Here We Go Again: Unshuffled Baccarat at Golden Nugget AC...
Trump Taj Mahal fined $91,000 after workers fail to detect unshuffled cards
Taj Mahal's tale of unshuffled cards now part of national gambling gossip
April 30, 2012 it happened again at the Nugget...
Disputed mini-baccarat game at Golden Nugget prompts lawsuit
the patrons were handcuffed by Nugget security...CHA-CHING!
The casino should look to the card shuffling company, not the players. How can the game be declared "illegal" simply because the casino made a mistaken reliance? Its the casino that took the short cut of buying pre-shuffled cards rather than taking dealer time to shuffle them. The casino personnel were alerted to something being wrong but too dumb to figure out what it was. That is the casino's fault.
Winning is not a crime, even if winning is enabled by the casino's mistake and the supervisory personnel's continued stupidity.
who admitted the cards were certified to be shuffled but were not.
i think the nugget should have to pay the outstanding chips,
they should get fined, and they should get sued for false imprisonment
and maybe even racial discrimination.
too bad more people are going to lose their jobs,
but if they are that bad at them, maybe they are in the wrong line of work.
Quote:The Golden Nugget¡¦s dealers, supervisors and security staff closely watched the mini-baccarat game, believing that a sophisticated swindle was under way. However, the casino did not halt play because management could not figure out how the gamblers allegedly were cheating, the suit states.
and just wondering, do they need a "reason" to close a table? can't they just say "sorry, break time"?
you can get a pretty good idea of how little they know
about baccarat or about unshuffled cards.
they actually attributed the success of the players in that case
to pattern recognition and not necessarily to noticing the card were unshuffled!
i just cannot imagine how a dealer who deals and calls the game FOR A LIVING
can go even one hand without noticing sequential cards.
as the donald would say...
"you're fired"
The dealer is differentiated from the immigrant players only by his modicum of facility with the English language.
Casinos want to save on labor costs so this is what it gets them!
Just as in the earlier thread, I commented on how the Floor, Pit and Camera Peepers were obviously ignorant. Everyone hires to the lowest level of skill and lowest labor cost which means the dealer is a robotic fool and about as alert as anyone else would be after hours of standing all day long in a high stress, repetitive environment with little incentive for him to remain alert and attentive.
The management theory is Fire Half The Employees and Work The Other Half to Death put all "savings" into a Management Compensation Package and a press release for Wall Street types.
only the poker room is better,
where you get to sit and keep your own tips
but the first one took 3.5 hours and the second 2.5 hours, so i was not sure.
but i can imagine you would want the game to move slow
and pretend to agonize over your choice,
to make it look like a legit game and to keep the staff from detecting
the flow of sequential cards for as long as possible.
The Golden Nugget A.C. is is attempting to sue the players to get their winnings back.
Not to throw Dan under the bus, but I wonder what his reaction to that tidbit is....
Apparently, the situation was identical to the unshuffled deck situation at the Taj. I gotta focus on the two points in that article:
Quote: Press Of Atlantic CityWhen the unshuffled cards were put into play, they came out in the same suit and number order as they would with a new deck.
Three dealers and a shift manager were among the nine fired over the incident, which led to about $400,000 in net gambling losses, according to the DGE. The agency also fined the Taj nearly $100,000 for the mistake and for failing to spot the lapse for more than three hours, even though supervisors consulted the surveillance system multiple times.
How do three dealers not notice that the cards were coming out in new deck sequence? I'd have raised an eyebrow at the first hand, and called a supervisor after the second.
The staff did think that *something* was wrong, but still missed the new deck sequence, even after reviewing the tape multiple times?
It seems that all those involved that got fired, deserved to get fired. But the casino has to take thier lumps and pay the winners.
but it seems the situations were different.
In the first incident, the dealers shuffle cards and activate an automatic shuffling machine; in the second incident the dealers just insert a "preshuffled" deck set that they've taken out of shrink wrap. In the second situation, it would appear that a dealer might not even know what an unshuffled deck's card order is.
Now when it comes to retiring decks, in New Mexico dealers have to sort them properly but in Vegas the deck just goes into a discard stack and gets sorted by prison labor.
So you may think a dealer is really stupid not to know what a decks original order is but the dealer may in fact never be exposed to it.
Add to ignorance, boredom, fatigue and no incentive to be alert and the incidents seem a bit more understandable.
Maybe the dealer, in his capacity as a dealer, has never needed to see a sorted deck.Quote: FleaStiffNow when it comes to retiring decks, in New Mexico dealers have to sort them properly but in Vegas the deck just goes into a discard stack and gets sorted by prison labor.
So you may think a dealer is really stupid not to know what a decks original order is but the dealer may in fact never be exposed to it.
But everyone who has ever purchased a deck for home use, knows what a new deck sequence looks like. They may not know the sequence of the suits, etc., but a new deck sequence looks like a new deck sequence.
Instead, I am betting the unshuffled deck has some other non-obvious composition. And given that you are seeing only 4 to 6 cards on each deal, how long would you have to play to recognize the pattern of the cards? Not to mention, you would need to be able to recognize that the deck was unshuffled. If I am right about this, then
I'm betting there is more to this story......
Quote: DJTeddyBearMaybe the dealer, in his capacity as a dealer, has never needed to see a sorted deck.
But everyone who has ever purchased a deck for home use, knows what a new deck sequence looks like. They may not know the sequence of the suits, etc., but a new deck sequence looks like a new deck sequence.
Consider the thread wherein I lost my Junior G Man points... the party pit dealer thread. Did you pick up on the fact that she had never held a deck of cards in her life until she went to Dealer School for two days. Its obvious she is Mormon and from Salt Lack City. They just don't have "The Devil's Portraits" in their homes. So your assumption that a dealer would know a new deck sequence is probably not always valid. Some might, some might not.
Beth Raymer grew up playing Blackjack in a casino in the Bahamas and sipping her father's beer at age nine, Angela Wyman certainly did not. Katherine Lederer grew up playing a variety of card games since infancy.
Some dealers are not proficient in English, some dealers work more than one job. Its hard to keep someone alert at the minimum wage.
While the links posted by the original poster are talking about two different events, they are very similar events. That said, here's this:Quote: RaleighCrapsI think we may be making an invalid assumption about the makeup of an unshuffled deck from the vendor, Gemaco. We are all assuming an unshuffled deck is like a pack of 52 cards we open where the suits and sequence are in order.
Quote: Press Of Atlantic CityWhen the unshuffled cards were put into play, they came out in the same suit and number order as they would with a new deck.
Quote: andysifdon't know if the article is a true representation of the casino's claim, but it sounds pretty stupid:
and just wondering, do they need a "reason" to close a table? can't they just say "sorry, break time"?
Seriously. Two full houses in a row to different players closed a Let It Ride table while they checked the cards when I was playing.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI think we may be making an invalid assumption about the makeup of an unshuffled deck from the vendor, Gemaco. We are all assuming an unshuffled deck is like a pack of 52 cards we open where the suits and sequence are in order. I find it impossible to believe that type of sequence would be missed by more than 1 or 2 people. It's mini-bacc so all of the cards are face up, and everyone would be looking at all these straight flushes EVERY time. That would be impossible to miss!
Instead, I am betting the unshuffled deck has some other non-obvious composition. And given that you are seeing only 4 to 6 cards on each deal, how long would you have to play to recognize the pattern of the cards? Not to mention, you would need to be able to recognize that the deck was unshuffled. If I am right about this, then
I'm betting there is more to this story......
this argument is invalid. if there is any "non-obvious composition", the player is even less likely to recognize it than the dealer.
weight the cost and benefit. now how much time cost would a casino save by using a pre-shuffled deck? and what are the risk? first, you risk something like this, an unshuffled deck. so you send a dealer to check it. then you risk someone knowing the order of the deck and leaking that info to an accomplice.
Quote: andysifthis argument is invalid. if there is any "non-obvious composition", the player is even less likely to recognize it than the dealer.
EXACTLY my point. Meaning perhaps someone knew what to look for, and what was going to happen
Quote: andysifand i find the idea of a pre-shuffled deck utterly unbelievable.
weight the cost and benefit. now how much time cost would a casino save by using a pre-shuffled deck? and what are the risk? first, you risk something like this, an unshuffled deck. so you send a dealer to check it. then you risk someone knowing the order of the deck and leaking that info to an accomplice.
Perhaps one of the inside folks can weigh in, but I am presuming the preshuffled deck we are talking about for a mini-bacc table is not the standard 52 card deck. That would be too easy to count. So what does a mini-bac game use for a deck? How many cards are in that deck? 6 or 8 decks at a time? 400 or so cards?
Plus, on a regular bacc game, the players like to mangle the cards, so they are one time use. Is the same true for mini-bacc? Are they one time use cards?
If so, then buying a deck of 400 or so cards that are certified preshuffled would make sense, especially if the cards are not as durable as regular cards, and thus could be harder to shuffle without damaging them.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhile the links posted by the original poster are talking about two different events, they are very similar events. That said, here's this:
DJ, I did notice that the other event referenced specifically stated that the cards were in sequence and suited. I also noticed that this article, did not state that fact. Was it just omitted, or is it not the case this time?
Perhaps the eye in the sky guys were asleep at the wheel too (or goofing off). The statement about watching the game the whole time was blurted out in an attempt to cover their ass, before they realized what exactly had gone down, that they could have easily caught (if the players saw it so easily)
The game can now begin. All cards are dealt face up in mini-bac.
In Bac the cards are dealt alternately to the Player and Banker.
The 1st and 3rd card is dealt to the Player, the 2nd and the 4th card to the Banker.
For arguments sake, let's say that this is how the cards would look from an unshuffled deck. The Hearts are dealt first followed by the Diamonds
Player---Ah, 3h, 5h_____Banker---2h, 4h___Player wins 9/6
Player---6h___________Banker---7h_______Banker wins 7/6
Player---8h___________Banker---9h_______Banker wins 9/8
Player---10h, Qh, Ad____Banker--Jh, Kh, 2d__Banker wins 2/1
Player---3d, 5d________Banker---4d, 6d____Player wins 8/0
Player---7d___________Banker---8d_______Banker wins 8/7
Player---9d___________Banker---10d______Player wins 9/0
Quote: FatGeezusI play Bac in AC all the time. They use 8 decks. A blank card is used to cut the shoe (the 8 decks). After the deck is cut, the 1st card is dealt face up. Let's say it was a 6. This tells the dealer how many cards to 'burn'. The dealer then deals the next 6 cards face up and 'burns' them along with 6.
The game can now begin. All cards are dealt face up in mini-bac.
In Bac the cards are dealt alternately to the Player and Banker.
The 1st and 3rd card is dealt to the Player, the 2nd and the 4th card to the Banker.
For arguments sake, let's say that this is how the cards would look from an unshuffled deck. The Hearts are dealt first followed by the Diamonds
Player---Ah, 3h, 5h_____Banker---2h, 4h___Player wins 9/6
Player---6h___________Banker---7h_______Banker wins 7/6
Player---8h___________Banker---9h_______Banker wins 9/8
Player---10h, Qh, Ad____Banker--Jh, Kh, 2d__Banker wins 2/1
Player---3d, 5d________Banker---4d, 6d____Player wins 8/0
Player---7d___________Banker---8d_______Banker wins 8/7
Player---9d___________Banker---10d______Player wins 9/0
Wouldn't it be even more obvious than you listed above:
2nd hand would be Player 6h/9h, Banker 7h/10h - Banker wins 7/5
3rd hand would be Player Jh/Kh/Qd, Banker Qh/Kd/Jd - Tie 0/0 (I believe that Kd follows Kh and then card order descends to Ad)
4th hand would be Player 10d/8d, Banker 9d/7d - Player wins 8/6
The point is even on the suit change, you get an odd hand of three card 0/0 and then the straight 4 card flushes start appearing again. Casino should have noticed this and since they didn't, they owe!
Quote: ParadigmWouldn't it be even more obvious than you listed above:
2nd hand would be Player 6h/9h, Banker 7h/10h - Banker wins 7/5
3rd hand would be Player Jh/Kh/Qd, Banker Qh/Kd/Jd - Tie 0/0 (I believe that Kd follows Kh and then card order descends to Ad)
4th hand would be Player 10d/8d, Banker 9d/7d - Player wins 8/6
The point is even on the suit change, you get an odd hand of three card 0/0 and then the straight 4 card flushes start appearing again. Casino should have noticed this and since they didn't, they owe!
You've got the dealer, pit, and eye in the sky not noticing or saying anything, but the players are supposed to speak up?? Riiiight. Casino should pay.
I guess there could have been one really sharp player at the table and everyone else just followed them. I'm more apt to suspect collusion, has there been any investigation done looking at such?
it is fairly common for players to follow the lead of the most experienced, or highest betting player at the table.
it would be nearly impossible to charge collusion at a baccarat table, that is part of the experience.
Quote: WongBoit really is not very complicated for bac players to figure this out.
it is fairly common for players to follow the lead of the most experienced, or highest betting player at the table.
it would be nearly impossible to charge collusion at a baccarat table, that is part of the experience.
That is what Pai Gow John used to think. LOL
Quote: WongBoit really is not very complicated for bac players to figure this out.
it is fairly common for players to follow the lead of the most experienced, or highest betting player at the table.
it would be nearly impossible to charge collusion at a baccarat table, that is part of the experience.
I didn't mean collusion between the players, I meant that given the complete heads-up-their-asses situation with the casino staff, perhaps they knew what was going on and were working with the players, so as to take a cut of the winnings? Seems too obvious, I know, but I didn't recall anyone bringing it up on this thread at least. All the staff have been fired already, but I imagine such cheating would be a felony in NJ (for both sides of it).
Quote: ParadigmWouldn't it be even more obvious than you listed above:
2nd hand would be Player 6h/9h, Banker 7h/10h - Banker wins 7/5
3rd hand would be Player Jh/Kh/Qd, Banker Qh/Kd/Jd - Tie 0/0 (I believe that Kd follows Kh and then card order descends to Ad)
4th hand would be Player 10d/8d, Banker 9d/7d - Player wins 8/6
The point is even on the suit change, you get an odd hand of three card 0/0 and then the straight 4 card flushes start appearing again. Casino should have noticed this and since they didn't, they owe!
We're both wrong!!!!
You left out the 8 and I only dealt one card each.
It should be
Player 6,8,10, Banker 7,9, Banker wins 6/4
This changes all the hands that follow
Bottom line is for most hands there are a bunch of one suit out there on the first four cards of a hand and then the next hand has another set of 4+ cards in exactly the same suit.
It does make you wonder what the dealer is looking at particularly when the bets are going up to table max, everyone is betting the same way (I know this is common in bacc, but I normally see at least one "rogue" player going against the big bettor), players always on the right side even when the sides switch as they would in the progression (i.e. it isn't like everyone is riding a 8 hand Banker streak or Player streak, but rather jumping from side to side and still always picking the right one).
I get that dealers are under paid and have no incentive, blah blah blah, but really they were in on it or should be fired.....along with the floor and surveillance and everyone else that is just sitting there watching the sequence play out and doing nothing about it.
Casino's employees let them down and now they have to pay out for the mistake......maybe paying a little more for your employees and being more selective in hiring is a better answer than giving away seven figures at a mismanaged bacc table!
Quote: Paradigm
Casino's employees let them down and now they have to pay out for the mistake......maybe paying a little more for your employees and being more selective in hiring is a better answer than giving away seven figures at a mismanaged bacc table!
Yeah casino wants to fire everyone and keep the money they practically gave away.
I imagine they wanted to offer the players a buffet coupon and call it even.
Just how alert could you remain at ten dollars an hour watching mini-baccarat all shift long but not watching any cleavage. Now think of how many shifts go by with something like this not happening.
There is no surveillance excuse under the guise of nothing ever happens so how are we supposed to catch something when it does happen or cleavage or whatever.
You get a heads up from the floor if they are doing their jobs when 7 players on a full table are betting max and winning 3, 4, 5, 10....hands in a row.
This all happened over 2.5 hours.....no excuse at all except they just weren't doing their jobs.
The reason I ask is because there is one casino (I don't remember which one) that REQUIRES every shuffle to be checked by a floor supervisor. This was on a table with a shuffler machine, which to me, seemed silly. When I asked why they had to wait, the dealer explained that they got hit on Baccarat when the cards were put into the shuffler, but the dealer acted too quickly and pulled the same cards out. With the tracking cards, you could easily figure out which cards were in play, and it would go undetected.
Quote: rxwineI wonder what the players were thinking when they first noticed this. "wow, this must be my luckest day ever!"
And then when no casino staff noticed, "wtf, maybe this is a dream!?"
“This was a lifetime chance to make some money. It was like Christmas,”
Michael Cho, one of the mini-baccarat players, told The Press.
Preshuffled or not, the cards should be inspected prior to the deal to make sure there are no defects visible.
edited: meaning at start of gaming day, or upon instituting new cards. UNshuffled cards are usually swamped, shuffled, and cut after inspection.
EPIC FAIL, House loses.
Quote: Associated PressBut when the players at an April game of mini-baccarat at the Golden Nugget Atlantic City kept seeing the same sequence of cards dealt, over and over and over again, their eyes grew wide and their bets grew bigger, zooming from $10 a hand to $5,000.
Forty-one consecutive winning hands later, the 14 players had racked up more than $1.5 million in winnings — surrounded by casino security convinced they had cheated but unable to prove how.
I have to believe that there are facts not being revealed in this case. The statement in the article is basically impossible to take at face value.
In July the drop at a mini-baccarat table is $18,922 per day, of which the casino takes $2,304 in revenue. So we are talking about two tables full of 7 players each playing $5K per play, and the personnel not recognizing sequential cards for 41 consecutive hands.
Now, a conspiracy involving an insider in the playing deck manufacturer is difficult to fathom, but it is much easier than believing that employees at the GN are too stupid or bored to recognize sequential cards. Presumably an employee in China was given a year's salary to preload a hundred decks of cards bound for the GN with exactly the same sequences.
Seriously, the GN won half a million in the entire month of July on mini baccarat. Fourteen guys betting $5K apiece would bring down the attention of the entire casino.
Quote: pacomartinI have to believe that there are facts not being revealed in this case...
I agree. When betting goes from $10 a hand to $5000, The Floor should have seen what was going on after a certain number of hands and applying their Big Brains. Same for the Dealer. (Side note: is it common to have such a betting limit spread at a table? $10 to $5000 seems odd to me...) (Side Note 2: is it common for $10 bettors to whip out $5000 from their pockets- all of them?)
That said, I think the players should be paid. If a novice player walked up to the table and just followed the leader, oblivious to what was going on, why should he/she be penalized or sued? How can you possibly make the case that the dealer didn't see it, the floor didn't see it, but ALL of the players must have seen it and ALL must therefore be liable? You can't, so you'd need to prove some sort of collusion, I would think.
I agree. i think that the lawyers are trying to rope everyone in at the beginning in the expectation of this turning into more people involved at a later time.Quote: pacomartinI have to believe that there are facts not being revealed in this case. The statement in the article is basically impossible to take at face value.
How about Fills? A casino can't pay out that many chips unless the table is already banked with them and I doubt even the Venetian banks mini-Bacc tables that high. Floor, Pit, ACM? They all had to be in on it. A table didn't just spring a leak, it was a major gusher ... where were the computer system alerts?
The pre-shuffled decks are vulnerable and someone scored big by knowing where and when the deck would be received, stored and utilized.
This Dealer, Floor, Pit and Surveillance ALL being mentally asleep at the same time the Exceptional Fill system malfunctioned seems a little too strange to be true.
I at first thought that it was an unusual instance of everyone having been hired at the level of minimal compensation and trained to the level of minimum competence with an over-riding factor of boredom but if there were 14 players then it was sure a busy table with some leaving early to avoid difficulty while teammates replaced them. I doubt this "gift" shoe of cards got there without someone knowing about it. That Kansas City company may have Chinese workers?
Quote: pacomartin
In July the drop at a mini-baccarat table is $18,922 per day, of which the casino takes $2,304 in revenue. So we are talking about two tables full of 7 players each playing $5K per play, and the personnel not recognizing sequential cards for 41 consecutive hands.
This is the part that seems off. My limited experience has been that when those color chips are being played the pit boss is watching that table like a hawk. Does anyone know if the players opted to WIN 41 hands ina row, or they chose a hand or two to lose so as not to make it even more obvious than it obviously was?!?!
One incident was at Taj Mahal the other at the Golden Nugget.
For obvious reasons, the casinos have not been precise in their press releases and the reporters don't seem to have carried the ball very far on their own.
One incident involved an employee going on break who failed to complete a shuffle and one incident involved an entire shoe of "pre-shuffled" cards that were not.
Always troublesome are these dollar claims that exceed the table's bank without any information in the newspaper. I can understand the casino being hesitant to advertise the stupidity of their surveillance crew or glitches in their Exceptional Fill Reporting system, but I can't really forgive the lazy reporters who don't dig deeper than a PR flack's handout.
Quote: FleaStiffThis Dealer, Floor, Pit and Surveillance ALL being mentally asleep at the same time the Exceptional Fill system malfunctioned seems a little too strange to be true.
Add to that the Casino Control Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement, which also bear responsibility for game protection. All these highly paid people always start looking very closely when black moves out, not to mention purple and pumpkins. There is one load of hooey that neither the casino nor the officials want to talk about.
With so much money on the line, I just don't understand why a casino wouldn't shuffle every deck. Why risk it?
