Mass. Courts seem confused about 6/5 blackjack
April 11th, 2021 at 10:48:15 AM
permalink
......................
doesn't make much sense to me
one Justice seems to say the casinos have some obligation to the player to offer a fair game
never heard anything like that before
the HA goes to just under 17% in craps on the one roll any seven bet
https://www.courthousenews.com/blackjack-rules-alarm-massachusetts-high-court-im-not-james-bond/
*
doesn't make much sense to me
one Justice seems to say the casinos have some obligation to the player to offer a fair game
never heard anything like that before
the HA goes to just under 17% in craps on the one roll any seven bet
https://www.courthousenews.com/blackjack-rules-alarm-massachusetts-high-court-im-not-james-bond/
*
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
April 11th, 2021 at 11:02:12 AM
permalink
I didn't bring any legalese with me but if you can't find a 3:2 game of blackjack for under $100, the casino should have it's gaming license revoked.
April 11th, 2021 at 11:57:06 AM
permalink
If BJ paid 6:5 instead of 3:2, this $7 win on a session of 286 hands would be a $311 loss (adding back in my $7 win).
$1590/1.5 = $1060; $1060 x 1.2 = $1272; $1272-$1590 = -$318
PS: Is there a way to click on the picture posted to make it full screen?
$1590/1.5 = $1060; $1060 x 1.2 = $1272; $1272-$1590 = -$318
PS: Is there a way to click on the picture posted to make it full screen?
April 11th, 2021 at 3:04:56 PM
permalink
"The court heard two class actions claiming that many players were unknowingly steered into a variant where they got a payout of only 6:5 for a blackjack — an ace along with a 10 or face card — instead of the traditional payout of 3:2."
I am confused about the statement that the rules are not visible? Was the BJ payout not posted on the felt (or was it intentionally posted to be 3:2 when really 5:6?)
If the rules were posted in an acceptable way, I fail to see how there can be a civil action for people choosing to play bad games.
I don't know anything about MA Gaming Laws or casinos, but I would imagine if the rules were posted in an unfair way this would have been quickly cracked down on. But, if the State dictates (as the article implies) that all BJ in the State must pay 3:2, the casino was clearly in violation.
From a quick check on the MA gaming commission it seems that 3:2 and 5:6 are both acceptable in MA:
https://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Rules-Blackjack-10-08-2020.pdf
"(b) If the first face up card dealt to the dealer is an Ace, King, Queen, Jack or Ten and a player
has a blackjack, the dealer shall announce the blackjack but shall make no payment nor
remove any cards until all other cards are dealt to the players and the dealer receives his
second card. If, in such circumstances, the dealer's second card does not give them
blackjack, the player having blackjack shall be paid at odds of 3 to 2 or 6 to 5. If, however,
the dealer's second card gives them blackjack, the wager of the player having blackjack shall
be void and constitute a standoff."
I am confused about the statement that the rules are not visible? Was the BJ payout not posted on the felt (or was it intentionally posted to be 3:2 when really 5:6?)
If the rules were posted in an acceptable way, I fail to see how there can be a civil action for people choosing to play bad games.
I don't know anything about MA Gaming Laws or casinos, but I would imagine if the rules were posted in an unfair way this would have been quickly cracked down on. But, if the State dictates (as the article implies) that all BJ in the State must pay 3:2, the casino was clearly in violation.
From a quick check on the MA gaming commission it seems that 3:2 and 5:6 are both acceptable in MA:
https://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Rules-Blackjack-10-08-2020.pdf
"(b) If the first face up card dealt to the dealer is an Ace, King, Queen, Jack or Ten and a player
has a blackjack, the dealer shall announce the blackjack but shall make no payment nor
remove any cards until all other cards are dealt to the players and the dealer receives his
second card. If, in such circumstances, the dealer's second card does not give them
blackjack, the player having blackjack shall be paid at odds of 3 to 2 or 6 to 5. If, however,
the dealer's second card gives them blackjack, the wager of the player having blackjack shall
be void and constitute a standoff."
April 11th, 2021 at 5:07:22 PM
permalink
I believe the original terms negotiated between the Commonwealth and the casino limited 6:5 blackjack to a two-deck, hand-dealt game, and the gaming commission subsequently approved games that did not comply with that.
“You don’t bring a bone saw to a negotiation.” - Robert Jordan, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia
April 11th, 2021 at 5:50:33 PM
permalink
They should have to give back 3:1 on blackjacks until they have given back all the money.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
April 29th, 2021 at 8:01:39 PM
permalink
Does anyone have or know an update to this case? Or a news article? My Vegas supervisor buddy says that the players don't have a chance in hell of winning, though he opined about the greediness of casinos..........LOL
However, if one court can find that 6-5 isn't allowed, a higher court sure can also.
However, if one court can find that 6-5 isn't allowed, a higher court sure can also.
