Shells
Moderator
Moderator
SugarHouse Casino in Philly Fined $100K for Dealers Failing to Shuffle Deck
Is this fine appropriate for the charge?
Is this fine appropriate for the charge?
S
sryImPro
Legend
Silver Level
It's almost unbelievable, it's a shame for any casino to make such a rookie mistakes, specifically because of the protocol for everything about casinos and ofc, for shuffling cards. When it comes to shuffling cards, a protocol which is actually a straight forward set of rules that assures that cards are shuffled right. I'm actually surprised with the fact that only two supervisors got fired.
Interesting thread, thanks for sharing
Interesting thread, thanks for sharing
mtl mile end
Legend
Bronze Level
From what perspective are you asking the question? I feel like license revocation might be more appropriate - at least if it happens more than once. Anything short of summary execution is fine by me. This is actually hard to believe. Casinos are generally "easy money" for the owners. All they have to do is make everything run smoothly, maintain security, and do the little things like SHUFFLE THE F*CKING CARDS!!!
Shells
Moderator
Moderator
From what perspective are you asking the question? I feel like license revocation might be more appropriate - at least if it happens more than once. Anything short of summary execution is fine by me. This is actually hard to believe. Casinos are generally "easy money" for the owners. All they have to do is make everything run smoothly, maintain security, and do the little things like SHUFFLE THE F*CKING CARDS!!!
I think you answered perfectly, Tim!
C
Chemist
Legend
Silver Level
I thought dealers just did a mid table random mix followed by a few riffle shuffles.
Perhaps not perfect but better than accidentally sorting in to suits. (I guess the players were happy to catch a lot of flushes).
I always think fines levied by regulators are inappropriate, it would always be better to award compensation for those affected.
Perhaps not perfect but better than accidentally sorting in to suits. (I guess the players were happy to catch a lot of flushes).
I always think fines levied by regulators are inappropriate, it would always be better to award compensation for those affected.
Kanetuck
Legend
Bronze Level
A green or red blinking light means there is a problem? Perhaps having a green light meaning something bad is not a good idea. Of course if the casinos wanted to be thorough, they could have the light where everyone could see it and have signs explaining what to look for. Players would self regulate.
Shells
Moderator
Moderator
I don't play live poker but this sounds like a reasonable idea.
mtl mile end
Legend
Bronze Level
Yup. this is the part of the problem that scares me. When Bad Beat Jackpots of hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) are at stake, do you really want a machine that can "sort the deck by suit" dealing your hand?!?! There seems to be a slight conflict of interest here. But don't worry, it's being done by a machine that no one notices. And, said machine gives off a warning if it's not functioning properly. The fact that absolutely no one notices the warning when the machine fails to do its job is OK because if it's setting up the deck as the house wants, then it is doing its job - right?
Poker_Mike
Legend
Loyaler
I just don't agree MTL.
Poker rooms WANT to pay out the BBJ. As you probably know, some rooms use an insurance company to pay out the prize. So, the money is not really out of their pocket. And it is a player funded promotion.
The publicity of a big win is like free advertising - with a hook!
Players flush with cash like to spend it in their favorite poker games.
A well-tipped dealer is motivation for the rest of the dealing staff.
Why do people think that a poker room doesn't want to pay out a BBJ?
If it is a 6-table room and it gets hit 3 times in one week....then I can understand an investigation.
Good luck !
mtl mile end
Legend
Bronze Level
Why would a poker room want to pay out a bad beat for $100K ten times when they can pay out $1M one time? Which is better advertising for their (zero) dollars? Which scenario creates more buzz/draw?
Why wouldn't timing factor into your thinking about BB payouts? If a cardroom hosts a major event (tons of pros, visitors from around the world), isn't that a much better time to have someone win a jackpot than a random Tuesday morning at 6AM?
There are many, many reasons why a free promo that can be well timed is advantageous over a randomly timed event. It would clearly be better than advertising that costs lots of money.
This does not even begin to consider to whom the bad beat is paid.
Poker_Mike
Legend
Loyaler
If it is possible to access the BBJ data and see if the payouts are at random times to random players - per capita.
I appreciate the discussion and just realized we are devolving the conversation away from the original post.
Good luck again !
Last edited:
mtl mile end
Legend
Bronze Level
I think it is the essence of the OP. Punishment must be appropriate for the level of negligence. If negligence was the result of "the machine does everything, I (the dealer) just look at the lights (or not)", it opens a whole can of worms involving the liability of the house and the ability of the house to manipulate the action. That gaming license of theirs better have some pretty specific rules about how they are allowed to manipulate the cards, and I, for one, have always hoped that the shufflers were not capable of the level of manipulation needed to sort cards and determine card order. If they can do this, and with the accidental touch of a button (and/or ignoring of a light blinking), this changes everything that I considered to be the fundamental nature of live poker with shufflers.
Edit: You can't prove "random".
Poker_Mike
Legend
Loyaler
Your comments are very rich with provocative ideas.
I agree with your first comment on the thread - how hard can it be to do things right?
Your comments about the shuffler are interesting. I see dealers frequently shuffle the cards BEFORE they place them in the shuffle machine. I assume they are doing this once just to help ensure that the cards don't stick to each other? The only time I have seen dealers shuffle the cards AFTER removing a shuffled "ready-to-go" deck from the machine is if there is a misdeal of some kind.
I think shuffling the deck once or twice after the machine shuffle would remove the notion that the shuffler is stacking the deck somehow. Would you agree?
I agree that you can never prove "random". But we can take your theories one at a time and test it to see if it holds true...…
Ex. A room would want to pay out BBJs during large festivals and events. If one had access to data then you can plot and see if that is the case. Assuming there are enough data points to contribute to a statistically significant result.
This is basic science. We have a theory that something happens (or doesn't happen) and we test it to see.
If a 12-table room has just one or two tables running during the week but always at least 10 tables running on weekends, then I would expect more BBJs to be won during weekends. That is what I meant by "per capita". But if the winning is skewed to weekdays - then more examination is justified.
I have known players to tip 1/2 their BBJ winnings. If rooms are skewing BBJs to certain players I would expect big tippers to win them more. Just another theory that can be tested.
For the record - I would happily share a BBJ with you!
Best of luck !
8bod8
Legend
Silver Level
As there was no deliberate wrongdoing, this sounds like some dealers were incompetent, and supervision inadequate for the competency of the dealers.
Very sad that employees were fired, where it's the organization that put the whole thing in place, up to:
- hire the cheapest people you can find
- have a book of procedures
Part of the verdict could have been that the staff should have been more competent, so training and testing requried.
Very sad that employees were fired, where it's the organization that put the whole thing in place, up to:
- hire the cheapest people you can find
- have a book of procedures
Part of the verdict could have been that the staff should have been more competent, so training and testing requried.
L
LongRover
Rock Star
Silver Level
Is this fine appropriate for the charge?
I am not surprised that authorities are stepping up observations of live casinos both in canada and the USA. While the top concern of authorities is usually the laundering of money by local elements of organised crime, as in Vancouver, they often have more mundane interests.
Among these more mundane concerns are cheating by staff and customers at the casinos, and the staff closest to the customers, especially at the tables, be that blackjack, poker or whatever, are the dealers. So, they now, and historically, have come under a fair bit of scrutiny. Believe it or not, those cameras on the ceiling are not just for watching customers - they also watch the dealers, and for good reason.
If dealers fail to shuffle the decks properly, then, in my opinion, they should be immediately fired and the casino should be given a really hefty fine. Is $100 K an appropriate fine? In my opinion, no! Why? Because cheating over time often accrues into millions of dollars. And, failure to shuffle decks properly can be, and usually is, a technique in dealer-assisted cheating. That is why dealers are supposed to riffle and shuffle the decks properly in the first place.
I think a basic $1 M fine should be the starting point for financial punishments, with an escalating monetary charge of up to $5 M for repeated offences.
Sometimes failure to properly shuffle the decks is not about crookedness, but about laziness. Believe it or not, some dealers are just too lazy to properly riffle the cards on the felt before putting them into the machines which shuffle the decks more rigorously. I have seen this in one casino in Calgary, made a comment to the dealer who basically ignored me, and so I reported it to the pit boss. After observing the dealer for awhile, that particular pit boss gave that particular dealer a rather stern warning right in front of the players at the table, and in no uncertain terms. And, boy, was that dealer ever peeved when I walked away in the morning with $1,200 in my pocket.
So, yes, $100 K is not only an insufficient punishment for the charge of cheating customers or improper shuffling, but it is a fine far under what it should be. Casinos mean big money, so they should be subject to big fines, just to level the playing field, and to make them think twice about any kind of improper shuffling again
I am not surprised that authorities are stepping up observations of live casinos both in canada and the USA. While the top concern of authorities is usually the laundering of money by local elements of organised crime, as in Vancouver, they often have more mundane interests.
Among these more mundane concerns are cheating by staff and customers at the casinos, and the staff closest to the customers, especially at the tables, be that blackjack, poker or whatever, are the dealers. So, they now, and historically, have come under a fair bit of scrutiny. Believe it or not, those cameras on the ceiling are not just for watching customers - they also watch the dealers, and for good reason.
If dealers fail to shuffle the decks properly, then, in my opinion, they should be immediately fired and the casino should be given a really hefty fine. Is $100 K an appropriate fine? In my opinion, no! Why? Because cheating over time often accrues into millions of dollars. And, failure to shuffle decks properly can be, and usually is, a technique in dealer-assisted cheating. That is why dealers are supposed to riffle and shuffle the decks properly in the first place.
I think a basic $1 M fine should be the starting point for financial punishments, with an escalating monetary charge of up to $5 M for repeated offences.
Sometimes failure to properly shuffle the decks is not about crookedness, but about laziness. Believe it or not, some dealers are just too lazy to properly riffle the cards on the felt before putting them into the machines which shuffle the decks more rigorously. I have seen this in one casino in Calgary, made a comment to the dealer who basically ignored me, and so I reported it to the pit boss. After observing the dealer for awhile, that particular pit boss gave that particular dealer a rather stern warning right in front of the players at the table, and in no uncertain terms. And, boy, was that dealer ever peeved when I walked away in the morning with $1,200 in my pocket.
So, yes, $100 K is not only an insufficient punishment for the charge of cheating customers or improper shuffling, but it is a fine far under what it should be. Casinos mean big money, so they should be subject to big fines, just to level the playing field, and to make them think twice about any kind of improper shuffling again