6:5 payout on a 3:2 table

[CallSaul]

I was playing blackjack a few weeks ago (at a 3:2 table, obviously), and THREE times in the course of about an hour, the dealer tried to pay blackjacks at 6:5. Only the first attempted mis-pay was for me - the other two were for other players at the table. Each time, I politely reminded her that BJs pay 3:2, and she fixed it immediately.

Funny thing is, if I hadn't said anything, I think the other players would have just accepted being short-changed. They seemed oblivious (the free-flowing booze may have had something to do with that).

But it made me wonder how often this happens, where the dealer pays 6:5 on a 3:2 table and nobody notices.

[DatabaseGuy]

If it is a mistake, it's bad. If she did it on purpose, as instructed by her manager, then it's a fraud.

[BigJer]

Most 'players' probably don't understand the disadvantage in 6:5 so they brush it off.

At a table I was at a few months back a dealer at a H17 table stood on S17. I mentioned it to him and he said 'not at my table.' So I took the money.

[CallSaul]

At a table I was at a few months back a dealer at a H17 table stood on S17. I mentioned it to him and he said 'not at my table.' So I took the money.

I've had that happen a handful of times, too. When I'm standing on, say, an 18, I keep my mouth shut and let him pay me. But if I have a 15, you'd better believe I'm going to point to the felt and say "doesn't that say you have to hit that?"

[Freightman]

I've had that happen a handful of times, too. When I'm standing on, say, an 18, I keep my mouth shut and let him pay me. But if I have a 15, you'd better believe I'm going to point to the felt and say "doesn't that say you have to hit that?"

I had that exact situation, and declined to correct the dealer. The dealer continued to deal S17 until the critter finally caught it, and stopped it. Had I corrected, I would have missed on several more shoes of profitable S17.

[Ryemo]

If it is a mistake, it's bad. If she did it on purpose, as instructed by her manager, then it's a fraud.

Many dealers (especially on the strip) are probably used to paying out 6:5, so I'm sure it's reflex for them.

[Boz]

I had that exact situation, and declined to correct the dealer. The dealer continued to deal S17 until the critter finally caught it, and stopped it. Had I corrected, I would have missed on several more shoes of profitable S17.

I'd normally correct it the first time it caused a loss. The tiny advantage isn't worth the loss of a minimum bet. But 15 v. soft 17? Yeah, I'd just take the loss since the dealer hitting it is unlikely to change the results and I'd prefer an enhanced advantage.

To the OP, getting paid 6:5 on blackjack happens all the time. Just as I accidentally sit down at 6:5 all the time because the casino successfully clouded the fact it was 6:5, dealers sometimes don't know what the hell they're dealing either. Difference is sometimes they don't ask. It could go on his entire rotation. I generally wouldn't correct mispays on ploppy hands, whether favorable or unfavorable.

[bigplayer]

Correct the dealer regarding your bet. Let the idiots get killed. Their losses is what makes your play possible.

[Three]

I'd normally correct it the first time it caused a loss. The tiny advantage isn't worth the loss of a minimum bet. But 15 v. soft 17? Yeah, I'd just take the loss since the dealer hitting it is unlikely to change the results and I'd prefer an enhanced advantage.

All stiffs are equal. Just what matchup are you talking about. What loss isn't an equivalent situation to 15 v soft 17? To lose you must have an unmade hand and God created all of them as equal once you stand.

[Boz]

All stiffs are equal. Just what matchup are you talking about. What loss isn't an equivalent situation to 15 v soft 17? To lose you must have an unmade hand and God created all of them as equal once you stand.

You're right. I was dyslexic. I was thinking of it in reverse...I'd let him hit 17 to his heart's content at an S17 until it caused a loss. There is no situation where I'd not correct the dealer at an H17 table--barring a split push.

[Three]

I say usually yes, but not in this situation, because you will probably lose the hand anyway, and you want to preserve the advantageous rule.

But every stiff will also lose so when you are deciding whether or not to correct him there is nothing special about 15 or any other unmade hand. That was my point. At the time you make your decision 15 is the same as any other inmate hand. This begs the question what hand are you alluding to that you would correct the dealer.

[Three]

I'd normally correct it the first time it caused a loss.

But 15 v. soft 17?

Yeah, I'd just take the loss since the dealer hitting it is unlikely to change the results and I'd prefer an enhanced advantage.

These three quotes don't make sense in the same post. So you normally correct him the first time standing causes a loss. then you single out 15 from all the unmade hands that would all be losing. Every loser would be equivalent to 15vS17.

[Boz]

I caught it while you were still writing your posts. Check the edited version.