Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2224
May 24th, 2012 at 9:23:10 AM permalink
That is good info, Paisiello.....thank you for the corrections.

I have never seen a player take up the banker offer and assumed that the "corporation"/syndicate was given the right to always be the banker. The Corporation usually sits there at first base with two or three racks of cheques that normally appear to be enough to cover the action.

It is a really weird set up so I normally just play poker when visiting these card rooms.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
May 24th, 2012 at 9:59:34 AM permalink
3:2 is still available in some California cardrooms. Check the high limit room.

As for "corporate cover", I always assumed the player/banker could not call for bets on empty spots if they needed to use corporate cover to pay off the wagers. Otherwise, the player/banker could walk up to an empty table, post the minimum payout on a single spot and call for $600 of action on another. This has got to be a +EV play since the player would not be liable for losses beyond their staked amount.

I also assumed the house "banking fee" was bourne by all the players, including the banking/player posting a $1 for every betting spot. The fee is dropped before any cards are dealt. However, I am not certain about this.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
WangSanJose
WangSanJose
Joined: May 2, 2012
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 109
May 26th, 2012 at 1:49:14 AM permalink
I think the $1 collection fee is worse than 6:5.
I've been to a casino in Daly City. It was 3:2 payout, but still has $1 collection fee. California BJ has no fun.
Great
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
May 26th, 2012 at 10:34:01 AM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

3:2 is still available in some California cardrooms. Check the high limit room.

As for "corporate cover", I always assumed the player/banker could not call for bets on empty spots if they needed to use corporate cover to pay off the wagers. Otherwise, the player/banker could walk up to an empty table, post the minimum payout on a single spot and call for $600 of action on another. This has got to be a +EV play since the player would not be liable for losses beyond their staked amount.

I also assumed the house "banking fee" was bourne by all the players, including the banking/player posting a $1 for every betting spot. The fee is dropped before any cards are dealt. However, I am not certain about this.



You don't have this exaclty right. Someone can bank for as little or as much as he chooses, but cannot force the corporate player to play. What your Mr. Moneybags was doing was buying action, he actually paid the banker $5 for every $100 he wagered as a player.

The rules are very lousy because the house and the banker both have to make money, so the rules have to be so bad for the player that the banker can make $$$ even though he is coughing up $3 or $4 to the house every hand.
Vote for Nobody 2016!
WangSanJose
WangSanJose
Joined: May 2, 2012
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 109
May 26th, 2012 at 1:32:07 PM permalink
2 guys take care of one table, what a waste. The banker should be removed.
Great
paisiello
paisiello
Joined: Oct 30, 2011
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 546
May 26th, 2012 at 6:33:12 PM permalink
But that would be gambling, sir! Not allowed in California.
UCivan
UCivan
Joined: Sep 3, 2011
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 830
May 26th, 2012 at 8:58:12 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

I have never seen a player take up the banker offer and assumed that the "corporation"/syndicate was given the right to always be the banker. The Corporation usually sits there at first base with two or three racks of cheques that normally appear to be enough to cover the action.

It's called "the Company", instead of "Corporation", here in CA.

  • Jump to: