Collusion With Dealer Advantage Play, How much can I win?
It is not realistic to go into a casino and bet $5 for yourself and $50+ for the dealer. That just looks fishy altogether. Assuming I do a 1-1 ratio for example, $10 for myself and $10 for the dealer. How much can I expect to win by following the wizards play? He mentions there is a 26% house edge.
Keep in mind all the tips that go to the dealer is still my money. Take those profits and subtract it with the house edge that I am expecting to lose from my bet.
This might be a confusing question. Please let me know if something needs to be clarified.
I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.
I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.
Quote: WoO 3 card poker pageTipping Strategy
At many casinos if the player makes a tip for the dealer then the player has the option to call on the tip portion of the bet. For example, if the player bets $5 for himself, and $1 for the dealer, the player may raise his own wager but not the tip. The correct strategy based on the tip alone is to call any hand of king high or less. So on hands of Q/6/4 to K/Q/10 the player should raise his own bet but not the tip. However, with less than Q/6/4 there is a conflict of interest. To maximize the total expected value of the player's bet and the tip, the player should raise on hands just under Q/6/4. The greater the ratio of tip to bet the more hands under Q/6/4 the player should raise on.
A fantastic advantage play, in collusion with the dealers, would be to bet the table minimum on the bet and the table maximum on the tip. Then raise on ace high or better, otherwise call. This would result in a player advantage on the tip of 26.09%.
Quote: odiousgambitHe mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.
I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.
I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.
I believe the Wizard should edit the verbiage
This is not dealer collusion in the legal sense (the player has an illicit agreement with the dealer for him to bend or break the rules to his advantage)
Instead this is the player (any player) who is using the rules of the game to his advantage with a strategy that while a bit unorthodox returns a decent player advantage
I believe the word Wizard meant was conjunction not collusion and he needs to stress he is referring to the wagers NOT the people . "When player and dealer wager and tip are used in conjuntion..."
Or "when player wager and dealer tip are used in conjunction..."
That sounds like a more legit AP move and a more accurate description
EDIT: if I read the suggestion correctly the point of the move is to create the largest ratio between player wager and dealer tip which while unorthodox is within the rules. This is the move that creates a player advantage
NOT colluding with the dealer so that his very large winning tip wagers are later split between him and the player
Quote: darkozQuote: odiousgambitHe mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.
I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.
I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.
I believe the Wizard should edit the verbiage
This is not dealer collusion in the legal sense (the player has an illicit agreement with the dealer for him to bend or break the rules to his advantage)
Instead this is the player (any player) who is using the rules of the game to his advantage with a strategy that while a bit unorthodox returns a decent player advantage
I believe the word Wizard meant was conjunction not collusion and he needs to stress he is referring to the wagers NOT the people . "When player and dealer wager and tip are used in conjuntion..."
Or "when player wager and dealer tip are used in conjunction..."
That sounds like a more legit AP move and a more accurate description
EDIT: if I read the suggestion correctly the point of the move is to create the largest ratio between player wager and dealer tip which while unorthodox is within the rules. This is the move that creates a player advantage
NOT colluding with the dealer so that his very large winning tip wagers are later split between him and the player
No. It only creates a player advantage if the tips are later split. Otherwise it creates a “tip advantage” but the player still loses on the non tip bet.
Quote: unJonQuote: darkozQuote: odiousgambitHe mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.
I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.
I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.
I believe the Wizard should edit the verbiage
This is not dealer collusion in the legal sense (the player has an illicit agreement with the dealer for him to bend or break the rules to his advantage)
Instead this is the player (any player) who is using the rules of the game to his advantage with a strategy that while a bit unorthodox returns a decent player advantage
I believe the word Wizard meant was conjunction not collusion and he needs to stress he is referring to the wagers NOT the people . "When player and dealer wager and tip are used in conjuntion..."
Or "when player wager and dealer tip are used in conjunction..."
That sounds like a more legit AP move and a more accurate description
EDIT: if I read the suggestion correctly the point of the move is to create the largest ratio between player wager and dealer tip which while unorthodox is within the rules. This is the move that creates a player advantage
NOT colluding with the dealer so that his very large winning tip wagers are later split between him and the player
No. It only creates a player advantage if the tips are later split. Otherwise it creates a “tip advantage” but the player still loses on the non tip bet.
Well the Wiz needs to clarify what he is suggesting I suppose
Quote: ADVplayerYes and my question is how much can I earn assuming All the tip money is mine subtracted by my losses from my main bet if the bet ratio was 1-1
So you think a Dealer is going to collude with you, risk their job and risk being arrested and you get to keep all the tip money? Interesting concept.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13So you think a Dealer is going to collude with you, risk their job and risk being arrested and you get to keep all the tip money? Interesting concept.
ZCore13
That’s something you can let me worry about right? I simply want to know the answer to the question.
Quote: ADVplayerThat’s something you can let me worry about right? I simply want to know the answer to the question.
You'll have plenty of time to worry about it from jail.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13You'll have plenty of time to worry about it from jail.
ZCore13
Wonder what would happen if casino owners banned tipping dealers?
Quote: MaxPenWonder what would happen if casino owners banned tipping dealers?
That won't happen. But colluding with a dealer to manipulate the rules and take money from the casino isn't a real good career decision.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13That won't happen. But colluding with a dealer to manipulate the rules and take money from the casino isn't a real good career decision.
ZCore13
A lot of people in the industry probably thought pooling and redistribution wouldn't happen either.
In order to be illegal the collusion would have to involve the dealer breaking or altering the rules of the game
Although weird a minimum player wager and maximum tip wager if it is within the rules and if the dealer did nothing to affect the outcome of the cards as played would technically not be breaking the law
The house either wins on the wagers or loses per the rules house edge and normal gameplay
Technically what the dealer want to do with his hard earned tips is his business
He can even hand over his entire paycheck to a friend who gambles at his table. Thats not illegal either
Quote: darkozNot to be argumentative but I as I think it over I am not certain this would be illegal
In order to be illegal the collusion would have to involve the dealer breaking or altering the rules of the game
Although weird a minimum player wager and maximum tip wager if it is within the rules and if the dealer did nothing to affect the outcome of the cards as played would technically not be breaking the law
The house either wins on the wagers or loses per the rules house edge and normal gameplay
Technically what the dealer want to do with his hard earned tips is his business
He can even hand over his entire paycheck to a friend who gambles at his table. Thats not illegal either
Would you be willing to take that risk? My guess would be charges might not stick, but you'll probably spend a day or two in jail, be on the news, pay for an attorney, etc.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Would you be willing to take that risk? My guess would be charges might not stick, but you'll probably spend a day or two in jail, be on the news, pay for an attorney, etc.
ZCore13
Its not my hustle
But basically you just agreed with me.
If charges cant stick then its because???
Card counting caused people to get locked up at one point too
Quote: MaxPenA lot of people in the industry probably thought pooling and redistribution wouldn't happen either.
The origination of pooling came from dealers, not management. Every dealer says they would make more if the kept their own. These are the same dealers that think 25% house edge side bets are good bets and give players wrong strategy when asked.
My guess would be 60% - 70% of people in the tip pool make more than what they would on their own. And many pretend to want to keep their own, but are happy with the pool.
ZCore13
I can’t see how it would be worth it unless the dealer was quitting that day and never wanted to deal or use that place as a reference.
As a result, napkin math suggests this difference comes into play on ~1/9th of the hands, turning a -1 into a +1. If this is being done with matching bets, you'd've folded that 1/9th that won, turning a -2 into a 0. All in all, I'm ballparking an advantage in the low 10s, which is still ultimately a futile prospect since this is predicated upon finding a dealer and house that's willing to let this fly. (And I'm sure the dealer'll want a cut too.) Oh well. Interesting thought exercise over morning coffee.
And then the dealer can sue for wrongful dismissal, wrongful prosecution. Big money coming.Quote: Zcore13Would you be willing to take that risk? My guess would be charges might not stick, but you'll probably spend a day or two in jail, be on the news, pay for an attorney, etc.
ZCore13
Ex. A) Dealer gets max bet tips within the rules. Resultant wins dealer takes home and KEEPS FOR HIMSELF
Gives money to landlord and electric bills
No crime
Ex. B) Dealer gets max bet tips within the rules. Resultant wins dealer takes home and give some or half or all to his friend who tipped him
Suddenly illegal?
I would say, absolutely yes, that is illegal.Quote: darkoz
Ex. B) Dealer gets max bet tips within the rules. Resultant wins dealer takes home and give some or half or all to his friend who tipped him
Suddenly illegal?
I know it's not the same, and I don't know what the final outcome was or exactly what happened, but I seem to remember there being an issue with poker players tipping cocktail waitresses large amounts so they get money off the table and then they cocktail waitresses would give it back to them at home. I just remember thinking... that has to be illegal somehow.
I wouldn't feel confident that colluding with a dealer(even if it's within the law) would get a pass from a jury.Quote: FinsRuleThere’s no crime. For there to be a crime, a law has to be broken.
Quote: AxelWolfI wouldn't feel confident that colluding with a dealer(even if it's within the law) would get a pass from a jury.
Juries dont get to decide the law. They decide if the evidence proves the crime accused by the DA was committed
The DA does not get to decide The law. He has to determine what specific crime was committed. It has to be a written law not a "gee it just sounds wrong" law
Is there a law that players who know a dealer as a friend cant play at their table?
Is there a law they cant tip them? (I would expect friends to be even bigger tippers)
Is there a law that legit wagers cant be made if certain factors are in play(doubt there Is that law)
And is there a law that dealers cant do what they want with their income including giving it to their friends
Absent any laws to the above there is no crime
Absent any crime the DA has to come up with a charge before moving forward
And then prove that charge actually occurred
I dont think this is illegal UNDER THE LAW. Which is all that really counts
Quote: gordonm888All, remember that Zcore13 has said in this forum that he is in a supervisory/management position in a casino and, also on this forum, has always expressed a viewpoint that is tantamount to an ideological belief that a casino has a sovereign and legal right to all the money that players possess. Arguing with him by using logic is pointless, IMO. You might as well throw a rock at the moon and try to knock it from the sky.
I've never said casinos have a right to money players possess. That's ridiculous. And so is saying using logic is pointless.
I was (and still am) a player long before I was in the business. I was also a dealer before I was a Supervisor.
Nothing I've said is than unlikely. The player has a good chance of getting arrested. The dealer has a good chance of getting arrested at worst, fired at least. I said the charges probably wouldn't stick., but the publicity and cost would not be good. Not a good idea to risk it.
My opinion is based on many years in the business. Real life experience of how things happen. What's your experience in the business?
ZCore13
Is the player allowed to make a $Y tip-bet for the dealer?
Is the casino policy to allow the dealer's bet to "ride" without the player putting up a "play" wager for it? Is this policy legal?
Are the dealer and player acting lawfully even if they following the rules of the game and are not breaking any laws? This one should be pretty obvious, but, ya know....
The answer to all 4 (5*) of those questions is a resounding, "YES!"
So please, if you disagree and think this is illegal -- please, write specifically and exactly what makes this illegal. Saying you might end up in jail is terrible logic (if you have to ask why, you're already wrong). Saying the dealer might get fired is also terrible logic.
Quote: RSIs the player allowed to make a $X bet on his own bet?
Is the player allowed to make a $Y tip-bet for the dealer?
Is the casino policy to allow the dealer's bet to "ride" without the player putting up a "play" wager for it? Is this policy legal?
Are the dealer and player acting lawfully even if they following the rules of the game and are not breaking any laws? This one should be pretty obvious, but, ya know....
The answer to all 4 (5*) of those questions is a resounding, "YES!"
So please, if you disagree and think this is illegal -- please, write specifically and exactly what makes this illegal. Saying you might end up in jail is terrible logic (if you have to ask why, you're already wrong). Saying the dealer might get fired is also terrible logic.
It really doesnt matter what you think is logical. Here's what would happen if the situation was observed where I was the Table Games Director. I am generally more reasonable than most and definitely side for the player in all situations that I can. I have never banned a player permanently before and have fought for players to not be banned.
Dealer would be suspended pending investigation.
HR or Casino Attorney would review the situation and determine the outcome.
If no action taken, dealer would receive pay or paid time off for the days missed.
If recommended by investigator, dealer would be fired for colluding with a player to manipulate the spirit of the rules.
If asked, I would have no opinion either way on termination, but would recommend suspension if investigator believes there should be some action taken, but not termination. The only way this would happen at a place I was, would be if I recently took over. It would not be allowed under the rules otherwise.
Player would be asked to not return until investigation complete by Casino Attorney.
I would not call police at any point and would not ban up front.
I would have no opinion either way on charges. That's the Attorneys job.
If asked, I would recommend banning for colluding with a dealer to manipulate rules. Anyone that would do this would take other shots in my opinion and I'd rather not have them as a customer.
I've known about this possibility for years. I personally would never even think about doing this if/when I was not in the business. I dont even let dealers mis-pay me or cashiers over pay me. To me this is not normal AP. I have no problem with normal AP situations. Card counting, hole carding, etc, are issues the casino should be responsible for not allowing to take place if they dont want it to happen. The player is not at fault for trying. Colluding with Staff is different to me.
ZCore13
Quote: RSIs the player allowed to make a $X bet on his own bet?
Is the player allowed to make a $Y tip-bet for the dealer?
Is the casino policy to allow the dealer's bet to "ride" without the player putting up a "play" wager for it? Is this policy legal?
Are the dealer and player acting lawfully even if they following the rules of the game and are not breaking any laws? This one should be pretty obvious, but, ya know....
The answer to all 4 (5*) of those questions is a resounding, "YES!"
So please, if you disagree and think this is illegal -- please, write specifically and exactly what makes this illegal. Saying you might end up in jail is terrible logic (if you have to ask why, you're already wrong). Saying the dealer might get fired is also terrible logic.
In a union it's a little harder, but assuming the dealer is non-union, I have no idea why you say it's "terrible logic" that a dealer might be fired for colluding with a player.
You can't just say "terrible logic" if you don't have a reason and expect people to take a post seriously. It's extremely logical that a casino wouldn't want their dealer colluding with players!
Quote: FinsRuleIn a union it's a little harder, but assuming the dealer is non-union, I have no idea why you say it's "terrible logic" that a dealer might be fired for colluding with a player.
You can't just say "terrible logic" if you don't have a reason and expect people to take a post seriously. It's extremely logical that a casino wouldn't want their dealer colluding with players!
He wasnt saying jts terrible logic the casino doesnt condone collusion but that it automatically is illegal and would wind up with a jail stay
There are many AP moves the casinos dont condone AND which I personally have been told by casino staff amount to cheating, theft, collusion, a scam, etc IN THEIR EYES but which UNDER THE LAW ARE NOT
Ie what the casinos feel is meaningless when it comes to who is going to get locked up
Vis a vis terrible logic
EDIT: I do see he also says the dealer might get fired. U until its deemed against the rules to accept tip wagers from friends then I agree it is terrible logic but I am sure casinos would do it
Quote: Zcore13It really doesnt matter what you think is logical. Here's what would happen if the situation was observed where I was the Table Games Director. I am generally more reasonable than most and definitely side for the player in all situations that I can. I have never banned a player permanently before and have fought for players to not be banned.
Dealer would be suspended pending investigation.
HR or Casino Attorney would review the situation and determine the outcome.
If no action taken, dealer would receive pay or paid time off for the days missed.
If recommended by investigator, dealer would be fired for colluding with a player to manipulate the spirit of the rules.
If asked, I would have no opinion either way on termination, but would recommend suspension if investigator believes there should be some action taken, but not termination. The only way this would happen at a place I was, would be if I recently took over. It would not be allowed under the rules otherwise.
Player would be asked to not return until investigation complete by Casino Attorney.
I would not call police at any point and would not ban up front.
I would have no opinion either way on charges. That's the Attorneys job.
If asked, I would recommend banning for colluding with a dealer to manipulate rules. Anyone that would do this would take other shots in my opinion and I'd rather not have them as a customer.
I've known about this possibility for years. I personally would never even think about doing this if/when I was not in the business. I dont even let dealers mis-pay me or cashiers over pay me. To me this is not normal AP. I have no problem with normal AP situations. Card counting, hole carding, etc, are issues the casino should be responsible for not allowing to take place if they dont want it to happen. The player is not at fault for trying. Colluding with Staff is different to me.
ZCore13
I do.not agree with your idea about manipulation. Perhaps its just me but in my opinion manipulation would involve something illegal
Making something happen thats WITHIN the stated rules (making an allowed tip wager up to the specified maximum for example) is NOT manipulation. It simply making a large wager the casinos isnt happy with at that moment similar to a sudden large wager by a card counter
When you get in a car and turn on the ignition did you manipulate it? Or it just worked the way its supposed to?
Pulling out wires and connecting them is manipulation. Using your keys is not
Making wagers allowed by the rules is not manipulation either
Ie similar to card counting from the legal perspective
Quote: darkozOverall Im of the opinion that casinos WILL do everything they can to stop this but it is not illegal
Ie similar to card counting from the legal perspective
99% of Table Games Supervisors and higher would have no clue what was going on if they saw it happening.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore1399% of Table Games Supervisors and higher would have no clue what was going on if they saw it happening.
ZCore13
If a table game supervisor saw a player betting $5 and tipping $100 they wouldn’t pull the dealer from the table? Come on.
Quote: FinsRuleIf a table game supervisor saw a player betting $5 and tipping $100 they wouldn’t pull the dealer from the table? Come on.
Yea they would assume illegailty
They may even believe its some form of money laundering
Quote: FinsRuleIf a table game supervisor saw a player betting $5 and tipping $100 they wouldn’t pull the dealer from the table? Come on.
If you're a guy, and you set it up with a pretty female dealer, you give the supervision a motive they can shrug off. The guy is trying to impress her; good for him.
Quote: FinsRuleIf a table game supervisor saw a player betting $5 and tipping $100 they wouldn’t pull the dealer from the table? Come on.
That doesn't mean they would know what was going on.
Where I work, $100 toke bets happen just about every night, but the are generally accompanied by $2,000 or $3,000 in main bets.
ZCore13
Quote: beachbumbabsIf you're a guy, and you set it up with a pretty female dealer, you give the supervision a motive they can shrug off. The guy is trying to impress her; good for him.
Yeah I think once. Or twice
Every hand and there isnt any female Im trying to convince that hard
Well, maybe Rihanna. I got a crush on her. But she wouldnt be dealing a card game lol
I would go with a general Conspiracy indictment. It may not hold up in court but players legal fees would discourage repeats.
Ban the player and fire the dealer.
Quote: billryanAs tips are generally pooled, this seems like a horrible plan.
I would go with a general Conspiracy indictment. It may not hold up in court but players legal fees would discourage repeats.
Ban the player and fire the dealer.
If it is shown to not have a legal basis and the casino does it to repeaters it could wind up with malicious prosecution lawsuit or even a false imprisonment if they hold anyone
Casinos should watch HOW they throw their weight around as has been demonstrated in many cases
Quote: darkoz
EDIT: I do see he also says the dealer might get fired. U until its deemed against the rules to accept tip wagers from friends then I agree it is terrible logic but I am sure casinos would do it
This is one interesting point: Are dealers actually allowed to deal games to their personal friends?
I remember being in high school and working as a cashier, the store had a policy that we couldn't check out our family or, "Close," friends.,,whatever the hell, "Close," meant...their verbiage, not mine. I assume for similar reasons, but any reasons I can think of in the store case would be outright theft or theft by deception-fraud. I don't see how either of those things apply in the 3CP question, but if the casino does have a policy against dealing to friends...then that would at least give them the ability to terminate employment with impunity.
Here's another one:
A casino familiar to me allows dealers to go $3 and down on a $1 toke bet on the Place 6 or Place 8 on Craps. Toke bets are also not combined, so you have:
(2 * 5/11) - (6/11) = 0.36363636363
Each such bet as a positive expectation of about 36 cents, so 72 cents if both bets are made. If you fire the dice quickly (which you would be motivated to do) say you can get in 100 rolls per hour. Each bet would resolve once every 11/36 rolls, on average. That's about 30.56 resolution per bet/hour, which is about $11/hour in expectation per bet, so $22 for the two bets combined.
This casino also pools tips amongst all dealers, but imagine if just the Craps dealers kept their own as a group or as a table. All they would need is a confederate making the bets for them and they could agree to split everything. (Dealer's earnings + Tips) They could even live together, or something. Also, they could have multiple confederates at this casino because (for obvious reasons) they treat the $1 toke bets separately if on the same number.
I really don't see what the problem would be, the casino makes the rules. Of course, it's not like that would be the first time a casino expected a player to follow their rules while they themselves break them...or only realize later that they've been outsmarted and take averse action.
Quote: Mission146This is one interesting point: Are dealers actually allowed to deal games to their personal friends?
I remember being in high school and working as a cashier, the store had a policy that we couldn't check out our family or, "Close," friends.,,whatever the hell, "Close," meant...their verbiage, not mine. I assume for similar reasons, but any reasons I can think of in the store case would be outright theft or theft by deception-fraud. I don't see how either of those things apply in the 3CP question, but if the casino does have a policy against dealing to friends...then that would at least give them the ability to terminate employment with impunity.
Here's another one:
A casino familiar to me allows dealers to go $3 and down on a $1 toke bet on the Place 6 or Place 8 on Craps. Toke bets are also not combined, so you have:
(2 * 5/11) - (6/11) = 0.36363636363
Each such bet as a positive expectation of about 36 cents, so 72 cents if both bets are made. If you fire the dice quickly (which you would be motivated to do) say you can get in 100 rolls per hour. Each bet would resolve once every 11/36 rolls, on average. That's about 30.56 resolution per bet/hour, which is about $11/hour in expectation per bet, so $22 for the two bets combined.
This casino also pools tips amongst all dealers, but imagine if just the Craps dealers kept their own as a group or as a table. All they would need is a confederate making the bets for them and they could agree to split everything. (Dealer's earnings + Tips) They could even live together, or something. Also, they could have multiple confederates at this casino because (for obvious reasons) they treat the $1 toke bets separately if on the same number.
I really don't see what the problem would be, the casino makes the rules. Of course, it's not like that would be the first time a casino expected a player to follow their rules while they themselves break them...or only realize later that they've been outsmarted and take averse action.
I have seen some players clubs make you sign a document stating you are not related to any employees but that only would preclude you from the slots club. Not gambling in the establishment unrated
So is there a) policy and b) laws pertaining to being allowed to deal to someone you know outside the casino?
Assuming it’s a cash transaction that takes place outside the casino in the dealers free time and neither the dealer or player ever admits it occurred , I don’t see how it’s found out
Quote: darkozI have seen some players clubs make you sign a document stating you are not related to any employees but that only would preclude you from the slots club. Not gambling in the establishment unrated
So is there a) policy and b) laws pertaining to being allowed to deal to someone you know outside the casino?
I have never had to sign anything when signing up at the players club at any casino. If someone were to do this play, I’d hope they’re smart enough to play somewhere where you don’t gotta do that weird crap with signing stuff.
Policy at the casinos I’ve dealt at is to not deal to friends or family. If someone you know tries to play at your table, alert the floor, and they’ll make a decision as to whether you can deal to them, if they have to swap dealers, or something else.
I don’t think there are any laws regarding whom* you can or can’t deal to, at least in NV.
1) Right to refuse service, ban the player from the property.
2) "At will employment" (which most states have) dealer terminated.
3) New Rules: A) Dealer bet is folded if player folds. B) Dealer bet cannot exceed player bet.
4) New Training: Pits won't let this fly, and dealers will be taught this is colluding and they will be fired.
Quote: RomesIf nothing else, this is all a moot discussion because the following will happen (regardless of legalities):
1) Right to refuse service, ban the player from the property.
2) "At will employment" (which most states have) dealer terminated.
3) New Rules: A) Dealer bet is folded if player folds. B) Dealer bet cannot exceed player bet.
4) New Training: Pits won't let this fly, and dealers will be taught this is colluding and they will be fired.
Spoilsport
We were just having fun and now you bring reality into it
1) Are the dealers keeping their own tips here, or is it a pool? It must be that they are keeping their tips for there to be any chance this could work.
1a) If the dealers are keeping their own tips, how do you get your chosen dealer on that particular game at that particular time. IF the dealer or someone in management is manipulating the schedule to make this happen, that is the offense that can be grounds for termination.
2) Why does the casino have the policy that the toke on the ante does not have to be matched? Everywhere I have been in a position to make this decision, tokes on the ante MUST be matched on the play. If the player just wants to make one bet, the dealer will instruct them to put it on the Pair Plus.
3) Why is the casino allowing toke bets that large in comparison to the player's bet. Generally a player can bet up to $25 or 10% of the player's main bet.
There is no crime here, but there certainly is either a bad policy by the casino and possible schedule manipulation. Nobody is getting arrested for this one.
ZCore, please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.
Quote: FCBLComish
ZCore, please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.
Nothing really to discuss. It's all theoretical. Nobody would get away with it.
ZCore13
