California EZ Baccarat corporation player
If your familiar with the table games played in these card rooms (Bicycle, Commerce,Hollywood Park etc.) your aware of the "corporation" player seated at each table, who works for the "third party contracted proposition player provider" or TPCPPP and has the bank of chips at the table.
The Casino certainly doesn't advertise the option to do so which makes me think even more so they don't want players doing it.
Here's the official rules for the game as listed by California's Bureau of Gambling Control...
"The game of EZ Baccarat Panda 8 utilizes a player-dealer position and is a California game. The position shall be offered systematically and continuously in a clockwise manner around the table after every two hands. The player-dealer shall collect all losing wagers, pay all winning wagers, and may not win or lose more than the original amount wagered. Once the player-dealer’s wager has been exhausted, the wagers not covered by the player-dealer shall be returned to the respective players. The gambling enterprise does not participate in the actual play of the game and has no interest in the outcome of the play."
I have never seen a player use the option of taking the "player-dealer" position but it is offered at the beginning of each hand.
Could not an edge be gained by playing this position, as it basically makes that person the "house" and gets the house edge.
What am I missing here? as it seems somebody besides the hired "coporation" player would be doing this in these games and making money doing it.
Quote: BigBluMikuIf if recall correctly there was a lawsuit a few years back because some players were banking frequently and the casinos discouraged them, not sure what came of that. There also isnt much advantage as I believe the rules are that you have to pay a fee to bank(if you play at any california card room, you'll notice the "banker" seat always throws a $2 chip to the dealer), pretty much removing the slim edge you would possibly gain. Im not too sure, your best bet is honestly to ask a pit boss at these casinos
link to original post
Having googled and found neither hide nor hair of the lawsuit, I asked about the lawsuit on these forums a while back, and nobody else had any info about the lawsuit either. General consensus is the suit was dismissed in favor of the card rooms being able to expel anyone who tries to bank-it takes money out the banking corporation's pockets. Also, there was a knowledgeable poster on another forum who tried banking games in CA as a private person for several months. While he said he never got any heat, he ended his experiment up, but not by much. He didn't provide commentary whether it was worth it or not.
Every person playing at a CA card room gives a rake to the dealer-player or banker. That's how the rooms make money, since their HE is zero.
Quote: ChumpChangeYou get 8 other players betting $5,000, the banker better be rich and have a 6 or 7 figure credit line, otherwise lower the table max to $100.
link to original post
Not correct actually.
I played at those games myself when I lived in LA years ago.
You can co-bank which basically means you bank up to what is your comfort level and then the balance is banked by the corporation player
The entire purpose of the corporation player is to keep the game going since the law says players can't play against the house. So they are a bit lax in banking when a player wishes to do so
If I remember correctly co-banking meant some form of extra payment to the corporation player. It may have been that I had to cover his fee to play as well as my own. So I had to hand over chips to both the dealer rake and reimburse the corporation player his rake. It was two decades ago now so can't fully recall
Quote: darkozQuote: ChumpChangeYou get 8 other players betting $5,000, the banker better be rich and have a 6 or 7 figure credit line, otherwise lower the table max to $100.
link to original post
Not correct actually.
I played at those games myself when I lived in LA years ago.
You can co-bank which basically means you bank up to what is your comfort level and then the balance is banked by the corporation player
What happens is if you act in the player dealer position and your wager dosnt end up covering all the table wagers for that hand is you end up having to pay the full collection amount for the hand and the co-banker dons’t have to pay any of it since you covered the full collection amount for the hand.
Also the order in which the winners are paid out favors the co-banker. As in ez-baccarat the banker and player wagers (with the 1% or so HE) are settled first, before the more juicy HE tie, dragon and panda wagers are settled. So the co-banker money is getting the higher percentage HE action while your money is only getting the 1+% action. (When you dont stake enough money to cover the payouts of course)
The entire purpose of the corporation player is to keep the game going since the law says players can't play against the house. So they are a bit lax in banking when a player wishes to do so
If I remember correctly co-banking meant some form of extra payment to the corporation player. It may have been that I had to cover his fee to play as well as my own. So I had to hand over chips to both the dealer rake and reimburse the corporation player his rake. It was two decades ago now so can't fully recall
link to original post
Quote: darkozQuote: ChumpChangeYou get 8 other players betting $5,000, the banker better be rich and have a 6 or 7 figure credit line, otherwise lower the table max to $100.
[link=/forum/gambling-outside-vegas
You can co-bank which basically means you bank up to what is your comfort level and then the balance is banked by the corporation player
What happens is if you act in the player dealer position and your wager dosnt end up covering all the table wagers for that hand is you end up having to pay the full collection amount for the hand and the co-banker dons’t have to pay any of it since you covered the full collection amount for the hand.
Also the order in which the wagers are settles favors the co-banker. As in ez-baccarat the banker and player wagers (with the 1% or so HE) are settled first, before the much higher HE tie, dragon and panda wagers are settled. So the co-banker money is getting the higher percentage HE action while your money is only getting the 1+% action. (If you dont stake enough money to settle all the action)
I messed up the formating of this reply…sorry
Obviously this affects the edge on banking. With Baccarat house edge at just over 1% the margin is very small. In general I think two main reasons why people do not want to bank are because they do not want to be against the table (just like Don't Pass in Craps) and because you need a big bankroll for it to make sense to bank (e.g. if you only front $50 and pay $1 to the house it's a 2% reduction in advantage).
