Hornswaggled at Pai Gow Poker!
So I was playing and, I thought, finally able to bank at will since an Asian lady had just banked when it was just the two of us. When she banked, my bet pushed. She may have said something to me at first [I'll explain] but her English was so bad I was basically tuning her out and was just trying to be polite, pretty sure she was just throwing some conversation my way.
So I banked and evidently she said something like "OK, even money". She reduced her bet slightly to the table minimum of $15 that I was always betting and played two spots. One of these pushed and one I won; the dealer collected $15 from her and paid me and the bet I won against him, and took commission. As he went on to the next hand she said something I didn't get, and the dealer says to me that she is asking for her money back! So I am going 'what the ?' ... the short version is that the dealer says something like "the way the Asians play, they make an agreement to give the money they won from each other back to each other. That way the effect is only how you did against the dealer. They mostly bank to just change their luck. " Now, I am getting a little worked up, but was not being loud or abusive, and I'm just saying "I never heard of such a thing". He is getting worried and repeatedly says "it's just the way the Asians do it". So I ask her, are you going to be banking? and she says 'yes'. So I think it is going to be OK and pay her back the full $15. So when it is her turn to bank, guess what? She doesn't bank! I ask him what's going on and he just shrugs, getting worried again I think. Well! I stew for a while and finally I tell him "It's OK, forget it, but I have been hornswaggled!". I mutter it several more times, trying to make light of it. He says he is from Mexico and never heard that word before, so I taught him a new one [maybe some of you too].
I think I know now what Crockfords casino felt like after the Phil Ivey edge sorting incident!
I am very curious to hear what anyone else knows or has experienced with Asian players doing this ... and did you get manipulated?
* I'm working on a Biloxi trip report, it'll be a blog post, and there will be tons to talk about
Then I saw your Biloxi comment and it made me smile.
Regarding the PGP incident... never heard of anything like that. On the contrary, my experience is that the Asians will abstain from playing as a courtesy to the banking player. Of course, maybe its only a courtesy if the banker is Asian. Maybe you got hornswaggled....
not playing makes sense. Why bet if you just expect the money back? what am i missing?Quote: DJTeddyBearHornswaggled ???? Yeah, Ive heard the term. Always thought it was a redneck version of screwed.
Then I saw your Biloxi comment and it made me smile.
Regarding the PGP incident... never heard of anything like that. On the contrary, my experience is that the Asians will abstain from playing as a courtesy to the banking player. Of course, maybe its only a courtesy if the banker is Asian. Maybe you got hornswaggled....
Definitely. As far as sensing I was unhappy, she might have sensed how happy I would be to get *my* money back losing to her and went ahead and banked herself. She had the opportunity for several hands. I quit playing pretty soon after, but only because my wife collected me.Quote: SOOPOOIt sounds to me like the lady BEFORE you banked told you that her bet was not a real bet, but you just did not understand her. Even though you did not understand and you definitely had the right to not give her the $15, you did the correct thing by giving her the $15. I do not think it was this lady's intent to "Hornswoggle" you out of $15. I surmise the reason she stopped banking was that she picked up that you were unhappy with the arrangement. Consider the lost $15 charity.
I think you did the right think to pay her the $15. That isn't enough, in my opinion, to have a big incident over. Plus, I believe in giving others the benefit of the doubt. I've seen some hustles at the tables, always involving an attractive woman, but I think this was a genuine misunderstanding due to a language gap.
This will make for a good Ask the Wizard question.
Quote: WizardGood story. I don't play much pai gow poker but have played hundreds of hours of pai gow (tiles). In all that play, where player banking is common, I have never once seen this pretend betting against the banker to change things up. I hate to stereotype, but everyone knows Asian players can be very superstitious. When things are going good they oppose change and when bad they welcome anything that is perceived to mix things up a bit. So, while I haven't seen it, her request seems plausible to me.
I think you did the right think to pay her the $15. That isn't enough, in my opinion, to have a big incident over. Plus, I believe in giving others the benefit of the doubt. I've seen some hustles at the tables, always involving an attractive woman, but I think this was a genuine misunderstanding due to a language gap.
This will make for a good Ask the Wizard question.
Mike, you must remember the last time we played tiles we bet with the player who was banking, not against him or her. In addition to the obvious advantage of winning on copy hands, it makes for a more friendly table. I've played with some Asian players who only want to do this when they want to 'change up the table', but also with others (like me) who always want to win on a copy hand.
And 100% agree with you on just giving her the $15.
I've been doing it for almost 25 years. However, it is regional, not.understood everywhere, and some places don't allow it. Technically, they probably have a point.
Players agree ahead of the hand that they will play even money on a player bank. This means, if the banker wins, AFTER THE HAND IS DEAD, the banker will give back any player money won IN exchange for the 5% the banker had to pay for commission on it.
Same if it goes the other way. Payback for commission.
You play this way because the House pays any fortune or other side bet wins. You don't want to sit out a hand if the bonus is running good but a player is banking. Whether you sit out or not, the cards will go to the same places, because they deal them all out, so with even money, you make it less expensive to bank. You're only risking the amount you last bet against the dealers, and your sidebet.
Some casinos don't allow it. Some people, and in some regions, prefer to sit out anyway. Some casinos give you an indication they would rather not "know" you're doing it. And some openly allow or suggest it.
People.almost always drop to table minimums on a player bank. The exception is if you don't want a player to bank, you will bet big to discourage it (and not agree to even money).
If it's going on, a new player will get asked "even money"? Since she was banking, I'm surprised you didn't get asked. What were the results of her banking? Did she ask? Did you push? Or did she win your money without offering it back, then try to get it from you when you banked? Curious how that went.
Also curious the dealer intervened at all.
Edit: I went back and looked:you said she said something that you didn't understand, and then you pushed, so there was no even money needed on her bank.
They want to keep getting hands and betting the bonus, so they ask "me you no money OK?" -- to which I always reply "no, let it play normally."
That way there can be no misunderstanding when my banker hand is adjudicated.
Quote: SOOPOOMike, you must remember the last time we played tiles we bet with the player who was banking, not against him or her.
Yes, I've seen this lots of times. Do you know if there is a term for it?
Quote: beachbumbabsPlayers agree ahead of the hand that they will play even money on a player bank. This means, if the banker wins, AFTER THE HAND IS DEAD, the banker will give back any player money won IN exchange for the 5% the banker had to pay for commission on it.
Thanks. I will ask some dealers here in Vegas if they see/allow it.
Here is how it breaks down for the player asking for the refund if they lose:
Lose 5%: 29.1%
Break even: 70.9%
Measured by the house edge, far from the worst bet I've ever seen, but the first voluntary bet I've ever seen where you can't win.
Also, I hate to ask, but I play PGP so little -- does the dealer set out a dead hand to empty chairs as in pai gow tiles?
Quote: IbeatyouracesEvery place I've seen does.
So, couldn't it be argued that the player playing a pretend hand isn't actually changing who gets which cards?
Quote: WizardThanks. I will ask some dealers here in Vegas if they see/allow it.
Here is how it breaks down for the player asking for the refund if they lose:
Lose 5%: 29.1%
Break even: 70.9%
Measured by the house edge, far from the worst bet I've ever seen, but the first voluntary bet I've ever seen where you can't win.
Also, I hate to ask, but I play PGP so little -- does the dealer set out a dead hand to empty chairs as in pai gow tiles?
They almost always do. I've seen the occasional dealer who is so certain of hand placement for less than a full table that they will just pile the dead hands in front of the discard as they come out, but that's rare.
All.hands are always dealt out, whether they go in front of the players or not, and the last 4 cards are spread for the count (unseen) then burned.
Quote: WizardYes, I've seen this lots of times. Do you know if there is a term for it?
I've always heard it referred to as "going with the banker."
Everywhere in MS allows and expects it, though no one is forced. IP Biloxi doesn't like it, but they go with the flow. I first ran into it at the Grand Biloxi in 1994, which is about when the game started there, and where I learned it.
AC, Show boat and AC Hilton allowed it, Harrahs, Caesar, Trump Marina and Taj did not . Can't remember which way Trop went.
Vegas, LV Hilton allowed it as a "look the other way" practice. Harrahs the same. Mirage doesn't care if you do. Golden Nugget does not allow it. IP did allow it.
Many players don't know about it, and are uncomfortable with it, until they lose a hand and get their money returned. Then the light dawns.
It's NEVER required or compulsory. Most people verify right when the player calls the bank each time, before cards are dealt . And no money should change hands until all cards are off the table after the player has banked. The house NEVER gets involved in enforcing it if someone reneges. It's all peer pressure.
It's also generally accepted if someone doesn't want to do it, even if others are. The banker is usually aware people don't have to agree to it.
So, yes, banking in Pai Gow while Asians are at the table is a very social event, and it's almost always the players teaming up against the house.
The best co-bank story I've had is playing at Aria once with a fellow named Carlos, who is apparently known to all the MGM folks - he banks for 10k a hand and asks me if I want to cobank with him! I chipped in my measly $25 at the time..... ;)
-T
Quote: TigerWuI don't know about PGP, but with tiles it is common with Asian players to bank in order to "change the luck of the house." It's usually done after a huge house win. One of the (Asian) players will be the main bank, and the other players will co-bank with him/her. 99% of the time if a player is banking it's all the players against the house. It was pretty rare when I played for a player to bank and other players actually play against him. In fact, the only two times I saw it happen the player was just being a big jerk. Another time I tried to bank and the other (Asian) players didn't want to co-bank, so rather than play against me they just said they would sit out the hand. I've played with other Asians who didn't care when I banked, and they would ALWAYS co-bank with me.
So, yes, banking in Pai Gow while Asians are at the table is a very social event, and it's almost always the players teaming up against the house.
The even money thing is the closest in PGP to co-banking tiles. you're trying to change the cards (the superstition goes), and banking moves them around the table. The machine doesn't know a player is banking until (and if) the info is entered after the cards are dealt (only seen a couple houses that are required to tell the shuffler this, but it gets entered after the deal).
But if the other players sit out, they miss a hand. If they play, it might be a big burden in the bankers br. So they all play together, and cheer the banker on, while hoping a good hand gets moved to them.
I banked rarely the first decade or so I played, IAW the superstition. Maybe once an hour. But we used to "iron-butt" PGP, 10-12-14 hr sessions. There was one trip, in 1 day, I banked 7 times, and 5 of those, I moved either a SF or, in 2 cases, a RF from either the dealer or a dead hand to a live hand, none of them mine. It was a very hot, exciting table that day, never been like that again. (Well, the one day I mentioned before with all the SF and 4OAK, but those went to me, not to others. That day was mostly head to head).
Quote: NathanI have a question with this. I it unanimous/Take team down with you, or is it "Whoever wants to do it can do it? " Unanimous/take team down with you in Layman's terms,"One person doesn't want to do it so no one can do it. Let's say that there are 5 people who are willing to do the "Pay it forward," thing mentioned in this thread. Tom, Patty,Richard, Steven, and Joshua are playing. Richard says,"I don't want to do the Pay it forward thing." Dealer says, "Since Richard doesn't want to do the Pay it forward thing, no one can do the Pay it forward thing." As you can imagine, those four people who wanted to do it would most likely be pissed off at Richard. Or is it "Whoever wants to do the Pay it forward thing can do it," meaning no negative vote affects people who want to do it.
It's whoever wants to participate, always. The only way a player can stop another from banking when it's their turn is to bet so much that the banker can't match it. Banker has to do this even if people are playing even money, because the house must be paid, and does not participate in settling up afterward.
So you have to have enough money on the table to cover all bets before you can bank. Sometimes this means changing money from your wallet before they will deal to you.
People can say no to even money. People also sit out the hand instead. The banker just has to decide if they want to cover the whole tables' bets, or give up the bank, .
Good, gotta keep my record going for accepted questions! But I also think it should be mentioned in your PGP page, maybe someone will benefit from knowing to expect the possibility of it occurring.Quote: WizardThis will make for a good Ask the Wizard question.
I've played probably a grand total of 2 hours MAYBE of PGP and the entire game confuses me to all hell (I just had the PB setting my hand the entire time, ez game).
So let's say I'm playing $100 a hand? If I lose, casino gets $100. If I push, obviously it's a push. If I win, casino pays me $95, right?
Now let's say I play $100 a hand and someone banks the "traditional" way. If I lose, that $100 goes to the banker and the banker pays the casino $5? If I push, obviously nothing happens (I HOPE). If I win, the banker pays me....$95?
Now let's say we're playing the way this Asian hornswoggler plays. I play $100 a hand, the hornswoggler is banking the hornswoggled way. If I lose, then $100 goes to the hornswoggler, the hornswoggler pays the casino $5, then the hornswoggler gives me my $100 back, but I have to give the hornswoggler $5, because the 'swoggler paid the casino $5? And if it's a push, nothing happens. If I win, then the hornswoggler gives me $95, but then I have to pay the hornswoggler that $95 back? Did I get all this hornswoggling and terminology correct?
TLDR:
WTF IS BANKING
HOW IS IT DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR PAI-GOW-ING
I THINK THAT'S IT
F***ing hornswogglers, let me tell ya hwat!
Is there any advantage or disadvantage to banking the hornswogglers way, or playing against a hornswoggling banker?
Quote: RS$100 a hand? If I lose, casino gets $100. If I push, obviously it's a push. If I win, casino pays me $95, right?
Now let's say I play $100 a hand and someone banks the "traditional" way. If I lose, that $100 goes to the banker and the banker pays the casino $5? If I push, obviously nothing happens (I HOPE). If I win, the banker pays me....$95?
No, your last part is wrong. If a player wins a hand against a player-banker, then the player-banker pays the full $100 bet, and the dealer takes $5 for the casino before giving the remaining $95 to the winning player.
Quote: RS
Is there any advantage or disadvantage to banking the hornswogglers way, or playing against a hornswoggling banker?
It is a disadvantage for you, the player-banker, to agree to "no action" with another player who wishes to bet during your bank, because you have an advantage on each dollar bet against your bank. You have a further advantage the more player hands are dealt against you, due to the net commission rule. Net commission means that if you win $100 against the dealer but lose $100 to player A while banking, you owe nothing. However in normal pai gow if you win one $100 bet and lose the next you have lost $5 to commission.
As a player, it is to your advantage to call "no action" against a player-banker, but an easier way to get this edge is just to sit out the hand. Mainly players ask for no action against the player-banker so they may continue betting the bonus bet, which carries a large house edge.
Correct-me-if-I'm-wrong conclusions: To deal with the perceived need to be 'a team at the table' when someone banks, many Asians have developed some cooperative methods. There is an "even money" cooperative method which involves the player-banker returning any winnings taken from another player. This is likely to be seen at Pai Gow Poker. Co-banking, which seems simply to be a matter of adding to the banking players bet. Or less simply, players may co-bank and place that bet in front of them and the dealer knows they are co-banking? Note that question mark and the next question mark. Co-banking is seen only in PG Tiles while this "even money" method is seen at PG Poker?
I have some more questions but let's start with these.
That right there is sufficient reason for there to be a formal statement about this practice on the WOO and WOV pages.Quote: beachbumbabs
Some casinos don't allow it. Some people, and in some regions, prefer to sit out anyway. Some casinos give you an indication they would rather not "know" you're doing it. And some openly allow or suggest it.
Add in various language barrier situations or attention paying/background noise situations and it could well be an overlooked source of discontent which is not a good thing to have in a money and alcohol fueled environment.
I'm sure that Canadian woman who recently dialed 911 from a casino because she had lost all her money and needed bus fare home would never have done so had she been in the same financial situation but at a different location. Alcohol, money and excitement seem to be a special situation and casinos should do everything they can to clarify what the rules and policies are. No matter what the game, the best thing is always certainty so that the game continues without delay or acrimony.
Now neophytes are exempt from some situations such as player banking, but total ignorance of it is not good.
Its similar to the situation where a dealer started talking to me about my "having five aces" and I thought he was making a comment about my character and intended activities instead of an actual situation that was possible in the game.
Quote: charliepatrickWhen I played tiles in London a while ago I played a hand against a player banker and was told in no uncertain terms it was not right to do so. Usually they all piled their money on the player-bank, so I just sat out when they next banked.
Years ago I did that at a full table, not even knowing there was the other option. The single Asian player that spoke English explained to me that the 'proper' way to bet was with the player/banker, not against him. The player/banker will often hand one of his tiles to a co-banker, and they go through the fun of 'asking' for a specific tile. This dance adds enjoyment for me.
Quote: odiousgambitAfter re-reading the posts, and thanks for the input everyone, I think I've mostly got it, except I still have a few questions.
Correct-me-if-I'm-wrong conclusions: To deal with the perceived need to be 'a team at the table' when someone banks, many Asians have developed some cooperative methods. There is an "even money" cooperative method which involves the player-banker returning any winnings taken from another player. This is likely to be seen at Pai Gow Poker. Co-banking, which seems simply to be a matter of adding to the banking players bet. Or less simply, players may co-bank and place that bet in front of them and the dealer knows they are co-banking? Note that question mark and the next question mark. Co-banking is seen only in PG Tiles while this "even money" method is seen at PG Poker?
I have some more questions but let's start with these.
Mostly true.
The even money runs both ways, not just from player-banker to other player.
The person being repaid pays the commission back to the other, as a courtesy for returning the bet.
I have never seen co-banking allowed at PGP. Virtually every time I've played tiles, it was offered. No one bet their own hand - they either co-banked or sat out. However, while my PGP table time is extensive, I've only played tiles a few times. So, in my experience, these are two completely separate activities.
Even money is definitely not limited to Asians. Could well be, they started it. IDK. But most if not all experienced players do it if the casino allows.
Quote: beachbumbabsMostly true.
The even money runs both ways, not just from player-banker to other player.
The person being repaid pays the commission back to the other, as a courtesy for returning the bet.
I have never seen co-banking allowed at PGP. Virtually every time I've played tiles, it was offered. No one bet their own hand - they either co-banked or sat out. However, while my PGP table time is extensive, I've only played tiles a few times. So, in my experience, these are two completely separate activities.
Even money is definitely not limited to Asians. Could well be, they started it. IDK. But most if not all experienced players do it if the casino allows.
Thanks.
I'm still not sure what goes on with co-banking. Do players put the money in front of them and tell the dealer they are co-banking*, or is it a matter of putting the money literally in the same circle as the banker and trusting him to not, well, hornswaggle you?
*this, seems to me, would mean the casino allows a work-around for the prohibition against betting more than you bet when the house was the banker
Quote: odiousgambitThanks.
I'm still not sure what goes on with co-banking. Do players put the money in front of them and tell the dealer they are co-banking*, or is it a matter of putting the money literally in the same circle as the banker and trusting him to not, well, hornswaggle you?
*this, seems to me, would mean the casino allows a work-around for the prohibition against betting more than you bet when the house was the banker
In tiles, the dealer looks at each player and the player says, or points to chips, that signify how much you want to bet with the banker. If the banker is betting 4 black chips, then I signal a green chip, then the next guy 2 black chips, the dealer will make a stack of 4 black, then my green, then the next guys 2 black in one pile. I have never seen a single instance of someone trying to take a shot by denying they made the bet.
Thanks. How about this being a 'wink and a nod' regarding a work-around the rule that is supposed to limit the player-banker betting to last amount bet? Never mind, it occurs to me that only the player-banker gets the benefit of ties going to the banker.Quote: SOOPOOIn tiles, the dealer looks at each player and the player says, or points to chips, that signify how much you want to bet with the banker. If the banker is betting 4 black chips, then I signal a green chip, then the next guy 2 black chips, the dealer will make a stack of 4 black, then my green, then the next guys 2 black in one pile. I have never seen a single instance of someone trying to take a shot by denying they made the bet.
That is reassuring. Yet again, it is support for the notion that this is something that should be on the WOO/WOV pages in a plain and explicit manner just so neophytes will neither make a fool of themselves nor feel embarrassed or puzzled.Quote: SOOPOOI have never seen a single instance of someone trying to take a shot by denying they made the bet.
Is the same true of tiles?
Quote: gamerfreakBanking on a full table of PGP is the only situation I can think of, other than FPDW, where the player has a slight mathematical advantage (playing the game straight up that is).
Is the same true of tiles?
According to the Wizard's page on tiles, using an absolute optimal strategy nets you a 0.2% advantage, but that strategy is insanely complicated.
More traditional (and easier) strategies still give the house an edge.
Quote: gamerfreakBanking on a full table of PGP is the only situation I can think of, other than FPDW, where the player has a slight mathematical advantage (playing the game straight up that is).
Is the same true of tiles?
It "would" be true, but in real life it just doesn't happen. The players bet with you, not against you.
The below also has me unsure of what is meant
I don't see this 'net commission advantage' discussed by the WizardQuote: sodawaterIt is a disadvantage for you, the player-banker, to agree to "no action" with another player who wishes to bet during your bank, because you have an advantage on each dollar bet against your bank. You have a further advantage the more player hands are dealt against you, due to the net commission rule.
Interesting. Wizard seems to only mention the advantage about ties going to banker.Quote:Net commission means that if you win $100 against the dealer but lose $100 to player A while banking, you owe nothing. However in normal pai gow if you win one $100 bet and lose the next you have lost $5 to commission.
Well, I get that it is -EV, but it is the same as playing against the dealer, no?Quote:As a player, it is to your advantage to call "no action" against a player-banker, but an easier way to get this edge is just to sit out the hand. Mainly players ask for no action against the player-banker so they may continue betting the bonus bet, which carries a large house edge.
When you are factoring in a No Commission game, it increases the frequency of this happening.
I saw this with not only Asian players, but all of the locals seemed to have his general agreement.
Quote: odiousgambit
I don't see this 'net commission advantage' discussed by the Wizard
Interesting. Wizard seems to only mention the advantage about ties going to banker.
I am sure the Wizard could fill you in on the benefits of net commission while banking, but I believe it is easy to understand on a common sense level.
Quote: odiousgambit
Well, I get that it is -EV, but it is the same as playing against the dealer, no?
If the player-banker is following the house way, it is exactly the same as playing against the dealer. In practice, most players use strategies that are weaker than the house way, so it's slightly less -EV.
If a player-banker were using a strategy stronger than the house way, it would be worse than playing against the dealer. But only by a very small amount.
Quote: odiousgambitInteresting. Wizard seems to only mention the advantage about ties going to banker.
I was addressing the player vs. dealer game only. I agree that offsetting wins and losses is good for the banker. However, in tiles at least, I so seldom see players betting against each other that I didn't want to confuse the topic over something that rarely happens. In PGP the turn to bank seems to zig zag, as opposed to rotating around the table, making banking even less of an issue.
Player Banker Collusion
Sometimes, when a player invokes his right to bank, the other players will want a shot at whatever the side bet is, but to not bet against another player on the primary wager. In this case, he may make a deal with the banker that if one beats the other, the winner will refund the loser, less the 5% commission. This is a player vs. player deal and the dealer will have nothing to do with it. In some casinos, they will overtly not allow it, although it may be hard to prevent, especially if the deal is made in a foreign language the dealer doesn't know. I mention this as a warning that you may be asked to do this, if you choose to bank. How you respond is up to you, but I will say it may cause some ill-will at the table if you say "no."
The word collusion has a very negative connotation and perhaps someone can suggest an alternative term such as collaboration or cooperation.
Quote: FleaStiffPlayer Banker Collusion
The word collusion has a very negative connotation and perhaps someone can suggest an alternative term such as collaboration or cooperation.
I would call it player-banker no-action. Collusion is too strong as it is not hurting anyone and in fact is helping the casino, which gets to deal an additional hand at the standard house expectation.
You didn't ask for suggested rewordings, but in particular I think there should be better clarity about who is who. Bold indicates suggested change
Quote: WizardPlayer Banker Collusion
Sometimes, when a player invokes his right to bank, the other players will want a shot at whatever the side bet is, but to not bet dislike betting against another player on the primary wager. In this case, he non-banking players may make a deal with the bankerbanking player that if one beats the other, the winner will refund the loser, less the 5% commission. This is a player vs. player deal and the dealer will have nothing to do with it. In some casinos, they will overtly not allow it, although it may be hard to prevent, especially if the deal is made in a foreign language the dealer doesn't know. I mention this as a warning that you may be asked to do this, if you choose to bank. How you respond is up to you, but I will say it may cause some ill-will at the table if you say "no."
as for changing "collusion", I agree. I think "collaboration" works.
"Player options when another player banks" might work.
"Playing during player bank".
Could introduce the options, which are, drop bet to table minimum, sit out that hand, bet your normal bet, bet big to discourage a player-bank, ask for even money from the player-bank. Then explain that last one more, as you have, but not using "collusion " in the explanation, either.
The house makes the same money whether the players exchange after the hand or not, and make extra money on sidebets that otherwise wouldn't be placed. Your sites are very influential, and if you say this as you have, I think it will be disallowed in more places for no good reason.
Could also mention in the same area, that when a player banks, they are usually required to drop a second hand, if they're playing one, while they bank. Most casinos will only allow the amount you bet on a single hand to be bet during bank, but a few will allow you to add both amounts. Others (someone else mentioned earlier) will allow up to 110% of that hand's previous bet to be banked.
Collusion sounds like its of interest to Suits, Surveillance and Security.
Although the text was okay, I think the upthread suggested text changes do clarify things.
I realize this is a rather minor nit we are picking but the overall impression created by 'collaboration' is not a good one.
Collaboration has the same issues and it seems like I'm trying too hard to use a long word when I don't have to.
So, with all due respect, collaboration and cooperation are out. However, I'm open minded to other suggestions. Surely, (and don't call me Shirley) there must be a term used for this in the casinos?
Alternatives: "Gentleman's Agreement", "Alliance", "No-Action Player Bank Rebate"
