Paigow Poker - RTG/Inetbet does not conform to published House Way (so what!)

[chuchu59]

I complained several months ago that the RTG splits 3 Kings sometimes and that it is not normal as usually only 3 Aces are split. OK, so there are views that this could be so though in the minority. Now they have since published a House Way in the Help files of the game.

Now again I have an issue. Played at Inetbet recently and again the Dealer has 3 Kings. It had 3 Ks, J, 10, 9 and 5. The 3 Kings were not split but this is what the House Way stated:
Where there are 3 Kings & 2 others higher than Ten cards, the two cards will be the two highest singletons.

It is obvious that this means that the 3 Kings will be split as only one card ie the J is higher than Ten. In this instance I would have won as I had AQ as the low hand and a pair of Aces at the back. I contacted Inetbet and they initially told me that it wasnt their fault that the wording was like that and the software was operating correctly. When I persisted they told me that the grammar was wrong and if I had an issue I need to take it up with RTG. This is nonsense. We are always told to read Ts and Cs correctly and it is our fault for not reading them. Now the dealer does not conform with the House Way and I am now told it was a grammatical error. This is Bullshit. The wording is clear enough. In fact, they have now amended the rules ie "Where there are 3 Kings and 2 others equal to or higher than Ten cards......" It is a measly 5 bucks but when the casino is wrong, I persist and wont let them off the hook like that. If it's wrong they should take it up with RTG why should it be me?

Anyone who believes that the above rule in the 2nd para. should also mean the inclusion of a Ten card can state their reasons here. I am always willing to listen. Thanks all.

[winbig]

It had 3 Ks, J, 10, 9 and 5. The 3 Kings were not split but this is what the House Way stated:


Where there are 3 Kings & 2 others higher than Ten cards, the two cards will be the two highest singletons.

I think it played out right....forgive me if I'm wrong, but there were not two cards higher than a ten. There was only 1 card higher than a ten and one card equal to a ten....

If it would have been worded "equal to, or higher than, ten cards, then yes, I think the game would have played wrong.

But for them to tell YOU to take it up with RTG....well, that's utter BS. We all know that players have no way of contacting software vendors on our own.

[rockycatt]

I'm not a student of pai gow but i think i would hold the three kings to secure the large hand for at least a push thinking the player might have
a ace for the small hand

please tell me if I'm wrong RC

[chuchu59]

Thanks for the views guys. I note that Inetbet has not responded to this thread and would appreciate them to explain their stance in the open.

[Jasminebed]

I think Winbig has read the houseway correctly (no comment on the validity of the houseway), and the hand was placed according to the published rules.

But the casino should be able to explain it to the player.

[chuchu59]

I think Winbig has read the houseway correctly (no comment on the validity of the houseway), and the hand was placed according to the published rules.

But the casino should be able to explain it to the player.

Jazzy,

A bit perplexed by what both Winbig and you mean as it seems that you agree that the Ten is not of a value higher than TEN yet the hand is played out correctly? As I read it, the original House Way wording means that the Kings are split if and only at least any 2 of the remaining 4 cards exceed a value of 10 and in this instance only the J belongs in this category. The Ten is not of a value higher than Ten. That is why I think the way the hand was set did not conform with the wording and the 3 Kings should be split. The revised wording ie 2 cards higher or equal to Ten is correct though.

[Jasminebed]

Sorry Chuchu, I missed reading that the rules were changed. If the hand was placed as you say, and those rules were in place, then the play did not conform to the houseway as published at that time.

If the error was made because of poorly worded Rules, this is not the player's fault.

IMO the OP's bet was with the casino, not with RTG, and it is up to Inetbet to make good on the bet. If they wish to take the matter up with RTG, it is their perogative. The onus is not on the player.

[GGW Laurie]

Sorry Chuchu, I missed reading that the rules were changed. If the hand was placed as you say, and those rules were in place, then the play did not conform to the houseway as published at that time.

If the error was made because of poorly worded Rules, this is not the player's fault.

IMO the OP's bet was with the casino, not with RTG, and it is up to Inetbet to make good on the bet. If they wish to take the matter up with RTG, it is their perogative. The onus is not on the player.

I know how much Chu loves Paigow Poker and as a seasoned player of this game knows the rules, i feel that Inetbet should honor or explain to Chu the reasoning behind the change of rules imo, i dont know a thing about this game but what i do know is Chu is an honorable player and person with a passive love of this game, he deserves better than to be told to take it up with RTG, he bet his money with Inetbet not the software.......just my 2paigow cents worth...........laurie

[chuchu59]

Laurie,

Yeah I love Paigow and the tiles game even more but I have to travel either to Macau or board the cruise ships to play the tiles game and that takes a toll on me unless I am on a long vacation.

Jazzy,

Maybe I should have written the original post better but that also means that confusion reigns when some of your statements are poorly-worded or paragraphed.