Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Lords of Vegas» Forums » Rules

Subject: Gambling rules Clarification rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brad Wallace
Canada
Fort st. John
BC
flag msg tools
just need some clarification on the gambling rules please, so here goes, player A wants to gamble 15 million at player B's 3 tile casino but player B only has 5 million dollars and chooses to lay off the bet does that mean if player A wins the bet Player B needs only pay half the 5 million (rounded down) so 2 million and the bank gives player A the rest 13 million?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ishai BD
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
As far as I understand it: No and player A is better off not taking the bet, as follows:

If player B were to take the entire bet, then if A loses, A lost the whole amount, but if A won (or won double) then B only pays A as much as B has, i.e. 5 million.

If player B decides to share the bet with the bank then if A loses B gets 1/2 and the bank gets the other half. However if A wins, then the bank pays 1/2 of the win and B again pays only as much as he has (5 million) for his part of the win.

Since how much money a player has is open info, player A should know how much B has and be better off not betting this much.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Yeager
United States
Ypsilanti
MI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.

In your example, you were limited to a $5 million bet to begin with (as that's all the other player had). Note that if you had rolled a 2 or a 12 in the above example, you still only win $5 million, even if your target shared the bet with the bank.

I hope that helps!
Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Wallace
Canada
Fort st. John
BC
flag msg tools
wow that was a quick response thank you both it is all very clear now.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
quohog the great
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alex,

i appriciate the reaponse but in the example you give why is it that player A only get $5million if the bet was layed off to the bank and 2 or 12 was rolled.

granted this hasn't happened much but there have been instances where a player layed off a bet and 2 or 12 rolled and they had to pay the amount of the bet and the bank covered the other half like the rules state. so in the $5 million example. if player a bet $5mil and player B layed off in a 2 or 12 was rolled player A should be getting paid $10million, $5mil from each the bank and player B.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tolin
United States
Beaumont
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AlexYeager wrote:
To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



This is an interesting response, as the rulebook doesn't mention the second limit. In fact, it states specifically that the bet is limited only by the cash the gambling player has on hand and the number of target casino tiles. It further states that, if the target boss lacks the funds to pay the entire bet, he/she pays out only the money he/she has.

As has already been pointed out, betting more than the target boss has isn't a great idea since the gambler will be forced to pay more on a loss than it's possible to get with a win, but why this new ruling that seems to contradict the rulebook? Such a ruling also suggests that money on hand is open knowledge... Is this the case?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ishai BD
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
As far as I understand, money on hand is open knowledge. One reason for that is exactly the betting: so that you'll know if the player you're betting against can pay off in full.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tolin
United States
Beaumont
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
...which makes it less of a "gamble," doesn't it? I think open money sounds much less exciting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Gazdecki
United States
Lindsey
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidT wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



This is an interesting response, as the rulebook doesn't mention the second limit. In fact, it states specifically that the bet is limited only by the cash the gambling player has on hand and the number of target casino tiles. It further states that, if the target boss lacks the funds to pay the entire bet, he/she pays out only the money he/she has.

As has already been pointed out, betting more than the target boss has isn't a great idea since the gambler will be forced to pay more on a loss than it's possible to get with a win, but why this new ruling that seems to contradict the rulebook? Such a ruling also suggests that money on hand is open knowledge... Is this the case?


I have to agree. According to the rules, at least as I read them, the only 2 rules are $5/block and you can't bid more than you have. The rules do state that if the other player can't cover his bid, you don't get the remainder from the bank, so for example:

Player B has a 4 block casino
Player A has $30, Player B has 5
Player A can bid up to $20 (4*$5)
If player A were to bid the $20, and Player B didn't back the whole bet, player A (if he wins) would get $15 ($10 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has). If Player A rolled 2 or 12, he would get $25 ($20 from bank, $5 from Player B)
In this situation, player B would WANT to back it, since now Player A would only get $5 instead of $15, and if Player A loses Player B gets all of it. Dumb bet by Player A.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
quohog the great
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruiser419 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



This is an interesting response, as the rulebook doesn't mention the second limit. In fact, it states specifically that the bet is limited only by the cash the gambling player has on hand and the number of target casino tiles. It further states that, if the target boss lacks the funds to pay the entire bet, he/she pays out only the money he/she has.

As has already been pointed out, betting more than the target boss has isn't a great idea since the gambler will be forced to pay more on a loss than it's possible to get with a win, but why this new ruling that seems to contradict the rulebook? Such a ruling also suggests that money on hand is open knowledge... Is this the case?


I have to agree. According to the rules, at least as I read them, the only 2 rules are $5/block and you can't bid more than you have. The rules do state that if the other player can't cover his bid, you don't get the remainder from the bank, so for example:

Player B has a 4 block casino
Player A has $30, Player B has 5
Player A can bid up to $20 (4*$5)
If player A were to bid the $20, and Player B didn't back the whole bet, player A (if he wins) would get $15 ($10 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has). If Player A rolled 2 or 12, he would get $25 ($20 from bank, $5 from Player B)
In this situation, player B would WANT to back it, since now Player A would only get $5 instead of $15, and if Player A loses Player B gets all of it. Dumb bet by Player A.


this is the kind of situation i was looking for, there are times when you have a good amount of money or even a moderate amount where you can take the chance to bankrupt your opponent by betting twice as much as they have that way even with a layoff they can lose it all, granted its a risky move, but appearantly its not legal per alex so it may have to be houseruled and clarified before start of game before doing that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Gazdecki
United States
Lindsey
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
quohog wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



This is an interesting response, as the rulebook doesn't mention the second limit. In fact, it states specifically that the bet is limited only by the cash the gambling player has on hand and the number of target casino tiles. It further states that, if the target boss lacks the funds to pay the entire bet, he/she pays out only the money he/she has.

As has already been pointed out, betting more than the target boss has isn't a great idea since the gambler will be forced to pay more on a loss than it's possible to get with a win, but why this new ruling that seems to contradict the rulebook? Such a ruling also suggests that money on hand is open knowledge... Is this the case?


I have to agree. According to the rules, at least as I read them, the only 2 rules are $5/block and you can't bid more than you have. The rules do state that if the other player can't cover his bid, you don't get the remainder from the bank, so for example:

Player B has a 4 block casino
Player A has $30, Player B has 5
Player A can bid up to $20 (4*$5)
If player A were to bid the $20, and Player B didn't back the whole bet, player A (if he wins) would get $15 ($10 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has). If Player A rolled 2 or 12, he would get $25 ($20 from bank, $5 from Player B)
In this situation, player B would WANT to back it, since now Player A would only get $5 instead of $15, and if Player A loses Player B gets all of it. Dumb bet by Player A.


this is the kind of situation i was looking for, there are times when you have a good amount of money or even a moderate amount where you can take the chance to bankrupt your opponent by betting twice as much as they have that way even with a layoff they can lose it all, granted its a risky move, but appearantly its not legal per alex so it may have to be houseruled and clarified before start of game before doing that.


I guess. But then the question is, is the limit the person has if you win double, or just how much the person has? And as has been said before, there's nothing in the rulebook that says the bet is limited by the non-gambler bankroll. If it has to be a house rule so be it, but if they wanted the bet limited by the casino owner's bankroll, they need to re-wrtie the rulebook.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tolin
United States
Beaumont
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruiser419 wrote:
quohog wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



This is an interesting response, as the rulebook doesn't mention the second limit. In fact, it states specifically that the bet is limited only by the cash the gambling player has on hand and the number of target casino tiles. It further states that, if the target boss lacks the funds to pay the entire bet, he/she pays out only the money he/she has.

As has already been pointed out, betting more than the target boss has isn't a great idea since the gambler will be forced to pay more on a loss than it's possible to get with a win, but why this new ruling that seems to contradict the rulebook? Such a ruling also suggests that money on hand is open knowledge... Is this the case?


I have to agree. According to the rules, at least as I read them, the only 2 rules are $5/block and you can't bid more than you have. The rules do state that if the other player can't cover his bid, you don't get the remainder from the bank, so for example:

Player B has a 4 block casino
Player A has $30, Player B has 5
Player A can bid up to $20 (4*$5)
If player A were to bid the $20, and Player B didn't back the whole bet, player A (if he wins) would get $15 ($10 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has). If Player A rolled 2 or 12, he would get $25 ($20 from bank, $5 from Player B)
In this situation, player B would WANT to back it, since now Player A would only get $5 instead of $15, and if Player A loses Player B gets all of it. Dumb bet by Player A.


this is the kind of situation i was looking for, there are times when you have a good amount of money or even a moderate amount where you can take the chance to bankrupt your opponent by betting twice as much as they have that way even with a layoff they can lose it all, granted its a risky move, but appearantly its not legal per alex so it may have to be houseruled and clarified before start of game before doing that.


I guess. But then the question is, is the limit the person has if you win double, or just how much the person has? And as has been said before, there's nothing in the rulebook that says the bet is limited by the non-gambler bankroll. If it has to be a house rule so be it, but if they wanted the bet limited by the casino owner's bankroll, they need to re-wrtie the rulebook.


Agreed. No disrespect intended to Alex, as I recognize he is the publisher, but my rulebook indicates that the game was designed by James Ernest and Mike Selinker--not Alex. The publisher's word should be considered, but I'll rarely consider it to represent gospel. There have been far too many times on BGG forums where the publisher has chimed in to clarify rules or make new rulings and is later found to be mistaken.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Yeager
United States
Ypsilanti
MI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So, I've spent a bit of time this morning on this, including an exchange with James Ernest, so this is the word from both of us.

Scenario 1
Does the line "If the boss does not have enough money to fully pay off the bet, you only get the money he does have" (page 4) clarify it? Technically, sure, bet as much as you want, but the ONLY amount you will win is limited by the amount that the player has.

And, of course, the next paragraph goes on "If the gambler [rolls a 2 or 12], the boss only pays half (rounded down) and the bank plays the rest." "The rest" might be an unfortunate turn of phrase here, but if the boss is paying half, it takes some pretty funny math to say that "the rest" after "half" is anything substantially larger than "half."

Now, if the issue is that you can make a stupid-crazy bet (Player A says "I bet $40 million at your casino, even though you have only $8 million"), and Player B says, for some reason, "I want you to get as much money as you can, so the bank will cover this bet, so that the bank will pay out $32 million - or hey, even $72 million if you roll a 2 or 12," then on behalf of the game bank, I would state "Oh yeah, we'll be delighted to cover THAT level of risk. Shall I throw in some buffet coupons and a baby unicorn?..."

Scenario 2
Players are confusing the payout with the bet. When the bank covers a bet, they are covering a specific amount: half the bet. The bank is only responsible for the half of the bet that they have assumed, NOT to pay out for any risk the house has taken on. SO:

Player A bets $40 million at Player B's casino.
Player B has $8 million. He lays off. He is now responsible for $20 million of the bet, and the bank is responsible for $20 million of the bet.
- If a 2 is rolled, Player A receives $8 from Player B and $40 from the bank (double each of their shares, and Player B only paying what he can).
- If a 7 is rolled, Player A pays $20 million to Player B, and $20 million to the bank.
- If a 9 is rolled, Player A receives $8 million from Player B and $20 million from the bank.

I have taught the game using scenario 1 because, as we all have agreed internally, the abuses that scenario 2 opens up are either due to generally stupid play on the part of both players, or outright collusion which should be looked at critically by other players. (I'm not interested in your outlier "smart play" scenarios; in general, there's a lot more opportunity for abuse than not.) That said, we've decided that the rules support scenario 2 a bit more than scenario 1 does, and scenario 2 is the new correct ruling. I'll be updating the FAQ this week. Play nice.

Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Yeager
United States
Ypsilanti
MI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidT wrote:

Agreed. No disrespect intended to Alex, as I recognize he is the publisher, but my rulebook indicates that the game was designed by James Ernest and Mike Selinker--not Alex. The publisher's word should be considered, but I'll rarely consider it to represent gospel.


I do briefly want to address this point. I can't speak for other publishers, but we do work very closely with our designers to make sure that the rules and mechanics we are representing are consistent with their vision for the game. And, at times, we do have issues that arise that require clarification, ideally before but sometimes after a rule has been released into the wild.

But, do not forget that once we, as a publisher, have taken a design in-house for development, we can, we will, and we often do make changes to the design. These changes may not have the specific approval of the designer, but the collaborative nature of what we do does create a give-and-take that often makes what we release deliberately different from the first draft submitted to us by a designer. Designers often share design notes and describe alternate rules that had been originally planned, and players are of course welcome to house-rule apocrypha to their heart's delight. But understand that from a marketing, demo and organized play perspective, there is only one source of rules: the rulebook and any associated FAQs we, the publisher, publish.

Our goal is ALWAYS to make a game that we and the designers are proud of, and eager to show and play with others. We will almost always defer to a designer when there is vagueness or inconsistencies in a rule, and the designer's input reflects a clarified view of what is written. But, as happen very infrequently (for us, at least), when we make a change that the designer is uncomfortable with, but, based on our development and playtesting, is required for the design, it's our name on the box as publisher and our rules that will define what is and isn't correct for our edition.

Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Gazdecki
United States
Lindsey
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
AlexYeager wrote:
So, I've spent a bit of time this morning on this, including an exchange with James Ernest, so this is the word from both of us.

Scenario 1
Does the line "If the boss does not have enough money to fully pay off the bet, you only get the money he does have" (page 4) clarify it? Technically, sure, bet as much as you want, but the ONLY amount you will win is limited by the amount that the player has.

And, of course, the next paragraph goes on "If the gambler [rolls a 2 or 12], the boss only pays half (rounded down) and the bank plays the rest." "The rest" might be an unfortunate turn of phrase here, but if the boss is paying half, it takes some pretty funny math to say that "the rest" after "half" is anything substantially larger than "half."

Now, if the issue is that you can make a stupid-crazy bet (Player A says "I bet $40 million at your casino, even though you have only $8 million"), and Player B says, for some reason, "I want you to get as much money as you can, so the bank will cover this bet, so that the bank will pay out $32 million - or hey, even $72 million if you roll a 2 or 12," then on behalf of the game bank, I would state "Oh yeah, we'll be delighted to cover THAT level of risk. Shall I throw in some buffet coupons and a baby unicorn?..."

Scenario 2
Players are confusing the payout with the bet. When the bank covers a bet, they are covering a specific amount: half the bet. The bank is only responsible for the half of the bet that they have assumed, NOT to pay out for any risk the house has taken on. SO:

Player A bets $40 million at Player B's casino.
Player B has $8 million. He lays off. He is now responsible for $20 million of the bet, and the bank is responsible for $20 million of the bet.
- If a 2 is rolled, Player A receives $8 from Player B and $40 from the bank (double each of their shares, and Player B only paying what he can).
- If a 7 is rolled, Player A pays $20 million to Player B, and $20 million to the bank.
- If a 9 is rolled, Player A receives $8 million from Player B and $20 million from the bank.

I have taught the game using scenario 1 because, as we all have agreed internally, the abuses that scenario 2 opens up are either due to generally stupid play on the part of both players, or outright collusion which should be looked at critically by other players. (I'm not interested in your outlier "smart play" scenarios; in general, there's a lot more opportunity for abuse than not.) That said, we've decided that the rules support scenario 2 a bit more than scenario 1 does, and scenario 2 is the new correct ruling. I'll be updating the FAQ this week. Play nice.

Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games


Thank you for checking. I appreciate the work, and I apologize if I came off rudely, it was not my intent. Is there any thought to update the rules if the both of you feel that the current situation can be abused?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Yeager
United States
Ypsilanti
MI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We'll be discussing it internally before any reprint or future release, I suspect, only to really gauge how abusive it can be. I wasn't lead developer on this one, and the "lay-off" rule was a fairly late change that I wasn't involved with, so I need to do a bit more homework before I can see where we'll eventually end up.

Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty Junck
msg tools
Bruiser419 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
[q="AlexYeager"]To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



I have to agree. According to the rules, at least as I read them, the only 2 rules are $5/block and you can't bid more than you have. The rules do state that if the other player can't cover his bid, you don't get the remainder from the bank, so for example:

Player B has a 4 block casino
Player A has $30, Player B has 5
Player A can bid up to $20 (4*$5)
If player A were to bid the $20, and Player B didn't back the whole bet, player A (if he wins) would get $15 ($10 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has). If Player A rolled 2 or 12, he would get $25 ($20 from bank, $5 from Player B)
In this situation, player B would WANT to back it, since now Player A would only get $5 instead of $15, and if Player A loses Player B gets all of it. Dumb bet by Player A.


Sorry to bring up such an old thread, but I am a bit confused here. Wouldn't player A (if he wins) get $20 ($15 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has)? Why would he ony get $15 if he bet $20. If he rolled a 2 or 12, would he get $40 and not $25? How did you come up with $25 since if you roll a 2 or 12 you get double?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Amick
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
citron2k1 wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
[q="AlexYeager"]To be specific, there are two limits on bets:
- You may only bet up to $5 million per block of the largest casino that your target is the boss of.
- You may never bet more than your target has on hand.



I have to agree. According to the rules, at least as I read them, the only 2 rules are $5/block and you can't bid more than you have. The rules do state that if the other player can't cover his bid, you don't get the remainder from the bank, so for example:

Player B has a 4 block casino
Player A has $30, Player B has 5
Player A can bid up to $20 (4*$5)
If player A were to bid the $20, and Player B didn't back the whole bet, player A (if he wins) would get $15 ($10 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has). If Player A rolled 2 or 12, he would get $25 ($20 from bank, $5 from Player B)
In this situation, player B would WANT to back it, since now Player A would only get $5 instead of $15, and if Player A loses Player B gets all of it. Dumb bet by Player A.


Sorry to bring up such an old thread, but I am a bit confused here. Wouldn't player A (if he wins) get $20 ($15 from the bank and $5 from Player B, since it's all he has)? Why would he ony get $15 if he bet $20. If he rolled a 2 or 12, would he get $40 and not $25? How did you come up with $25 since if you roll a 2 or 12 you get double?


The bet is split evenly between the house and the bank, so the house covers $10. Since the house player has only $5, that's the maximum the house will have to pay on a win. The bank can obviously cover the other $10 of the bet, meaning it pays either $10 or $20 on a win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.