Max Aggregate Payout
Secondly, Wizard you should make some tables accounting for this and how it affects house edge. Maybe it barely affects it, but it would seem only getting paid half, for example, seems like it should dramatically increase house edge. Of course, since it would only come into play on the biggest hand, most people don't need to worry about it.
Quote: ewjones080So where I work, all the carny games have a max aggregate payout for the whole TABLE, not just the big winner. This always bothered me, since I feel if it ever happened, where a player gets shorted a ton, they'll be really pissed.. I know I would be. Is this aggregate payout standard in Vegas and other major gambling areas?
Secondly, Wizard you should make some tables accounting for this and how it affects house edge. Maybe it barely affects it, but it would seem only getting paid half, for example, seems like it should dramatically increase house edge. Of course, since it would only come into play on the biggest hand, most people don't need to worry about it.
In the rare case where more than one player has a monster hand on one deal, would the first player to get paid get the normal payout up to the table max payout and the subsequent players get shortchanged? Or everyone takes the hit in proportion to their bets?
I get asked once in a while how the payout cap is adjudicated if there are more than one winners. There are two ways of doing it that I have heard:
1. Pay all players are a pro-rata basis.
2. Pay players in full, starting with the dealer's right, until the cap is reached. Pay the player crossing the cap the amount up to the cap. Everyone after that player gets nothing.
I think that method #1 is more common. That, I think, is the Venetian's policy.
Quote: WizardI've always said that you shouldn't bet so much that you could be affected by the max payout cap.
I get asked once in a while how the payout cap is adjudicated if there are more than one winners. There are two ways of doing it that I have heard:
1. Pay all players are a pro-rata basis.
2. Pay players in full, starting with the dealer's right, until the cap is reached. Pay the player crossing the cap the amount up to the cap. Everyone after that player gets nothing.
I think that method #1 is more common. That, I think, is the Venetian's policy.
My boss told me it was option one, that they have a book that tells them what they need to pay everyone. I figured it was like option two, since option one requires the dealer/floor to know what everyone's got before I make any payouts, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
After working out the math for four players playing $25, with a full house, straight flush, Royal, and another full house, nobody would get screwed. I figured someone would, but they would have to be playing $50 a hand..or at least greater than $25.
I still don't think it's a good idea to play $5 on the Fortune Bet on Pai Gow. While it would probably never happen to me, IF I got that top hand of 8,000:1 I'm getting shorted AT LEAST $15000. Screw that.
Quote: SoulChaserAt my local casinos. on the pai gow tables, they have a sign that says something to the effect of the aggregate payouts do NOT apply to the bonus bets, fwiw.
They probably mean the envy bonus.
Quote: WizardI've always said that you shouldn't bet so much that you could be affected by the max payout cap.
Sometimes this can't be helped. I was playing Mississippi Stud, betting table minimum of $5. Called first bet, raised 3x on the next two, made a royal. Max payout was 15k, should of paid 20k. I filed a complaint with the gaming commission, claiming that the 500-1 for the royal misleading, as I didn't get paid 500-1 even when I was betting the table minimum. They told me to pound sand.
Quote: IhsanSometimes this can't be helped. I was playing Mississippi Stud, betting table minimum of $5. Called first bet, raised 3x on the next two, made a royal. Max payout was 15k, should of paid 20k. I filed a complaint with the gaming commission, claiming that the 500-1 for the royal misleading, as I didn't get paid 500-1 even when I was betting the table minimum. They told me to pound sand.
Before going to the gaming commission I would've talked to the Pit Manager, trying to convince them to give you free slot play for the difference. They wouldn't have given it to you, but at least worth trying. If I were a pit, I would do that, because I don't see how that really affects the tables. And in theory you won't even make $5000 back in cash..
Especially if you are betting a table minimum!
"Sir, this is a $25 minimum table, but look at our Royal Flush. It pays 1,000:1."
then fine print says max payout is $10,000.
The above is bad enough, but then they add an aggregate, so if you and 2 other fellow players all have a good hand, they don't have to pay out?
Are they going to rebate me half my bet if the house has a monster and all of the players lose?
We are fools for playing games with these restrictions!
Quote: IhsanSometimes this can't be helped. I was playing Mississippi Stud, betting table minimum of $5. Called first bet, raised 3x on the next two, made a royal. Max payout was 15k, should of paid 20k. I filed a complaint with the gaming commission, claiming that the 500-1 for the royal misleading, as I didn't get paid 500-1 even when I was betting the table minimum. They told me to pound sand.
This is sad. Any MS Stud/Let it ride game should have a $50k payout cap minimum, imo. If the casino isn't willing to do that, they shouldn't offer the game.
Quote: AceTwoI play games with maximum payout (not in th US) and such rule does not exist as far as I know. Where I play maximum payout is per player not for the whole table. A very unfair rule to have a maximum payout for the whole table and a rule that would definetely create really bad feelings when it occurs. Obviously such an event happens very rarely and will cost the casino miniscule amounts on average. A really bad idea marketing wise to have such a rule.
I agree with you that it is a bad rule, but I disagree on your statement that it will cost the casino miniscule amounts. I would be whatever amount they short pay a person due to this rule, is probably more than they would ever get in profit from that person. And we are talking pure profit here.
So it is worth it to them to risk pissing me off. And so what if I walk. They already saved more than I would ever give them in return.
If a minimum bet means you don't get paid the advertised rate, (ie. 500:1) because of some MAX rule, then that really should be illegal. Definitely false advertising, bait and switch, say what you will. If higher bets run into the issue, well then you can fault the player, for not understanding that by playing higher amounts he risked not getting paid in full.
Quote: IbeatyouracesGaming will never side with you.
Correct...you DO KNOW that the NGC was created BY a casino owner (Bill Harrah)...
