Chip Runner Lays Odds

[Benoit]

I can describe to you how it works for a cocktail server, which my gf explained to me once. It's similar to the chip runner because they probably both have a "bank".

The cocktail server makes sales throughout the night and at the end of the night the computer will total up how much in cash sales she made (tips don't count towards it, and that's why you get to keep them at the end of the night) . This is the amount that she must have when she cashes out; otherwise she gets a write up. Two write ups and you are fired. So obviously if her bank is short by 5 bucks, she will take 5 bucks out of her tips to make it right, or risk being fired and losing her means of income.

So in the chip runners case, they probably get a bank of lets say $5000. If they give $500 in chips, they get $500 in cash plus a tip, and then they can exchange the $500 in cash back into $500 in chips to continue for the night. At the end of the night, their chips and cash must total up to $5000. If this guy was short by $100, he will have to take it out of his tips/pocket to make it right or risk being fired... So he probably ended up losing ALL of his tips for that night, and then some.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
A chip runner at a Los Angeles area casino inadvertantly gave me an extra $100 last night when coloring up my chips. I didn't say anything -- I just kept the money.

Does anyone know what sort of accounting procedures they have for chip runners? Will this guy end up $100 short at the end of his shift, or something?

I seem to remember a thread on this forum where a guy said he had to pay back a casino for some mistake they made giving change or some such thing.

And of course feel free to comment on my principles. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Sparks

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to go, dickface. I hope the extra $100 really helped you out in that big $1/2 limit game you play.

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
You can argue my morals to death, but my beliefs are mine. I just find it hypocritical when anyone who plays poker for a living pretends to be some sort of noble, upstanding citizen who would never engage in any shading dealings. Clearly, you'd have to be lying to yourself to say this.


[/ QUOTE ]


Kind of silly really. If you gamble, then you are probably going to steal??

Gambling = willing participants

Stealing - 1 thief and 1 unwilling particiapant


They're not even close.

[Budget Boy]

They once gave me an extra $20 at the cage, and when I realized it I returned it the next day. I said I didn't want the $$ to come out of someone's check, and they told me "it definitely would have, thank you." So you got an extra $100 for 12 hours of work someone else did.

[itsmarty]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In Antwort auf:</font><hr />
I'm just very libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep using this term as if it means a lack of morals. My understanding of Libertarians is that they don't want the government interfering in behaviors that are harmless to others, whether or not those behaviors conflict with the government's view of morality. I believe you would be hard pressed to find a Libertarian who includes theft as an area in which the government should not be involved.

Martin

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you and the OP realize that it's possible to have both the libertarian outlook (that I feel is necessary) to be successful at poker and at the same time, have a conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW -- just to express a point of view, not to moralize or preach to anyone -- I think I would have an ethical problem with knowingly playing routinely against people who are problem gamblers and playing with the rent money. Of course the fact that this does NOT appear to be the typical case in most public cardrooms is what keeps me relatively untroubled by it. It is a reason why I feel more comfortable, say, in the Borgata than in the Taj (even though I'm sure most people at the Taj are very much gambling under control); it just feels like people there can afford to give you their money at the table.

The "table drunk" is a little dubious case, but even then if there's not evidence the person is a problem drinker/gambler I don't have a huge problem with it. If I had such evidence, I'd expect (possibly unrealistically?) the casino to lead the campaign for responsible drinking/gambling, since ruining lives does them little long-term good. If they didn't lead, I'd request a table change at least, possibly stop playing there. But maybe I'm naive.

[RollaJ]

When keeping the $100, try to remember the story posted here last year.
I forget the name but some guy cashed out after a nice win at NL. Yada, yada the next time he was at the Commerce buying chips, they had a picture of him on the wall. The attendant told him, that their count was off at the end of the night a few weeks back, so they reviewed videos and saw he was shorted $50, which they gave him on the spot (after signing and providing ID)

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope you and the OP realize that it's possible to have both the libertarian outlook (that I feel is necessary) to be successful at poker and at the same time, have a conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW -- just to express a point of view, not to moralize or preach to anyone -- I think I would have an ethical problem with knowingly playing routinely against people who are problem gamblers and playing with the rent money. Of course the fact that this does NOT appear to be the typical case in most public cardrooms is what keeps me relatively untroubled by it. It is a reason why I feel more comfortable, say, in the Borgata than in the Taj (even though I'm sure most people at the Taj are very much gambling under control); it just feels like people there can afford to give you their money at the table.

The "table drunk" is a little dubious case, but even then if there's not evidence the person is a problem drinker/gambler I don't have a huge problem with it. If I had such evidence, I'd expect (possibly unrealistically?) the casino to lead the campaign for responsible drinking/gambling, since ruining lives does them little long-term good. If they didn't lead, I'd request a table change at least, possibly stop playing there. But maybe I'm naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post comes across a little naive. You'd have to stop playing in any room you went to. I think it's safe to say, all rooms have people with gambling problems. Just not all the people playing have gambling problems. This seems like another case of out of site, out of mind.

Casinos leading a campaign? Yes, that's why they put the GA pamphlets by the cage rather than by the ATM. (think about that for a moment)

That's like a bar leading a campaign against problem drinking.

b

[4_2_it]

Read "Ace on the River" and then think about what you did. I won't judge your morals because I do not know you, but I will say that, at best, your actions exhibited a lack of class and sadly is the attitude of many people today. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Moneyline]

I'm not sure whether or not it was immoral for Sparks to keep the money. It wasn't particularly classy and I don't think he should have done it, but I can't speak from the moral high ground and condemn him (as a few posters in this thread have done). I do, however, feel that there is one huge scumbag in this scenario that needs to be chastised: the casino. We pretty much all agree that the casino is going to charge the employee who overpayed Sparks. However, if this same employee had shorted Sparks I find it highly unlikely that the casino would have tracked him down to pay him the extra money, and I know for a fact the casino wouldn't have given the extra money to the employee. So the casino is benefits every time an employee makes the honest mistake of underpaying, but remains even when an employee makes the honest mistake of overpaying. It's also worth noting that the reason the employee (the Mom working 2 jobs that one poster described) can't afford to pay back the casino is because the casino is severely underpaying her in the first place when they can afford to pay her much better. Sparks may have been wrong in this instance, but the casino is the one that is clearly immoral.