Raise the Roof sidebet at Harrah's Rincon
Thread Rating:
Poll
 | 4 votes (44.44%) | ||
| | 5 votes (55.55%) |
9 members have voted
Rules of the Game:
1. Make an ante wager before cards are dealt.
2. After seeing dealer's upcard the player can "Raise the Roof" by placing an additional wager up to 5x the amount of the ante
3. If the dealer busts Ante is paid even money and RTR is paid according to this paytable (pay table?) -
Dealer Bust Card
10................................... Pays 1 to 1
9..................................... Pays 1 to 1
8..................................... Pays 2 to 1
7..................................... Pays 5 to 1
6..................................... Pays 10 to 1
4, 5,6, 7 Unsuited ... Pays 30 to 1
4, 5,6, 7 Suited ........ Pays 300 to 1
4. If the player busts his or her side bet remains in action.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, "side bet" is two words.
Quote: TheoHuxtable
2. After seeing dealer's upcard the player can "Raise the Roof" by placing an additional wager up to 5x the amount of the ante
If the player doesn't raise does the ante remain or is it folded.
Quote: CasinoKillerEliot did the math on this and said its an AP no go. I bet with a 6 and 7 side count someone could beat it
I asked Eliot about this and he claims to have never heard of this bet. Perhaps you're confusing it with his analysis of Raise it Up Stud.
I bet this pays as a 7 Bust Card or 5-1 according to the table above.
Here is a rack card Raise The Roof (Score Gaming)
Quote: TheoHuxtable...
4, 5,6, 7 Unsuited ... Pays 30 to 1
4, 5,6, 7 Suited ........ Pays 300 to 1
...
Do 4, 5, 7, 6 unsuited and suited also pay 30 to 1 and 300 to 1, respectively?
Quote: TheoHuxtableThere's a BJ side bet at the Harrahs in So Cal which I'd never heard of before nor could I find any info for online...?
Here are some nice detailed rules.
You can see from the rules, that if the player does not raise, the player does not forfeit the ante, but then the ante only gets paid 1:1 when the dealer busts. However, if the player does raise and the dealer busts, both the ante and the raise are paid the odds.
Also, for the 4, 5, 6, 7 dealer bust, a note says, "Dealer bust total hand. The order in which cards are received does not matter." I think "dealer bust 'total' hand" implies that a dealer hand with an ace would not be paid the high odds.
By the way, for the Harrah's So Cal H17 game, I would raise 5x vs dealer's 4, 5, or 6.
Quote: ParadigmIf an Ace is in the mix, the cards would have to come 5/6/Ace in some order (assuming H17 rules) and then could only bust if the 4 came next followed by the 7, correct?
That would seem correct. The rack card didn't answer the question. I'm still trying to get an answer anywhere.
Quote: someoneOK after seeing the detailed rules I redid the sim. This time 6 deck,H17 I get HA of approx 6.35%. The strategy is raise 1x against dealer 2 or 3, raise 5x against dealer 4, 5, or 6, don't raise against A, 7, 8, 9, or 10 card.
This side bet has come to my front burner. Based on these rules and the pay table provided earlier, assuming the 4-5-6-7 can be in any order (as long as it ends in a 6 or 7), and no extra cards allowed for the 4-5-6-7 pays, then I get a house edge of 6.26%. My strategy is the same as yours except I show to make a 1x raise with a 7.
With a 7 here is my EV each way:
Small raise: -0.430645
No raise: -0.476128
Quote: rdw4potusWhat is the player advantage if the raise isn't necessary to trigger the graduated paytable? I know a dealer who does this & wouldn't let me correct him.. .
Player advantage of 7.87%.
The correct strategy under such a rule twist would be to make the small raise on 4-6 and not raise at all on everything else.
My final number is very close - 6.11 %, but this is the element of risk. The house advantage as we define it - on initial bet only - is 14.1%. The difference is a factor of 30/13 which is (total units bet / ante units bet) assuming above strategy.
Although my page is based on my own math, I have a GLI report on the game too, kindly provided by Score Gaming, which does not agree with my numbers. However, they muddy the waters by talking about the blackjack game itself, but even considering that, we still don't agree.
The 1-1-2-5-10-30-300 pay table is supposed to be for two decks and the dealer hits a soft 17. All the previous work on this page seems to be based on this pay table but six decks. Maybe this is selfish, but I hate to try to find out who is correct based on a set of rules that doesn't exist. Can I trouble those who have analyzed this to change the number of decks to two. Then please post your results. Thank you.
Quote: BozJust looking over the rules on #7 if the player busts, the wager stays active. I am assuming if you are playing heads up, the game would be over. Assuming heads up would change the odds or does the dealer still play the hand out looking for a pat hand or bust?
I assumed the side bet would still be active and the dealer would draw against a dead hand. Bad game design, in my opinion, but that is how I read the rules.
I compared my calculation for infinte deck to your simulation for 6 deck, S17, pay table 4. The difference between 6 deck and infinite deck is miniscule while the calculation is orders of magnitude easier for infinite.
I get element of risk of 4.93% vs your 4.01%.
The difference is in the 4-5-6-7 bonus calculation. For instance, with dealer showing 7 I calculate the total probability of hitting the bonus (suited or not) as 2 / 2197. With 13^3 = 2197 permutations of the next 3 cards coming only 2 of them - 456 and 546 - will win the bonus. Your table shows the bonus about 3 times more probable than my calculation. This also causes your strategy to raise 1x on a dealer 7 (mine doesn't).
I believe your simulation assumes that with dealer showing 7, the 6 can come as any of the next three cards. To win the 4567 bonus the dealer must bust, and for that to happen 6 can only come as the last card.
Ace
Quote: AceI compared my calculation for infinte deck to your simulation for 6 deck, S17, pay table 4. The difference between 6 deck and infinite deck is miniscule while the calculation is orders of magnitude easier for infinite.
I get element of risk of 4.93% vs your 4.01%.
The difference is in the 4-5-6-7 bonus calculation. For instance, with dealer showing 7 I calculate the total probability of hitting the bonus (suited or not) as 2 / 2197. With 13^3 = 2197 permutations of the next 3 cards coming only 2 of them - 456 and 546 - will win the bonus. Your table shows the bonus about 3 times more probable than my calculation. This also causes your strategy to raise 1x on a dealer 7 (mine doesn't).
I believe your simulation assumes that with dealer showing 7, the 6 can come as any of the next three cards. To win the 4567 bonus the dealer must bust, and for that to happen 6 can only come as the last card.
You're absolutely right. I over-counted the ways to get the 4-5-6-7 wins. After correcting for that, my house edge for pay table 4 (six decks S17) is 11.17% with an element of risk of 3.96%. The math report by GLI says the house edge for that pay table is 10.05% and the element of risk is 4.36%.
However at 3.96 % your element of risk looks low (mine is 4.93%). If your house edge is 11.17% then your element of risk should be 4.84%. That's a ratio of 13 to 30 since with raises you bet 17 more units (2 x 1 plus 3 x 5) per 13 antes. I just checked the GLI numbers you quoted and they corroborate this ratio.
I assume the reason I'm not agreeing to GLI percentages is because their numbers are for less decks and:or H17.
Quote: AceWe are quite close on house edge. I have 11.38%. That 20 basis point difference is probably just due to infinite vs 6 deck, though I wouldn't expect a difference much larger than that.
However at 3.96 % your element of risk looks low (mine is 4.93%). If your house edge is 11.17% then your element of risk should be 4.84%. That's a ratio of 13 to 30 since with raises you bet 17 more units (2 x 1 plus 3 x 5) per 13 antes. I just checked the GLI numbers you quoted and they corroborate this ratio.
I assume the reason I'm not agreeing to GLI percentages is because their numbers are for less decks and:or H17.
You're absolutely right again. When I correct for that error I get an element of risk of 4.84% for pay table 4. Thanks again. If you're ever in Vegas, I owe you a beer.
Your rule #10 says:
10. If the dealer busts, and the player did raise his Raise the Roof bet, then the original Raise the Roof wager shall pay according to one of the pay tables below, depending on which one management decides to use.
However, this does not say what the payoff is on the "raised" portion of the bet.
Go to: the Colorado dot gov website (sorry, I was unable to post a direct link), then to /pacific/enforcement/laws-and-regulations-gaming-0
Then to section 8, pages 50-52, has the rules for this sidebet where it shows that both the original and the raised wagers are multiplied.
You might want to modify your webpage to clarify this.
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandWoO,
Your rule #10 says:
10. If the dealer busts, and the player did raise his Raise the Roof bet, then the original Raise the Roof wager shall pay according to one of the pay tables below, depending on which one management decides to use.
However, this does not say what the payoff is on the "raised" portion of the bet.
Thanks. Good catch. I just updated the page to say the Raise bet also is paid according to the pay table.
Quote: WizardOkay, I hope you're happy, I spent all day on this. Here is my new page on Raise the Roof.
Absolutely. Posts like these are fascinating to me. Thanks to the Wizard and everyone.
