Under Nevada law, the casino must have the cash to back any bet.
Of course the casino needs the cash to cover for a BIG WIN and having table limits makes sense, but in the same casino you can find limits like: 5-200, 10-500, 15-1000 etc. If the limits were there only for the casino to cover the bets with cash, why wouldn’t all the tables have the same max bet?
My statement was a response to they set table limits to thwart martingalers. Obviously that isn't true because a martingales can start with the lowest limit in the casino and table hope until his bets can't be made at the highest limit table in the casino. The martingaler can even change to a higher end casino with much higher limits when the next bet can't be made at ant table in the casino he started.
Bookmarks