Aggregate payout limits - question

My casino has an aggregate payout maximum of $25,000 on Pai Gow Poker and Mississippi Stud. Both games used to have this limit prominently posted on the gaming layout. They had a recent layout change. The DTG forgot to include that information on the new layouts. Neither game lists a payout maximum anymore, though the limits are in the internal controls.

Getting a payout well over that amount is easily possible. What happens if someone bets $25 on a Fortune Bonus and gets a 2500-to-1 on a 7-card straight flush? Obviously the casino would attempt to only pay out the $25k, but would the player have any leverage by arguing that this payout limit is nowhere to be found on the layout, nor mentioned by the dealer? I would surely be pissed if this happened to me. I wouldn't stand to be shorted $37.5k. What would happen? Could an appeal to State Gaming get you anywhere? I asked my DTG, and his answer was, no joke, "just don't deal one of those and we'll be fine!" Haha.

It would certainly make for bad press even if you didnt have to pay!!!

Why would it be bad press if they paid?

I know this for a fact. The state laws in WA say that if you are to have an aggregate payout on a particular table game, it must be posted on the table. Just having it in your internal controls is not adequate and they are not only setting themselves up for a fine from the gaming commission, they are wide open for a lawsuit (that they will lose). It doesn't have to be printed on the actual layout felt. It can be on a sign posted on the table somewhere, but it must be there. Your DTG is mis-informed or does not know his job.

Quote: Funbox

Why would it be bad press if they paid?

I think BigFoot is suggesting that it would become bad press if a winner wasn't paid in full before the end of the day.

Paying after any type of press notification would be as bad as not paying at all.

I hate to derail a thread, but this topic has been eating at me for the past few days and I just haven't had the time to start a new thread and tend to it...

Isle of Capri Bettendorf has PGP with a much less than favorable bonus schedule (though they offer pushes on Three Pair). The top payout is 5000:1 for the 7-card SF no joker. The Envy Bonus is paid out on bonus bets of $5 or more. The Maximum Aggregate limit is $15,000 (envy excluded). So basically, if you are playing the amount they want you to play, you are guaranteed to be shorted by $10,000. To me, this is very bad customer service.

I was at Riverside last night, and the schedule is the standard LV paytable, but the max aggregate limit is $25,000 (and to my knowledge, Envys included). At 8000:1, you will be shorted $15,000. I know everybody has a bottom line to worry about, but come on! You should have the Max Ag Limit set at least at 5xmax payout + 2 envys. For example, the LV pay schedule max ag limit would be 5x8000 + 10000 = 50,000. That's a little more fair.

In my opinion, the aggregate should be high enough so that a max win at the max bet will be paid in full. It annoys me when a modest bet of $10 or so could be shortchanged due to a low aggregate. Such aggregates should be there to protect the casino only in the event of multiple big winners in the same hand.

Quote: Wizard

In my opinion, the aggregate should be high enough so that a max win at the max bet will be paid in full. It annoys me when a modest bet of $10 or so could be shortchanged due to a low aggregate. Such aggregates should be there to protect the casino only in the event of multiple big winners in the same hand.

Umm, do you really think the casino needs "protection" like that?

I agree.Why should the casino be able to list a payoff as 500 to 1 and then even if you are betting table minimum you get shortchanged if you hit a royal or such.

Quote: Wizard

In my opinion, the aggregate should be high enough so that a max win at the max bet will be paid in full. It annoys me when a modest bet of $10 or so could be shortchanged due to a low aggregate. Such aggregates should be there to protect the casino only in the event of multiple big winners in the same hand.

Do you feel that the changes in the HE from certain aggregate payouts prevent players from perhaps betting larger at certain games, thus decreasing what the casino makes on a specific game by either dissuading people to play the game, or perhaps that when they play the game, they do so at lower stakes than they would normally play a game like Blackjack?

Quote: Tiltpoul

I was at Riverside last night, and the schedule is the standard LV paytable, but the max aggregate limit is $25,000 (and to my knowledge, Envys included).

Riverside does not include envy payouts in the $25,000 aggregate limit. Meskwaki in Toledo used to offer a $50,000 aggregate, but when I was back in the area, I noticed it was only $25k.