, there were 18 players on the $25 list. Again Brit refused to start up the game so when he went on break, we prevailed on another staff member to start up the more profitable game for the house. Of course, in the same way that the $10/$20 games get depleted slightly when a $20/$40 game opens up, so too, the two $20 games were slightly depleted while the replacements for those who had moved to the Quarter game arrived. Now the choice became whether to start a feeder for the $20 or the $25 game with the remaining players common to both lists. Brit chose to start a $20 feeder which took up the players from the $25 list and eventually, as players left the $25 game, the remaining players chose to turn their game into a feeder for the full $20 games. Of course, Brit now argues that the death of the $25 game proved his point. Of course, had Brit chosen to start a feeder for the $25 game, the reverse would have happened. It would have sucked the players off the $20 list and eventually, as players left the $20 game, the remaining players would choose to turn their game into a $25 feeder. The casino would have made an extra $500 a day over the past 5 days, $2500 lost because of Brit's less-than-profitable decision. My attempts to earn the Brantford Casino an extra $175,000 per year from the room's biggest game were stymied by Brit choosing to foster the $7 session fee game to the detriment of the $8 session fee game. I don't know if your employees are expected to have studied any casino management but it would seem that costing the casino a sixth of a million dollars a year in profit just can't be in the in the casino's best interest. Thursday April 6, again, 18 players were on the $25 list with two $20/$40 games going and Brit not only chose to start a third $7 game instead of a new $8 game but told several players desiring the $25 game that it "isn't going to happen" on his shift. I protested to higher management and Fran Jackson heard out my complaint. She said that I was stuck with Brit's decision to disallow the $8 session fee until it gets discussed at a meeting on Monday April 10. I said I'd relay this complaint in writing. When I arrived at the poker room on Friday, the $8 session fee Quarter game had again been removed from the TV screen and was again being kept on paper under the counter. When I asked how many others were on the $8 list with me, there were fourteen! By hiding the paper list, no one realized there were plenty of people to start up the more profitable game for the casino. So Brit's regression to a paper and pencil system has once again managed to help the Brantford Charity Casino make less money. Finally, when I arrived on Saturday, there were 11 names on the TV list for the Quarter game and two empty tables. I asked the room manager to start up the Quarter game but she didn't want to because it had died the other day. I explained how it didn't die, Brit killed it, but the next two games called were a small one and another $20 game with most of the players from the Quarter list. I went up to her and asked her name saying I was adding her to my complaint. A short while later, Shift manager Michael Harrington came up to request I leave the table and cash out my chips. I was being banned for being disruptive by causing other players to protest for the $25 game too. He and his security officer discussed whether I should be banned for 14 days or 30 days given I had been previously banned for 7 days for coloring up my chips without senior management approval. Harrington chose to ban me for the more severe 30 days. Talking up a storm of protest may be considered disruptive in Communist Russia or China but not in Canada and I think being banned from a Ontario-run operation for asking "What's your name, I want to complain," unconscionable. I find staff's resistance to more profit for the casino objectionable. Management should be helping me form the more profitable game, not deterring its formation. I'd love to hear Brit's reason how deterring 18 players who wish to pay more session fee is good for the casino. Of course, this all started when I, having played poker all around North America for decades and known as the Great Canadian Gambler or TajProfessor, posted a list of 59 suggestions on how to improve your poker room, (mainly for my own convenience as I was moving here). Some staff took them well while others took them as criticisms. This might explain Harrington's choice of the more severe penalty for my speech crime. http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/olgc.htm Though quite a few of my suggestions were finally adopted a over a year later, a surprising number have been rejected, even real no-brainers. As I'm in the process of publishing the TajProfessor's Holdem Poker Game Rules, please consider again which improvements you should have adopted before I end up showing how it shouldn't be done by publishing every silly rule you have not discarded. Finally, I do not believe I uttered any speech so disruptive that it merits being banned for 30 days and ask you to rescind the trespass warning. If not, on Wednesday, I will have no choice but to ask an Ontario Superior Court judge if he thinks it's reasonable to be banned from an Ontario casino for voicing and organizing protest. I'll also raise all the inefficiencies I have to put up with by an government operation while I examine you and your staff for discovery and seek a quick interlocutory injunction to be let in while we argue whether being banned for voicing protest is unconscionable. An Application will give me the chance to see if a judge agrees that many of your rules waste my time and could be done smarter so that, I, as an Ontario resident, do not have to put up with inefficiencies that cost me money. Of course, you and I both have better things to do than to engage in such a court battle but I've been left with no choice and plenty of free time. Unfortunately, it seems like free speech is not to be tolerated given I was threatened with ejection for "soliciting" when I once brought in a petition to ask the casino to install a sound-proof door between players and the slot machine alarm bells, With no such way to petition management for change, especially when written suggestions are not answered, voicing protest is the only recourse left and if that's to be deemed disruptive, a judge will have to make the final call. Of course, rescinding the trespass warning leaves the question of the rule improvements out of the courts. I hope you agree Mr. Harrington over-reacted to my use of free speech in a country which guarantees it. Yours truly, ______________________________ John "The Engineer" Turmel CC: fjackson@olgc.ca, mharrington@olgc.ca http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/olgc.htm USENET newsgroups