Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1981
July 16th, 2019 at 6:41:56 PM permalink
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/
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
July 16th, 2019 at 6:53:29 PM permalink
Allegation is that state law allows 6;5 payouts but only if 1-2 decks are used and not 8 decks.
BleedingChipsSlowly
BleedingChipsSlowly
Joined: Jul 9, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 944
July 16th, 2019 at 8:31:22 PM permalink
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/
“You don’t bring a bone saw to a negotiation.” - Robert Jordan, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia
LoquaciousMoFW
LoquaciousMoFW
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 145
July 16th, 2019 at 8:51:34 PM permalink
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:
(c) Notwithstanding (c) above, an automated card shuffling device shall be utilized for the 6 to 5
blackjack variation, which shall shuffle and store one deck or a set of two decks of cards
while the other deck or set of two decks is being dealt or used to play the game. Each deck
or set of two decks of cards shall be alternated for use, with the deck or set of two decks in
use to be shuffled upon completion of the round of play after reaching the cut card.

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.
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 2424
July 17th, 2019 at 2:00:54 AM permalink
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.
racquet
racquet
Joined: Dec 31, 2014
  • Threads: 50
  • Posts: 411
July 17th, 2019 at 8:27:42 AM permalink
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.
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2339
July 17th, 2019 at 8:49:43 AM permalink
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.
BleedingChipsSlowly
BleedingChipsSlowly
Joined: Jul 9, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 944
July 17th, 2019 at 8:59:09 AM permalink
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!
“You don’t bring a bone saw to a negotiation.” - Robert Jordan, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia
racquet
racquet
Joined: Dec 31, 2014
  • Threads: 50
  • Posts: 411
Thanks for this post from:
odiousgambit
July 17th, 2019 at 7:13:20 PM permalink
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.
heatmap
heatmap
Joined: Feb 12, 2018
  • Threads: 181
  • Posts: 1531
July 18th, 2019 at 4:22:24 AM permalink
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...

  • Jump to: