Microgaming Live Dealer Blackjack

[goooner]

This looked a reasonable game, presented on sites like 32Red or Hippodromeonline, until I made the mistake of betting behind. The tables are almost always full, so this seemed a reasonable option, assuming the front player is playing basic strategy. Lo and behold, when I had an 11 v 5, I was not presented with an option to double. I thought this might have been a software glitch, but no, when I contacted customer support I was told:

When a player is betting behind a seated player, only the seated player is given the Double Down option.

On a double down the betting behind player's bet remains constant and will not change, this is for 2 main reasons.

1. Betting behind player may not have funds to double.

2. Betting behind player may not want to double, but this is not a decision they can make. It is decided by the seated player.

So, not content with the 0.6% the house has anyway, there is an extra gouge of over 1% as the back player is not allowed to double! The live chat person seemed unaware of this rick, and has referred it to Microgaming, but I am sure the latter knows about it, and is the reason the tables are full - probably with shills appointed by the house to make people bet behind!

 

[Dinahnana]

This looked a reasonable game, presented on sites like 32Red or Hippodromeonline, until I made the mistake of betting behind. The tables are almost always full, so this seemed a reasonable option, assuming the front player is playing basic strategy. Lo and behold, when I had an 11 v 5, I was not presented with an option to double. I thought this might have been a software glitch, but no, when I contacted customer support I was told:

When a player is betting behind a seated player, only the seated player is given the Double Down option.

On a double down the betting behind player's bet remains constant and will not change, this is for 2 main reasons.

1. Betting behind player may not have funds to double.

2. Betting behind player may not want to double, but this is not a decision they can make. It is decided by the seated player.

So, not content with the 0.6% the house has anyway, there is an extra gouge of over 1% as the back player is not allowed to double! The live chat person seemed unaware of this rick, and has referred it to Microgaming, but I am sure the latter knows about it, and is the reason the tables are full - probably with shills appointed by the house to make people bet behind!

I don't play live casinos so I am not going to comment on your play. I do however think your accusation is unfounded. Only a rogue outfit would employ such a tactic and that is not the case here.

 

[goooner]

I don't play live casinos so I am not going to comment on your play. I do however think your accusation is unfounded. Only a rogue outfit would employ such a tactic and that is not the case here.

The rules on the site indicate that a player can double down with hard 9, 10, or 11. However the full text of the email from Customer Support at Betway who run the site at both Betway and Hippodrome is as follows:

Hi XXX,

Account name: XXXXX

With regards to your on going query.

When a player is betting behind a seated player, only the seated player is given the Double Down option.

On a double down the betting behind player's bet remains constant and will not change, this is for 2 main reasons.

1. Betting behind player may not have funds to double.

2. Betting behind player may not want to double, but this is not a decision they can make. It is decided by the seated player.

Should you have any further questions or queries please feel free to contact us at support at any time.

Kind Regards,

Enrico

The Betway Team

I agree that I have no evidence that they fill up the seats with shills and I withdraw that accusation. They usually have only one table, however, and often there are about a dozen people waiting for seats. They do know that if people cannot get seats, they are likely to play behind, until they discover that they cannot double down or split, when they will probably leave in disgust.

 

[Dinahnana]

The rules on the site indicate that a player can double down with hard 9, 10, or 11. However the full text of the email from Customer Support at Betway who run the site at both Betway and Hippodrome is as follows:

Hi XXX,

Account name: XXXXX

With regards to your on going query.

When a player is betting behind a seated player, only the seated player is given the Double Down option.

On a double down the betting behind player's bet remains constant and will not change, this is for 2 main reasons.

1. Betting behind player may not have funds to double.

2. Betting behind player may not want to double, but this is not a decision they can make. It is decided by the seated player.

Should you have any further questions or queries please feel free to contact us at support at any time.

Kind Regards,

Enrico

The Betway Team

I agree that I have no evidence that they fill up the seats with shills and I withdraw that accusation. They usually have only one table, however, and often there are about a dozen people waiting for seats. They do know that if people cannot get seats, they are likely to play behind, until they discover that they cannot double down or split, when they will probably leave in disgust.

Thanks for withdrawing the accusation Is there a way for you to tell if the table is full before you deposit? If you can then maybe you could try another casino that may have more tables or ones where you can actually have a seat. That is all the input I can give because my knowledge of poker and poker rooms is very limited.

 

[goooner]

Blackjack not Poker

The game in question is Blackjack not Poker. As was given in the heading of the thread, so there should have been no ambiguity. In general, live dealer Blackjack is very popular, as players do not trust RNG games, and it is difficult to find £5 games that are not full. Betting behind is fine if the front player knows basic strategy, but not at all fine if one is given no option to double or split, as appears to be the case.

The main issue is that it does not do what it says on the tin. The rules specify that the player can double on 9, 10 and 11. The rules specify that the player can split equal-ranking cards. Neither is the case, and the game has been referred to the regulator, but I have found in the past that the latter is a paper tiger.

 

[funnymunny]

... The rules specify that the player can double on 9, 10 and 11. The rules specify that the player can split equal-ranking cards. Neither is the case, ...

You may find that the player in this case is defined as the person occupying the seated position, and who's decisions the dealer acts upon. It would appear in this instance that those betting behind do not fall into this category.

 

[Dinahnana]

The game in question is Blackjack not Poker. As was given in the heading of the thread, so there should have been no ambiguity. In general, live dealer Blackjack is very popular, as players do not trust RNG games, and it is difficult to find £5 games that are not full. Betting behind is fine if the front player knows basic strategy, but not at all fine if one is given no option to double or split, as appears to be the case.

The main issue is that it does not do what it says on the tin. The rules specify that the player can double on 9, 10 and 11. The rules specify that the player can split equal-ranking cards. Neither is the case, and the game has been referred to the regulator, but I have found in the past that the latter is a paper tiger.

Sorry about the error in calling it poker my bad. Seems to me that the problem is that casinos need to add more live dealer tables if there is a demand for it. If you have to sit behind the front player who is clueless then that would be that players fault and not the casinos. So maybe they should not allow this type of table set up as only seated or front players get to chose what they want to do. I am making the assumption here that seated or front players are and players sitting behind that player get dealt the same hand as that would make sense since it is live dealer blackjack. So your complaint should be directed at the players who are not well up on Blackjack strategies. I don't think allowing players to sit behind a seated player is a good idea IMHO, just causes hassle.

 

[goooner]

Betting Behind

Indeed, one is already bound to accept the seated player's actions, which is bad anyway. However, if the front player plays basic strategy, this would not be too bad, but the inability to double or split does make betting behind truly hopeless. The main issue is that the rules state the player can double or split, but in practice he cannot.

 

[goooner]

You may find that the player in this case is defined as the person occupying the seated position, and who's decisions the dealer acts upon. It would appear in this instance that those betting behind do not fall into this category.

No distinction is made in the rules between the seated player and the person betting behind.

 

[neilw]

In my opinion there are better Live Blackjack games out there than the one at Microgaming live casinos. As you've already found find a seat can be an issue and the Bet Behind rules do not mirror what's available at land based casinos. That with the no European hold card, cards burnt before each new deck and hand and restrictions on cards that you can double down are all move the edge further towards the house.

Personally I advise you to stay away from Microgaming Blackjack (their Roulette and Baccarat is good and they've just introduced Casino Holdem if you like that game.) I generally play at either Evolution or Visionary IGaming Live Casinos, such as Bet Victor, Grosvenor & William Hill (for Evolution) or Fairway & Celtic Casinos for Visionary igaming. They both offer a game that more player friendly. If playing at an Evolution Casino go for one with dedicated Blackjack tables, such as William Hill or Grosvenor. You can bet behind even while you're playing and they also have 21-3 and Perfect Pair side bets if that's your thing.