Hornswaggled at Pai Gow Poker!
Quote: AyecarumbaAlternatives: "Gentleman's Agreement", "Alliance", ...
I second these two suggestions
or just "Agreement"
Quote: odiousgambitI second these two suggestions
or just "Agreement"
‘Banker Agreement’ maybe?
I’m curious that if you sit down at a table with another player banking, how would you go about asking if this was the arrangement?
Quote: gamerfreak‘Banker Agreement’ maybe?
I’m curious that if you sit down at a table with another player banking, how would you go about asking if this was the arrangement?
You ask if they will play "even money" with you.
It's a short conversation.
P1 says "bank".
You (P2) say "even money?" or "player push?" or "no action?". (Regional thing). Doesn't matter. If someone knows enough to bank, they understand what you want to know.
P1 says "yes" or "no". Should only need to have the converaation once.
You have to ask before the hand is dealt. Sometimes they will ask, if you haven't yet bet, what you intend to play, before they say yes or no.
Yes, the experienced players are "in the know" and will probably have no great trouble despite regional various regional differences that might exist. (After all, no one gets confused between "The Field" and "The Bayou")Quote: beachbumbabsYou ask if they will play "even money" with you.
. If someone knows enough to bank, they understand what you want to know.
Its that the explanatory pages have to find some sort of acceptable terminology that the Wizard will be happy with. I'm beginning to regret having pointed out the use of the term 'collusion' as being overly negative. It might have been better, as usual, if I had kept my yap shut.
Quote: WizardThanks for the suggestions. I just made the edits to the body of the paragraph. I agree that the word "collusion" is too negative and smacks of cheating, which this isn't. However, collaboration or cooperation don't work for me. Both of them seem to imply the two players are working as a team. I might use the term cooperation to describe a situation like a front player in blackjack making a bad split for the benefit of a back-betting player betting more (who can opt to play only one of the hands). Remember, I have a degree in math and economics and the word cooperation in economic terms implies two parties make a deal that improves the wealth of both of them, for example free trade (which I strongly support). It is a word economists have a great deal of respect for and don't throw it around lightly. Not that I'm any great economist, but that mentality sinks in pretty deep with us econ majors.
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?
I have heard it referred to as "No Action"
Quote: AyecarumbaI've seen signage referring to "Kum-Kum". Is this the term?
That is a term you hear in the player-banked casinos in the Los Angeles area. It means for two or more players to share in the win/loss of banking. You might see this happen if a player wants to bank, but the action against him is beyond is comfort, so he will ask if anyone wants to "kum kum." It is fully allowed in California (correct me if I'm wrong).
That is not what is going on here, except maybe that the player banking against himself secretly.
Quote:Alternatives: "Gentleman's Agreement", "Alliance", "No-Action Player Bank Rebate"
"Gentleman's Agreement" is not bad. However, now that I write the above, I may go with "banking against yourself." However, I'll slip the "Gentleman's Agreement" phrase in there to aid in explaining it.
Quote: FleaStiffYes, the experienced players are "in the know" and will probably have no great trouble despite regional various regional differences that might exist. (After all, no one gets confused between "The Field" and "The Bayou")
Its that the explanatory pages have to find some sort of acceptable terminology that the Wizard will be happy with. I'm beginning to regret having pointed out the use of the term 'collusion' as being overly negative. It might have been better, as usual, if I had kept my yap shut.
You didn't start the issue. "Collusion" is, in gaming, a situation they check for on new games mathematically, and guard against in protecting it. It doesn't do justice, in fact casts aspersions, on a courtesy bet.
I don't much care for "gentleman's agreement", either, describing it. "Courtesy bet" is closer.
Is banking as a single player at a table allowed in tiles as it often is in PGP?
Quote: gamerfreakIs banking as a single player at a table allowed in tiles as it often is in PGP?
Yes. I do it all the time.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/odiousgambit/blog/#post1718
Quote: gamerfreakAnother question -
Is banking as a single player at a table allowed in tiles as it often is in PGP?
Yes, and it's ideal because you can drag the game out as much as possible without annoying other players... haha....
