Encore Boston Harbor Sued Over 6:5 BJ!

A BJ player has filed a lawsuit against Encore Boston Harbor alleging paying 6:5 on a BJ violates state gaming laws!

Quote: Boston Magazine

The class-action lawsuit filed in Middlesex Superior Court claims that there are practices in place at both the casino’s table games and slot machines that withhold money from winners and violate state gaming regulations. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of A. Richard Schuster of New York, who visited the casino Thursday. Schuster claims that he played blackjack at tables on the casino floor that should have paid him out at 3-2 odds, but he was paid at 6-5 odds instead.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/07/16/encore-boston-harbor-blackjack-cheating-lawsuit/

Allegation is that state law allows 6;5 payouts but only if 1-2 decks are used and not 8 decks.

Details of the Massachusetts rules and expected application for both MGM Springfield and Encore Everett Mystic River can be found here: Expect To See 6:5 Blackjack In Massachusetts Casinos

Racquet seems to imply Encore Everett Mystic River is dealing from an 8-deck shoe for 6:5 blackjack in this post: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/33225-encore-boston-everett/#post725536 which would be illegal by the letter of the law. I think it likely the Massachusetts Gaming Commission reviewed and approved the setup as the casino claims, so lawyer up, boys!

The Commission’s rules for games are found here: https://massgaming.com/regulations/table-games-rules/

Man, the Mass. gaming rules for blackjack are HORRIBLY written. I don't think I've ever seen such sloppy work in an official gov't rule. For example:

There is no subsection (c) above; it is referencing itself.

Elsewhere it states the minimum number of decks for some blackjack games is "six or eight" - so is seven allowable or not? Just so carelessly worded; they could have avoided the whole problem by stating something like "The number of decks to be used for blackjack are as follows: (a) one or two decks, if 6/5 variation, (b) two or more decks if betting option XYZ offered, (c) four or more decks if betting option MNO offered, (d) six decks, or more than seven decks, if betting option QRS offered."

Wynn should still lose that suit (if they were using more than 2 decks, or a CSM) despite the poor drafting of the rules, as the rules taken as a whole clearly require 1 or 2 decks for 6/5 games - the mandatory ACS requirement spells it out.

Their rules do seem a bit confusing although the key points seem to be
(i) A minimum of 1 or 2 decks shall be used for a "6 to 5 blackjack variation",
(as other games have a minimum of 2 decks it follows any single deck game is 6/5).
(ii) Various minumum number of decks if certain other bets/features are being played.
(iii) If 1 or 2 decks are used, then the game is hand dealt.
(iv) If blackjacks are paid at 6/5 on 6 or 8 deck games then the rules must be clearly displayed (rule 7(c) ).

My interpretation is they they can play a 6/5 blackjack variation with any number of decks or, on a 6 or 8 deck game, they can choose to play blackjacks at 6/5 provided they display the rules clearly.

I've read the regs and they look like poorly cut-paste efforts by someone who really doesn't understand the game.

There are a lot of "notwithstandings" and clear errors such as one section referring to itself as an exception. Just a quick read, however. Need to print them and review in detail.

At Encore my observation, admittedly in just two visits (days two and ten) is that it's all eight deck downstairs and six deck upstairs in the high roller pits. No pitch game anywhere so far as I could see, but that's just a stroll around, not an inspection. 6:5 is printed in the felt wherever I saw it, with eight deck ASMs. Are they going to teach these obviously green dealers to deal pitch as well as shoe? And teach the ploppies that sometime you CAN touch the cards, and other times not?

Springfield had (last visit) all shoe, no pitch, six deck ASM, $25 minimum, 3:2 and also $15, CSM 6:5 games. Never saw anything one or two deck anywhere, and it sounds like these rules are statewide, not just Encore.

My bet is we read about an undisclosed settlement, NDAs for everyone, and a hastily republished set of regulations the day before all the lawsuits are settled.

Quote: racquet

My bet is we read about an undisclosed settlement, NDAs for everyone, and a hastily republished set of regulations the day before all the lawsuits are settled.

How I'm seeing it: they broke the law, and the law is just weird and ticky-tacky.

As a class-action lawsuit, wouldn't that make an NDA meaningless? One possibility is like settling to give everyone $10 (at $25 per hand, that's four blackjacks), which just serves as a typical casino promotion.

Quote: charliepatrick

... My interpretation is they they can play a 6/5 blackjack variation with any number of decks or, on a 6 or 8 deck game, they can choose to play blackjacks at 6/5 provided they display the rules clearly.

I don’t agree. I see where you might have reasoned more than two decks may be used for the “6 to 5 blackjack variation.“ Section 2(a) specifies the following sections indicate minimums for decks, and section 2(a)(1) states “One or two, if the 6 to 5 blackjack variation is offered”.

However, the mechanics of how the “6 to 5 variation” are shuffled and dealt make it impossible to use more than two decks. Two complete batches must be used with an automated shuffler, and the game must be hand dealt.

This section further muddies the water:

Quote: 7(d)

If the licensee chooses the option to pay a blackjack at odd of 6 to 5 and doesn’t use the 6 to 5 variation, then Section 7(c) [which defines an insurance option] is void. If the licensee uses this option on 6 or 8 deck games, this variation’s rules must be displayed on the layout in plain sight.

The section seems to reference a phantom option of paying 6:5 without using the “6 to 5 variation.” That is, I can not find it defined elsewhere. The whole mess is sufficiently unclear that it just might support the case. Some legal beagle(s) for the Commonwealth screwed the pooch by approving these rules!

I'm going through the regulations page by page. Every once in a while my head hits the desk as I lose consciousness, but so far:

2(a): They can use 1, 2, 4, 6 or 8 decks depending on "variation" and if there are additional sidebets authorized in further sections.
There is no sectoin 2(c). There are two sections 2(b).
2(i): Prohibiting midshoe entry is allowed, subject to the provisions of section 5. Section 5 says nothing about midshoe entry.
4(b) and 4(c) You cannot wash the cards until a player or player(s) has been "afforded an opportunity to visually inspect the cards."
5(a) Licensee can chose to shuffle any time, After every round if desired.
5(d) Cut card goes "at least approximately one quarter of the way from the back of the stack.". That sounds like REQUIRED 75% penetration!
5(f) If nobody wants to cut, the dealer cuts the cards.
5(i) refers to section 2(d). There is no section 2(d).
6(a) All games dealt from a shoe except for 6 to 5 variation which shall be dealt from the dealers hand in accordance with the procedure set forth at Section 6(a), This is section 6(a), and that's the extent of what it says.

The winner so far:

6(b). "...Cards will be dealt so as NOT to expose the hole card or any other face down cards in a manner that CANNOT be readily observed by someone attempting to ascertain their value." (CAPITALIZATION ADDED)
I read it to say the you have to deal the hole card so that it CAN be observed. You are NOT to expose a hole card that CANNOT be observed, so the hole card HAS to be observed. Right?

If that's what it says, I'd like to go to the casino with a copy of the regulations and DEMAND to see EVERY face down card. Any English majors out there want to parse this one?

What's a "double shoe"? Anyone? A CSM with two sets of cards? Really? So...
6(d)(1): "Prior to commencement of each round of play, the dealer shall draw a card from each side of the double shoe."
What the @#$%?

That's as far as I have gotten so far. These regulations are a total and complete cock-up. Missing sections, Double negatives. Lack of definitions. Massachusetts should be so proud of their regulators.

Quote: racquet

If that's what it says, I'd like to go to the casino with a copy of the regulations and DEMAND to see EVERY face down card. Any English majors out there want to parse this one?

ill race you and i dont even have a way to get there just yet...

Firstly there is are headings 6 and 6a, within these are (a) etc. So in s6 (a) refers to Heading 6a (which covers 6 to 6 BJ variant); confusing yes, but logical.

(A) Dealing with no Hole Card

s6 (b) seems to contradict itself (but as you'll see it eventually makes sense)
"..[the dealer shall] remove cards from the shoe...turn them face upwards..." and "Cards will be dealt so as not to expose the hole card ...in a manner that cannot be readily observed...[by a peeker]...".

If you were allowed to have a hole card (although at this stage the true logic of the above is you aren't) then it shall be dealt carefully enough both face down and such that someone trying to have a sneaky look at the card is unable to do so. In other words dealers should ensure the hole card can't be read by someone else when dealing.

Then s6 (e) and s6 (h) make it clear the dealer takes their second card after players have acted.

(B) Dealing with a Hole Card

Then it says in s6 (j) that casinos may prefer to use Hole Cards (and/or check for BJ). Technically it only refers back to s6 (h) rather than the others sections affected. I suspect if you took this to court it would argue that s6 (j) would take precedence to earlier sections, especially as it then clarifies why s6 (b) has some of its text.

(C) Dealer with two up cards (e.g. Double Exposure)

Then another section handles this game.


I think the problem stems from trying to cover all the different types of Blackjack that can be dealt in one document. A clearer logic would be to define a base set of rules and then add various variants listing the exceptions each game has.

I'd want to do this just to bust balls. The language seems to say quite clearly that EVERY card must be exposed. Although I think they describe an alternative all-face-up game that CAN be offered, casino's option, later on in the regs. Maybe that would provide an excuse until they get this one fixed.

There's a canon in the law that says that a clear error in construction of a statute voids its implementation. That might apply here.

Of course there's always the back room, where most of the preliminary hearings are held. Never seen one myself.

My printed copy of the regulations contains two sections 2(b). In section 2(c) which follows the two 2(b)s, it says "notwithstanding (c) above" when there is no "(c)" above.

It's a typographical error. The second 2(b) should actually be 2(c) and then the section 2(c) would be 2(d). Then a reference to "(c) above" would be correct. As it stands there is no 2(c).

It's just sloppy, unprofessional, lazy.

Quote: racquet

...EVERY card must be exposed....

Under some circumstances that is true - in the UK there used to be a rule that every card (even Double Downs) had to be dealt face up. In this case, if a casino isn't using the rule allowing Hole Cards, all cards should be face up.

I also accept that the construction of their rules leaves a lot to be desired and it is unclear in the rule allowing Hole Cards to be used, exactly which parts of the previous rules shouldn't apply. I don't know the law and suspect that sometimes it's stupid, but my guess is they would use common sense and say that a Hole Card is, almost by definition, dealt face down.

It will come down to a painful parsing of the butchered English to determine the meaning of what is written. Not the intent, and not subject to common sense.

I submit as supporting evidence: Lack of Oxford comma costs Maine dairy company $5 million.

They seem to mix a number of game variations in these rules.

I think there's a version where ALL cards are dealt face up, including the dealer's hole card, which is exposed before the players decide what to do. They describe a 1:1 blackjack payout in that game, with (I think) where the dealer wins ties. The supposed benefit in this game being that you know the dealer's hole card going in, the clawbacks being lousy payouts and losing a tie.

I think there's a one- or two-deck pitch, 6:5 game, but that there also can be a 6:5 shoe game so long as it's properly posted. "At licensee's discretion" or somesuch wording.

If it's parsing of butchered English, with the Mass Gaming Commission being the guilty butcher, the casino is going to come out on top.

Supposedly they have announced that the casino is in compliance. News reports only, haven't found the actual announcement yet.

Could be, quoting a noted legal scholar, that... "the defense is wrong!"
- Mona Lisa Vito, Alabama v. Two Yoots, (665 So. 2nd, AL, 1992)