Pai Gow Poker: No player bank on a dealer change
It came time for me to bank again when a new dealer came to the table. I was told that because there was a dealer change, the house had to bank the next hand. I asked the dealer why. He said that was the rule, but he didn't know why. I called the pit over. Same answer.
After my session I contacted my host to ask him if he could find out why they have this rule. He hasn't gotten an answer yet. We even asked our listeners on the last episode of our podcast if they knew of a reason. No responses.
For the life of me, I can't understand why they have this rule. Does anyone know why? I'm guessing that I'll either never get an answer, or the answer won't be a "good" one.
(Now, I understand, a casino can make whatever rule they want, with or without a reason. But my brain needs to know that someone actually thought about this before implementing it. Yeah, I might be asking too much.)
i have always seen the outgoing dealer telling the incoming dealer whose turn it is to bank and how much he can bank for.
Quote: BuzzardAnd yet you wonder why they have such a rule. DUH It is in their favor to do so.
Well, sure. But it's such an obscure and arbitrary rule, I can't believe it's simply casino greed. (The departing dealer wasn't even aware of the rule. As he was leaving, he pointed to me and said, "It's the player's turn to bank," at which point the new dealer informed him of the rule.)
Quote: YouCanBetOnThatWell, sure. But it's such an obscure and arbitrary rule, I can't believe it's simply casino greed. (The departing dealer wasn't even aware of the rule. As he was leaving, he pointed to me and said, "It's the player's turn to bank," at which point the new dealer informed him of the rule.)
Yeah, I agree. So few players bank, and this comes up so infrequently (1/2 of all dealer changes, if the player is playing heads up) this is going to add almost nothing to the bottom line.
Casinos have good reason to stick to their procedures, but this one seems dumb to me.
Just have the departing dealer tell the entering dealer, "Player at position 4 has the option to bank", (as if he had stayed), - and be done with it.
Or be done with banking at this point, better still.
Quote: PaigowdanI agree that if you DO have player banking, you shouldn't penalize the player for it.
Just have the departing dealer tell the entering dealer, "Player at position 4 has the option to bank", and be done with it.
Or be done with banking at this point, better still.
Still trying to increase the house edge, huh, Dan? Some things never change...
PGP without player banking is like 6:5 blackjack. A game for suckers only...
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceStill trying to increase the house edge, huh, Dan? Some things never change...
PGP without player banking is like 6:5 blackjack. A game for suckers only...
Ahh, but PGP WITH player banking is like 2:1 Blackjack. The joint has to keep its lights on, in all fairness.
Quote: PaigowdanAhh, but PGP WITH player banking is like 2:1 Blackjack. The joint has to keep its lights on, in all fairness.
Interesting math. 2:1 BJ has a player advantage. PGP without player banking has a reasonable house edge (still higher than 3:2 BJ, actually)
I have no clue how you could think that these are at all similar.
Sure, you could, as Dan suggests, have the departing dealer tell the new dealer the status.
I think it's got something to do with the way dealers save the player's bets at the top of the rack, and that the rack needs to be neat and organized during a dealer change.
Additionally, player banking is the second hand of a two-hand event.
In short, it would present a conflict in standard procedures to allow banking thru a dealer change.
As such, I would think that if the player insists, the outgoing dealer should remain to deal another hand.
Quote: PaigowdanAhh, but PGP WITH player banking is like 2:1 Blackjack. The joint has to keep its lights on, in all fairness.
If a player playing heads up banks every other hand and plays optimally, the house still has a 1.46% advantage.
Now add in a table full of other players, the vast majority of whom do not bank, and the vast majority of whom have no idea how to set their hands optimally... well, you get the idea.
If your "joint" can't keep the lights on with that kind of edge, maybe it should find a new business.
Face it, Paigowdan, your comment was biased by the fact that you are trying to sell a game that does not allow banking, a game that costs a reasonably informed player FAR more for his gambling dollar, and a game that you have to charge casinos for when a perfectly good game (a better game, really) exists in the public domain.
A player playing EZPGP will lose his money at a 69% faster rate than if he were to play fortune PGP optimally. (Actually more than 69%, due to more hands per hour. But I am being generous.) That is a fact and you cannot say it is not true.
So, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is laughable if you believe casinos couldn't keep the lights on with a 1.46%-2.73% edge, plus all the bonehead splits and let's not forget the bonus bets that 80%+ of PGP players make religiously.
Quote: sodawaterThat is a fact and you cannot say it is not true.
I will bet you a cookie that he says it is not true. I like chocolate chip....
Quote: DJTeddyBearThis is just a W.A.G. (Wild Ass Guess) . . .
Sure, you could, as Dan suggests, have the departing dealer tell the new dealer the status.
I think it's got something to do with the way dealers save the player's bets at the top of the rack, and that the rack needs to be neat and organized during a dealer change.
Additionally, player banking is the second hand of a two-hand event.
In short, it would present a conflict in standard procedures to allow banking thru a dealer change.
Not a bad theory, DJ. I don't think it's a good reason, but it might be the reason.
Quote: DJTeddyBearAs such, I would think that if the player insists, the outgoing dealer should remain to deal another hand.
Might be worth a try.
I'll speculate as to the reason. As mentioned, most places simply have the outgoing dealer communicate to the new dealer that "Player X" is banking. What is often missed is the AMOUNT of the last bet. Since a player can't bank more than the last wager (or in some cases 110% of the last bet), this rule prevents the player from increasing his/her first bank bet with the new dealer by a large amount.
I've experienced many instances when a new dealer tapped in, and it was immediately my turn to bank, and I had to let the new dealer know the amount of my last bet because the departing dealer was already half way across the floor. Of course this should be addressed by a communication between the departing dealer and the new one, but it is sometimes missed.
Thanks.Quote: YouCanBetOnThatNot a bad theory, DJ.
Oh. We're you looking for a good reason? How about this:Quote: YouCanBetOnThatI don't think it's a good reason, but it might be the reason.
Because someone in one of them fancy corner offices said so.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThis is the first time I've ever heard of this. Every time I've played and the dealers change, The outgoing dealer will tell the incoming one who gets the bank next.
This is my experience, too. Definitely the Rio allows me to bank after a dealer change if it was supposed to be my turn.
Quote: MidwestAPI've seen this rule as well, although I can't remember where or when.
I'll speculate as to the reason. As mentioned, most places simply have the outgoing dealer communicate to the new dealer that "Player X" is banking. What is often missed is the AMOUNT of the last bet. Since a player can't bank more than the last wager (or in some cases 110% of the last bet), this rule prevents the player from increasing his/her first bank bet with the new dealer by a large amount.
I've experienced many instances when a new dealer tapped in, and it was immediately my turn to bank, and I had to let the new dealer know the amount of my last bet because the departing dealer was already half way across the floor. Of course this should be addressed by a communication between the departing dealer and the new one, but it is sometimes missed.
Thanks, MidwestAP. Another very possible reason. I still won't say it's a good reason, since there's really no AP play here. But still a possible reason.
