House Reduces Max Bet Amount

Got annoyed with a customer, was on the east side of town, and decided to stop at a casino and kill some time (and anger) by playing Pai Gow Poker. I pick the table that has two gentlemen already playing. The table is listed as $10 minimum, $500 maximum. One man is playing $500 per hand, the other is playing $400 per hand. I step up with my awesome bankroll and begin playing $20 per hand. (My betting is not relevant to the story.)

The two men are mostly pushing, but once in a while winning. Maybe, once every 6 or 7 hands. Nothing major. They are also heavily betting the fortune bet as well as the progressive bet. OK, the progressive bet is only $1, but the fortune bet is being made at $25 for the man playing $500 per hand, and $10 for the man playing $400 per hand. Despite the ridiculous fortune betting, the men are still winning money, as the win rate is high enough, and they haven't lost a hand since I sat down.

Of course, the inevitable does eventually happen, and the man betting $500 per hand finally gets a loser. After his cards are swept away, he collects his chips and leaves the table. As I have no idea what he started with, I have no idea if he won or lost, but he leaves the table with an impressive stack of chips.

A few hands later, the same happens to the $400 per hand better. He loses, collects his chips, and walks away.

At this point, the floor supervisor comes over, and changes the limits. $10 minimum, $250 maximum. I've never see this happened before.

I guess my question is: was this done to "limit" their losses? They had lost some amount of money, and maybe they wanted to avoid that?

As an aside, about an hour later, one of the men comes back. He appears to be about to sit down, and then notices the change in the maximum limit. I didn't see his face, but he made a snort of disgust, and walked away.

I suppose it's possible that by lowering the maximum limit, the casino might hope that these guys won't play anymore. But that doesn't make much sense to me, as the casino has the house advantage and they would eventually get the money back. If anything, they should want to encourage the men to come back and continue gambling.

Short term it may have looked to the casino like Cash Cow Poker if those two just happened to have good luck and to walk away the first time they lost. Ridiculous for the casino but often the house takes a short term viewpoint and reacts to what they see.

Casinos will lower the minimum to attract more fleas to a table that isn't getting enough action.

Quote: MrV

Casinos will lower the minimum to attract more fleas to a table that isn't getting enough action.

but the minimum was not lowered.

really sounds to me like the pit boss was annoyed at how much luck the players were having, at least one of them, although as you say we don't know the buy-ins.

He was looking out for the bettors and making sure they didn't lose as much money than they already were at the $500 limits.

Ha! And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...

Quote: konceptum

At this point, the floor supervisor comes over, and changes the limits. $10 minimum, $250 maximum. I've never see this happened before.
I guess my question is: was this done to "limit" their losses? They had lost some amount of money, and maybe they wanted to avoid that?

I think the correct phrase would be it is done to "limit" their exposure. The 23 Pai-Gow poker tables in Boulder strip make an average of $640 per day. If those two players had a good run, possibly combined with other people winning that day, the casino may find their cash on hand running low.

I think they are hoping that they can persuade people to play more hands with a lower maximum, allowing more opportunity for the expected value to come true.

All games have a negative expected value, but the casino still needs limits to protect themselves from the variance.

But I don't think you can discount simple emotion. The Pit Boss doesn't want to show a loss for the day. These players could be threatening that a positive day (for the pit).

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Its also possible that the max was raised to $500 specifically for them and lowered back when they left. I see this a lot for certain players on some games.

That's possible, but $250 seems like a really low max bet on PGP. In fact, other than the best single-deck game around where they allow counting, $250 seems like a strange max bet on any table.

I haven't weighed in on this topic, but my feeling is this place is a sweat the money joint. For one reason or another, they have allowed the heat of the moment to cloud their judgment. Unless it's some sort of Indian casino or independently owned casino, I don't see any reason to lower the max.

Very weird.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Its also possible that the max was raised to $500 specifically for them and lowered back when they left?

That's what I was thinking, except:

Quote: konceptum

As an aside, about an hour later, one of the men comes back. He appears to be about to sit down, and then notices the change in the maximum limit. I didn't see his face, but he made a snort of disgust, and walked away.

Why wouldn't they just re-raise it?

Then again, if they had any inclination to re-raise it should they return, then they should have left it alone.

Yeah, they reacted badly to a blip in the normal variant cycle.

If a table dumped, a pit boss/shift manager may temporarily reduce the limits on it to limit further loses.

This kind of reminds me of the various max bets I've seen on Mississippi Stud. My favorite was Harrah's St Louis. MS Stud had a $5 min and a... $5 max. Compare this to Horseshoe Southern Indiana that is either $5 or $10 min with a $25 max at all times (no aggregate limit payout). Horseshoe Council Bluffs offers the game at $5 min and $500 max, but a max aggregate, I believe, of $25,000 or $50,000.

And if you didn't notice, those are ALL THE SAME COMPANY!!!