GAMBLING & TOURISM: House rules work against disgruntled gambler

Sometimes good luck turns bad, fast. Here are two players' tales of woe.

Blackjack high roller John Phelps of Wichita was betting big at Harrah's North Kansas City Casino & Hotel when Missouri's $500 loss-limit rule reared its ridiculous head and ruined a dream hand.

Dealt a pair of aces against the dealer's 8, Phelps split the pair, with $200 bets riding on each hand.

One of the split aces drew another ace, which Phelps naturally wanted to split again, but he was out of chips and his electronic player tracking card was tapped out.

It was about 15 minutes till midnight, when state law would have allowed his card to be refreshed with another $500 buy-in authorization. The game could not wait that long.

The dealer and a pit boss refused Phelps' request to buy in early against his midnight $500. They also rejected his pleas to either hit the pair of aces again, forbidden by the rules, or to simply cancel his bets and return his money.

The game played out. Phelps won one hand and lost the other, for a push. "We'll never know what would have happened on my third ace that I wasn't allowed to play," he said.

Phelps complained to the Missouri Gaming Commission, to no avail.

"I've never heard that one come up before," said commission Enforcement Director Ernie Raub, who concluded casino employees acted correctly by refusing to bend the rules.

Phelps reluctantly agreed, but it didn't make him feel any better. "I feel I was cheated," he said.

"And the casino pit boss didn't even offer me a breakfast comp."

• Slot hosts at Ameristar Casino Hotel in Kansas City infuriated Carl Stamfel, of Kansas City, Kan., one day last week when they paid him more money than the jackpot he had just won.

Playing progressive video poker, a royal flush appeared for the top prize -- which the jackpot meter at the time announced as $1,199.39.

Astute players such as Stamfel know the Internal Revenue Service requires casinos to report game machine jackpots of $1,200 or more.

Unfortunately for Stamfel, Ameristar employees did their usual thing to keep it simple and rounded up to the nearest dollar. They handed the suddenly unlucky Stamfel $1,200 in cash -- and his copy of IRS form W-2G reporting the jackpot.

"I got a little hot," he said. Indeed. That extra 61 cents would potentially cost Stamfel hundreds of dollars in additional income tax obligation.

When he learned of the situation from a reporter, Ameristar General Manager Dave Albrecht was apologetic and said employees should have given Stamfel the option whether to round off his jackpot.

"It obviously should not have been paid to the $1,200 level," Albrecht said. "We missed it."

Albrecht since has chatted with Stamfel and reissued his jackpot for the lesser amount.

"They didn't even ask for the 61 cents back," Stamfel said.

For the record, gamblers are expected to voluntarily declare as personal income any unreported jackpot smaller than $1,200.

Also for the record, motorists are expected to come to a full stop before proceeding through posted intersections in the middle of nowhere when there isn't another car in sight.

Gambling study

Almost 10 years after Missouri's first casinos opened, someone finally is going to study the effects of legalized gambling.

We don't yet know who will be doing that academic detective work, but casino money will pay for it.

The Port Authority of Kansas City oversees the city's development agreements with casinos and is custodian of what, by 2006, will total around $1 million in special casino payments into a "Gaming Disorder Fund" that today totals around $620,000.

For years, the public agency has sat on that money intended to help compulsive gamblers. Only in recent years have Port Authority members debated ways to spend it.

They recently agreed to two projects and now are seeking bidders to provide those services.

The first aims to measure the prevalence of problem gambling in Kansas City and statewide, including the demographic makeup of problem gamblers.

That study also will evaluate the state's voluntary exclusion program for problem gamblers, the effectiveness of state-financed counseling and treatment programs and whether the $500 loss limit has been a deterrent.

The second project will finance programs in area schools that warn students about the dangers of gambling and how to reach out for help.

By RICK ALM