What is the casino proper response?
  • I play black jack on a boat in Illinois. As I sat down at a table to begin play, I overheard 2 pitbosses and a dealer discussing a card that they had found underneath the the padded armrest next to the shoe. They decided that since no player is allowed to touch the cards, the card had apparently been accidently pushed there during the intitial table setup that day as the dealer "washed" the cards. They treated this as "no big deal".
    As I am a regular and on 1st name basis with most of the pitbosses, I mentioned to one of them that had I been playing on that table earlier and had lost , I would have expected and demanded my money back as the table would not have been playing with a full 6 deck makeup. The pitboss said that this would not have been allowed and that actually the house was playing at the same disadvantage so it really would not have made a difference.
    I disagreed with this and maintained my stance on this, but as I had just sat down, we let it go.
    I was just wondering if this or something similar has happened to any of you on this site and what was the casino's response.
    Thanks---
    woulfe
  • Wow, that's a new scenario there that I've never heard in my short BJ playing career...

    But I think you are correct, but then again it could go either way and the House could obviously make the case too that they are playing with the same disadvantage. Sorry I'm not much of help on this. I'm sure you will get great feedback from others here though.
  • Bug

    I do not expect to ever run across this again myself. I have played for severalyears and thought I had seen about everything, but still get surprised occassionally. I personally believe that the house would need to make good on any bets made on an what could be termed a "fraudalent shoe"

    woulfe
  • Woulfe -
    I agree that once the integrity of the cards in the shoe has been compromised, then the casino should be accomodating to any player who was playing at that table and catches them on it. I don't know how other casinos would handle it but I would like to think that a high-quality casino would reimburse a player or at least offer some kind of comp as a way of saying "sorry, we screwed up".

    If the pit boss blows off the situation by saying that the house was playing at the same disadavantage then he's full of crap and either doesn't understand the game or isn't being honest. What was the card? If it was an Ace, then it seriously hurts the players (less 3:2 blackjacks being paid = better house advantage) and the players have a huge gripe. If it was a 7 or 8, then I'd probably have to agree with him that its not much of a factor. If it was a 5, then the house actually hurt themselves by not having the card in the deck (i.e. better advantage to the players).
  • I had a somewhat similar experience the day before yesterday in Vegas. The dealer forgot to peek at the hole card to see if she had a BJ or not even though she had an ace showing. At the end of that hand, she turned the card over & lo and behold, it was a 10-card :shock: She motioned the pit critter over, who declared the hand a dead hand. In other words, the dealer ended up not taking anyone's money & returning the money to those who busted :lol: :lol: :lol: She then wished us, "Merry Christmas, everybody" To which I cockily replied, "Ain't no present better than u pulling another Bee-Jay & paying us, honey!" :twisted: She was foreign and didn't grasp the sexual innuendo intended but the whole table erupted in laughter and subsequent hands of 21 dealt to anyone would be accompanied by shouts of BEEE-JAAY !!!!! :lol: :twisted: :lol: :twisted: :lol:
  • Lazy,
    thats a generous pit boss you had. I've had the same situation happen two or three times with the automated hole card checker device (whats the official name of that thing??) giving a false reading. Each time the casino took the players money, with the exception being if anyone doubled down or split then they'd return that portion of the bet. They'd also adjust for blackjacks or insurance. Their reasoning was "well, you would've lost the hand anyways, we just happened to burn a few more cards playing out the individual hands". I didn't necessarily like it but didn't feel I had much grounds for an argument either.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!