June 28 show with Stephen How

I haven't listened to the whole show yet (I expect it to be good) but one bit at the beginning I found remarkable:

A listener wrote in to tell a story of playing blackjack at the old Binion's. The player had a large bet out. The dealer had an ace up, player had 7,6. The dealer offered insurance, checked for blackjack using a mirror, didn't have it, and the player hit his hand, drawing a 3 and a 5 for twenty-one. The dealer revealed her hole card, which was a ten. Since a dealer natural beats a player 21, the dealer took the bet. The player protested, but the house ruled against him.

The reader asked the Wizard and Dancer for their opinions, and they both absolutely lit into him saying he was a complainer, deserved what he got, etc. I thought this was too harsh. Absolutely the house was in the right in taking the win. I don't think there is any dispute that they were well within their rights to do so. However, I think they should have given him a push on the hand. This happened to me at a local casino, (dealer did not check properly), and the pit allowed the players to keep their bets (I even got paid a full 3:2 on my tied blackjack). Doing so would have gone a long way towards satisfying the players, and would have cost the house little in the long run. I can't help but have the feeling that things would have gone differently if there were more people at the table who were protesting.

I make no apologies for my comments on the show. If I were the supervisor I still would have taken all original bets even if everyone protested. Ethical gambling is not complaining for the sake of taking a shot at a free bet. The dealer had a blackjack -- end of story.

deleted

This would not be an issue with most players. A blackjack beats a non blackjack. The player was either a shot taker or inexperienced. I didn't see anything harsh about the response although if I had been playing at the table I may have had a reason to be harsh. The guy slowed down the game and drew attention to everyone. It could also be that the player got a break once from a generous supervisor and now feels entitled.

Wizard, I'd like to address something else that came up on the show. You gave us the exact day that you are going to be out of town. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with that and I hope you'll give it some thought.

Quote: 1BB

Wizard, I'd like to address something else that came up on the show. You gave us the exact day that you are going to be out of town. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with that and I hope you'll give it some thought.

Yeah, I've thought of that. However, Bob likes to promote future shows, and wanted to let the viewers know that Arnold Snyder would fill in for me that week. Next time I'll probably handle it differently.

At a bare minimum the players deserves a push. I am assuming the shoe was not shuffled immediately after the hand ???

If that is correct the players have been cheated. The penetration is now less than when the shoe started.

Not due to third base, stupid play, new dealer burning a card, etc.

But because of a dealer mistake.

What if this was full table? How many cards would have been removed from the shoe, all of them lessening the original penetration ?

I do not ask for my money back when I hit by mistake, I lose my bet. Did this on hard 19 once.

Players deserve a PUSH at a minimum

Regarding the dealer BJ failure, I agree that the player was taking a shot. Checking for BJ either by direct peeking, use of the mirror, or the more modern sensor, is designed to speed up the game and avoid burning cards unnecessarily. But is it optional? I.E. What do the official Gaming rules dictate? Where can such official ruled be found? Perhaps those rules DO state that an incorrect reading turns a dealer natural into a soft 21.

Mind you, if I was at that table, I would let it go, but that's more because the stakes I play at don't make the argument over an unknown rule worth it.



Regarding 1BBs comment about the Wiz absence. I assume you mean that because the Wiz and Wiz Jr aren't going to be home, their home becomes an available target to burglars. The Wiz is married. There's no mention of Mrs Wiz going on that climb, so she'll be home. Aren't there some additional Wiz-ettes that will also be home? Really, no need to worry about that little announcement.

" Regarding the dealer BJ failure, I agree that the player was taking a shot."

And the house not only took a shot by effectively removing cards from play, thereby reducing the penetration that the player had when first betting, they got away with it !

Quote: buzzpaff

" Regarding the dealer BJ failure, I agree that the player was taking a shot."

And the house not only took a shot by effectively removing cards from play, thereby reducing the penetration that the player had when first betting, they got away with it !

And the house also wasted time that they could have used to deal another round and win more from the player.

Quote: bigfoot66

And the house also wasted time that they could have used to deal another round and win more from the player.

The profit they could expect from that extra round is about 1/200th of the cost of letting the shot taker have his way.

With the positions reversed, and the player having tucked his natural while the dealer drew to 21, should the house still have paid the winner? Absolutely. So what's all the screaming about?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Regarding the dealer BJ failure, I agree that the player was taking a shot. Checking for BJ either by direct peeking, use of the mirror, or the more modern sensor, is designed to speed up the game and avoid burning cards unnecessarily. But is it optional? I.E. What do the official Gaming rules dictate? Where can such official ruled be found? Perhaps those rules DO state that an incorrect reading turns a dealer natural into a soft 21.

Mind you, if I was at that table, I would let it go, but that's more because the stakes I play at don't make the argument over an unknown rule worth it.



Regarding 1BBs comment about the Wiz absence. I assume you mean that because the Wiz and Wiz Jr aren't going to be home, their home becomes an available target to burglars. The Wiz is married. There's no mention of Mrs Wiz going on that climb, so she'll be home. Aren't there some additional Wiz-ettes that will also be home? Really, no need to worry about that little announcement.

Alrighty then. Now we know that his wife and kids will be home alone.

" Perhaps those rules DO state that an incorrect reading turns a dealer natural into a soft 21."

I found that to be true. It is right under the house rules about counting not being cheating. LOL