this baccarat bet was not allowed
He was playing mini-baccarat and the table minimum was $100. He wanted to bet $100 on player and $150 on banker at the same time. He was told by the dealer, floor supervisor and pit boss that this bet was not allowed since he was only risking $50 even though he was at or above table minimum on both bets.
Can the casino legally do this?
Put me in the pit, and I would have taken the action as long as the TOTAL was at least the table minimum.
Sure can. And it appears to me, without doing an actual survey, to be a very common house rule.Quote: Fleaswatter
Can the casino legally do this?
I have seen this is Vegas and in the SoCal CA Indian casinos as well.
Some couples can get away playing this way for awhile, one making the larger bet.
But as DJTB pointed out, if the largest bet is on Banker you actually pay more in commission unless you are at an EZ Bac table, there you lose big on the Player Bet with that 3 card 7 Banker win.
tried this I was always told no. Yet when an Asian
player did it, they were ignored. When I complained,
I was told the pit 'didn't see it'. Yet when I do it, they
always saw it because the dealer alerted them.
This was just one of many blatant incidents where
they showed favortism to the Asian players. I had
to get away from the game before I exploded.
That is the way it is.Quote: EvenBobOne of the reasons I quit playing bac was, when I
tried this I was always told no. Yet when an Asian
player did it, they were ignored. When I complained,
I was told the pit 'didn't see it'. Yet when I do it, they
always saw it because the dealer alerted them.
This was just one of many blatant incidents where
they showed favortism to the Asian players. I had
to get away from the game before I exploded.
So then you are not Asian.
Most casinos *love* Asian Bac players and *just like* non-Asian Bac players.
I am one in the first group.
Just the way it is.
Sure glad you did not explode.
Exploding non-Asians are looked down on by us Asians.
error +/- 4%
Quote: rudeboyoiso he wants to win $42.50 or lose $50 instead of winning $95 or losing $100. bad for the player making this bet. bad for the casino not accepting this bet.
If you look at the difference of the vig between $150 and $100 bet, yeah, it's kinda bad. But it's just so happen that many players don't want to risk so much money on a hand he doesn't "like", he bet small; on the one he "loves", he's gonna go all-in. You gotta love the action on the baccarat table.
Quote: FleaswatterA friend of mine told me this story about his visit to a casino in West Virginia.
He was playing mini-baccarat and the table minimum was $100. He wanted to bet $100 on player and $150 on banker at the same time. He was told by the dealer, floor supervisor and pit boss that this bet was not allowed since he was only risking $50 even though he was at or above table minimum on both bets.
Can the casino legally do this?
yeah, that casino's dealers, floor supervisor and pit boss should have just accepted your friend's bet. I don't do it very often but have never been denied and I don't see why. (I only do it when I want to go "fishing" for the dragon bonus bet).
Quote: teddysAbsolutely, they can refuse your action at any time. However, in this case the casino was stupid to refuse the bet since it had a bigger expected win than a single $50 banker bet. The pit boss was a moron in this case.
If you look at it that way. However, at a $100 table, they were probably worried the other players would see you as a flea.
(And NickyDim, there's another thread for that.)
Quote: 24BingoIf you look at it that way. However, at a $100 table, they were probably worried the other players would see you as a flea.
And that is bad, harmful or immoral how?
I stumbled across the following in the Blackjack rules from Crown's websiteQuote: NickyDim...unshuffled deck...
Quote: Crown4.1.1 The cards will be shuffled so that they are randomly
intermixed:-
(a) Immediately prior to the start of play;
(b) When the cut card is exposed or drawn as the
first card of a new round;
(c) At the completion of the round of play in which
the cutting card is exposed;
(d) Immediately if, in the opinion of a Pit Boss (or
above), the cards are dealt in a sequence which
is abnormal.
Quote: 24BingoHowever, at a $100 table, they were probably worried the other players would see you as a flea.
Could well be. I have a superstition where I don't like to leave a table unless I won money on the last hand. If I really have to leave the table in the middle of a losing streak, I'll bet Player and Banker at the same time so that the worst thing that will happen is they push. Never had it questioned.
How much did you owe in commissions at the time?
