Originally Posted by Fubster
If a dealer is intentionally giving up a game for tokes, it's collusion if the dealer acts with an agent who does the toking in exchange for "improved game conditions."
Casino management generally has a low threshold for evidence when formulating theories of collusion, and yet I don't know any who would seriously make this charge. First of all -- in most games, generously toking the dealer is simply drawing attention to the game. Second, only an idiot conspirator would toke a dealer (who generally has to make a 100+/way split) rather than settle outside. I'm sorry, but the responsibility for dealer mistakes falls squarely on the dealer.