3 Hands

S

Sage

Active Member
Was at the Casino yesterday, playing a $10 table with one other player. He was betting 2 hands of $25 each. The TC was between 0 & 1 when he decided to spread to 3 hands. The dealer said he had to bet 5 times the table minimum, or $50 per hand. So he bet 3 hands at $50 each.
Is the 5 times requirement for 3 hands common?
 
Two times table minimum all I've seen. My local casino does not charge any premium to spread hands.
 
Yes, it's still rather common, at least in Nevada. Years ago, five times table minimum was the NORM for three hands. It was almost impossible to find anything different. Lately, I'm noticing more & more places dropping this requirement.
 
Paranoia

I've had double the table minimum a number of times. The casino in Erie Pa. will not let you play two hands unless you are being rated.:confused: It seems that most don't require anything but some of the paranoid:eek: ones do.
 
I used to only see 5x. I hear its relaxed somewhat.
Many times I have gotten the pit to raise the min, like from $5 to $25, and then simultaneously grandfather me in at $5 so that I could play a grifter gambit @ 3x$25 min bet. zg
 
1. From the casino standpoint, what is the logic of making you pay a penalty of 2 times or 3 times minimum if you want to play more than 1 hand?

2. What is the grifter gambit?:joker:
 
3

One of the casinos I play at allows you to do 3 at table min or max or in between:cool::grin:

Another has the same rule but 2 spots only unless at $100 table then you name the rules.:cool::):grin:;)

CP
 
Sage said:
1. From the casino standpoint, what is the logic of making you pay a penalty of 2 times or 3 times minimum if you want to play more than 1 hand?
Click to expand...
Casino and logic do not belong in the same sentence.

Once I was playing 2 hands of black at a time when the (AC) casino was too crowded for the number of tables open. A ploppy asked me to give up a spot because he wanted to play, I said no. Next, he complained to the PC, who made me give up a spot. Ploppy proceeded to bet red and despite my protest, being a preferred player (Diamond) in this casino, no change. And you ask about casino logic? :laugh:
 
Harrahs has signs on every blackjack table that says refusals are limited to 1 hand, $1000

If you play 3 card there as a refusal, ante only you also get limited to 1 hand. I asked why, the pit said "just one of those stupid rules". So I took the bet on my second hand, put it on top of my bet on my first hand, and play continued with no further heat.

Typical casino behavior. Put in dumb, ineffective rules to prevent skilled play and don't allow the staff to know why they're telling someone to do something.
 
Sage said:
1. From the casino standpoint, what is the logic of making you pay a penalty of 2 times or 3 times minimum if you want to play more than 1 hand?

2. What is the grifter gambit?:joker:
Click to expand...
Logic is you take 1 more spot so new player can't join. New player might not be playing table minimum. So you spreading to 2 hands is paying casino for lost opportunity. But that rule allows you to spread 1 to 4 after losing hand. Say I am betting 30$ count become positive I lost hand. I tell dealer I need to change flow of cards and put 2 bets of 30$ now dealer tell me I have to bet 50$ I add green chip to each hand now my total bet is 110$ almost 4x my original bet. And casino think they force me to bet more. If I win or even push just one hand and someone join in. I just fix flow of cards now new player going to ruin it. I need to bet 3 hands. Oh sorry I can,t bet 55$ is new minimum 75$ ok I bet 80$ hand. That 1÷8 spread. I am not trying to bet more casino force me to. If minimum for 3 hands is 125$ great I bet that flow of cards is more important. But my bet is 12.5x my original. For someone betting table minimum is 15x minimum bet. You not increase your bet whit count you victim who force to bet more to protect flow of cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top