Player Bank in CA cardrooms

Ok, question: I know Martingale DOES NOT WORK on a negative expectation game. I get it, the math doesn't lie, eventually you WILL lose more than you doubt about it. But what about Martingale on a positive expectation game? The odds are on my side when I agree to bank at my local card room. The rules are basic BJ (6 deck shu, BJ pays 6:5, split, DD, etc). Only diff from LV is that player banks the games and house juice is incremental based on table action ($1 for every $100, $5 max). Option to bank is rotated after every 2 ually no one but the corp banks. If a player banks there is no minimum to bank- you can literally be the bank with the single minimum bet ($5 in this case). The corp backs the player bank and pays/takes whatever the player bank can't cover. Table limits are $5 to $5,000. Player/bank is not even required to play when they are not banking. So here's my scenario: I post up $100 as the bank, if I lose it I post up $200 next go round. If I lose that I post up $400, if I lose that $800, etc. If I win (which I will more than 50% of the time) my bank continues to grow until I end that session. Am I missing something here? Anyone ever done this? How much do I need to start banking with as first increment in order to overcome the rake? What are the odds of success long term? How do I prevent short term catastrophic failure?

I caution you to make sure you are clear on who (you or the corporate bank) gets paid first when the other player's action exceeds your stake. For example, you bank at 100 and the corporation covers all the other action. Conversely, who pays wins first?

For example, the "action" hand (the first to be resolved) is a winner for $100. Is your 100 used to cover it? Then say the next player to be resolved is a loser for $25. Since your 100 is gone, do you get any of it, or any of the remaining losses?

I've only been to Californian casinos many years ago. Thus I should also recommend checking the rules before starting.

When I played there was no co-banking although the minimum bank was much higher than if you were a non-banking player. The hands were settled in turn until either you won what you had put up or lost the lost (other hands were given a commission-free token or something). I think 1% tax was paid on your profit.

Thus the questions are do you have to allow a co-banker if your bets aren't covered and exactly how does that work. Also does that restrict your choice of play - i.e. do you now have to pay house way.

btw I don't know whether it's correct but the following seems to mean a "player" is what you refer to as a corporation.

Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Casino

California law requires that all non-poker games at the Commerce Casino or any California card room are player-banked, meaning players play only against one another, and never against the house. Any player that regularly banks the "player banked games" and does not have a contract with the casino to do so will be barred from the casino. The Commerce serves as a host for these games, providing a venue for their play and benefits indirectly off the gambling revenue through "rent" payments from the third party provider.

Also see https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/11963-california-blackjack-player-banking-how-does-it-work/

Quote: Peak74

Ok, question: I know Martingale DOES NOT WORK on a negative expectation game. I get it, the math doesn't lie, eventually you WILL lose more than you doubt about it. But what about Martingale on a positive expectation game? The odds are on my side when I agree to bank at my local card room. The rules are basic BJ (6 deck shu, BJ pays 6:5, split, DD, etc). Only diff from LV is that player banks the games and house juice is incremental based on table action ($1 for every $100, $5 max). Option to bank is rotated after every 2 ually no one but the corp banks. If a player banks there is no minimum to bank- you can literally be the bank with the single minimum bet ($5 in this case). The corp backs the player bank and pays/takes whatever the player bank can't cover. Table limits are $5 to $5,000. Player/bank is not even required to play when they are not banking. So here's my scenario: I post up $100 as the bank, if I lose it I post up $200 next go round. If I lose that I post up $400, if I lose that $800, etc. If I win (which I will more than 50% of the time) my bank continues to grow until I end that session. Am I missing something here? Anyone ever done this? How much do I need to start banking with as first increment in order to overcome the rake? What are the odds of success long term? How do I prevent short term catastrophic failure?

Or you could just flat bet/bank. Martingale wont help or hurt you on a +EV. You will make the expected value for whatever your average bet is. One time you will get wiped out.

If you have an advantage the best EV is to just bet the max each time. Since I doubt you have the proper bankroll to bank the max, your best bet is to probably just use Kelly.

What if my goal is to win X units each session? Say each unit is $100 and my goal is 4 units each session (just as an example). Here's a scenario: I bank $100 and the first player loses $50, the next player wins $150, then I'm out my $100. Everything else on the table is paid to/or from the corp. Next round I bank $200, if I bust (and all players stay) all bets up to $200 are paid by me. Everything above that is paid by the corp. Next round I bank $400, the first player bets $1k and busts while dealer stays on 18. I get my $400, the corp gets $600 and everything else on the table is paid to/by the corp. I am now up 1 unit (minus the $15 max rake in this scenario). Even if my bank amount only covers a portion of the first player's bet I am still +EV. In that scenario it essentially becomes a 1 on 1 with the house edge in my favor. I keep doubling losses until I win, difference is the odds are in MY favor. How much of a bankroll do I need at $100 units? What are the odds I lose 8x at +EV? That puts my bank at $25,600. Is this enough? What are the odds I get wiped out on a bad run of 8 losses with the house advantage on my side?

Theoretically it seems plausible, however you might have difficulty finding the proper action required for you to apply something like this. Keep in mind, the corporation does have the option to "pull their plaque" meaning they will choose not to cover behind any bets behind your bank to deter other players from playing against you. If that situation happens, the corp will happily wait til the players wait to not bet against you and have the bank rotate back to corp where it can cover all the action.

Quote: HornyDuck

Keep in mind, the corporation does have the option to "pull their plaque" meaning they will choose not to cover behind any bets behind your bank to deter other players from playing against you. If that situation happens, the corp will happily wait til the players wait to not bet against you and have the bank rotate back to corp where it can cover all the action.

Yah, I thought about that. So I need to be able to cover enough action to "make it worth it" for players to play. From what I've seen with the average player I should be fine. My concern is "dark props" or players that are associated with the corp (tho not openly) and come in and bet heavy (while the corp sits out), causing me to have to pass bank and effectively discouraging exactly what I'm trying to accomplish.

Anyone have experience with dark props? What happened? How did you deal with it? Any suggestions for me if that situation happens?

My concern is this: if I have enough to independently bank myself (approx $50k) the casino simply asks me to leave once they see me taking half the corps action. If I small bank (backed by corp) and set session goals I'm in trouble the moment the corp pulls their plaque (if they do). If they back me I'm cool except for the RoR, which is a risk I'm willing to take.

Any thoughts/suggestions/input? I'm sure there's someone reading this who has already gone down this path.

The casino shouldn't have a right to kick you out if you choose to independently bank yourself in these casinos. They will have to answer questions through the DoJ regarding measures where they are unlawfully rotating the bank but not giving you the proper stance of acting as your own player's interests. If they are forcing you out of this action specifically, you will have a case. Casinos, however, can have the argument that because you're not covering all the proper action regarding bonus payouts that you are deterring their players from playing as a reason to "halt their business", but players usually are not fully aware of the repercussions of a bank that does not cover their entirety of their bonus payouts. "Dark Props" are pretty rare and are often called "Spotters" in the corporation world. I have personally not seen these people in action nor have I have been aware of any when I worked in a corporation myself. I would recommend you bring roughly 6k a session or so to bank these games where it is enough for players to "play" with you and not scare them away. The casino will always be aware of your intentions when you decide to bank certain games with "bonuses". I would recommend to "bribe" the floormen, kind of buy tipping them. The relationship between floormen and the corporation are not as solidified on the surface level, but are quite measures to protect when word goes up the casino ladder. If you're able to keep good relations with the floor, hopefully they'll treat you more of a player as they should.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I caution you to make sure you are clear on who (you or the corporate bank) gets paid first...

Very good advice.

Quote: HornyDuck

The casino shouldn't have a right to kick you out if you choose to independently bank yourself in these casinos. They will have to answer questions through the DoJ regarding measures where they are unlawfully rotating the bank but not giving you the proper stance of acting as your own player's interests. If they are forcing you out of this action specifically, you will have a case.

No, you won't have a case. There is a casino rule that you can't run a business by banking out of their casino without their consent. I've never heard of this policy being contested in the courts. If it did, the casinos would have a lot of money and influence to win.

However, the casinos sometimes don't really care who banks and the banking corporations may tire of you before the casinos do. If that is the case, parking lot threats have been known to happen as well as the lone banker being cheated. Yes, these actions are illegal, but you would have a hard time proving anything.

There is no such casino rule where you can't repeatedly bank at a casino without their consent in the CA card rooms. It happens quite often up at Northern California. You are justifiably a player coming in everyday just like the other regulars playing the game California law asks to by rotating the player bank. I've also never heard of it being contested in courts, but it is within law that the players have a right to always take the bank. This is the reason why the bank rotates every 2 hands away from the corporation. Although, it is true that the casinos have a lot of money and influence regarding what happens in court, their case for you taking away a casino's business (not the corporation's business, as they are also players) is due to collection. Casino still gets their collection when you bank, but if you deter players from playing and affecting their collection rate on a consistent basis, now they have grounds to kick you out. As for the parking lot threats, I can not say too much of, but you will get a lot of angry players whom wont like you.