Anyone have experience ratholing black chips here?
I normally wouldn't even consider ratholing black chips because rumor says they are watched more closely than greens.
However, there's this table at the casino where the min is $50 and the dealer tray only has 2 sets of greens and 4 sets of blacks, and the dealer constantly insisting on paying with blacks because he's "low on greens", and then screams 'BLACK ACTION' when it's his fault I got black chips to begin with.
Just wanted to ask if anyone else has experience successfully ratholing blacks and how it went for you guys.
"successfully" I guess that depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how much you're attempting to rat hole.Quote: IWannaBeAPI've only ratholed green chips so far but I'm wondering if it's doable with black chips.
I normally wouldn't even consider ratholing black chips because rumor says they are watched more closely than greens.
However, there's this table at the casino where the min is $50 and the dealer tray only has 2 sets of greens and 4 sets of blacks, and the dealer constantly insisting on paying with blacks because he's "low on greens", and then screams 'BLACK ACTION' when it's his fault I got black chips to begin with.
Just wanted to ask if anyone else has experience successfully ratholing blacks and how it went for you guys.
link to original post
I've been reading the various posts on the subject and I understand the goals. But lately I've become aware of what happens when someone leaves the table without an accurate count....
The floor person or box person, when there is a deficit in the bank, will attach those chips rightfully or wrongfully to the player who didn't color up properly or may have ratholed.
This leads me to believe ratholing will bite you in the ass.
So... is it worthwhile trying to hide chips?
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm not sure that ratholing is such a smart thing to do.
I've been reading the various posts on the subject and I understand the goals. But lately I've become aware of what happens when someone leaves the table without an accurate count....
The floor person or box person, when there is a deficit in the bank, will attach those chips rightfully or wrongfully to the player who didn't color up properly or may have ratholed.
This leads me to believe ratholing will bite you in the ass.
So... is it worthwhile trying to hide chips?
link to original post
It really depends on your goal. If you are just trying to show a small loss or smaller win ratholing chips works pretty well as long as you keep the amount small. If you are cashing in $2500 of black chips and squirrel away 2 black chips it will most likely not be noticed.
Quote: DRichQuote: AlanMendelsonI'm not sure that ratholing is such a smart thing to do.
I've been reading the various posts on the subject and I understand the goals. But lately I've become aware of what happens when someone leaves the table without an accurate count....
The floor person or box person, when there is a deficit in the bank, will attach those chips rightfully or wrongfully to the player who didn't color up properly or may have ratholed.
This leads me to believe ratholing will bite you in the ass.
So... is it worthwhile trying to hide chips?
link to original post
It really depends on your goal. If you are just trying to show a small loss or smaller win ratholing chips works pretty well as long as you keep the amount small. If you are cashing in $2500 of black chips and squirrel away 2 black chips it will most likely not be noticed.
link to original post
Thanks DRich but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
Quote: SOOPOOTo answer your question, yes, it’s doable with black chips. Like everything else in life, in moderation.
link to original post
What effect will shaving a couple of black chips have?
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: SOOPOOTo answer your question, yes, it’s doable with black chips. Like everything else in life, in moderation.
link to original post
What effect will shaving a couple of black chips have?
link to original post
Sounds like it could be the difference between winning $100 and losing $100. If you did that daily it would be over a $70,000 difference in their accounting each year.
Quote: DRichQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: SOOPOOTo answer your question, yes, it’s doable with black chips. Like everything else in life, in moderation.
link to original post
What effect will shaving a couple of black chips have?
link to original post
Sounds like it could be the difference between winning $100 and losing $100. If you did that daily it would be over a $70,000 difference in their accounting each year.
link to original post
That's interesting.
Has anyone here kept results for a year on their ratholing and its effect?
Quote: DRichQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: SOOPOOTo answer your question, yes, it’s doable with black chips. Like everything else in life, in moderation.
link to original post
What effect will shaving a couple of black chips have?
link to original post
Sounds like it could be the difference between winning $100 and losing $100. If you did that daily it would be over a $70,000 difference in their accounting each year.
link to original post
How would that give the player an advantage?
Quote: SOOPOOLike everything else in life, in moderation.
link to original post
Quote: TigerWuQuote: DRichQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: SOOPOOTo answer your question, yes, it’s doable with black chips. Like everything else in life, in moderation.
link to original post
What effect will shaving a couple of black chips have?
link to original post
Sounds like it could be the difference between winning $100 and losing $100. If you did that daily it would be over a $70,000 difference in their accounting each year.
link to original post
How would that give the player an advantage?
link to original post
I've outlined how comps are issued here. As far as comps, one scenario where ratholing chips, assuming the action is unnoticed, would be beneficial would be where ratholing increases the loss enough to make 10% of actual loss be greater than the usual 35-40% of theo loss. Otherwise, if 10% of loss doesn't create more comps than 35-40% of theo, slightly increasing the actual loss creates no comp benefits whatsoever, because the player gets one or the other, whichever is greater.
Now if the player's 35-40% of theo IS less than 10% of actual loss, then increasing the loss by any number would increase the comps (but only by 10% of whatever is ratholed). In general though players who achieve greater comps from actual loss play short hours and get blown out. The typical player puts in enough time such that the theo loss calculation outweighs the actual loss, even if he does end up losing some.
The other hypothesis as to how ratholing chips might be beneficial would be that a losing player might not be subject to the same scrutiny if he's counting cards, or some such known advantage play, and that the casino will just let such a loser pass and not bother him. But, I've seen card counters ejected even when losing, so I don't think that is necessarily true - if counting is detected, the casino's taking action might have nothing to do with whether the player is winning or losing that particular session, and I doubt long term ratholing would affect long term analysis by the casino of a card counter's play. I just don't see the casino looking back, seeing that the person has been counting for months, and then saying, "but he's losing a little just forget about him." As far as I know, the casino if it detects counting will just start counting themselves and if they notice the rising and falling of bets to the count, they will decide whether to take action based on that alone, not whether the player is winning his raised to the count bets.
As far as general claims of "I'm treated better if I show a loss," again, it has to come down to an objective comp analysis of 10% of actual loss versus 35-40% of theo loss - unless the former is greater than the latter, ratholing chips will make no difference in that department.
And again none of this will matter if the rat holing is noticed.
It could help you show a smaller win on your win/loss statement especially if youre ratholing is worth $70,000 a year.
But how many of you ratholers have been audited by the IRS?
I must say that there is a psychological benefit about transferring chips from the rail or table into your pocket.
But you don't have to hide it.
I'd rather announce it than have a floor man add chips to my account because his chip tally was off after I left the table... or have the floor man guess what I walked with.
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
Chip tray counts are also done at various times during play.
And if you're playing at a private table as I usually am, the tray is counted both before and after my play so they know exactly what I walk with.
Quote: MDawg
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
link to original post
This happens very frequently and anyone ratholing or trying to walk with uncounted chips could be the one whose account gets hit for the extra chips.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawg
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
link to original post
This happens very frequently and anyone ratholing or trying to walk with uncounted chips could be the one whose account gets hit for the extra chips.
link to original post
What makes you think it happens frequently? In my meager 25 years working with casinos I would say just the opposite. I would agree with MDawg that it probably happens when at Hi-Roller or private tables but very infrequently on a typical high volume table.
Alan: Yes, I think some people who rathole chips do it out of habit, and convince themselves that they got away with something, when they might not have. Old habits, you know. Hard to break.
Quote: DRichQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawg
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
link to original post
This happens very frequently and anyone ratholing or trying to walk with uncounted chips could be the one whose account gets hit for the extra chips.
link to original post
What makes you think it happens frequently? In my meager 25 years working with casinos I would say just the opposite. I would agree with MDawg that it probably happens when at Hi-Roller or private tables but very infrequently on a typical high volume table.
link to original post
Because I play frequently. And I pay attention to what happens at the table.
Every fifteen minutes I see boxmen checking the bank with the buyins and cashouts. And I listen to the conversations with the dealers.
Just as an aside....
Yesterday they stopped a player at Red Rock I'd estimate in his 50s when he said he left his wallet with ID and players card in his car.
When he was told he could not buyin to the craps game he reluctantly reached into his pocket for his driver license.
Higher denomination chips they need to know where they came from.
That's not to say that the same player couldn't have cashed that yellow chip at the cage without any player card - at a top Strip casino he might have been able to do that easily, but at least at the tables, they are trying to regulate things.
And anything higher than yellow (five thousand dollar chip and up), no table and no cage will touch it unless they have a record of its being assigned to you from either the cage or from the tables.
Please elaborate "each player is supposed to play from an independent bankroll" Can you show me a Casino rule or NGC law that supports this? I have seen casino rules that attempt to prohibit team play or betting syndicates, but a friend or 2 just playing straight up?Quote: MDawg(they didn't like that because each player is supposed to play from an independent bankroll, but it wasn't much and she was his wife, so they let it slide).]
I have loaned people chips and money at the tables many times without ever having an issue.
I did have an issue many years ago at Morongo for bankrolling a team after the promotion was canceled and people handed me money, that wasn't the plan but it happened regardless. The Head of Security told me it was illegal to bank players. I had no idea if true or not as this was my first time playing in Cali.
Quote: AxelWolfPlease elaborate "each player is supposed to play from an independent bankroll" Can you show me a Casino rule or NGC law that supports this? I have seen casino rules that attempt to prohibit team play or betting syndicates, but a freid or 2 just playing straight up?Quote: MDawg(they didn't like that because each player is supposed to play from an independent bankroll, but it wasn't much and she was his wife, so they let it slide).]
link to original post
Some casinos do indeed want players to buy in with their own money. It's not a published rule anywhere that I know of but Caesars and Bellagio have had such a rule.
It's designed to prevent loansharking.
However I've never heard of any objection being made when a husband gives chips to a wife.
When I used to play craps at Caesars with my son and daughter they knew they were my kids. But just in case there was an unfamiliar floorman there i would mention they were my kids.
If my wife came by the table and wanted some money AND I GAVE HER CHIPS the floorman would call the cage to give them a headsup that my wife's chips were okay to cash. (She played VP.)
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawg
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
link to original post
This happens very frequently and anyone ratholing or trying to walk with uncounted chips could be the one whose account gets hit for the extra chips.
link to original post
What are you possibly talking about? I cash in for $400. I play at a full table for 3 hours. I’ve put 8 greenies in my pocket and color up another 8 greenies when I leave. The pit boss enters my $100 loss. Even though I won $100. I’m not saying I have any evidence that it affects my comps, but I think it does at my guppy level. There is NO WAY at some point later the pit boss goes back and ‘hits my account for the missing chips’. During my time at the table probably 8 greenies were tipped. You think the pit boss can see each time a greenie is put in the toke box?
I’ve never been audited, and since I gamble at low enough stakes and don’t even get W2G’s, it likely would not matter what the casino W/L statement would show. But given the choice of it showing a loss versus a win, I’d pick a loss.
That's a completely different issue that really has nothing to do with it.Quote: AlanMendelson
If my wife came by the table and wanted some money AND I GAVE HER CHIPS the floorman would call the cage to give them a headsup that my wife's chips were okay to cash. (She played VP.)
link to original post
"Had such a rule" Do you have any evidence of this rule? Examples?
"Preventing loansharking" I haven't heard many issues with that in las vegas since the 90's. California and other states yes, but that's a completely different situation it's not a group of friends, partners, or whatever. It's an actual loan shark targeting people. How often are people loan sharks playing table games with them?
Loaning money in casinos happens regularly, out in the open, with the casino knowledge and people admitting to it on record.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawg
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
link to original post
This happens very frequently and anyone ratholing or trying to walk with uncounted chips could be the one whose account gets hit for the extra chips.
link to original post
What are you possibly talking about? I cash in for $400. I play at a full table for 3 hours. I’ve put 8 greenies in my pocket and color up another 8 greenies when I leave. The pit boss enters my $100 loss. Even though I won $100. I’m not saying I have any evidence that it affects my comps, but I think it does at my guppy level. There is NO WAY at some point later the pit boss goes back and ‘hits my account for the missing chips’. During my time at the table probably 8 greenies were tipped. You think the pit boss can see each time a greenie is put in the toke box?
I’ve never been audited, and since I gamble at low enough stakes and don’t even get W2G’s, it likely would not matter what the casino W/L statement would show. But given the choice of it showing a loss versus a win, I’d pick a loss.
link to original post
No one is thinking twice about you and your $400 buyin.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawg
If the total is off, I do believe that the pit boss will have to assign the missing chips to somewhere.
link to original post
This happens very frequently and anyone ratholing or trying to walk with uncounted chips could be the one whose account gets hit for the extra chips.
link to original post
This is 100% correct. Happens all the time where I work. Most of the time it's pretty easy to track so the end result for the player could be less comps if they are using a card and no benefit. If there is a lot of black action and it's hard to tell how much the biggeat rat has, they just get assigned the majority or all of the missing chips, which hurts if they are looking to prove losses with win/loss statements.
ZCore13
One involves sources of funds, if a given player doesn't identity himself to the casino, that player would not be allowed to
(1) play with larger denomination chips at the table - the chips must be sourced to his account, at least at the table (again, not to say that he might not be able to cash up to a yellow chip or two without identifying himself at the cage, if it is a major Strip casino)
(2) buy more than a certain amount of chips for cash.
So the reason behind the rule in one respect is to prevent a given player who has identified himself and converted a large sum of cash to chips from handing those chips off to another player who has not identified himself, right at the table.
Or say for a player who has not identified himself and is somehow holding large denomination chips, from handing those large chips off to a different, identified player who is able to play with them.
(Otherwise - if all of the players involved in the chip transfer are fully known to the casino, even if cash converted to chips or large denomination chips are involved, then I suppose this reason for the rule would not apply.)
But the second and probably biggest reason for this "single bankroll" rule is to prevent circumvention of the table limit. I've seen this happen where a big player is playing to the limit and then hands some chips to a friend and then that friend is not allowed right then and there to bet anything at all, because it would amount to a single player's betting beyond the limit.
Team players who fully intend to circumvent the table limit, come in with separate bankrolls from the getgo.
Quote: MDawgAs far as the "single bankroll" rule there are different reasons for this.
One involves sources of funds, if a given player doesn't identity himself to the casino, that player would not be allowed to
(1) play with larger denomination chips at the table - the chips must be sourced to his account, at least at the table (again, not to say that he might not be able to cash up to a yellow chip or two without identifying himself at the cage, if it is a major Strip casino)
(2) buy more than a certain amount of chips for cash.
So the reason behind the rule in one respect is to prevent a given player who has identified himself and converted a large sum of cash to chips from handing those chips off to another player who has not identified himself, right at the table.
Or say for a player who has not identified himself and is somehow holding large denomination chips, from handing those large chips off to a different, identified player who is able to play with them.
(Otherwise - if all of the players involved in the chip transfer are fully known to the casino, even if cash converted to chips or large denomination chips are involved, then I suppose this reason for the rule would not apply.)
But the second and probably biggest reason for this "single bankroll" rule is to prevent circumvention of the table limit. I've seen this happen where a big player is playing to the limit and then hands some chips to a friend and then that friend is not allowed right then and there to bet anything at all, because it would amount to a single player's betting beyond the limit.
Team players who fully intend to circumvent the table limit, come in with separate bankrolls from the getgo.
link to original post
There are a multitude of reasons why they prohibit 2 players from "sharing" bankrolls. They will use the excuse "Title 31" rules but that's a pretty broad reach.
I have seen low rolling baccarat players perform the team up routine of playing 1 green chip each at a $50 Baccarat table and split the commission if they win on Banker. At Ballys AC they had recently enforced a rule in EZ Baccarat where one player could not place wagers on both banker & player simultaneously. So to counteract this, two players would play the minimum on one hand and the other would play the minimum on the other side. Effectively making the hand a free hand. Then the winner would hand back the profit to the loser, wiping out the loss. They would also fire off Dragon 7 and Panda 8 bets by handing chips to each other under the table. This was allowed until they realized these folks were playing low stakes and hacking the rules.
Quote: 7NeverWinsQuote: MDawgAs far as the "single bankroll" rule there are different reasons for this.
One involves sources of funds, if a given player doesn't identity himself to the casino, that player would not be allowed to
(1) play with larger denomination chips at the table - the chips must be sourced to his account, at least at the table (again, not to say that he might not be able to cash up to a yellow chip or two without identifying himself at the cage, if it is a major Strip casino)
(2) buy more than a certain amount of chips for cash.
So the reason behind the rule in one respect is to prevent a given player who has identified himself and converted a large sum of cash to chips from handing those chips off to another player who has not identified himself, right at the table.
Or say for a player who has not identified himself and is somehow holding large denomination chips, from handing those large chips off to a different, identified player who is able to play with them.
(Otherwise - if all of the players involved in the chip transfer are fully known to the casino, even if cash converted to chips or large denomination chips are involved, then I suppose this reason for the rule would not apply.)
But the second and probably biggest reason for this "single bankroll" rule is to prevent circumvention of the table limit. I've seen this happen where a big player is playing to the limit and then hands some chips to a friend and then that friend is not allowed right then and there to bet anything at all, because it would amount to a single player's betting beyond the limit.
Team players who fully intend to circumvent the table limit, come in with separate bankrolls from the getgo.
link to original post
There are a multitude of reasons why they prohibit 2 players from "sharing" bankrolls. They will use the excuse "Title 31" rules but that's a pretty broad reach.
I have seen low rolling baccarat players perform the team up routine of playing 1 green chip each at a $50 Baccarat table and split the commission if they win on Banker. At Ballys AC they had recently enforced a rule in EZ Baccarat where one player could not place wagers on both banker & player simultaneously. So to counteract this, two players would play the minimum on one hand and the other would play the minimum on the other side. Effectively making the hand a free hand. Then the winner would hand back the profit to the loser, wiping out the loss. They would also fire off Dragon 7 and Panda 8 bets by handing chips to each other under the table. This was allowed until they realized these folks were playing low stakes and hacking the rules.
link to original post
Why would the casino care? They have an edge on all of those bets.
Quote: JimRockfordQuote: 7NeverWinsQuote: MDawgAs far as the "single bankroll" rule there are different reasons for this.
One involves sources of funds, if a given player doesn't identity himself to the casino, that player would not be allowed to
(1) play with larger denomination chips at the table - the chips must be sourced to his account, at least at the table (again, not to say that he might not be able to cash up to a yellow chip or two without identifying himself at the cage, if it is a major Strip casino)
(2) buy more than a certain amount of chips for cash.
So the reason behind the rule in one respect is to prevent a given player who has identified himself and converted a large sum of cash to chips from handing those chips off to another player who has not identified himself, right at the table.
Or say for a player who has not identified himself and is somehow holding large denomination chips, from handing those large chips off to a different, identified player who is able to play with them.
(Otherwise - if all of the players involved in the chip transfer are fully known to the casino, even if cash converted to chips or large denomination chips are involved, then I suppose this reason for the rule would not apply.)
But the second and probably biggest reason for this "single bankroll" rule is to prevent circumvention of the table limit. I've seen this happen where a big player is playing to the limit and then hands some chips to a friend and then that friend is not allowed right then and there to bet anything at all, because it would amount to a single player's betting beyond the limit.
Team players who fully intend to circumvent the table limit, come in with separate bankrolls from the getgo.
link to original post
There are a multitude of reasons why they prohibit 2 players from "sharing" bankrolls. They will use the excuse "Title 31" rules but that's a pretty broad reach.
I have seen low rolling baccarat players perform the team up routine of playing 1 green chip each at a $50 Baccarat table and split the commission if they win on Banker. At Ballys AC they had recently enforced a rule in EZ Baccarat where one player could not place wagers on both banker & player simultaneously. So to counteract this, two players would play the minimum on one hand and the other would play the minimum on the other side. Effectively making the hand a free hand. Then the winner would hand back the profit to the loser, wiping out the loss. They would also fire off Dragon 7 and Panda 8 bets by handing chips to each other under the table. This was allowed until they realized these folks were playing low stakes and hacking the rules.
link to original post
Why would the casino care? They have an edge on all of those bets.
link to original post
DarkOz or AWolf should answer definitively. From what I’ve gleaned, it’s a way for people to play through their offers with very little to no variance, and some casinos apparently over comp.
I did recently in a different thread, I suck at searching, I can't find it.Quote: unJonQuote: JimRockfordQuote: 7NeverWinsQuote: MDawgAs far as the "single bankroll" rule there are different reasons for this.
One involves sources of funds, if a given player doesn't identity himself to the casino, that player would not be allowed to
(1) play with larger denomination chips at the table - the chips must be sourced to his account, at least at the table (again, not to say that he might not be able to cash up to a yellow chip or two without identifying himself at the cage, if it is a major Strip casino)
(2) buy more than a certain amount of chips for cash.
So the reason behind the rule in one respect is to prevent a given player who has identified himself and converted a large sum of cash to chips from handing those chips off to another player who has not identified himself, right at the table.
Or say for a player who has not identified himself and is somehow holding large denomination chips, from handing those large chips off to a different, identified player who is able to play with them.
(Otherwise - if all of the players involved in the chip transfer are fully known to the casino, even if cash converted to chips or large denomination chips are involved, then I suppose this reason for the rule would not apply.)
But the second and probably biggest reason for this "single bankroll" rule is to prevent circumvention of the table limit. I've seen this happen where a big player is playing to the limit and then hands some chips to a friend and then that friend is not allowed right then and there to bet anything at all, because it would amount to a single player's betting beyond the limit.
Team players who fully intend to circumvent the table limit, come in with separate bankrolls from the getgo.
link to original post
There are a multitude of reasons why they prohibit 2 players from "sharing" bankrolls. They will use the excuse "Title 31" rules but that's a pretty broad reach.
I have seen low rolling baccarat players perform the team up routine of playing 1 green chip each at a $50 Baccarat table and split the commission if they win on Banker. At Ballys AC they had recently enforced a rule in EZ Baccarat where one player could not place wagers on both banker & player simultaneously. So to counteract this, two players would play the minimum on one hand and the other would play the minimum on the other side. Effectively making the hand a free hand. Then the winner would hand back the profit to the loser, wiping out the loss. They would also fire off Dragon 7 and Panda 8 bets by handing chips to each other under the table. This was allowed until they realized these folks were playing low stakes and hacking the rules.
link to original post
Why would the casino care? They have an edge on all of those bets.
link to original post
DarkOz or AWolf should answer definitively. From what I’ve gleaned, it’s a way for people to play through their offers with very little to no variance, and some casinos apparently over comp.
link to original post
