Oh, you asked a floorman. Well, for the most part, the floormen I worked with were total greasy loser bastards, truly the Satan's taint of humanity. Their only job is to walk around and appear important and grub for tips. I'm not surprised at all that a floorman responded to you like that. I'm actually shocked that he even put full sentences together.

I really cannot explain to you why there was an air of secrecy around the whole thing. I'd say 95% of the players at the tables were regulars, and they all understood that I was an employee of a separate company from the casino.

Years ago when these games were first introduced and there was no corporation, players banking might not cover all the action, so if a player won, he might not get paid. Our presence guarantees that he will. So it's a win/win. So no, we're not the same as just any other player. We do have privileges that regular players don't, like the ability to sell action, the fact that we get to bank uncovered action each hand, etc. but the trade off is that players can play a game that's just that much closer to Vegas style.

There was never anything in our training about deflecting players' questions. As I mentioned in another post, it might have to do with the corporation as well. Ours was very much on the up and up, and other corps might not have wanted people snooping into their business. That's the only explanation I can think of.

Lots of talk of money laundering on the corporation side and the player side of this thread. Sorry, but I am not understanding this.

A player goes in and loses 10-20gs and he's somehow involved in money laundering? Huh? And as far as the corporation goes...how exactly would they be involved in the money laundering?

A player loses 10-20g, that is money burning.

Money laundering is very different. People buy chips for large amounts of cash, and then after some limited gambling, cash the chips out. Voila, fresh money.

Money laundering is simply a process to conceal the source of funds -- it doesn't matter if you're moving funds into a legitimate enterprise or out of a legitimate enterprise -- only that your efforts are to conceal the source.

For example, if you had $100K and wanted to conceal the source, you could play it through a slot machine that had a theoretical hold of 5% (without your players card), and theoretically collect a win slip for $95K. You declare the $95K as winnings, and you now have a legitimate source for the funds.

Gaming is a favored method because you can do the placement, layering, and integration of funds in a single setting. That's one of the reasons clubs pay attention to cash in as well as cash out.

I'll leave to your imagination the number of laundering opportunities there are in a business where most individual transactions are unrecorded.

Trading cash for cash accomplishes nothing. This sort of behavior is sometimes done to create the illusion of having dropped a lot of money -- but is usually just recorded as a false drop so the win is not skewed.

I disagree. Trading in a bunch of $10s and $20s from the street for nice new clean Benjamins for example. Or, how about bills which may be marked or sequenced and need to be exchanged for bills which are less traceable.

There are many different reasons that a cash for cash transaction could be very shady. Of course, the fact that the cash coming in could be counterfeit and the cash coming back would be legitimate is a totally different story.

Everything you describe is actually done, and they are crimes -- but that crime is not money laundering. I was simply trying to clarify what money laundering is.

The crime of laundering has been expanded to include a lot of things in the past twenty years -- and people who make a living in gaming should understand exactly why and how it affects regulations that they have to comply with. Obfuscation of the source of funds is operative in laundering statutes. Abetting is a violation. That's why we have "players cards" and other record keeping requirements that are intended to "net" player action.

The playing field is a lot easier to navigate if you understand what constitutes a crime, what information is being gathered, and why.

Quick work mods!

Just got linked to this thread from a poker board. Absolutely awesome information.

Question for Doubledown: when you say a profit can be shown banking 12x times you bet, what do you mean? I'm clueless at the Asian games, so go slow if you don't mind.

Do you simply mean that if I'm betting $100 per hand, then when I bank I need to bank for $1200?

Thanks.

I am not sure where Doubledown got the 12X, but here are the numbers.

The house edge is around 1.5%.
Every bet pays the house a collection fee of $1 per hand.
If you bet $100, your expected result is -$2.50.

The bank is charged a collection fee of $2 per hand.
If you are the bank and you are covering $100, your expected result is -$.50.
If you are the bank and you are covering $1000, your expected result is $13.

You could bet $100 5 times and bank $1000 once and still expect a $3 profit.

The reason why I posted the ratio of 12-1 was because I was taking into account if you're betting the minimum at the table, not $100.

Let's say you only bet $10 as a player. You're down $1.015 for that hand. When banking, you pay $2. So you're down a total of $3.015. You would need to bank $300 worth of action (+1.50/ea) to break even (well, be down a penny and a half) so 300-10 is actually a 30-1 ratio.

The point is moot and is a little misleading because as you increase your bet as a player, you only lose slightly more from the edge but the collection amount is fixed.

It's like the debate about the more odds you play in craps, the lower your house % is. True, compared to your total action, but the more important part is the EV, which doesn't change no matter what your odds.

The best EV would be to play the minimum when it is your turn to play and then bank the max as a banker. If you do this and wish to show a profit, you'll get a larger ratio of $ banked to $ played, which when we see the figures is not as overwhelming as it seems.

Also, just fyi, my numbers differ a little bit. I had read that the house has a 1% edge, not 1.5%, although this does depend on what the casino's house way is and whether or not the joker is fully wild. Joker non wild has more copy loses up top slightly more frequently because the average hand is slightly stronger. I think that my 1% advantage is when joker is fully wild.
Also, if you play optimally, I read that it garners you another 1% advantage.

Can't verify these numbers, I don't remember if I read it or was just told it when I worked for the corporation.

Yeah. I am here in Northern California where the joker is not wild. The bank advantage is about 2% when optimal strategy is employed.

BTW, I am pretty sure I used to work for the same corporation as you and can relate to most of your post.

Real life got in the way for a while, but I'm back with more questions...

0. Floor men

Well, the reasons I asked the floor was 1) the Chip-sitters always refer me to the floor, and 2) since the floor makes rulings at the table they should, in theory, know the rules. I'm not sure about floor people being Satan's taint, actually I have beers with a few.

I believe that the floorman has two main jobs, to supervise the dealers, and make rulings. As any poker reg knows, floormen are almost universally awful at making rulings, and I would usually be happier if we elected a couple table captains and ran our own game.

And yes, a lot of them are not the sharpest tools in the tool box. My friends in the restaurant business know better than to accept a "promotion" from server to petty manager, because this "promotion" means less money (generally no tips, never any overtime because you are "exempt"), worse hours ("exempt" again), and more BS (having to deal with bigger bosses directly). I seems to me that dealer to floorman is the pretty much the same kind of "promotion". This is a classic example of the "Peter Principle" in action.

And WTF about grubbing for tips. OK, read my lips, no tips for bosses. When they go around begging for tips, and any poker reg has seen it, it just makes me sad. I guess my question is why do they grub for tips, and why do their bosses allow it?

1. Equal Access

I'm still holding my breath for a response from A.G. Moonbeam or his hirelings. We know that the corporation is granted special perks. I'm not questioning the practicable utility of these perks, as they keep the game in action. And now that I understand it this a little better, a system where the corporation does get special perks is still infinitely better than house banked games.

But my question remains...why? If the law says there are no house banked games, shouldn't the corporation be treated just like any civilian player in every regard? And if that is the case, why and how legally do they get these special perks? Does anyone know of any law, rule, regulation, etc. that allows this special treatment?

2. New Games

I'm curious, how are new table games added to a cardroom. Typically, does a corporation go to the cardroom and propose adding a game, or does the cardroom decide to add a game and then selects a corporation?

Obviously the collections, playing rules, jackpots, and corporation perks can all be tweaked to make any game better (or worse) to the cardroom, corporation, or civilian player. I assume there is some kind of bargaining between the cardroom and corporation over the rules. How does that work?

And what about the proprietary games ("Caribbean Stud", etc)? Does the owner of the proprietary game make the necessary changes needed to fit the cardroom / corporation model?

3. The Freelance Corporations.
4. Rise of the Corporations.
5. Messing with the Games.
6. Playing as a Semi-pro.
7. Promoting these games.
8. Indian Casinos Opting Out.
9. Life as a Corporate Slave.
10. What's in the contract.

More to come...

"10. What's in the contract."

A. Profit
B. Deniability
C. Profit

At what point would a corporation give up on a game that is a loser? A game could be a loser for several reasons:

-drop is too much
-game does not get enough play
-game creator overstating house edge
-advantage players taking away profits
-etc.

Also, does the corporation have negotiating power with the casino to lower the drop, if profits are not what was expected?

From a practical standpoint, the corporation gives up on it either when (a) the game is a loser for them, and/or (b) they can't operate the game as a loss leader to keep the rest of their lucrative contract intact.

Frankly, if running one losing game lets me run 100 winning games, I'll take that deal, provided the one game can't offset all 100 winners (and my overhead, blah blah).

I'm still very interested in the simple answer to: Why and how can the corporation be treated ANY differently than me?

The law recognizes that people can be treated differently -- just not indiscriminately. If you want to provide the same service, you will be treated the same.

Ok, well sure.

I think in this case, however, the "player" banked games - by law - should afford the same set of rules of all player banks. At least I believe that's what some of the early posters suggested.

Why should they? In the interests of keeping the games running, which benefits the players who want to play, and the casinos keeping the games available, why shouldn't there be incentives given to organizations bankrolled and available to bank the games?

*sigh*

Again, because as I, and one of the original posters mentioned, that California law might say differently.

I understand why the contracted corporations get preferential treatment, I'm just not sure how they're allowed to -- as again, the law might say different.

Now clearly there's an army of lawyers working for the casino who disagree, but the law basicly only says that everyone gets to be the banker if they want, and the house can't be the banker.


It would seem to me that if someone raised enough stink about the incestuous relationship between the "banking" corporations and the fact that you can't bank the same way they do -- that there might be something there.


It's silly to say that players bank on the same level as the house -- or that the "house" doesn't bank (since the corporation might as well be the house).

A similar stink got raised about Bad Beat Jackpots not being legal (despite offering "practice" tables that could hit BBJs) -- not sure how that ended up.

The Casino business is full of preferential treatment for people who wager more than others. These corporations are like whales compared to the average player. If you go to Las Vegas and play $5.00 on a blackjack table, don't expect to get your room comped, even though the guy sitting right next to you and betting $1000 per hand does not have to pay for his.

If you approach a California Card Club and contract with them to provide the same level of service as the corporations, and at the same cost, you should then theoretically be able to get the same benefits.

We're not talking comps here. I'm just discussing the possibility that the law in California might require "players" to all be in equal footing - because if the corporation (who, essentially acts as the hosue) has an advantage that players don't then it might not be a "player" game after all.

I get that everyone wants to tell me that it's "business as usual" and that I should accept it...it's still not the question that's been posed.

Fair enough -- but it is the question that's been answered.

What is the difference between offerring someone a comp, and offerring them the ability to accept bets from other players?

Either way, the higher action party is getting back some EV.

I think most people see it as an issue of transparency. We would like casino games to be as transparent as possible. This particular arrangement is peculiarly opaque.

But that's what happens when you have unsophisticated legislators, without any gaming knowledge, overseeing a game and responding to contributors who see an opportunity to game the system.