Quote:
Originally Posted by bolt2112
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he was implying. After all, the dealer just did his usual job, and it's not like he put in any extra work or special effort to deal the jackpot hand to the player.
Situation 1: I get dealt a royal flush and get a $500 high-hand jackpot.
Situation 2: I get dealt a royal flush at Bellagio where there are no high-hand jackpots.
Why does the dealer in situation 1 deserve a $25 toke and the dealer in situation 2 deserves $1?
Yes, that is EXACTLY what Rapini is saying. And it's 100% logical. If the game isn't slowed down, why is one hand that awards a jackpot deserving of greater tippage than another with no jackpot? If the jackpot award causes the table to come to a stop for 5 minutes while they verify the deck, and wait for surveillance to ok things before proceeding, then the jackpot award actually does cost the dealer money out of his pocket and hence the jackpot winner should give the dealer a bit more to compensate.
One reason poker rooms love jackpots is because it brings the staff measurably bigger tokes. Is this logical? That when the room starts raking $1 per hand for the jackpot that tokes go up?
I do tip considerably extra on jackpots, but that's because I want to. I still find it illogical that it should be expected of me.