Pai Gow Poker question

Hello everyone, I have a question regarding banking in Pai Gow Poker.

Consider the following situation. 2 Friends go to vegas and decide that they will both gamble but at the end of every session, they will split the wins and losses.

With this in mind, the question:

Given the situation where the 2 friends are the only players at a pai gow poker table, would it make sense for each friend to bank when the opportunity presents itself?

or would it be better to just play against the house ?

Remember both players will share in the wins/losses at the end of the session so it is essentially the same bankroll.

Thanks!

The players should bank as much as possible, since that results in the lowest possible combined house edge. House rules vary, but hopefully the team can win ties against the house's hand on 2/3 of all hands played.

Thanks, this is what I thought it seemed to be like. An easy way to get to win ties while paying "yourself" if you lost.

The two should bank as often as possible, but not against each other. Player B should sit out while Player A banks, and Player A should sit out while Player B banks. At casinos where the turn to bank rotates (as opposed to zig-zags), the team will be banking 2/3 of the time.

Quote: JB

The two should bank as often as possible, but not against each other. Player B should sit out while Player A banks, and Player A should sit out while Player B banks. At casinos where the turn to bank rotates (as opposed to zig-zags), the team will be banking 2/3 of the time.

Thought about that. I think sitting out only works half of the time. The player at 3rd base must play against the player at first base, otherwise he can't get any action against the house on the next hand.

If the order is House, A, B, then I think A should sit out when B banks and B should sit out when the house banks.

Quote: rdw4potus

If the order is House, A, B, then I think A should sit out when B banks and B should sit out when the house banks.

If B sits out when the house banks, he won't be offered the opportunity to bank.

However, you're right about the team only banking 1/2 the time, which I overlooked:

Hand 1: House banks, Player A and Player B both play (let's say $25 each) = $50 as player
Hand 2: Player A banks, player B sits out = $25 as banker
Hand 3: Player B banks, player A sits out = $25 as banker

So the team is betting 2 units as player and 2 units as banker and thus banking half the time.

Quote: JB

If B sits out when the house banks, he won't be offered the opportunity to bank.

However, you're right about the team only banking 1/2 the time, which I overlooked:

Hand 1: House banks, Player A and Player B both play (let's say $25 each) = $50 as player
Hand 2: Player A banks, player B sits out = $25 as banker
Hand 3: Player B banks, player A sits out = $25 as banker

So the team is betting 2 units as player and 2 units as banker and thus banking half the time.

I can't think of the last time that I banked at a table that didn't follow a saw-tooth passage of the banker button. But I thought it was the hand before your turn to bank that set the amount for which you were allowed to bank. Is it instead the prior hand against the house's bank that sets that limit? (those are the same thing at my casino)

If we're down to banking 1/2 the time, then there's no mathematical advantage to playing two hands. What we really need is a house that allows all players to cobank against the house like in PG tiles:-)

The amount you can bet as banker is the amount you bet as player on the last hand that the house banked. The better Vegas casinos do let you bet 10% more as banker than you did as player.

So, there is no added benefit for team banking after all. Co-banking like in tiles has no added benefit either, because you're still betting the aggregate amount that was bet as player. (They won't let you co-bank twice in a row, obviously.)

Quote: JB

The two should bank as often as possible, but not against each other. Player B should sit out while Player A banks, and Player A should sit out while Player B banks.

Not being as familiar with PGP, at first it wasn't clear why the players should not bank against each other, as they would just be paying themselves creating a wash. Then I remembered the commission...

Is this the reason, JB?

If so, then these players could have a positive play by not sitting out on a high comp multiplier day and/or with the presence of some other valuable promotion as long as they are getting a proper rating. (Obviously, these would need to outweigh the cost of the commish.)