young gun: pit ruling

[young gun]

I was playing in an AC casino high-roller room no mid-shoe entry (big surprise) game. A random ploppy is watching and decides he wants to play even though the shoe has started. He puts his bet in the circle and the dealer doesn't say anything (great news for me). Sure enough the first card is dealt to both of us when the dealer realizes her mistake. She calls the supervisor, who tells me I can take my bet back but that the player's bet who entered mid-shoe must be taken back. The guy had a 10, yet didn't argue and took his bet back and left.

My thinking is that once a card is dealt, the bet should stand, even if the player broke their sacred no-mid shoe entry rule. I think if he had argued he would have been able to continue with that hand only.

Does anyone know what the rule is on this?

[young gun]

The supervision gave me the OPTION to make my bet back, whereas the other player was forced to take his bet back. And remember, a 10 was his first card.

[21forme]

> The supervision gave me the OPTION to make my bet
> back, whereas the other player was forced to take his
> bet back. And remember, a 10 was his first card.

Sounds reasonable to me, and is usually the way it's done. What difference does the 10 make?

[Don Schlesinger]

> Sounds reasonable to me, and is usually the way it's
> done.

Sounds reasonable to me, too, and is usually the way it's done! :-)

> What difference does the 10 make?

I think "young gun" is implying that the boss saw a potentially good hand for the offending player, and rushed to make sure that he couldn't complete it -- the implication being that, had the player gotten, say, a five, instead, the boss would have let the hand go. He definitely would NOT have!

Don

[young gun]

> Sounds reasonable to me, and is usually the way it's
> done. What difference does the 10 make?

I don't think I've ever seen a player be FORCED to take his bet back like that. The dealer made a procedural error, and the player should be given the option to play that hand IMO.

I was really just wondering what the actual rule is. In other words, if the player argued, and perhaps gaming got involved, what would be the standard ruling? I did not think for a second that the pit person was being selective about letting the hand continue, as it was just a $100 bet (table minimum).

[Don Schlesinger]

> I don't think I've ever seen a player be FORCED to
> take his bet back like that. The dealer made a
> procedural error, and the player should be given the
> option to play that hand IMO.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't the way it's done. When a dealer makes a mistake, you don't always get the option to "do it your way." So, when the dealer accepts a bet that he shouldn't have, the pit boss has the right to correct the situation, before the hand goes any further.

For another example, the casinos are absolutely adamant in not backing up the cards, once they're dealt. So, suppose you have a bet up, and the dealer skips right by you, dealing to the next spot, when, suddenly, you protest, "How about me?!" Dealer stops the game and calls over the pit boss. He will absolutely NOT give you the card of the player to your left. You do NOT get in that hand! The players now have a right to take back their bets, or to let the hand continue, but you are out, whether you like it or not.

The player in your story is out, whether he likes it or not.

Don

[orster52]

> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't
> the way it's done. When a dealer makes a mistake, you
> don't always get the option to "do it your
> way." So, when the dealer accepts a bet that he
> shouldn't have, the pit boss has the right to correct
> the situation, before the hand goes any further.

> For another example, the casinos are absolutely
> adamant in not backing up the cards, once they're
> dealt. So, suppose you have a bet up, and the dealer
> skips right by you, dealing to the next spot, when,
> suddenly, you protest, "How about me?!"
> Dealer stops the game and calls over the pit boss. He
> will absolutely NOT give you the card of the player to
> your left. You do NOT get in that hand! The players
> now have a right to take back their bets, or to let
> the hand continue, but you are out, whether you like
> it or not.

> The player in your story is out, whether he likes it
> or not.

> Don

A few years ago I was playing third base at sonic pueblo just outside Reno. I double down on 11. Dealer has seven up. Dealer peeks top card, sees it is a 10 and passes me by, dealing it to herself. She flips her bottom card, 4, for a 21, beating everyone at the table. I complain to the pit critter. He says he won't back up the cards, won't let me withdraw the bet, won't even let me take back the double down bet. He says I decided to stand on my double down 11. Blatant cheating by dealer and pit of course. For a couple hundred are you really going to go to gaming?

[young gun]

> A few years ago I was playing third base at sonic
> pueblo just outside Reno. I double down on 11. Dealer
> has seven up. Dealer peeks top card, sees it is a 10
> and passes me by, dealing it to herself. She flips her
> bottom card, 4, for a 21, beating everyone at the
> table. I complain to the pit critter. He says he won't
> back up the cards, won't let me withdraw the bet,
> won't even let me take back the double down bet. He
> says I decided to stand on my double down 11. Blatant
> cheating by dealer and pit of course. For a couple
> hundred are you really going to go to gaming?

I would go to gaming for sure. Why not? What do you have to lose? I don't think it paints you as an AP, and that is the only risk I can think of. My time is definitely worth a couple hundred dollars of risk-free money, and if you're playing those stakes, yours probably is too.

[anon]

i think they would have made him withdraw bet even if a 6

[anon]