In Percy Jackson & the Lightning Thief, How can Percy and his friends play all the games in the Lotus Hotel casino, when they are still teenagers and the legal age for the gamble in Las Vegas is 21?

  • 5
    This, too, like three other questions (I've seen) Atul Dhanuka has asked, is a direct copy from Movie Mistakes. Jul 25, 2013 at 10:25
  • 4
    that is interesting... and indeed a word for word copy. Shows a distinct lack of imagination, as well as most likely an attempt to manipulate the point system here.
    – Bon Gart
    Jul 25, 2013 at 13:45
  • 1
  • Probably just trying to get a badge, I can't think of a question to ask here for example. But I'm not going to steal someone else's Apr 17, 2019 at 8:03

2 Answers 2


I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care. The "proprietors" of the casino don't care. Their whole purpose is to draw people in and keep them there. Any "authority" who would normally be keeping this sort of thing from happening would more than likely get drawn in by the flower as well, so too, wouldn't care. It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride.

  • 1
    Minors can go into the casino, yes - but not only can't they play the games, they must keep a minimum distance away from them. At least from my personal experience of having my child with me on the casino floor. I approached one table with my daughter to ask for something (directions, or the time perhaps) and the dealer immediately said I would have to have her "step away from the table" before she could answer my question.
    – Kirt
    Mar 25 at 21:37
  • @Kirt - Completely agree with your understanding and point ... just in the case of the movie, like I said, nobody cares. Mar 25 at 22:23
  • Yes, it is clear that no one is enforcing any of the rules / laws in that setting.
    – Kirt
    Mar 25 at 22:24

The other answer is likely correct in context of the story's specific casino, but it can also make sense for a "regular" casino.

Tt's actually beneficial business-wise to play dumb. Let the kid put money on the table "without you knowing it's a kid" (if you can reasonably argue that you couldn't have known).

  • If they lose, you take their money.
    • If it gets pointed out that they're a kid and you lose your plausible deniability, you have to return their stake, but you still didn't lose anything.
  • If they win, you "suddenly notice" that they're a kid and shouldn't have played in the first place, thus only returning their stake and not any winnings.

There's no case where the casino loses any money. But there's a chance that they make money (if the kid loses and does not get found out to be a kid).

The only counter to that is that if the casino can be found to knowingly let kids play or is provably negligent about its prevention of letting kids play. As long as there is a reasonable argument that they were sufficiently diligent, even if not factually correct, there is no further reason for them to actually ban kids from playing.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .