Blackjack table dealt joker on a non joker table and voided the deck
Quote: JBLet's be realistic here. If the OP suspected that something crooked was going on - that is, something other than a meaningless card was accidentally inserted into the shoe - then why keep playing unless he was trying to have it both ways?
If a casino is intentionally using a crooked deck/shoe, shame on them. I think it should be publicized nationally and I would hope that their business suffers drastically as a result. But unless I missed it, I didn't see any evidence of cheating by the casinos in either your case or the OP's.
Quote: CrapsForeverHas anyone ever asked to look at all the cards in the Deck before playing Blackjack to ensure all the right cards were in the Deck?
An older Gentleman told me last year that he was at the Hard Rock Casino in Fort Lauderdale, FL and saw a dealer removing some 10's and Facecards from the deck and replacing them with 2's early in the morning around 5am. He approached the dealer...asked what was going on and was quickly removed by security and arrested for "Disturbing the Peace". He was later banned from ever returning back there.
Does this count as cheating in your eyes?
He was playing in a casino licensed by the state. Having a casino is a privilege, not a right.
It does not matter in which way the outcome was influenced.
Not only should he get $235, but the casino should be fined.
Think the casino reported this error to the regulatory agency ?
Who wants to bet they did ??
Where is the deck or decks ( 16 hands) that were voided ? Was the joker the only extra card or cards ?
Did the pit take the cards in question and seal them in an envelope?
Or was it, oh well, shit happens ! Next sucker, please.
They are willing to let him view the video tape. But have they viewed the tape to see how the joker got there.
$235 and a sincere apology are owed to the player.
Quote: CrapsForeverDoes this count as cheating in your eyes?
It is not direct proof of cheating, but it would certainly make me suspicious and not want to play there. I said it a few posts back and I'll say it again: if the casino refuses to show the cards, the player should be smart enough to walk away, not sit there and continue playing.
Quote: buzzpaffHe was playing in a casino licensed by the state. Having a casino is a privilege, not a right.
It does not matter in which way the outcome was influenced.
I understand it was a licensed casino. That doesn't change the fact that a meaningless card which was accidentally inserted into the shoe had no impact whatsoever on any of the hands before or after its discovery.
Mistakes happen, and this particular one didn't affect anyone, so why does that entitle the OP to free money?
That is a minimum requirement of a licensed casino.
Mistakes happen. This was a mistake. In life people often have to pay for mistakes.
Notice you did not speculate on what else the casino should have done.
Notice you did not take me up on my bet : The casino did not report this obvious breaking of the rules to the regulating agency.
Or are the rules only for the customer ??
That so called FREE money was in the customer pocket when he sat down to play a game of BJ with a shoe of real decks.
Or was it SD in which all the arguement about it not influencing the game is total bullshit.
CORRECTION : The deck or decks were shuffled, were they not ? So how does an extra card not effect the random order ?
I am no math expert, but I think it does .
Who is to say if that card had not been there, that the OP might have won $415 instead of losing $235 ?
The casino is getting off cheap at returning $235 of the customer's own money and not being fined by the state.
Quote: buzzpaffBecause when I sit down to play at a licensed casino, I expect the cards will be real decks, period !
That is a minimum requirement of a licensed casino.
Mistakes happen. This was a mistake. In life people often have to pay for mistakes.
Notice you did not speculate on what else the casino should have done.
Notice you did not take me up on my bet : The casino did not report this obvious breaking of the rules to the regulating agency.
Or are the rules only for the customer ??
That so called FREE money was in the customer pocket when he sat down to play a game of BJ with a shoe of real decks.
Or was it SD in which all the arguement about it not influencing the game is total bullshit.
CORRECTION : The deck or decks were shuffled, were they not ? So how does an extra card not effect the random order ?
I am no math expert, but I think it does .
Again, unless there was some other anomaly involved in this case, the joker affected nothing. For example (a smaller shoe size is used here for brevity):
With the joker: Ah, 2s, 3c, 4d, Joker, 5s, 6h, 7d, 8c, 9s, Td, Jc, Qh, Kh
Without the joker: Ah, 2s, 3c, 4d, 5s, 6h, 7d, 8c, 9s, Td, Jc, Qh, Kh
What is the difference? The exact same cards are dealt to the exact same hands in the exact same positions.
If it were a mistake that actually mattered, like the situation described here, then I can see the casino being held liable. But in this case, the joker didn't affect anything other than the minds of people who have their head in the sand.
math question is, if the dealer shuffled the cards 3 times on a standard casino shuffle, what are the odds that the random order
was not affected for 16 hands. No fair taking off your shoes to figure this out.
Quote: JBAgain, unless there was some other anomaly involved in this case, the joker affected nothing. For example (a smaller shoe size is used here for brevity):
With the joker: Ah, 2s, 3c, 4d, Joker, 5s, 6h, 7d, 8c, 9s, Td, Jc, Qh, Kh
Without the joker: Ah, 2s, 3c, 4d, 5s, 6h, 7d, 8c, 9s, Td, Jc, Qh, Kh
What is the difference? The exact same cards are dealt to the exact same hands in the exact same positions.
If it were a mistake that actually mattered, like the situation described here, then I can see the casino being held liable. But in this case, the joker didn't affect anything other than the minds of people who have their head in the sand.
So it is your supposition that the order of cards would have been exactly the same after shuffling with 53 cards as with 52 cards ?
REALLY REALLY REALLY
OP said the deck was voided. I think it was SD perhaps OP will verify. If it was 6 deck, then of course the shuffled card would have been the same with 312 or 313 cards NFW !!!!!
Quote: wbuballa23@wizardofengland have you not read anything I have been saying.. after the joker was dealt the entire deck was then voided they did not just discard the joker and keep dealing the hands out.. they had a deliberation with several casino employees and then decided the deck needed to be voided.. so obviously the joker was not just another card to the casino... This is what the whole post was about its not about the joker its the fact that the joker caused the entire deck to be voided therefore the casino needs to reimburse me for my losses during this voided deck.. plain and simple..
Evidently the casino agrees. Why do not the innocent bystanders agree? Evidently this is a byproduct of the Dan Lubin effect.
Quote: CrapsForeverI keep reading people say "if there was something else wrong with the Deck, another card (Ace?) missing, you'd have a more valid claim to get all your money back" How exactly was the OP going to prove there was something else wrong with the Deck? How do we know what else was wrong with the Deck when all the cards were not shown?
You don't. However, standard decks of cards are well-known to come with jokers, and it is very plausible that, as part of the shoe preparation process for a blackjack game, the dealer failed to remove one of the jokers. It is far less plausible that the dealer removed a bunch of tens and replaced them with twos, but that's predicated on trust: if you don't trust the casino you're playing in, stop playing. It seems the OP broke that fundamental rule and only now is crying foul about it.
If he is able to successfully sue for the surveillance video *and* that tape shows that the shoe contained something other than N 52-card decks plus one or more jokers, there may be a claim. But as I and many others have pointed out, a joker in a shoe does not have any theoretical impact on the house edge for blackjack, so if the *only* extra card(s) were jokers, he is not reasonably entitled to any compensation. The $235 offer is, in my view, exceedingly generous.
Edit: if the casino's policy is that a fouled deck voids all action, and the deck was ruled fouled due to the joker, refunding the net loss for players on that shoe should be expected. The casino would likely need to eat any player wins, and there undoubtedly were some, so the casino loses in that case. But I don't see any basis for additional damages. What additional damages would there be?
his losses with that same deck, that all is good. HOW ASININE a position to take. DUH
"Edit: if the casino's policy is that a fouled deck voids all action, and the deck was ruled fouled due to the joker, refunding the net loss for players on that shoe should be expected. " Actions speak louder than words. The casino did indeed rule the deck fouled by the joker. And offered to refund the player the $235. I see nothing exceedingly generous in a casino playing by it's own rules.
Still willing to take action the casino did not report this violation to the regulatory agency !!!!!!!
Quote: buzzpaffSo it is your supposition that the order of cards would have been exactly the same after shuffling with 53 cards as with 52 cards ? REALLY REALLY REALLY
No, but neither would two shuffles of 52 cards. As shuffled, the joker affected nothing.
Claiming that the joker ruined everything and that the player should be completely absolved of all of his gambling losses - including those incurred after the discovery of the joker - is absolutely ridiculous. I stand by my position that the casino was very generous in offering a refund of $235.
Quote: buzzpaffSo when a player loses $235 on a illegal deck, and the casino decides he can not finish playing with that deck, and attempt to retrieve
his losses with that same deck, that all is good. HOW ASININE a position to take. DUH
So now you want it both ways? Just moments ago you implied that the joker ruined the shuffle - why would you want to continue playing with a "ruined" shuffle?
Quote: buzzpaff" The $235 offer is, in my view, exceedingly generous. " Getting away with $235 and not reporting their error to the regulatory agency is a good deal for the casino as well as the patron. And you thoughts on not allowing a customer to finish playing out
the rest of the deck ?
If the deck is fouled, it's fouled -- you don't keep playing with it, you start again. If the policy is to reset action on a fouled hand/deck, the $235 refund is appropriate *even though* the joker had no impact to his theoretical results.
But he's asking for more than $235, isn't he?
I did not rule the joker voided the deck. The casino ruled that is did !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I see nothing generous about a casino living by it's own rules.
Evidently the casino is taking responsibility for it's mistake. !!!!
Quote: wbuballa23I haven't asked for anything @mathextremist i just made a complaint and that is what the casino has offered me
Quote: wbuballa23, first postThat night i went on to lose a total of $1600 and I was extremely upset about them not reimbursing me any money for what had happened.
You seemed to be suggesting that you weren't happy with the $235 they offered you and that you deserved more. Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. Do you believe you deserve more money than $235?
Seems fair to me. not so with some argument.
" If a bird flew over the finishing line before the horse, would you claim to void all the bets? "
No, but if the jockey fell off before the finish line, the stewards would rule the horse was disqualified for not carrying the proper
weight.
The stewards in this case decided the deck was VOIDED and will REFUND the Op his losses.
Talk about a tempest in a teapot !
passionate about this thread. I dealt 5 card stud in back of pool room on Saturday nights too many years ago. Harry, the owner, took a rake of course. I was paid $10 an hour. good money in 1961. Well this wound up to be the craziest poker game you heard off.
all 7 players won for the night. YES ALL 7.
You see , they had this new lieutenant at North western Police Department in Baltimore. I had been in the bowling alley one Friday night several weeks before, when he raided it at 3 am. Only problem was he made a big fuss about seeing the license that by the time
Jake the manager found it, the machines were turned off and the bowlers had street shoes on. When he tried to bust Jake as license was for hours 8am till midnight, Jake said nobody was bowling after midnight. When Lieutenant asked what people were doing there,
Jake said we were all friends waiting to go to breakfast after Jake finished the books. LOL
Well, story got told all over town. This was 1961, Lieutenant had just graduated from college, and had no experience with real life.
But he was obviously a quick learner.
He raided the poker game. But the money was locked up in the safe and only chips were in play. Everything was cool, right !
Or so we thought. He made a big point of asking each and every player if they were just playing for FUN. These were all regular
players and said the right thing. Then before anybody could or dared stop him, he said " Then you won't mind if I mix the chips all up. AND HE DID !
That story got told all over town and he was now one of the " boys in blue " But what a pickle he left Harry in. I mean there was
$1600 in the safe from that night, but he had to pay out $2300 when each player stated what he had in front of him at the time
the chips were pulled into the center of the table and mixed up.
Now if Harry did that because he felt responsible for being raided, I think the casino is right to refund the OP what he lost.
And so evidently does the casino !
Quote: wbuballa23I lost the rest of my money playing poker which I am fine with.. please read posts... thank you
If you lost the rest of your money playing poker, then you need to accept the offer and move on. The casino is offering to return your loss from the blackjack game. What more do you want??
Quote: wbuballa23@JB people please read my post as I have stated numerous amounts of tie that after the joker came out I stopped playing blackjack I did not continue to play blackjack.. I lost the rest of my money playing poker which I am fine with.. please read posts... thank you
I did:
Quote: wbuballa23Ok so this past friday I was playing blackjack at Hollywood Park Casino in Los Angeles, CA. On a particular shoe a joker came out that was not suppose to and the entire deck was voided. On that deck I lost a $1000 and I was not compensated anything that night because the operations manager was not working and I was told there was nothing they could do about it. So I did the smart thing and filed a complaint with the casino. Today I got a call back and the operations manager told me that he was willing to reimburse me $235 because he reviewed the tape and it showed that I had lost $235 during the duration that the 16 hands were dealt before the joker accidentally came out. He did acknowledge that it was the casinos fault and felt that the $235 that I lost was a fair compensation. That night i went on to lose a total of $1600 and I was extremely upset about them not reimbursing me any money for what had happened. I am new to this forum any help would be greatly appreciated... THANKS!!!!
Where in here did you say that you lost the rest of your money playing poker?
Edit: Oh I see, the top of page 5.
Quote: MathExtremistIf the deck is fouled, it's fouled -- you don't keep playing with it, you start again. If the policy is to reset action on a fouled hand/deck, the $235 refund is appropriate *even though* the joker had no impact to his theoretical results.
But he's asking for more than $235, isn't he?
Seems about right to me. The casino should put the player back to the situation he was at the start of the deck. If the player had won, they'd be hard pushed to take back the winnings, but the loss should be restored : while the joker has no net effect on the deck, it an incorrect procedure and calls into question the legitimacy of the entire deck (is another card missing? is another card added? was it correctly shuffled?).
The only quibble would be if the patron thinks they lost more than $235 on the 16 hands they played. They certainly should not keep all winning hands and be paid back all losing hands. I'd guess reviewing all 16 hands shouldn't be too hard, but damned if I'd have known exactly what my chip stack was at the start of a shoe 16 hands later.
LA area casinos do not care about the feelings of one player. Who knows what they get away with. If you are a favorite with any LA casino supervisor, better watch your back at all times.Quote: WizardofEnglandI wouldn't refund any money, the joker had zero effect on you losing this money.
Maybe if you were a regular patron who gave good action every visit, I might do something.
LA area casinos tell many good players to get lost if they do not like you for any reason.Quote: WizardofEnglandBut it would totally depend on how much you are worth to the house.
If you had won $1600 and I asked for it back because the joker was present, would you cough up?
Seems most here at WoV do not understand the absolute power every Los Angeles area casino has.
They have only a few local competitors, but enjoy the largest local player pool in the US available to them.
They could and do care less to make any one player happy. Even a good whale. I know a few of those.
There are millions of others to take that one's place.
Too bad the OP did not DEMAND to see all the cards of the shoe and take a photo of it.
That casino got away cheap and they know it.
Another win for the LA "do not trust" casinos
Quote: buzzpaffThey can see what was bet on each hand and do the math. No, he is not asking for more than he lost !
But there is a dispute here - the player says he lost $1,000 before the joker and the casino says he lost $235.
The casino did. He had his memory, they have the tape. Why is it so unfair for him to request proof from a casino that needs
no "proof" to bar him from playing BJ if he uses his brain and the past past cards exposed to make his decision on a hand ?
Quote: buzzpaffAnd the casino will allow the player to view the tape. All he is asking for is what he lost. He did not declare the deck "VOIDED".
The casino did. He had his memory, they have the tape. Why is it so unfair for him to request proof from a casino that needs
no "proof" to bar him from playing BJ if he uses his brain and the past past cards exposed to make his decision on a hand ?
Let's ignore card counting please; that is introducing oranges into a discussion about apples.
If the casino is allowing the player to view the tape, do you really think they would lie about his losses being $235 and not $1,000?
Of course the casino voided the shoe, as a precaution in case there was something else wrong with it. They want to be using fair decks/shoes just as much as the players want them to be.
Does the $765 discrepancy come from losses encountered during prior shuffles of the same shoe, where the joker happened to be deeper than the cut card and thus never discovered? What is your opinion of shuffles like that - did the joker ruin all of those shoes too, even though it was never dealt out to anyone?
The long-term mathematical effect of the joker being in the shoe was ±0: no benefit for either side, and no detriment to either side. I can't believe how difficult this is to understand.
Quote: WizardofEnglandIf a bird flew over the finishing line before the horse, would you claim to void all the bets?
This is the perfect analogy, thank you.
Quote: buzzpaffAnd the casino will allow the player to view the tape. All he is asking for is what he lost. He did not declare the deck "VOIDED".
The casino did. He had his memory, they have the tape. Why is it so unfair for him to request proof from a casino that needs
no "proof" to bar him from playing BJ if he uses his brain and the past past cards exposed to make his decision on a hand ?
So, they'll let him see the tape, and they'll give back what he lost? If that's right, why is he here whining, Buzz? They're giving him everything he wants and he's still out on the internet bad-mouthing them? That really IS something that could be taken up in court...
Some people think becasue it was the casino's fault
then you are entitled to suck as much money as you want from the casino.
Sure, you can hire lawyers, but you think the casino has no money to hire lawyers?
And you think the judge and jury will always stand on your side
just becasue casinos are "evil" ? (in fact I agree that they are evil)
Yes, let us not ever accuse a casino of being unfair. Just a greedy player asking the casino to abide by it's own rules.
And how dare he ask for proof. Has he no sense of decency ??
This is the perfect analogy, thank you.
Then when the stewards declared the race null and void, would the track keep the funds bet on the race ??
I think not.
Quote: buzzpaff
Then when the stewards declared the race null and void, would the track keep the funds bet on the race ??
I think not.
No, they'd return the funds. Just like Hollywood has already offered to do in this case.
Quote: buzzpaff" Let's ignore card counting please; that is introducing oranges into a discussion about apples."
Yes, let us not ever accuse a casino of being unfair. Just a greedy player asking the casino to abide by it's own rules.
And how dare he ask for proof. Has he no sense of decency ??
Stay with me Buzz... this discussion isn't about card counting. The casino has no problem letting the player view the tape:
Quote: wbuballa23I told him that I wanted to look at the actual 16 hands that were played on that shoe before the joker came out and he said he was fine with that
Why would the casino offer the player a $235 refund AND let him view the tape if they were lying?
And what if there was a lot of action on the table with a dealer 6 up with the joker buried?
Casinos have the occasional opportunity to promote goodwill which can keep players coming back for life- which in the end is better financially for the casino and the player is happier, too, often to their financial detriment. I think many times certain places forget they are in the service/entertainment business and missing the big picture.
Over the years, I can recall a few good and a few bad stories with regard to how casino management handled certain situations- guess who now has my business?
Mark
Because that is what an honest person does, to remove any doubt in the customer's mind.
Quote: JB
The long-term mathematical effect of the joker being in the shoe was ±0: no benefit for either side, and no detriment to either side. I can't believe how difficult this is to understand.
It is fascinating reading the responses to your simple statement. I find it highly unlikely you will ever be able to explain it to Buzz or the OP.
RULES ARE RULES.
The casino declared the deck VOIDED. Pay the man !
Quote: SOOPOOIt is fascinating reading the responses to your simple statement. I find it highly unlikely you will ever be able to explain it to Buzz or the OP.
I will accept it was zero, I will not accept that the casino was at fault.
Funny thing is the casino agrees with me.
And most BJ players are only concerned with a single seesion, not an analysies of the effect over 30 million hands.
Tell me why, if that joker had not been there when the cards were shuffled, that you think the player would have got the same cards !!
Quote: buzzpaffTell me why, if that joker had not been there when the cards were shuffled, that you think the player would have got the same cards !!
Nobody's saying that, Buzz, but it's also not important. What's important is that the joker doesn't have any benefit to either the player or the dealer. I can add a dozen jokers throughout a shuffled deck of cards and deal out a game of blackjack. All I need to do is discard a joker whenever I see it and the game is still functional. It's sort of like playing craps and making a bet on the hard 6. It doesn't matter how many 9s or 2s you roll after you make the bet, the only thing that matters is the next total of 6 or 7. If it's easy 6 or 7, you lose; if it's hard 6, you win -- the other numbers don't count. If you have a dozen jokers in a blackjack shoe, those don't count either. Just the standard playing cards do, and as long as the proper number of those were in the shoe, there was nothing mathematically wrong with the game.
The claim seems to be that but for the joker, the cards would have come out in a different order and the player would have won. But that's false reasoning -- the player could just as easily have lost more, but the joker saved him. Also, the hands that came out *before* the joker appeared weren't affected by the joker at all. To demonstrate this, take a single deck, remove the jokers, and shuffle. Deal out as many hands of blackjack as you can, making sure to keep the cards in the same order in the discard pile. Then, with the cards in the same order, slip the joker in the middle of the deck. Redeal, and note that all the hands that came out before the joker appeared were *exactly the same* as when the joker wasn't there at all.
Lets cut to the chase here: After declaring the deck voided, should the casino have offered to refund the money or not.
Just a simple YES or No !
