I had almost the exact same situation occur, but nobody threw down the extra bet. I had about $19k on me and finally the floorman agreed that I could bank even with < $20k since I fully cover. This was after a lot of back and forth.

Then he decided the bank had to be in chips, I can't have any cash at all. Which meant I had to fill out a CTR, so I gave up.

Strange yet true. If you win a jackpot at a table game - say $10 or 20k you don't have to fill out a tax form since you won the bet another player a la poker. It was not paid out by a cardroom. Not filling out forms for cashing out over $5000 is another issue.

Cardrooms wouldn't bother to hire dark props to prevent players from banking. There are enough bums hanging around trying to get lucky that will gladly do it for free.

Cardrooms will face a lot of heat from the gaming commission if they don't offer the player bank to other players and someone complains to the commission.

Cardrooms and corporations are usually related in someway anyway and not completely independent. Cardroom a is affilliated with Corp at cardroom a . Or cardroom b owns Corp at cardroom c and vice versa.

The amount won by the Corp at most table games probably won't compare to amount of commission the house drops.

Most people thinking of striking it rich player banking are neglect to tip the dealers. Not tipping on the cardroom industry makes you person non grata. $5 tips per down won't cut it either. $5 at the table game side is equivilent to $1 at the poker side.

If you admit the cardrooms and the corporations are making an end run around the legal restrictions, then why would you expect us to believe they won't attempt to protect their interests in banking?

The corporation can dissuade player banking by just not going behind a player bank. It's just more efficient. As a player, do you want to worry about a player bank not covering your bonus bets which pays out 40:1 or 200+:1? What about in blackjack where you hit a natural 21, but because the player bank ran out of money you don't get paid?

Corporations can certainly go behind a players bank. In small games, however, that creates more head ache. Cum-cuming, splitting banks, multiple banks.

The trend towards games with bonuses certainly favors corporation banking.

On the flip side, other games a predominantly player banked. IE, Doublehand and Paigow Tiles. Would a corporation benefit from always banking? Absolutely. Would a cardroom want that to happen? Probably not. Players tip dealers at a far greater clip.

NiceTrade's issue isn't a big deal. There was another thread where a player was barred from Matrix for banking blackjack as a corporation because he went in with his friends? Yeah that's shadier.

Bay 101 told me I need 100k to bank 3 card poker. Obviously nobody has that kind of cash so the corporation becomes the de-facto bank.

At M8trix What is not clear to me is do you have to play, or just be seated at the table to bank? They told me I must play at least 2 hands before I can bank but I'm not sure if that's a lie or not. The corporation never play any hand. This whole scenario is so Wild West, shady, and definitely has organized crime involved. There is NO way the corporations aren't kicking back money to the casino.

For those who did contact gaming control board or AG what was the response?

You came across this post because you probably were searching for information on player banked games in card rooms in California or other states.
Please contact me at commerceplayerbankers@gmail.com if you have been personally banned, barred, asked to leave the Commerce Casino because you "tried" to be a player banker and were kicked out. If you know of someone else who has been banned or barred, please have them contact me as well. I was personally banned for player banking baccarat at the Commerce Casino.
I am in the process of filing a class action lawsuit in conjuction with members of the California Indian Tribal Council. The Commerce Casinos consistent habit of banning and barring players/customers who player bank baccarat, blackjack and other games is illegal.
I already have a dozen people who have contacted me and confirmed that they have been banned from the Commerce Casino for specifically player banking baccarat, blackjack and other games. The higher the number of people I have, the better case we have.
Anyone familiar with player banking knows that the Commerce Casino cannot ban customers who player bank. They can ban you for almost any other reason (fighting, drinking, etc), but players are protected by the D.O.J.
This post applies specifically to the Commerce Casino in Los Angeles, CA but will be applicable to other Card rooms as well. California State Law (protected by the Department of Justice) states that any individual can act as a player banker inside the Commerce casino for California card games such as Baccarat, Blackjack, Paigow, Ultimate Texas Holdem, Three Card Poker, Crazy Poker and other games. There may be new games or new versions of games by the the time you read this post.
It is illegal for the Commerce Casino to directly profit from players/gamblers in the games listed above. This is different from Las Vegas Casinos and Indian Tribal Casinos who payout out all winnings and losses directly to the player.
A third party corporation sits at every California game table and pays a collection every hand for the right to collect all winnings and payout all losses to the players who bet. The Commerce casino makes money from this collection on every hand. The collection could range from $2-$15 per hand and up. After every two hands the dealer offers every other player sitting at the table to have this same option: payout the winnings and collect the losses with their own personal money. I usually sit down to bank with $10,000-$30,000 personally, but an individual can player bank with the table minimum. Obviously if a player bets a $500 and wins and the player banker can't pay them, the player is upset, but the player banker still has this right to "bank" that hand.
I was making very good money before I was banned. The casino and third party corporation don't want any competition. However, if enough of us come together in this lawsuit, we will be able to take legal action and change these habits of banning players for "trying" to bank California Table Games.