player acts as banker in Calfornia, can i make a profit?

In California the casino let you bank the game for 2 hands. Can players make a profit doing this by being the banker. Mini baccarat has a 1.06% advantage and player 1.24 house adge. The casino requires you to play 1 hand before you bank and pay a 1$ collect for every 100 in play. You also bank the dragon and panda bets with 10.5% and 7.611 edge. Can I make a profit sitting for hours? keep in mind when find the odds that I need to subtract the negative expectation for a 10$ bet and the collection fees.

Don't Bank Baccarat, bank the lousy 6:5 blackjack games that the players don't play properly. But yes, you can make money. Especially when the players make larger wagers and deviate from proper strategy

Im not sure the math because the negative expectation must be calculated for the hand that I must play in order for me to bank, plus it's California style blackjack and I don't know the rules. Black jack also has a bonus bet that could variety from 1:1 to 1:210 that I need to pay if someone wins

The math on CA BJ favors the banker heavily, much more than Baccarat. I would be less worried about the BJ bonus bet than the Dragon/Panda. Yes it pays 210:1, but only on 1 hand. When the Dragon hand hits you will have to pay the whole table.

im not so worried about paying the whole, all I'm worried about is getting the highest EV out there. I love the sound of the getting 7.611% and panda 10.50% advantage. It is also a big issue paying the 1$ collection for every $100 in action. It seems that after playing once to get the bank and paying the collection that all the positive value is gone and its just a 0 expected value, which it seems it is 6 cents EV is only $3.6 every 60 hands, wtf. please correct if im wrong about the expect value after paying collection.

I agree with all that. That's why I keep saying that you could bank BJ: assuming that the game has normal rules but pays 6:5 you would have a 2% edge against a basic strategy player and a much higher realistic edge as people will play poorly.

Do they have 3 card poker at your local casino? That would be a great game to bank in California if you don't mind a little variance.

Doesn't it cause conflict with the prop banker if you continue to bank? Admittedly, I have never played in CA but from reading other forums I recall some situations like the table breaking if someone banks too much.

Asian do leave the table.all I'm trying to find is the expected value of baccarat when I play one hand with a min bet and the 1% collection.

Quote: andrewrosso

Asian do leave the table.all I'm trying to find is the expected value of baccarat when I play one hand with a min bet and the 1% collection.

It's not a 1% collection. It's $1 on bets up to $100. That's more than 1% on the min bet. So, you'd have the house edge on the bet itself against you, plus the collection against you. Then, when you bank, everyone else stops playing. Why is that good?

I lived for a few years in Cali so I played these games.

The house banker is an independent operator (per cali laws) that is contracted to sit and play at all times by the casino. This is because the average player doesn't have the bankroll to cover all the bets so the indie contractor guarantees all action is possible per table limits at all times.

The casino makes its money by charging $1 per hundred regardless of how much the bet within that frame. So a player betting $10 is paying a ten percent vig while a player betting $100 is only betting a one percent vig. Obviously, the game is designed to punish low rollers.

It also makes it ridiculous to bet anything but in hundreds, (since a $101 bet would be a two dollar pay no different than if you bet $200.) I truthfully never saw anyone doing that while I was there. I myself couldn't afford but always played at least $25 to minimize the payment collection.

Most tables start at $25 but there was usually a $2 blackjack table. The joke was the table maximum was $20. It was always packed with low-bankroll people who would lose much faster because, guess what, even though they couldn't bet past $20, they still had to pay $1 per hand.

Your problem as banker is this. The amount the players will be betting is what you must play. So if the entire table is betting $30 total, you are betting $30 and still paying the $1.

It might be lucrative, if you can afford it, to get hired as the house banker. You will be given the seat of honor, (first base with your own chip rack). The independent contractors do make money by banking every hand or they wouldn't do it. Not sure how the math works but they may be paid a percentage by the casino as an independent contractor since they are forced to sit there for a shift.

Also, the people I met doing this were employees. They all told me they were hired by the independent contractor (the rich guy who wouldn't be caught dead in a 9-5) so these house bankers were people playing for someone else on salary. They were brought their chip racks by the casino and cashed out by the casino so there was no chance or little chance of employee theft and of course the dealer is seated right in front of them.

Hope that helps.

Edit: just wanted to add that it is still very difficult to make money because you pay the $1 to play, regardless of outcome.
So betting $20, if you lose, you lose, $21, if you push, you already lost $1 and if you win even money, you are only winning $19. Not very good odds to me.

This is the way I see it. suppose there only is 20 on banker that's a .21 positive expected value and they have 5 on panda and dragon, this is a .9 positive EV. Currently no collection is charged at baccarat, the dealer only pays. I make a min bet of 10 to get the bank -.0106. Total 1.06 plus 1$ banker collection, EV of .06 on a $20. Bank and $10 total on Panda and dragon.

Quote: darkoz

It also makes it ridiculous to bet anything but in hundreds,.

I don't agree with that because now you are losing more on the HA(Not sure the rules).

If the average person is giving up over 1% on the HA they should lose more money than if they were to just bet small.

Quote: AxelWolf

I don't agree with that because now you are losing more on the HA(Not sure the rules).

If the average person is giving up over 1% on the HA they should lose more money than if they were to just bet small.

No, Axel, it is not 1%. It is $1. Period. Per hundred.

If you bet $2 at the minimum table that allows that, you pay $1 fee for making the bet. 50% HA.

If you bet $100 at the table maximum that allows that, you pay the SAME $1 fee. HA 1%.

If you bet $200 (which is allowed) that is fine. You must now pay a flat $2. Keep in mind if you bet $102, you are charged the $1 for each hundred with the $1 dollar charge for the first hundred and the $1 charge for the extra two bucks (the second hundred.)

Of course, this is on top of any house edge that the game of blackjack naturally has. The natural blackjack house edge would go to the independent contractor for banking.

The OP has a good idea. He will take that house edge from baccarat or blackjack for banking and make a profit but it will be countered by the flat wagering fee.

The independent contractor must play when banker and does not have to play a round first. I believe, since he must play for a shift and employees are performing this function, the casino gives him a financial remuneration for his time besides the fact he is gambling with a slight edge (but I am not certain of that.)

no, you will be asked to leave. the casino contracts the corporation to bank. if players bank when it is very profitable then the corporation will lose quite a bit of money, because they have to pay employees to sit during very slow times, as part of the contract. without the corporation at every table the table games can't run. in some cases the casino will have a financial interest in the corporation, which is illegal.

sure, it may not be legal for them to ask you to leave, but they will make up any excuse, after all it is private property. they will also require you to have whatever is the maximum payout for the game on the table, so a side bet that has $100 max and 500-1 payout they will require you to sit with $50,000. when you say that there's nobody betting more than $10, someone will magically show up and bet $100. if you sit with $50,000 they will just throw you out.

california gaming has a lot of problems. if you let anyone come in and bank whenever they want, your corporation can't survive. if you kick them out for banking, then you're breaking the law. as it stands now the best move for the casino/corporation is to try and force him out with big bets then 86 the banking player if he persists. note that you would be OK if you were betting like $500 on banker then banking $500-1000 in action when it was your turn, however, if you bet minimum then bank for huge amounts they will be forced to act.

pretty stupid, huh?

Quote: tongni

no, you will be asked to leave. the casino contracts the corporation to bank. if players bank when it is very profitable then the corporation will lose quite a bit of money, because they have to pay employees to sit during very slow times, as part of the contract. without the corporation at every table the table games can't run. in some cases the casino will have a financial interest in the corporation, which is illegal.

sure, it may not be legal for them to ask you to leave, but they will make up any excuse, after all it is private property. they will also require you to have whatever is the maximum payout for the game on the table, so a side bet that has $100 max and 500-1 payout they will require you to sit with $50,000. when you say that there's nobody betting more than $10, someone will magically show up and bet $100. if you sit with $50,000 they will just throw you out.

california gaming has a lot of problems. if you let anyone come in and bank whenever they want, your corporation can't survive. if you kick them out for banking, then you're breaking the law. as it stands now the best move for the casino/corporation is to try and force him out with big bets then 86 the banking player if he persists. note that you would be OK if you were betting like $500 on banker then banking $500-1000 in action when it was your turn, however, if you bet minimum then bank for huge amounts they will be forced to act.

pretty stupid, huh?

That's not true. I've seen people bank. It's an option that some player's find exciting. The banker option is passed around the table similar to the way dice are given a chance to every shooter whose made a previous bet.

Its been over a decade since I have been in a Cali casino but if I remember correctly, there was a choice of co-banking. That is if you banked and the other players suddenly crowded in a whole bunch of bets, the contracted player could agree to join in as co-banker. The casinos main interest is in getting the bets down as they win absolutely nothing per Cali law. Their entire profit is from collection fees.

I also heavily doubt the contracted player would place or raise any bets to "get rid" of someone who is banking. As I stated earlier, they are usually employees of a company and are not trained to do anything other than their perfect play. Making sudden big bets to force out someone who happens to have the momentary edge as banker would be ludicrous. They would have to answer to their boss why they played poorly and risked such large amounts of money.

Quote: darkoz

I also heavily doubt the contracted player would place or raise any bets to "get rid" of someone who is banking. As I stated earlier, they are usually employees of a company and are not trained to do anything other than their perfect play. Making sudden big bets to force out someone who happens to have the momentary edge as banker would be ludicrous. They would have to answer to their boss why they played poorly and risked such large amounts of money.

The corporate player just banks the game. They don't have any play decisions to make. They're bound to the normal drawing decisions in Baccarat and they act as the dealer would in 3CP and BJ. There's no playing skill involved.

Quote: rdw4potus

The corporate player just banks the game. They don't have any play decisions to make. They're bound to the normal drawing decisions in Baccarat and they act as the dealer would in 3CP and BJ. There's no playing skill involved.

not true. You can bank against the corporation. When playing blackjack they they will whip out their custom basic strategy card and play the best possible way they can against you.

Quote: nickolay411

not true. You can bank against the corporation. When playing blackjack they they will whip out their custom basic strategy card and play the best possible way they can against you.

You guys are both correct.

In Baccarat the corporation is simply banking. But then that's the same in a regular casino. Baccarat has set rules.

In Blackjack, the corporation makes the best playing decision. But they do play based on perfect basic strategy. They will not deviate. Again, they are just employees and need to stay behind a protection of doing everything correct by adhering to basic and proper strategy.

Quote: darkoz

I also heavily doubt the contracted player would place or raise any bets to "get rid" of someone who is banking. As I stated earlier, they are usually employees of a company and are not trained to do anything other than their perfect play. Making sudden big bets to force out someone who happens to have the momentary edge as banker would be ludicrous. They would have to answer to their boss why they played poorly and risked such large amounts of money.

They can't raise your bank wager. When you bank they have to match you're level of play. So if you bank worth 1,000 at a negative count. Then yes they do have to wager 1,000 against you. That's why banking is profitable for people with a well equipped bankroll. But it is their prerogative to stop after so many losses. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a stop loss limit. I also think they love to see big action as long as they are winning.

I've seen the corp lose thousands of dollars in a fifteen minute span against a player playing bank and they kept playing on until eventually they corp wiped out the player who was banking. The player had had about a 10 thousand dollar bankroll. But they weren't prepared for the variance. It goes both ways!

edit: It was great to watch but I also felt pretty damn bad. It was an older Asian couple maybe early forties. They brought in this wad of cash with big dreams of banking. They were pretty shocked that their 'plan' wasn't working. You could see the life sucked out of them.

In my opinion they were heavily over betting their bank.