This may be a bit obtuse, but an interesting question that came up while I was watching some friends play the Table game Ultimate Texas Hold'Em.The casino had a $5.00 minimum table. The player hit the bottom end of a Straight Flush. It was possible that the dealer could hit the top end of the Straight Flush. So for simplicity:
Player: 3s 4s
Board: 5s - 6s - 7s - X - X
Dealer 8s 9s (hypothetically)
The player had made a Trips Side Bet and a Bad Beat Side Bet for $5.00 each. The Trips side Bet pays 40 to 1 for $200 on a Straight Flush.
The Bad Beat pays based on the lower of the losing hands between the Player and the House. If the Dealer had the Top End of the Straight Flush, it would pay 10,000 to 1 for a SFL losing to a higher SFL. On a $5.00 bet this would have been $50,000!
The dealer in this situation did not have the SFL, but the dealer pointed to the sign on the table that limited the Casino's aggregate payout on an individual hand to $25,000 per player.
Can the Casino not pay out the full advertized payout on a Table Game when a player is betting the minimum bet?
Would the answer change if they allowed you to bet $1 to $25 on the Side Bet VS. The casino required you to bet a minimum of $5.00 on the Bad Beat Side Bet?
(I'm sure this has come up on other table games before too, where the casino tried to duck liability based on an aggregate payout per hand. i.e. Pai Gow, Mississipi Stud) I've seen some Aggregate Payouts per Table, and others Per Player on and individual hand.
Posted by: Cynical_Realist@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
