Co-banking dispute

I just finished a two day stay at the Venetian for material to base a review on.

While there I played seven hours of pai gow (tiles). As always, I invoke my turn to bank whenever it comes to me, unless the other players wish to bet more than I'm comfortable losing.

Most of the time there was just one other player. The first time I asked to bank he just sat out. The next time he indicated he didn't like missing a turn, but didn't want to bet against me either. So the dealer recommend he co-bank. This means that he would be betting against the dealer as well as me, and we would both play the same hand, which I would set. I thought it was a good suggestion, because it didn't inconvenience me, and the other player was happy too.

This went fine for about two hours. We either won, lost, or pushed together. However a an obnoxious smoking and drinking player came to the table and plopped down a $50 bet when it was my turn to bank. My bet against the dealer was $200, and the co-banking player had $50. The dealer never addressed who would get the new player's money in the event he lost, or would have to pay him if he won. Like many dealers at the Venetian, she barely spoke a word. In retrospect, I should have inquired at the time, but didn't. Live and learn.

So what happened is I and the co-banker lost against the dealer, and beat the new player. First the dealer adjudicated the bet against her, by taking my $200 and the co-banking player's $50. Then she just put the $50 we won in the middle of the table without comment. To which I asked, "Who gets that?" The dealer replied, "That is between you two, referring to me and the co-banker."

The co-banker said let's split it. I thought this was unfair, but didn't want to get into an argument with a near stranger over $50, so said "okay, but toned in a way I was not really happy with it." He didn't pick up on the tone, picked up the $50, and gave me half.

What I think would have been fair was to split it $40 my way, and $10 for the other player, because I bet 80% of the money against the dealer. Again, it wasn't worth getting into a fight over $15, so I never voiced my opinion, until the next day. In case you're wondering, the new player left immediately after that hand.

The following morning I bounced the situation off of the supervisor at the table. He said that indeed it is up to the players to split up the money in that co-banking situation. I responded that they shouldn't expect strangers to split up money with no basis of what is fair. He said that it isn't the Venetian's problem, and that if I don't like it I should have invoked my right to refuse to let him co-bank. To that I responded that I was never given the choice to decline. He repeated that I did, and seemed imply that I should understand the rules of the game before playing.

So I post all this to accept comments and to warn others about the possibility of this happening to them. Also, do other casinos generally allow such co-banking?

Thanks for the warning Wizard! Poor, unthinking, manners by the other player, but I doubt he knew the house rules regarding splitting wins either.


Edit: In the prior hands, did the dealer divide the wins when you co-banked against the house? Also, what happened to the 5% commission on wins for the disputed hand?

I've never seen co-banking anywhere. Didn't you say on your Pai Gow page that you got rejected from co-banking at the Venetian once? I would say it is up to the players to decide how to split the money. You could have negotiated with the guy to get a more equitable distribution, depending on how receptive he was to fairness standards. If he was Chinese, it might have been difficult to negotiate. I forsee problems arising from these type of transactions (see my PGP post about banking a while back), so I would make sure all the terms are laid out on the table beforehand.

Quote: Wizard

In retrospect, I should have inquired at the time, but didn't. Live and learn.

The money on the table should be the casino's responsibility. And since the dealer suggested co-banking, whe was responsible for it on that level as well. The dealer should ahve either 1) asked the new player to wait for the next round and/or 2) told both of you it's up to you to split winnings from other players.

Just goes to show you can't assume people will do what they're supposed to do.

Quote:

What I think would have been fair was to split it $40 my way, and $10 for the other player, because I bet 80% of the money against the dealer. Again, it wasn't worth getting into a fight over $15, so I never voiced my opinion, until the next day.

I agree, both about the split and your decision not to challenge it. As in any partnership, income should be proporsional to risk (maybe also work, but you were setting the hands).

Quote:

The following morning I bounced the situation off of the supervisor at the table. He said that indeed it is up to the players to split up the money in that co-banking situation. I responded that they shouldn't expect strangers to split up money with no basis of what is fair. He said that it isn't the Venetian's problem, and that if I don't like it I should have invoked my right to refuse to let him co-bank. To that I responded that I was never given the choice to decline. He repeated that I did, and seemed imply that I should understand the rules of the game before playing.

You know, I've read a great many reports of such discussions. I wonder, was the supervisor apologetic, or did he try to appease you, or at least express some regret the situation even came up? It seems to me casino supervisors and pit bosses are not very good at dealing with customers as customers.

Is this just a general business trait, or is there a reason for it? Perhaps that players will try to gain advantages or comps from every little disoute, therefore treat them like random strangers suddenly asking you for something they've no right to.

While the floorperson the next day might have been abrupt or even dicky, I think you already summed it up: Live and learn.

Advice for the future: Whenever a floorperson says you should know the rules, ask to see a copy. I doubt that they would have it handy....

Your mistake was asking 'who gets that' ... You should have stated your position: I get X of that 50, He gets Y of that 50 because thats the ratio of our capital that won the bet.
As to "not detecting the tone of voice"... he probably did.

Co-bank? Seems to me that is a dangerous topic. Bank or Don't Bank. Its your money and if your desire to maximize your return by banking annoys another player, that other player is free to get up and leave and the heck with what either he or the casino thinks of you.

Quote: Wizard

This means that he would be betting against the dealer as well as me, and we would both play the same hand, which I would set....
...
Then she just put the $50 we won in the middle of the table without comment. To which I asked, "Who gets that?" The dealer replied, "That is between you two, referring to me and the co-banker."

The co-banker said let's split it. I thought this was unfair, but didn't want to get into an argument with a near stranger over $50, so said "okay, but toned in a way I was not really happy with it." He didn't pick up on the tone, picked up the $50, and gave me half.

I think you made two mistakes here. One was asking "who gets that" in the first place. The "bank" won, so the "bank" gets the winnings. The second mistake was letting the co-banker pick up the winnings instead of you just taking it. You were doing all the work (e.g. setting hands) up to that point, so why wouldn't you do the work of splitting up the winnings, if splitting was called for at all? Was it your bank or his? Who would have paid the player $50 if he had won?

There are two ways to co-bank that I'm aware of, based on player-banked games as in California. One is having a first and second bank, and first bank gets all the action until depleted, then second bank takes over. So in your case, the $50 is all yours because it didn't exceed the value of your $200 wager. The flip side is that had the player won, the $50 would have come out of your funds only, and the co-banker would not have lost anything. That's the way most CA games work. The other way would be to split all wins and losses proportionally, in your case 4-to-1. So you'd win $40 and he'd win $10 in the case where you won, and you'd lose $40 and he'd lose $10 in the case where you lost. But that's a pain.

It's strange that the Venetian offers co-banking but doesn't actually have rules around it. That seems a pretty big lapse in procedure. If I were you, I might drop a note to the TGD and let her know that her tiles procedure is incomplete.

Quote: Ayecarumba

In the prior hands, did the dealer divide the wins when you co-banked against the house? Also, what happened to the 5% commission on wins for the disputed hand?

There was never anything to divide before the hand in question. Going against just one person (the dealer) you either won, lost, or pushed the whole way. So never a partial win to fight over.

About the commission, the 5% is supposed to be paid on the net win. In this case the net loss to the combined bankers was $150, so the commission was not applied.

Quote: teddys

I've never seen co-banking anywhere. Didn't you say on your Pai Gow page that you got rejected from co-banking at the Venetian once? I would say it is up to the players to decide how to split the money. You could have negotiated with the guy to get a more equitable distribution, depending on how receptive he was to fairness standards. If he was Chinese, it might have been difficult to negotiate. I forsee problems arising from these type of transactions (see my PGP post about banking a while back), so I would make sure all the terms are laid out on the table beforehand.

Yes, that did happen, coincidentally, or not, at the Venetian. However, it was a different kind of situation. In the case you're referring to it was my turn to bank, and another player wanted to bet more than I was comfortable with. An often mentioned, but seldom-invoked rule, is to allow co-banking with the dealer against such big betting players. So I asked to do that, and the dealer and supervisor had never actually seen a player ask to do this before. So after a lot of phone calls and looking up rules on the computer, they said the Venetian no longer allowed co-banking WITH the dealer.

I think all would agree that we should have discussed this before any tiles were looked at. The story is told in large part to teach others a lesson from my mistake. Yes, the other was player Chinese, as is usually the case.

Quote: Nareed

The money on the table should be the casino's responsibility. And since the dealer suggested co-banking, whe was responsible for it on that level as well. The dealer should ahve either 1) asked the new player to wait for the next round and/or 2) told both of you it's up to you to split winnings from other players.

Just goes to show you can't assume people will do what they're supposed to do.

I agree. This was a problem the dealer should have seen coming, but never said a peep. It wasn't just this hand. She was your typical brick-wall dealer from start to finish. How dealers with no people skills rise to a position at the Venetian, I have no idea. I've seen better dealers at the Sahara. Agreed you shouldn't expect anybody you don't know to do what they're supposed to.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder, was the supervisor apologetic, or did he try to appease you, or at least express some regret the situation even came up? It seems to me casino supervisors and pit bosses are not very good at dealing with customers as customers.

The supervisor was very clear about the policy and good about listening to what I had to say. However, he would not say anything to let Venetian look even remotely culpable. No apology or regrets from him at all. In other dealings with the Venetian through the years, this does not surprise me. I could tell another story where I think I was even more due a kind word in my favor, but got nothing. That is not the way I like doing business.

Maybe there's an issue with terminology that I'm not familiar with: "co-banking". When I'm at a table with someone who is banking, I will frequently ask to bet on the banker's hand rather than compete against them. When I do this, it is my assumption that I am only participating in the game against the dealer. I would not expect to be a part of any winnings or losses against other players at the table. But I can't remember if this situation has ever arisen.

Quote: PapaChubby

Maybe there's an issue with terminology that I'm not familiar with: "co-banking". When I'm at a table with someone who is banking, I will frequently ask to bet on the banker's hand rather than compete against them. When I do this, it is my assumption that I am only participating in the game against the dealer. I would not expect to be a part of any winnings or losses against other players at the table. But I can't remember if this situation has ever arisen.

That is what we're talking about. You would have been in the same situation as the co-banking player in my story. However, if this happens to you again, and another player wishes to bet against the banking player, you will find you and the banking player on the line to pay the other player if he wins. If you say it wasn't your understanding that you were going against the other player, the banking player may not accept it, and demand you chip in to pay him. Best to clear it up before the dice are shaken. I'd suggest clarifying with the banking player that your bet is only against the dealer, and he is on his own against the other player. If he doesn't agree, then I would say "forget it," and sit the hand out.

Quote: MathExtremist

Who would have paid the player $50 if he had won?

I think this question gets right to the heart of the matter. My gut reaction was that the winnings should be split in proportion to the amount that you and the co-banker bet against the house, but after thinking about it, those bets don't really have anything to do with the third player at the table. Without any agreement to the contrary, I think assuming the losses are paid 50-50 by players co-banking is probably the best rule to follow.

Wizard, I think you are an honest, tell-it-like-it-is kind of guy. So, honestly, if you lost to the third player, would you have paid $40 and asked the co-banking player to pay $10?

Most of all, thanks for the warning about it. Should my bankroll ever grow large enough to be comfortable co-banking against other players, I'll certainly remember this discussion.

Quote: EnvyBonus

... thanks for the warning about it. Should my bankroll ever grow large enough to be comfortable co-banking against other players, I'll certainly remember this discussion.

If this should come up, what would be the "best practice"? My initial thought would be to make sure all the banking bets are equal. However, since I am most likely the flea and not the dog in this situation, should I initiate the discussion of proportional shares, or just assume that is how it will be divided? Since I will be the small side, I really have nothing to lose... do I?

I completely agree that the opponent-player's $50 should have been split proportionately according to who contributed what to the initial bet. Your reaction was the same one I would have taken, in the interest of avoiding a Larry David style conflict, but the co-banker lost $15 less than he should have on that hand.

If you bank for $200 and the co-banker goes in for $50, the combined bet against the house is $250. If that bet wins, its $237.50 prize gets split proportionately according to who contributed what towards the initial wager: 80% = $190 for you, 20% = $47.50 for the co-banker.

The $50 which wasn't lost should have been divided proportionately according to the same logic.

Quote: EnvyBonus

Wizard, I think you are an honest, tell-it-like-it-is kind of guy. So, honestly, if you lost to the third player, would you have paid $40 and asked the co-banking player to pay $10?

Yes, I would have offered $40 if the 3rd player won. If the co-banker suggested we pay $25 each, I would have said 'no,' and again asked for $10 only. It is entirely possible the co-banker would have refused to pay anything if the 3rd player won. In that case I certainly would have paid up $40, but would at least put up a small fight before paying the other $10.

In L.A., where I used to play a lot, this is a very common situation (shared banks). But there are two entirely different ways shared banks are handled: one, where each player sharing in the bank gets action IN ORDER (so one player-banker could get wiped out, but the next double up), and two, where the banking money is truly commingled. In the latter case, the bank is the joint property of the players (whether augmented or diminished) and they divide it up when the hand is over according to the proportion they originally funded it. The difference in L.A. is that the bank need not cover the whole table's action, or even an appreciable portion of it. In Vegas, the bank is SUPPOSED to cover everyone's action, including the bet against the dealer (which, of course, can be anything from the table minimum to slightly over the player-banker's last bet against the house, at the player-banker's whim). The bank at the end of the hand should therefore be split in proportion to the contributions made into it.

Therefore: the way it came down, you were actually booking $200 of the $250 total action, so you should have split the drunk player's money 4:1, or $40 for you and $10 for your buddy.

Quote: mkl654321

In L.A., where I used to play a lot, this is a very common situation (shared banks)...

I try to address the LA banking rules in my page on California blackjack, under "banking rules." The way they do it in Vegas I believe is the same as the kum-kum rule I described in rule 4 under banking rules.

What would have happened if the other player had have beat you as well? Were they going to expect you to hand over money additional to the $250 (both bank players) that you put up? For mine you put up $250 and that should have been the total liability. $50 against the other player and the remaining $200 against the dealer. IMO your net result for this hand should have been a loss of $152.50 split 80% Wizard 20% other banker.


Just on co-banking though, in Australia co-banking is when the player and dealer play against all other players and split the liability 50-50. Dealer still sets the tiles house way.

Quote: Aussie

What would have happened if the other player had have beat you as well? Were they going to expect you to hand over money additional to the $250 (both bank players) that you put up? For mine you put up $250 and that should have been the total liability. $50 against the other player and the remaining $200 against the dealer.

The way they do it in Vegas is they don't ask about a maximum risk. If you accept the banking option you must honor all bets against you. The only question is how much the dealer will bet against the banker. If there are no other players betting then this is the same as the maximum risk.

To illustrate this point, on a previous visit to the Venetian another player asked to bank. He indicated to the dealer to bet $25. I chose to bet $100, which I thought might scare him off, but didn't. After I won he had no idea he was supposed to pay me as well. In addition, he didn't have enough money on him to pay me. So the game had to be stalled for about 10 minutes while he went to the ATM. Eventually the supervisor said they couldn't pause the game any longer, and resumed it, saying if the player never showed up to pay me, then the Venetian would honor the debt. Eventually the player did return to pay me, but he wasn't happy about it.

Quote: Aussie

Just on co-banking though, in Australia co-banking is when the player and dealer play against all other players and split the liability 50-50. Dealer still sets the tiles house way.

Somebody else mentioned this yesterday. It is a rule many books and rule booklets mention. In my 24 years of casino gambling have never seen the rule invoked. I tried to invoke it once at the Venetian, but was rebuffed.

Strange how all my pai gow stories involve the Venetian, while only about 10% of my pai gow play is there.

Quote: Wizard

Strange how all my pai gow stories involve the Venetian, while only about 10% of my pai gow play is there.

The gods may be trying to tell you to stop playing there ;)

Or you're addicted to interesting Pai Gow (tiles) stories.

In New Jersey, "co-banking" means a 50-50 bank split with the house:

http://www.njccc.gov/casinos/actreg/reg/docs_chapter47/c47s10.pdf

However, when the bets are resolved, they are resolved proportionally and not player's action first. See section 10.8(p).

Great accounts of player banking.
Actually, I think it's clear that player banking is just a drain on Pai Gow; no one can bank at Roulette, BJ, craps, etc., and for it to exist on a house-banked game clearly just causes problems.
In many casinos (Ameristar, etc), there is no banking on Pai Gow Poker. A request to bank is answered with a comment to go to the poker room for that.
On EZ Pai Gow Poker, with no commission in house mode, players have to agree to:
1. Paying a "Rake" of 5% up to the nearest dollar on his winnings;
2. Accept that his fellow non-banking players pay no commission on their wins; only the banker puts his money where his mouth is.
3. If the banker gets a queen-high Pai Gow - which is a non-qualifier push hand only for the dealer, the player's hand is still alive - as an almost certain loser against the table.
Still wanna bank? Oh, I see...
When the player claims, "well, the game's not commission-free, then," - this is answered by, "Yes it is - because YOU elect to bank or not. P, EOS."

Quote: Paigowdan

On EZ Pai Gow Poker, with no commission in house mode, players have to agree to:
1. Paying a "Rake" of 5% up to the nearest dollar on his winnings;
2. Accept that his fellow non-banking players pay no commission on their wins; only the banker puts his money where his mouth is.
3. If the banker gets a queen-high Pai Gow - which is a non-qualifier push hand only for the dealer, the player's hand is still alive - as an almost certain loser against the table.

What, you don't have to wear a green and red outfit with brown shoes, and carry a copy of the latest Tom Clancy thriller, and only on alternate Tuesdays and Mondays, but also from 6 pm to 6:01 pm on Fridays, barring Fridays that are even multiples of the square root of an odd number? it doesn't sound overly restrictive to me :P

Seriously, if I wanted to bank at your game, would I be shown the rules in printed form? I suppose it varies with the casino.

Quote: Nareed

Seriously, if I wanted to bank at your game, would I be shown the rules in printed form? I suppose it varies with the casino.

I saw his game last week. As I recall there is a laminated sign on the table with all the player banking rules. I doubt if many players ask to do it.

Dan, you should come up with a EZ pai gow tiles game.

Quote: Wizard

I saw his game last week. As I recall there is a laminated sign on the table with all the player banking rules. I doubt if many players ask to do it.

That's a very good thing.

I've seen lots of signs at PGP tables, but not one said "banking" on it. My guess is most players don't even know about it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Great accounts of player banking.
Actually, I think it's clear that player banking is just a drain on Pai Gow; no one can bank at Roulette, BJ, craps, etc., and for it to exist on a house-banked game clearly just causes problems.
In many casinos (Ameristar, etc), there is no banking on Pai Gow Poker. A request to bank is answered with a comment to go to the poker room for that.
On EZ Pai Gow Poker, with no commission in house mode, players have to agree to:
1. Paying a "Rake" of 5% up to the nearest dollar on his winnings;
2. Accept that his fellow non-banking players pay no commission on their wins; only the banker puts his money where his mouth is.
3. If the banker gets a queen-high Pai Gow - which is a non-qualifier push hand only for the dealer, the player's hand is still alive - as an almost certain loser against the table.
Still wanna bank? Oh, I see...
When the player claims, "well, the game's not commission-free, then," - this is answered by, "Yes it is - because YOU elect to bank or not. P, EOS."

I'm sure that the reason the player is allowed to bank is that so many customers come from L.A., where exclusively player-banked pai gow (cards and tiles) is such a big thing.

Yes, very true, the West coast "banking thing" is an element, and not a good thing for house-banked game.
If banking Pai Gow rooms were offered at the same casinos, it'd be easy to say "there's the poker room," but alas.
When asked about the rules pertaining to banking players, I openly say as a dealer, "they are in place to be punitive to the banking player, to discourage player banking."

Quote: Wizard

Dan, you should come up with a EZ pai gow tiles game.

That's a very good idea. I Will bounce it by R.S. at DEQ.

Edit - spoke to DEQ: they said:
1. "You wanna do it, go ahead - but tiles are mostly a Macau/Asia area casino thing, AND their gambling traditions and mistrusts die very hard. Fix Baccarat? Yes - but fix tiles - treason!"
2. "Stanley Ko has some sort of a commission-free version on tiles, and his experience may have been inauspicious."

The casino I used to work at got rid of co-banking and the one I work at now doesn't allow it......but, the way it was done when i dealt, your $50 would be applied against the $250 loss and you would have been asked for $200 and it would have been pro-rated so you wouldn't be out the money. You would put in 160 and him 40.