Dealer Casebook: Initials or Signature Not Yours

A fill, credit, table inventory, rating adjustment, or other transaction record is placed in front of you. Your initials appear in a field that normally identifies the dealer or witness.

You look at the mark and immediately think:

“That is not my writing.”

Maybe the initials are close to yours. Maybe another employee used the wrong dealer code. Maybe someone assumed you had signed earlier. Maybe the record was completed while you were away from the table. You do not yet know why the mark is there.

The professional problem is not proving misconduct at the table. It is protecting the record while making one fact clear: the mark is being attributed to you, and you do not recognise it as yours.

Do not overwrite the disputed mark

The first temptation may be to cross it out and write your own initials beside it.

Do not do that privately.

If the original entry matters to the control record, overwriting it can remove the very evidence needed to understand what happened. Even if your correction seems obvious, the property may require a specific notation, witness, supervisor sign-off, reissued document, or discrepancy process.

Preserve the record as found until the authorised person tells you how it should be handled.

State the fact narrowly

Use precise language:

“Those initials are beside my dealer position, but I do not recognise them as my initials.”

That is different from saying:

“Someone forged my signature.”

The first statement reports what you know. The second makes a conclusion about intent and authorship that may require investigation.

Keep those two levels separate.

Check whether the mark actually refers to you

Before escalating a serious accusation, confirm the basic context.

Is the field definitely a dealer-initial field? Could it be a supervisor code, witness mark, table number, shift code, or another controlled notation? Is another employee assigned similar initials? Was the form designed differently from what you normally use?

You are not trying to explain the issue away. You are making sure the discrepancy is real and correctly described.

If the mark is attributed to you, do not silently accept responsibility

A record that appears to carry your initials can later be read as evidence that you performed, witnessed, received, verified, or approved something.

If that implication is wrong, allowing the record to continue unchallenged can create a false history.

Do not say “it is probably fine” just because the transaction appears to balance.

The transaction amount and the identity of the person who certified it are separate facts.

Do not add a second mark merely to make the paperwork complete

Someone may say:

“Just put your real initials beside it so we know it is yours now.”

That can make the record even more confusing. A later reviewer may not know which mark belongs to which event or whether both are intended to certify the original transaction.

Use the authorised correction or discrepancy route instead of inventing a personal notation system.

Preserve the surrounding transaction state

If the disputed mark relates to a fill, credit, cash exchange, rack count, marker, table inventory, or other value movement, preserve the current state while the record is reviewed.

Do not move chips or cash again simply to make the document and the physical state appear consistent.

If normal play can continue safely under a floor ruling, continue only within that ruling. If the discrepancy affects the reliability of the rack, bankroll, transaction, or current table state, pause the affected movement and obtain guidance.

This follows the same discipline described in Dealer Fills and Credits: the control is not only about moving chips. It is also about keeping the record meaningful.

Do not accuse the employee you suspect

You may recognise the handwriting. You may remember who was near the table. You may strongly suspect a particular person.

Do not turn that suspicion into a confrontation at the table.

A practical report is:

“The mark is being treated as mine. I did not make it. I would like the record reviewed through the authorised process.”

That gives management a usable fact without contaminating the issue with an unsupported accusation.

If you remember the transaction, separate memory from authorship

You might have witnessed the underlying event even though you did not make the initials.

For example, you may remember the fill arriving and the amount being counted. That does not mean you should retroactively adopt someone else’s mark.

You can say:

“I remember the fill and I can describe what I saw, but I did not place these initials on the slip.”

Those are two different pieces of evidence.

If you do not remember the transaction, say so

Do not fill a memory gap with a likely story.

If the record says a transaction occurred at 22:10 and you dealt hundreds of hands that shift, it may be reasonable that you do not remember the exact event.

Say:

“I do not remember this specific transaction, and I do not recognise the initials as mine.”

That is stronger than guessing.

Do not erase, destroy, photograph, or remove the record privately

The document may be sensitive, controlled, or contain player information.

Do not take it home, photograph it for personal evidence, send it through personal messaging, or keep a private copy unless an authorised process specifically requires that action.

Protecting yourself does not require breaking document-custody or privacy rules.

Ask how the discrepancy should be documented

A useful question is:

“What is the authorised way to record that these initials are not mine while preserving the original entry?”

The property may use a notation, incident record, supervisor statement, replacement document, retained void, audit trail, or other process.

The exact method varies. The principle does not: preserve the original state and make the correction traceable.

If your own signature or initials were used before

A repeated pattern is more serious than a single ambiguous mark, but the dealer’s task remains factual.

Keep dates, document references, and the exact discrepancies through approved reporting channels. Do not create a private investigation file using player or casino records that you are not authorised to retain.

The aim is to create an auditable concern, not a personal case against a colleague.

Handover the issue if it remains open

If relief arrives before the discrepancy is resolved, do not let it disappear between shifts.

Tell the authorised receiving person what remains open:

• which record is affected;
• what mark is disputed;
• whether the underlying transaction state is resolved;
• who has been informed;
• whether any further movement is waiting for a ruling.

For the broader discipline of carrying unresolved facts across relief, see Giving and Receiving Relief at the Table.

Document observable facts, not motives

If you are asked to write a statement, a useful sequence may be:

“At approximately 23:05 I reviewed the fill slip for Table 12. Initials in the dealer field appeared similar to mine. I advised the floor that I did not place those initials on the slip. I did not alter the document. The floor retained the record for review.”

That is far stronger than:

“Someone was trying to make me responsible.”

The first can be checked. The second assumes motive.

The record should show what you actually signed

A dealer’s initials or signature should mean what the record says they mean.

When a mark appears to be yours but you did not make it, the goal is not to win an argument. It is to keep the original record intact, state the discrepancy clearly, protect the current value/table state, and move the issue into the authorised review process.

Do not overwrite, erase, or silently accept a mark attributed to you. Preserve the record, state what is and is not yours, and use the authorised discrepancy process.