Are these the same legislators who feel that Blackjack and other card games are good for us, but the evils of roulette or craps will ruin the moral fiber of Californians?

As much as I like denigrating politicians, and politics in general (which I really, really, like), I think it is important to put things in perspective...

I'm pretty sure that the basic California gambling laws, with only relatively minor changes, date to somewhere between 1880 and 1900.

So, let me be the first to denigrate Leland Stanford, the rest of the big four, along with the wheat cartel (everyone should read The Octopus), and their fellow travelers. I just hope this thread doesn't get side tracked down the obama/rush/talking points/political correct/which exact clone party is better/blah/blah/blah dead end.

To sum up so far...

0. Floormen grub for tips, no one knows why upper management allow this...

1. Everyone agrees corporations are allowed special perks. Everyone agrees that there are practicable benefits realized by having the corporations around. No one has any idea why, in any way shape or form, why the corporations are allowed these special perks, considering that these games are supposed to be strictly player vs player, as the law seems to state.

Let me say that someone who thought it was a good idea to sue the cardrooms to gain equal access, or take some other form of hostile action is a complete idiot. Right now, anyone can walk into any cardroom in the state and bet an almost unlimited amount of money +EV on every table game. Sure, the corporation has a better deal, a much better deal, but that is not the point. The point is, with house banked games, in general, no one on the face of the earth can walk into any casino and bet a penny +EV on any game. The Indians have already opted out of these player banked games through the ballot box. The cardrooms would certainly attempt to do the same if attacked, and would probably succeed, or they could just close the games.

I agree, this question, which is just a question, is a matter of transparency.

2. About new games, there must be some sort of negotiation between the cardrooms and the corporations. Since these would be treated as proprietary, we need someone on the inside to "spill the beans" on the details. Let's hope someone does.

And, now that I think about it, I vaguely remember hearing and seeing the offices of third party consulting companies that, I now assume, create or adapt table games for the California cardroom market. Anyone know if this is the case?

more to come...

These are the same legislators who collect tribute and allow the gaming laws to evolve by administrative edicts, empowering bureaucrats under their control, and never have to take a position.

Maybe I'm just being cynical

There is no game edge for the corporation. Any player can place any amount of money behind any bank. Usually the corporation will have a marker representing the amount of money they are risking, which the dealer will place behind each bank. If you place your money behind a bank before the dealer puts the marker there, then by law you have first priority on that action. (Some dealers or corporations will say you can't go behind, but they are wrong.) If the corporation's marker is already behind the bank, you can only put your money behind the marker, which usually serves no purpose because the marker covers 10-30k. Another rule is that players in first banks always have priority to subsequent banks, so if the player who banks decides to go 50/50 with the corporation, the corporation is then allowed to legally move the marker in front of any money that is behind the bank.

So, hypothetically if the corporation is not going 50/50 with any players and you are quick enough, you can act as the corporation except on the spot the corporation is sitting.

All rules that limit the amount of times a player can bank are for primary bankers only (first bank not behind banks), and they also apply to the corporation. These rules are rarely enforced and are only enforced in two situations, a) The person banking multiple times is not tipping the dealer enough, so the dealer tells them they can not bank 'x' amount of times, or b) The corporation mentions that the player is banking too much because they feel they are being cut off from the bank.

The way corporations do buy bets are actually a short cut of what is really happening. In reality you are paying 5 dollars to put your 100 dollars behind the bank and to have the corporation bet 100 dollars. Your 100 dollars behind the bank only has action with the 100 dollars the corporation bet. The shortcut was made because corporations don't want to have a bunch of 100 dollar bets of their own money scattered across the table.

So, buy bets are actually a side bet between two players. Let's say I'm banking and cover the entire table and some guy wants to buy, I can charge him 5 bucks to put his 100 dollars behind my bank and for me to bet 100 dollars against my own bank and pay the 1 dollar juice. Then it is declared between the players that the 100 dollars behind goes directly to the 100 dollars bet by the banker, which is allowed because the banker covers everything. Basically the house doesn't care what the agreement is as long as they get their 1 dollar.

Since the corporation is allowed to accept buy bets even when they are not involved in the bank, this means there is some sort of dymo going on. (Dymo is where the dymo bet only has action with the dymo bank.) Example: There are 4 banks, the third bank is a dymo bank and the rest aren't, any bet that is a dymo bet (usually signified by a cap) will be covered directly by third bank only. Legally Gambler A can put 100 dollars behind the bank and pay Gambler B 5 dollars to bet 100 dollars on the spot of Gambler A's choosing and make it a direct bet between the two. Floormen are so used to the short cut version of the buy bet that they would have no idea what you were trying to do if you attempted this, and would not allow it. I'm pretty sure you would have to talk to upper management and they would have to provide you with some sort of bet cap to signify dymo.

So... sorry this is so long... to sum it up, corporations have no game advantages, but they have a contract with the casino to have markers that represent real money that the dealers move for them behind each bank, to have a seat on every table and they have an easy short cut system for buy bets that dealers are familiar with. Nothing illegal.

People that attempt to be their own corporation-type player fail miserably because corporations thrive on banking thousands of hands an hour with a huge bankroll, not because they get to have money markers or get to accept buys.

yes

There's a whole lot of wrong in this thread.

First of all, there is a game edge for the corporation. No bust BJ, for example, yields a 1% advantage for whoever is banking, but given that the player is playing perfect basic strategy, which no one knows but us, so we expect to have a 3-5% advantage. This easily overcomes the collection.
The Pai Gow Poker numbers have already been discussed in this thread, but it shows that there is clearly an advantage for whoever is banking there, too.

Second, a player may go behind the first bank if an only if they have action in the first bank. For example, seat 3 is banking and seat 4 wants to go behind. He has to have some $ in the first bank with seat 3. He can't just throw money on the spot behind. This does not apply to the corp. since the corp gets to be the second bank every hand even if not involved in the first bank.

Third, the number if times a player can bank is not the same for a corporation. A player can only be involved in a bank 6 hands per orbit, whereas the corp is obviously involved as the second bank every hand. This may not seem fair, but the payoff is the service that the corp is providing, guaranteeing that if a player wins, he will get paid regardless of whether the player banking has enough to cover. You mention that dealers enforce this only if they're not getting tipped, which is not true. There is no consistency to when dealers enforce is, but they're SUPPOSED to enforce it when it requires enforcing, after 6 hands per orbit. Same with the corp enforcing it. We don't just bring it up just because we feel like a player has been banking a lot. We say something when and only when the player has banked six times and is trying to bank a 7th hand.

Fourth, regarding buy bets, we make a guaranteed $3 on buy bets because we get paid $5, lose $1 for collection and lose $1 for the disadvantage. No it is not a side bet, because the corp's buy bet is in play the exact same way that everyone else's bet is. The $100 that goes behind that is meant to cover the buy bet may not actually be involved in that $100. It all depends on where the action lands. If, for example, there is $400 on the table, $100 of which is the corp's buy bet, and in the first bank there is $300 and $100 in the second bank, the action has to fall exactly on the bet to the left of the corp bet so that it is the last action dealt with. There is a slim chance that the $100 in the second bank will exactly deal with the $100 corp bet.


In summation, yes the corporation has certain freedoms that the other players do not. But this is because they are providing a service of guaranteed action.

Before the advent of the corp, players took turns banking, but it was incredibly frustrating. As an example, let's say you have a full table, each player betting $100, but the player who is banking only puts up $200 to bank. That means that three players would have guaranteed pushes regardless of the hand, depending on where the action landed. But the casino would still keep the $1 collection.

The corporation was invented because there was a service that needed to be filled. I know that some people in this thread might see it as unfair, but truth is that if it is going to be a company that is going to provide a service, they need some incentive, and giving them slightly better rights than a player seems to be a fair trade off for the service they provide.

Not exactly true.

I remember in the "old days" before corporations, if you did not get action on your bet, the house would give you a "free collection" button for use on your next hand. You only paid when you got action, whether it was win, lose, or draw. When the bank ran out, that was it.

Actually, any player who wishes to bank has the same advantage as the corporation on these bets. It is the "buy" bets that other players are not allowed to accept where the corporation has their monopoly.

The corporation does what it does because it's a money making venture for them. They're not doing some sort of "service" that needs incentive. There was a way to take a big bankroll and use it to "be a casino."

So much for "player banked" games.

If the corporation behaves in any way differently than a player with a large bankroll, it's not "player banked."

Any chance that someone can give a quick explanation of what is supposed to happen with multiple banks and such. Sorry to seem slow, but I'm not exactly sure what "getting in someone else's bank", or "getting in behind", or "dymo", or such actually mean.

Thanks folks!

First of all, the question was whether or not the corporation has added edge on the game above the players if the players were to bank. Everyone is aware that all of these games have a slight statistical edge for the bank.

Secondly, it is illegal to not allow a player to go in the last bank, whether that be before the corporation or after all depends on if the dealer has moved the corporations money behind yet. The rule where a player can't go behind unless they are in the first bank actually means they can't cut in front of banks that are already present unless they are in the first bank. You can always go behind the corporation whenever you want, but they usually cover the table so there is no point, but it is allowed. You can always go behind the current last bank even if you are in no other banks, there is no added rules for the corporation. But the dealers move the corporation's money behind each bank for them, and once it is there, you can not cut in front of them unless you're in the first bank. The corporation does not get to be the second bank, they get to have their money placed behind the current banks, and nobody can cut in front of their money unless they are in the initial banks before the corporation's money was moved there. You keep saying the corporation gets to be the second bank, which is not true.

Third, the number of times a player may bank (apparently 6 times per orbit in your casino) only applies to the first bank. Behind banks do not apply to this rule, that is why the corporation can be behind every bank. This rule should also legally apply to the corporation, although depending on the relationship with the casino staff and the corporation, it may not be enforced on them.

Fourth, legally a buy bet is a side bet between two players (one being the corporation). The 100 dollars behind only has action with the 100 dollars that was a buy hand in play. It does not matter where action lands, because that specific bank money only applies to that specific bet. It is called a dymo bet. Players sometimes use these in games because they don't want to bet against their friends who are banking, but only against the player who is behind the bank. So if the 100 dollar dymo bet wins, it is paid by the 100 dollars that is covering dymo only behind and if it loses it is collected along with the 100 dollars behind for dymo by the same player.

In conclusion, your training as a corporation associate has confused you on what is legally going on. When you say "A player can't go behind," you actually mean they can't cut banks in front of them, and when you say "A player can only bank 6 times per orbit," you mean they can only be in the main bank 6 times per orbit. This rule also applies to the corporation and I guarantee if the corporation was in the main bank more than 6 times in one orbit and a player actually said something, the corporation would not be allowed to be in the main bank. Legally, there are no rules that players have to follow that the corporation doesn't. As said before, the only advantages for the corporation are having a representation of real money that the dealers automatically move behind the main bank(s) on each spot and having a system for buy bets which all the dealers and floormen are accustomed to doing.

Each spot that banks consists of a main bank (The first bank), and unlimited behind banks. The right to bank on a spot is usually decided by either who is sitting on the spot, and/or who bet in the first position on the spot during the preceding hand. The right to bank means you have rights to the first bank. You can invite anyone to bank with you (some casinos limit the number of seated players and/or non-seated players that are allowed to be in the main bank.) You can also go with any division you choose, although the most common are two-way (50/50) or three way (1/3,1/3,1/3). When the person who has rights to the main bank invites someone else to bank with them, that person got in their bank. Getting in the first bank gives you first priority on behind banks, in front of whomever may be behind the bank. So you can go 100 dollars with someone in their main bank to make it 50/50 a total of 200 dollars, and then put another 100 dollars behind that bank of your own money. Other than having money in the main bank, priority for behind banks work on a first come first serve. Some casinos may give second priority to players that bet on the spot on the previous hand, but not in the first position. So the list would be first bank (main bank), then any money that players in the main bank want to put behind, then any money of players that are not in the main bank, but had bet on that spot on the previous hand, and then any money from any other players based on a first come first serve basis.

What usually happens is the corporation's money is moved behind the main bank right away, so anybody who doesn't get in the main bank, can't go behind because the corporation is already there. On top of that, if the corporation gets in the main bank, they can then cut in front of any player that put money behind before they got there, because now the corporation has priority, essentially kicking them out of the bank because the corporation usually covers the entire table.

Dymo just means you only have action with a specific bank. Most common when one person is banking, and the corporation is behind the bank, and a player betting doesn't want to bet against the player banking, so they will dymo and only have action with the corporation. So if they win, the corporation will pay them, and if they lose, the corporation will take it, nothing to do with the first bank.

Hope this clears things up.

Actually, the bank edge is only 0.18%, and I published the strategy, and my page comes near the top of a well-formed Google search:
http://discountgambling.net/no-bust-bj-oceans-11/
(includes a discussion of competing with the corporation for banking rights)

But if it's anything like my experience with Spanish 21, people will not follow basic strategy if it looks different than standard blackjack. I agree with you there. There's absolutely no risk of the players playing correctly.

True story, folks. All we could say was, “Holy crap, wow”!

Player: “I want to bank.”
Banker corp employee: “You need twenty thousand.”
Dealer: “You need twenty thousand to bank.”
Player: “Why do you need twenty thousand? How did you get twenty thousand? Is that in the rulebook somewhere?
Dealer: “You need to cover all bets and bonus bets.” (Player had $2200 in front; total bets on felt was $400; plus $5 bet on bonus; bonus had max potential payout of 200:1.)
Player: “Floor, floorman!”
Floorman: “Yes?”
Player: “Why do I need twenty thousand to bank?”
Floorman: “You need to cover the bets on the table and the bonus bet.” (Floorman scanned the table and eyed the player’s chip stack.)
Floorman: “He covers.”
Player: “So why did they say I needed twenty thousand?”
Floorman: “Well, we always assume the $50 bonus bet.” (There was only a $5 dollar bonus bet, not $50. Even if it was $50, the max payout would have been $10,000--not $20,000.)

Drumroll…drumroll…

Boom! Out of nowhere, $50 landed on the bonus bet just like that.

Floorman: “Now, you can’t cover. Yeah, you see, now you need ten thousand to cover the bonus bet.”
Player: “Okay, I just bet.”

So I had a conversation with my buddies over dinner about this incident.
Friend: “Do you know what a dark prop is?”
Me: “No.”
Friend: “A dark prop is a guy who works for the corporation but doesn’t wear a badge, who goes around and makes sure nobody banks and takes away their action.
Me: “Really, no shyt? That’s against the law!”
Friend: “Nodding, you think the casino gives a shyt?”

FYI…I copied the below directly from the State of CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Gambling Control, specifically in the rulebook of this casino.

The Player-Dealer position must rotate in a continuous and systematic fashion, and cannot be occupied by one person for more than two consecutive hands. There must be an intervening player-dealer so that no single player can continually occupy the player-dealer position within the meaning of Oliver v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1397, 1408-1409. If there is not an intervening person occupying the Player/Dealer's position, the game will be "broke" or stopped, as required by the California Penal Code. [California Penal Code Section 330]

Clearly, what the corporation did was illegal. And the casino should be punished for conniving at the illegal act by the corporation. Nowhere in the rulebook says anything about needing $20K to bank. Both the corporation and the casino intentionally mislead/lie to players that they need $20K to bank, effectively denying them an equal opportunity to bank and thereby create an illegal house-banked game. I saw the corporation banked more than an hour straight without offering players a chance to bank.

Please post any comments or suggestions. Thank you.

I can't speak for other corporations other than the one I worked for. Yes, if what this guy did was purposeful and he was a shill for the corp, then it's illegal. I can say in my own experience, I never witnessed one legally questionable thing done on my company's part while I worked there, and I know that the two things our corporation prided itself on was 1. being experienced and bankrolled enough to provide a reliable corporation and 2. being squeaky clean. The latter of which was worth mentioning because there was a lot of supposed corruption within other corps.

All of the dirtiness I ever witness was from players trying to cheat us, including colluding with dealers and floormen.

Because they'd tell you if they brought a guy in to deter player banking.

Thank you for the info on action buy. Do you have any info on color buy as well?

I banked the bonus bets on the BJ table this last week. Although I had to explain it and get floor man approval the first few times I had no problems the rest of the way.

I had roughly $10k and the max payout was 200-1, so I just avoided tables where the total bonus bets were over $50.

Details please. Did you bank the normal action AND the bonus bets? Where?

Not much details to give, I covered all bets including insurance. I had pretty good results in my almost 10 hours over the past few days. Definitely some huge swings though. Even with a 4-5% edge (definitely think this is possible with some of the horrible plays I've seen), you need a bug BR to deal with the swings.

Technically, they can't require you to have any amount in order to bank the bonuses. If you don't have enough to cover the payouts, then the players just get all of the money you have in action. Most players will realize this and not bet if you don't have enough to cover. Even if they don't notice, it could lead to some bad situations and just isn't worth it.

This was at the Bicycle Casino in LA.

Player banked games ... If you do this in a corp, you just about have to cut a deal with the house on blowback on your commission charge. I think it might be illegal, but I know they do it. They get special (banker's commission chips) in some places, so they can count on how much the banker pays in commission. I suspect that the house sometimes partners with the corp to keep the games in action.

Also, if it's dealt out of a shoe, make darned sure the shoe has a skirt on it.

Pai gow is tough to bank in some places. A lot of capping goes on in the fringe poker rooms.

It's kinda fun to watch another corp try and move in on an established corp.

How do corporation owners prevent their employees banking the game from robbing them

Seems nearly impossible

The threat of not only losing your job but going to jail for theft is enough of a natural deterrant usually. No different than how does a Mcds manager prevent their employees from taking $ from the register, or a casino preventing their dealers from stealing chips.

It always seems like the bank and the card room are partners anyway, so I'm sure the casino watches it.

What casino was this at??