Dead hand?

[kewljason]

Was playing the other day in AC, when an odd occurrance took place. The cut card came out and the dealer flipped it towards the guy at first, who picked it up. After the hand was played out and paid, the dealer deals another hand. I had a 4 unit bet out and received a BJ (dealer up card 7) and was paid immediately.

After first base busts, he places the cut card back on the felt, and complains that hand shouldn't count. Two other player still have not played their hands yet. Dealer calls over the pit guy who declared the hand dead. They picked up the cards and dealer shuffled. Since no one asked me for my payout back (which I would have had a problem with), I said nothing.

Anyway this seemed the wrong solution to me. I haven't seen that exact situation before , but have seen similar situations when the dealer has erred, and they give each player a choice to pull out of the hand or play it out. One of the players who's bet was declared dead had a 20 vs the dealer 7. I certainly would have objected. Any thoughts on this situation for future referrence?

 

[Thunder]

I'd be very upset at the guy who suddenly "decided" that he didn't want his hand anymore. That's borderline cheating.

 

[shadroch]

I disagree, thats playing an advantage. Recently, in a casino I won't name, I saw the dealer drop a face card while loading the cards into the ASM. As I was at first base, I guess no one else noticed. Rather than call attention to it, I waited until I lost a hand before I pointed it out, and the result was I won three hands in a row and had a dead hand as soon as I lost.
As far as Kewljasons scenerio, as long as he got paid, who cares what else happened. It's not a team sport.

 

[sabre]

If the player actively hid the cut card, then revealed it and wanted the hand declared dead ... I would also consider that borderline cheating. If the card was in plain view, and the dealer failed to notice it, then I don't have a problem with the players' action.

I will frequently attempt to hide the cut card, but I never have then tried to back out of a bad round.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

If the player actively hid the cut card, then revealed it and wanted the hand declared dead ... I would also consider that borderline cheating. If the card was in plain view, and the dealer failed to notice it, then I don't have a problem with the players' action.

I will frequently attempt to hide the cut card, but I never have then tried to back out of a bad round.

Not cheating. All you can do is request to back out of a bad hand and if they comply with your request, they comply with your request. It's just shot-taking.

Shot-taking is to cheating as panhandling is to robbery.

 

[kewljason]

I'm not sure if I consider it "cheating" or not. will have to give it some more thought. I suppose by the definition of cheating (act of lying, deception, fraud or trickery to gain an unfair advantage) it would be cheating since hiding = deception.

However my real question concerns the other players, like the guy sitting to my left who was dealt a 20 vs dealer 7. Had he chosen, does he have any course of action? What about my situation. I was lucky as I don't think the pit guy realized I had already been paid. I had removed my chips after being paid. Since that hand was declare dead, could they have asked for that money back? I would have surely complained, but how far can you go? should you ask for a supervisor? or a casino control person?

 

[ihate17]

Unfriendly pit

I'm not sure if I consider it "cheating" or not. will have to give it some more thought. I suppose by the definition of cheating (act of lying, deception, fraud or trickery to gain an unfair advantage) it would be cheating since hiding = deception.

However my real question concerns the other players, like the guy sitting to my left who was dealt a 20 vs dealer 7. Had he chosen, does he have any course of action? What about my situation. I was lucky as I don't think the pit guy realized I had already been paid. I had removed my chips after being paid. Since that hand was declare dead, could they have asked for that money back? I would have surely complained, but how far can you go? should you ask for a supervisor? or a casino control person?

Let's say it is not cheating. Let's say the cut card went under a napkin and the dealer forgot it but the player (if it was me) would let the dealer deal.
In most houses it is considered a house/dealer error and players would be given the choice of playing or taking back their bets. Your natural gets paid and the guy with 20 plays while the guy who busted gets his money back.
At a few player friendly houses/pits, everyone plays their hands and the winners get paid and the losers get pushed.
This pit was not player friendly as he voided the 20 and I believe would have voided your blackjack had he realized it. If that had happened I would have had to make the decision if it was worth asking to speak to his supervisor or not bringing extra attention to myself.

I remember an instance many years ago in an Indian casino that had recently opened where I had a big bet out with a 12 vs dealer 2. A guy playing before me did not signal for a hit but the dealer hit him with an 8 which busted him. The pit was called and burned the card. At that point I asked the pit for the card that was burned since it would have been mine, I was refused. I then asked to opt out of the hand and was again refused. I spoke to the pits boss and he also refused me. So I hit and busted, left the table and being angry, figuring I would not be returning, convinced the shift manager to speak to me. He had a different pit (not to publicly embarrass the original ones publicly I guess) return my bet and gave me a comp for two at their best restuarant. Since that time at that casino (the ihate17 rule) when the house makes an error you get a choice of playing or opting out always)

ihate17

 

[kewljason]

Let's say it is not cheating. Let's say the cut card went under a napkin and the dealer forgot it but the player (if it was me) would let the dealer deal.
In most houses it is considered a house/dealer error and players would be given the choice of playing or taking back their bets. Your natural gets paid and the guy with 20 plays while the guy who busted gets his money back.
At a few player friendly houses/pits, everyone plays their hands and the winners get paid and the losers get pushed.
This pit was not player friendly as he voided the 20 and I believe would have voided your blackjack had he realized it. If that had happened I would have had to make the decision if it was worth asking to speak to his supervisor or not bringing extra attention to myself.
ihate17

I agree with you completely, ihate17, every instance I have seen of dealer error was handled as you stated with each player given the choice. And this was no doubt dealer error, regardless that it may have been encouraged. It's still the dealer's responsibility to know that the cut card is out.

The pit guy seemed very annoyed with this move by the player. But it's my understanding that by dealing the cards, the casino has accepted your wager and the hand must be played out. In my case not only did they accept the wager, but they acknowledged that it was a winning wager by paying it off.

I'm glad I didn't have to make the decison of how far to complain, because even though it was only a $100 wager, $150 to me represents about 4 hours of EV. I think I would have pursued it further.

 

[moo321]

Not cheating. All you can do is request to back out of a bad hand and if they comply with your request, they comply with your request. It's just shot-taking.

Shot-taking is to cheating as panhandling is to robbery.

What automatic monkey said.

I would have free-rolled them if they gave me a blackjack, and I would have requested out if I had a bad hand. A marginal hand (17 v. 7 or something) I probably would have left it alone.

 

[kewljason]

What automatic monkey said.

I would have free-rolled them if they gave me a blackjack, and I would have requested out if I had a bad hand. A marginal hand (17 v. 7 or something) I probably would have left it alone.

There was no "requesting out" or "probably left it alone" options. There were no options at all, as there should have been. That is the whole point. The pit guy declared the hand dead and pushed the remaining players money back. The players did not have an option. I am sure the guy to my left would have liked to play his 20 against the dealers 7. He didn't have the option.

 

[21forme]

I had a situation where the dealer forgot to burn a card after the shuffle. I waited until the hand was completed (and I lost it) to point it out. Pit let everyone back out, as dealer had 20 and beat every hand.

 

[callipygian]

Had he chosen, does he have any course of action? ... could they have asked for that money back? I would have surely complained, but how far can you go?

I don't know for sure, but I suspect this is highly dependent on your stakes. At a $5 table, nobody in their right mind is going to risk a brouhaha over a $7.50 payout. On the other hand, if you were playing $100,000 stakes, I find it unlikely the pit is just going to handwave away $150,000.

Likewise, I suspect the answer to your question of what could be done about it really depends on how much your time is worth. If you (or anyone else) complains, it's very likely that another hand will not get dealt for several minutes, and they'll call surveillance to review tapes and such. So if you've got a $100 wager with a +0.1 EV and a long-term EV of $30/hr, it's worth about 20 minutes of fighting to get that hand reinstated. For you, where you've actually got the $150 win in hand, it'd be worth 4 hours of fighting to keep it.

Apart from the time it might take, I don't think you need to go very far in order to convince them. If you want a hand played, simply argue that it's not your job to watch the shuffle and you put out your bet in good faith; the casino dealt the cards, so if anything it's more problematic to kill a hand than to let one play out. If you want a hand killed, simply argue that you would have gotten different cards if the casino had followed proper procedure - they ruined the "correct" flow.

I wouldn't mention Gaming Control unless I had experience in mentioning Gaming Control. Once you threaten the pit boss's job or the livelihood of the casino, things become much more serious, and you don't want that. Up until this point, the pit boss is the Big Man on Campus; play up to his sense of "fairness" and say that you just want the game to move on. Of course, you'll keep fighting him if he rules against you, but that's the point - to allow him to make a sticky situation disappear by ruling in your favor.