Originally Posted by Double Down

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.

Originally Posted by MissileDog

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!

Originally Posted by Double Down

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.

Originally Posted by nicetrades200303

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.

Originally Posted by bosox15

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.

Originally Posted by mixgameADDict

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