Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Player makes accusations against Commerce that they are violating the law by banning "player bankers" from pit games

  1. #1
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4689
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    32,968
    Blog Entries
    2

    Player makes accusations against Commerce that they are violating the law by banning "player bankers" from pit games

    First, I need to explain something.

    Non-Indian card rooms like Commerce are required to NOT derive financial benefit from the results of any game played. That is, they need to make the same amount of money whether players win or lose.

    In poker, that's easy. They just collect a rake or time charge.

    In their "Calfornia pit games" section, with games like Pai Gow and Blackjack, it's not quite so simple.

    Since these game are player-versus-house, Commerce and other card rooms need to charge a separate rake per hand, and then allow a player to volunteer to act as the house. This assures Commerce makes money on every hand, but does not benefit or lose based upon the result of the hand.

    Since players don't always want to be banker, due to the high variance and risk of ruin, the cardrooms hire what's known as a "corporation" to bank these games. The corporation's role is to either bank these games when no player wants to, or to cover part of the action when the player banking does not have the proper roll to do so.

    Commerce and other card rooms are supposed to give players the opportunity to bank if they want to. However, it is being alleged that Commerce no longer allows this, but rather expects the corporation will always be banking. If a player tries to object to this, he claims, he will be banned from Commerce entirely.



    This video is more than 1.5 years old, and it is not clear what has happened since then.

    The player, who appears to be hiding his identity, said in the video he was filing a class action lawsuit, and wants affected parties to contact him at commerceplayerbankers@gmail.com.

    He said that he was banking games at Commerce, making "good money", and then banned.

    These claims are not verified in any way, but I think I probably believe them, at least to some degree.

  2. #2
    always wondered why you didn't do something like this druff...is it not worth it or is the money not good enough to deal with the hassle of it all?

  3. #3
    Cubic Zirconia
    Reputation
    18
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    32
    Oh, California...

    Player bankers have been getting kicked out of California card rooms for well over a decade, and not just commerce.

    Most of the “corporations” Druff mentioned will (illegally) kick back part of their profits to the casino. The corporation willing to kick back the highest percentage of the take is the one that usually gets said casino’s business.

    It’s easy to see how, under this system, player-bankers would be unwelcome, as they cut into both the corporation’s profits, and the house’s kickback.

    It’s an asinine system necessitated by an asinine set of rules, but given this is California, it really doesn’t surprise me. After all, this is also the state that requires signs at parking garage entrances stating that gasoline causes cancer. (Yes, I’m serious.)

    Druff, given your penchant for common sense, I really don’t know how you (or any rational, sane person) can stand to live there.

  4. #4
    Gold Jayjami's Avatar
    Reputation
    353
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Wofford Heights, CA
    Posts
    1,173
    Quote Originally Posted by go_buccos View Post
    Oh, California...

    Player bankers have been getting kicked out of California card rooms for well over a decade, and not just commerce.

    Most of the “corporations” Druff mentioned will (illegally) kick back part of their profits to the casino. The corporation willing to kick back the highest percentage of the take is the one that usually gets said casino’s business.

    It’s easy to see how, under this system, player-bankers would be unwelcome, as they cut into both the corporation’s profits, and the house’s kickback.

    It’s an asinine system necessitated by an asinine set of rules, but given this is California, it really doesn’t surprise me. After all, this is also the state that requires signs at parking garage entrances stating that gasoline causes cancer. (Yes, I’m serious.)

    Druff, given your penchant for common sense, I really don’t know how you (or any rational, sane person) can stand to live there.
    Not only are they banned by the casino, the corporation will let people know moving in on their action is “unwelcome” and they should bank somewhere else.

  5. #5
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4689
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    32,968
    Blog Entries
    2
    I'm not understanding why something can't be done about this.

    Commerce isn't an Indian casino. They can't just make up their own rules, and they are under government regulation.

    Can't people report this as it occurs, and put a stop to it? Why hasn't this happened?

  6. #6
    Gold Jayjami's Avatar
    Reputation
    353
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Wofford Heights, CA
    Posts
    1,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I'm not understanding why something can't be done about this.

    Commerce isn't an Indian casino. They can't just make up their own rules, and they are under government regulation.

    Can't people report this as it occurs, and put a stop to it? Why hasn't this happened?
    In California, regulation is about one thing: making sure the state gets its cut of your business. That is the one thing Sacramento excels at. Protection of the public is really an afterthought. The state makes good money from those “California Games”. That money would be otherwise spent at Indian or Nevada Casinos. They are not going to upset the apple cart over a few whiners who want in on the action.

  7. #7
    Cubic Zirconia
    Reputation
    18
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I'm not understanding why something can't be done about this.

    Commerce isn't an Indian casino. They can't just make up their own rules, and they are under government regulation.

    Can't people report this as it occurs, and put a stop to it? Why hasn't this happened?
    In California, regulation is about one thing: making sure the state gets its cut of your business. That is the one thing Sacramento excels at. Protection of the public is really an afterthought. The state makes good money from those “California Games”. That money would be otherwise spent at Indian or Nevada Casinos. They are not going to upset the apple cart over a few whiners who want in on the action.
    This.

  8. #8
    The amount that "Sacramento" makes isn't really the issue. The State gets her money either way. I do think, however, that there may be some kick back arrangements in play, or even that the "corporations" are actually shells for the casinos themselves. It may very well be worthy litigation though.

  9. #9
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4689
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    32,968
    Blog Entries
    2
    BUMP

    Chickens are coming home to roost for Commerce.

    Indian Casinos have found a way to attack them, by lobbying (likely corrupt) state regulators into possibly requiring card rooms to force players to take turns banking, with one player being allowed to bank a maximum of 2 consecutive rounds.

    Players refusing to bank would be kicked from the game.

    Commerce claims that this will essentially kill the non-poker games at the card rooms, which is probably true.

    https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ardrooms-poker

    While I feel this is overkill, and that the proposed rule change was probably done for all the wrong reasons (that is, to hurt non-Indian card rooms), at least this will put an end to the farce of these phony player banked games.

    If Commerce had just given everyone the true opportunity to bank, without worrying about its effects on "the corporation" they're contracted with, then none of this would likely be happening.

    Fitting.

  10. #10
    This would be a good case for the house pfa atty, no?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-06-2019, 07:03 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-04-2018, 12:36 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2016, 05:34 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2016, 03:22 PM
  5. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-16-2014, 10:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •