New Table Game: Casino Over Under
Thread Rating:
Poll
 | 4 votes (40%) | ||
| | 6 votes (60%) |
10 members have voted
Here's the link:
http://t.co/t4HPukvdEg
Or go into the apple appstore and search Casino Over Under. Fast paced game played w 8 decks. House edge just under 1%.
Quote: kobaljOr go into the apple appstore and search Casino Over Under. Fast paced game played w 8 decks. House edge just under 1%.
That's off the top, though. This intuitively seems pretty countable to me, have you done the EORs? What does your optimal strategy say is the fold percentage?
Quote: MathExtremistThis intuitively seems pretty countable to me
This unfortunately seems to be the case in my mind as well. Although the usual continuous shoe statement will overcome this as in every other game. Just at a significantly increased cost to the operator for a under 1% HA game........ May be something to keep in mind.
As far as the EOR's go, that was not part of the report. To be completely upfront, that is a concern of mine as well. We will have to figure that out sooner than later as that could certainly could be a deal breaker when playing for real.
Quote: kobaljWell we had a statistician do the HE analysis and you're welcome to see his report. He's apparently well known in the industry. His name is Don Catlin. I'd be more than happy to send you his report. I can tell you that when playing optimally you should never fold. I was surprised by that but I specifically recall him discussing that with us. Also, he points out in his report that the HE moves considerably by changing the number of decks and of course modifying a rule on ties or the range itself. He felt you can utilize an edge anywhere between 1% and 5% without ruining the game play.
As far as the EOR's go, that was not part of the report. To be completely upfront, that is a concern of mine as well. We will have to figure that out sooner than later as that could certainly could be a deal breaker when playing for real.
I know Professor Catlin's work as anyone in the business should. But if he didn't do an EoR study for you, you should either have him do that or hire Eliot post-haste. Then code up a simulator and see whether the game is beatable with penetration. You don't want to go to market with the caveat "this game is only safe to operate with a CSM."
| Total | Pays | Combinations | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 or 33 | 50 | 4,048 | 0.000807 | 0.040372 |
| 7 or 32 | 10 | 33,120 | 0.006606 | 0.066064 |
| 8 or 31 | 5 | 129,312 | 0.025794 | 0.128968 |
| 9 or 30 | 4 | 227,272 | 0.045334 | 0.181335 |
| 10 or 29 | 3 | 211,680 | 0.042224 | 0.126671 |
| 11 or 28 | 2 | 259,200 | 0.051702 | 0.103405 |
| 12 or 27 | 1 | 312,496 | 0.062333 | 0.062333 |
| 13 to 26 | -1 | 3,836,192 | 0.765200 | -0.765200 |
| Total | 5,013,320 | 1.000000 | -0.056052 |
And the same thing for eight decks.
| Total | Pays | Combinations | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 or 33 | 50 | 9,920 | 0.000833 | 0.041638 |
| 7 or 32 | 10 | 79,360 | 0.006662 | 0.066621 |
| 8 or 31 | 5 | 307,712 | 0.025832 | 0.129159 |
| 9 or 30 | 4 | 541,920 | 0.045493 | 0.181972 |
| 10 or 29 | 3 | 503,296 | 0.042251 | 0.126752 |
| 11 or 28 | 2 | 616,448 | 0.051749 | 0.103499 |
| 12 or 27 | 1 | 742,592 | 0.062339 | 0.062339 |
| 13 to 26 | -1 | 9,110,912 | 0.764841 | -0.764841 |
| Total | 11,912,160 | 1.000000 | -0.052862 |
Can anybody confirm or deny they are using the pay table above? The math report mentions another one, but the video on the game web site says they intend to use the one above.
Also, does anyone know the number of decks they are using at the Magnolia Bluffs?
Finally, can anybody confirm or deny how they are dealing the game (cut card or continuous shuffler)? Feel free to PM me that answer if you prefer it not posted.
Thank you.
Just Step one
Step two
Step three.... as it would be printed on the table layout or a casino tent-card on the table.
Values are not 'as in blackjack except Aces are always eleven.
Values are:
1 - 10 indicated pip value
Picture 10
Ace 11 (or) 11 at all times.
take out the adjectives and descriptive puffery. Simple.
Quote: FleaStiffSuggestion: in the how to play section get rid of all adjectives.
I'm always appreciative of suggestions. I also agree that explanation of game rules are no place for adjectives. That said, can you be more specific about anything you find objectionable. It looks like my wording of the card values is the same as yours, except I used "face cards" and you used "picture."
Maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so can you give me a specific rule you find is too adjective-laden, and what you would recommend in its stead, and I'll be happy to consider it.
Thank you.
Quote: FleaStiffSuggestion: in the how to play section get rid of all adjectives.
Just Step one
Step two
Step three.... as it would be printed on the table layout or a casino tent-card on the table.
Values are not 'as in blackjack except Aces are always eleven.
Values are:
1 - 10 indicated pip value
Picture 10
Ace 11 (or) 11 at all times.
take out the adjectives and descriptive puffery. Simple.
Haven't looked at the Wizard page yet, but pip 1-10 face value is incorrect if aces are always 11. maybe pip 2-10?
Quote: WizardI'm always appreciative of suggestions. I also agree that explanation of game rules are no place for adjectives. That said, can you be more specific about anything you find objectionable. It looks like my wording of the card values is the same as yours, except I used "face cards" and you used "picture."
Maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so can you give me a specific rule you find is too adjective-laden, and what you would recommend in its stead, and I'll be happy to consider it.
Thank you.
Sorry, my post was meant to address the excessively verbose text on the game-inventors' website, not any post in this thread or your brand new page which I thought was quite good.
Note: Face card is indeed a better term than picture card.
"Sharpest Tool In The Shed": The sharpest is always the guy who owns the casino, but other than that you seem to be pretty sharp.
Thanks, I'm not even good at proofreading when I am sober!Quote: beachbumbabsHaven't looked at the Wizard page yet, but pip 1-10 face value is incorrect if aces are always 11. maybe pip 2-10?
Quote: FleaStiff"Sharpest Tool In The Shed": The sharpest is always the guy who owns the casino, but other than that you seem to be pretty sharp.
Thank you. Actually, I think whoever backed the Revel may not have been that sharp.
Quote: WizardJust finished my own page on Casino Over Under. In all honesty, I don't break any new ground on it. However, please have a look anyway. As always, I welcome all comments, questions, and especially corrections.
Thank you.
Wiz, step 3 in your game-play instructions may have a problem. As I understand it, Kobal says the player is never required to place a Bonus bet, but, if placed, the Bonus bet must equal the Ante bet. Your step 3 seems to suggest the player may omit the Ante ("Play starts with the player making an Ante and/or Bonus wager. ")
Does this improve your text? "Play starts with the player making an Ante wager. In addition, the player may bet an amount equal to the Ante wager on the optional Bonus wager."
Or, am I overlooking something on what has been presented to us as a very simple, easy-to-play game?
