Loaning players at the table cash...

Last night we were playing cards and there were 3 of us at the table. 6 Deck H17 3:2 game. Me and one other guy were playing basic strategy and the guy at 3rd base wasnt. He knew a few moves but was making bad plays like hitting stiff hands on dealer 4-6 etc etc. Even "took the bust card" one time LOL.

Anyways the point, the guy got dealt a pair of As and knew enough to split them but was on his last bet. On top of this guys bad plays, he was playing 25-50 bucks a hand at this 5 dollar table. He had 50$ bet on the AA and didn't have the money to split. Dealer asked if anyone wanted the action and the other guy playing at the table forwarded the guy 50 bucks. Dealer made sure all was well and dealt him his split hands, he got dealt an 8 and 9 making good hands and the dealer busted so we all won. The guy THEN GIVES THE DUDE HIS ORIGINAL BET BACK ONLY. I was shocked, even the guys GF had some sense to at least tell her BF to give the guy something and he replied dumbly "What? I have him his money back..." I was under the assumption the guy put up his own money to take the hand and the winnings from it, but instead he took the risk with no reward. I supposed both of them should have clarified it better between them.

This brings me to my main question, is it assumed that when a player helps out another player in a situation like this, that he is getting that hand from the split or does this just need to be discussed between the players?? This was the first time i ran into this.... having a guy risk 50 bucks and you get the winnings from it seems like an asshole thing to do...

Whenever I have loaned people money at the table I have done it in good faith and just expected that if he lost the bet that he would go to an ATM and pay me back. However if it was made clear that I was making the bet for him then I would absolutely expect to receive the winnings. However you will notice that the dealers won't let you put the bet down, they will make the player put it down so that if this issue occurs the player would get the winnings no matter what. Yes it would be an extreme asshole move if the player didn't pay you back, but as far as the casino is concerned it was his bet.

Scavenger play can be quite lucrative but you must know who you're dealing with and you must be crystal clear. Say something like I'll take the second ace and the first one is yours. Regardless of your outcome I get back $100 if the second ace wins. Again, try to know who you're dealing with because if the guy you "helped" decides to grab all the winnings you may have no recourse. Don't expect the casino to play referee. They usually will not.

Obviously the savvy player would never bet his last money for the exact reason of what happened but that's a discussion for another time. Finally, where does the dealer get off offering that hand to another player? If the guy had just hit he would have had 20.

Quote: brettecantwell

The guy THEN GIVES THE DUDE HIS ORIGINAL BET BACK ONLY.

Failure to communicate.

Two ways to play it - I can either loan you $50, or I can buy your split.

First case, I take no risk - you pay me back the $50, win or lose (possibly after an ATM visit).

Second case, I take all risk, and I take all reward.

I would have never gotten in that position in the first place. To each his own, but I find the loaning of money to strangers to be an extremely foolish proposition, especially at the craziness that is a casino. All the risk is on you, with none of the reward.

If you want to take the advantage play of buying the split off of him, it's your money and your risk to take. I'd just be extremely clear that that's what's going on, detailing what happens on a win (you take original bet and winnings) and a loss (you lose, he owes you nothing). If he decides to screw you over, at least the casino personnel know... they can't force him to pay you but they can certainly trespass / kick him out (perhaps not on the latter comment, just be clear).

So I've thought about this situation before, and while I do agree that you are assuming the risk in scenario 2, you have to compensate the player for the equity lost by splitting instead of hitting. Now I'm not sure if the opportunity equity works the same with AA, but lets say a guy has a 9 vs dealer 6. You can't simply give him $50 and expect $100 back, because doubling down hurts him in the sense that if he got a 2 then he could not receive another card, and he does not receive any financial benefit to restricting his future options.

Quote: brettecantwell

Dealer asked if anyone wanted the action and the other guy playing at the table forwarded the guy 50 bucks.

To me, this is a big issue. If the dealer asks if anyone wants to help a player cover a double/split, I'm putting the money on the felt in front of me and if the dealer takes my chips, they damn well better pay me if it wins.

Not much class from the person that borrowed the money. But at least he got his loaned money back. I have witnessesed a couple situations where an individual tells a player that they will go to the ATM and pay them back right away but never comes back. Happened to some Senior; I felt so bad for them. I would never lend money to a stranger in a CASINO.

I was playing at a table where another player loved betting on my hands, for a fairly big amount, too. I think once I had $300 out there, he had $250 on top of mine, I got a double down and we both put up $$$ to double (duh).

Proper protocol for the dealer is to just pay it out as if it's all my money.


This dealer was funny, he'd pay out both of our bets separately, take the money the other guy bet and his winnings and hand it off to the player. The best part is, the dealer wouldn't even break down my chips to verify I had $300 and he had $250 (betting all green). He just looked at it, I said it was $300 for me and $250 for other guy, so he paid me $600 in black and paid other guy $500 in black and gave him back his original wager.



I generally don't seek out scavenger plays on BJ. Usually because it is such a small amount that I'd rather not have to deal with the situation of getting cheated out of money. But on occasion, if there's a decent amount of money and someone can't double, especially a situation where they would only hit once (10 vs 4-6, 11 vs 2-6), me buying their double cannot hurt them. In a situation like 9 vs 2-6, if they would normally just have hit, then I may be hurting the guy because there's the possibility he gets a 2 and normally would have hit again.

But anytime I do a scavenger play, always make sure "I'm buying the action on the double", not "I'm doubling for you".


I won't scavenger splits because I don't know what the EV is for all of 'em, and too big of a chance one wins and the other loses....and I don't like a bunch'a malarky.

Quote: Actuarial

So I've thought about this situation before, and while I do agree that you are assuming the risk in scenario 2, you have to compensate the player for the equity lost by splitting instead of hitting. Now I'm not sure if the opportunity equity works the same with AA, but lets say a guy has a 9 vs dealer 6. You can't simply give him $50 and expect $100 back, because doubling down hurts him in the sense that if he got a 2 then he could not receive another card, and he does not receive any financial benefit to restricting his future options.

In most cases you are right, however, in this situation, in this specific situation, I'm pretty sure a single ace has a higher value than 12. I do not know how to calculate the exact answer... but I compared hitting a hard 12 (A,A) vs. doubling 11 (single ace, only get one card) which agrees with my assertion. The player should be begging others to buy the other ace if nobody is willing to lend him the money.

https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/1/

Quote: ahiromu

I'm pretty sure a single ace has a higher value than 12. I do not know how to calculate the exact answer...

Pretty sure it's one-half of the expected return from splitting for one half of the split.

Just follow your link down to the "Expected return by Splitting" section, and divide by two.

To the OP's question, I am not an AP, but I have been the person who's loaned someone I've been playing with at a table for a while enough money to complete their wager, though it's never been more than a green, and usually red. I've not ever been walked off on if it was lost, but I've always expected and received only the base amount back in the situation he describes, and thought it was the default case, not the winnings - the point being to help the other person maximize their chance of recovery, I guess, because it was just a small convenience, not placing a bet myself. I myself have only asked for that type of assistance when I was at a table with my husband and asked him; I just don't have the nerve to ask (rather than have them hold my spot and go pray at the wall-o-money aka ATM).

I have also bet on occasion on someone else's hand with their agreement, usually a bonus sidebet they don't care about or are willing for me to ride on (and allowed the reverse on mine), but that was with an explicit (spoken) understanding that it was my bet.

When I played in London, it was taken as a matter of course that others would back-bet my hand, and be paid separately even with a single stack, so I have a slightly different comfort level with it than RS discusses, but I did find it odd at first. I've also had people stack on my hand and had it paid as one bet, with me responsible for any internal pays after the hand was dead; seems to be a regional/jurisdictional pattern to how it's handled here in the States.