table limits
But why to casinos impose table limits?
"Although the house has a statistical edge on the expected return, the casino has no control over variance.Quote: slackyhackyMaybe a silly question....
But why to casinos impose table limits?
The outcome of a small number of players making a huge bets are unpredictable.
The casino could make record profits, or the players could wipe out the cash in the casino or eliminate the profit for the month.
Maximum table limits prevent the casino from taking too much of a gamble. "
wikipedia
Not even a silly question
(1) Some dealers are only trained to handle certain amounts and are not trusted at high limits.
(2) To protect martingaling so that some can't just double their bet all of the time until they may win.
(3) To prevent very large value chips to be present at less secure areas of the casino floor.
(4) To protect the player's experience so that a $5 player does not feel uncomfortable next to someone betting $1,000,000.
(5) Security will scrutine high value bets over low values ones and the places where these bets happen needs to be predictable.
(6) High rollers are usually moved to a separate area (a private salon) where it is generally more secure and the experience may be much more pleasurable.
Quote: Boymimbo(6) High rollers are usually moved to a separate area (a private salon) where it is generally more secure and the experience may be much more pleasurable.
Number six is incorrect. It should read, "High rollers will sit wherever the hell they want, the casino will raise the table min. and the lower limit players will be moved to some place else, where they will not annoy the whale."
Limits are also in place to prevent a single large bet that may involve dealer/player collusion. (Cheating)
However, the Martingale is not a valid reason for the limits.
Even that "life savings spin" at the roulette wheel was done with a 17 year veteran dealer, not just some guy who happened to be on duty at the time.
Quote: boymimbo(2) To protect martingaling so that some can't just double their bet all of the time until they may win.
Martingale certainly isn't on the list. Casinos have no worries about it - there is no risk for them. So what if he "wins", he's only winning toke change, you don't lose anything worth sweating.
Now, if you said parlay, that's a different situation. There it's the player who has nothing to lose, and the house that can go busto.
Quote: boymimbo(4) To protect the player's experience so that a $5 player does not feel uncomfortable next to someone betting $1,000,000.
I think that as a $5 player, I'd feel much more uncomfortable next to someone betting $100 than to someone betting $1M. It's the social class gap, we only evaluate ourselves relative to classes immediately next to ours. Neither a homeless person nor a multi-millionaire are on the list of people you'd be comparing yourself to.
Quote: KeyserHowever, the Martingale is not a valid reason for the limits.
Actually, it is but not for the reason he stated. Eventually, a player who is truly employing the Martingale system will reach the 50 million dollar level bet (or higher). The casino may not have the cash to pay the player at that time. Yes, they had booked the previous bets, but those bets would be in the proverbial drop box and not counted. The casino has to have the cash on hand for any bet they book. A casino wouldn't stop action throughout an entire casino to make the one bet.
Many casinos have systems in place to allow a raise in table maximums when the players request it. Horseshoe famously advertises it.
Quote: TiltpoulEventually, a player who is truly employing the Martingale system will reach the 50 million dollar level bet (or higher). The casino may not have the cash to pay the player at that time. Yes, they had booked the previous bets, but those bets would be in the proverbial drop box and not counted. The casino has to have the cash on hand for any bet they book.
Hmm. Yes, assuming the player did not buy in with cash, and the casino still has to be able to pay his winnings in cash*, it needs enough to function as his instant ATM.
*I'm not sure if that's actually required, or if funds held in a separate account are sufficient. May differ by jurisdiction, but in Nevada with its pro-casino laws, my guess would be the latter. Someone might know exactly.
But then, doesn't it apply to all chips - that is, don't all chips have to be backed with cash/funds? If that is the case, then table limits are back to not being necessary in this regard. If the chips are there, in the box or not, just anywhere, they have to be backed. And as long as the player can't win more than the sum total of chips, which with martingale he can't, any such bet can be paid. The player won't be able to buy in for more than there is available in the first place; if there physically are enough plaques for 50 million, they can't be given to him without the funds to back them.
Quote: boymimboThere are a few reasons that table limits are limited:
(1) Some dealers are only trained to handle certain amounts and are not trusted at high limits.
(2) To protect martingaling so that some can't just double their bet all of the time until they may win.
(3) To prevent very large value chips to be present at less secure areas of the casino floor.
(4) To protect the player's experience so that a $5 player does not feel uncomfortable next to someone betting $1,000,000.
(5) Security will scrutine high value bets over low values ones and the places where these bets happen needs to be predictable.
(6) High rollers are usually moved to a separate area (a private salon) where it is generally more secure and the experience may be much more pleasurable.
I think that 90+% of the total reason is contained in points 1, 3, and 5.
