Jack-A-Tack

I saw a new side bet today. The table actually had two side bets you could play. Lucky lucky and Jack-A-Tack. The rules for Jack-A-Tack are below.

Min $1 max $25

Any 20 pays 5-1
Any 2 jacks pays 10-1
2 suited jacks 25-1
Any two one-eyed jacks 100-1
4 matching one-eyed jacks (player/dealer) 299-1

Has anyone encountered this side bet? Are there any savvy math wizards that could come up with a count to beat this?

I saw it 2-3 months ago. $25 max combined with the particularly sweaty dump I saw it in made me decline to evaluate it further.

This sounds like someone's "non copyright" version of Lucky Ladies or Kings Bounty... Next will be "Perfect 10's!" with the exact same pay table but for literal 10's only =D.

Its distributed by AGS. Obvious copy of Lucky Ladies.

Additionsl companies are coming out with copies of the other companies games now so that they can try and sell a site licences like Galaxy Gaming.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Its distributed by AGS. Obvious copy of Lucky Ladies.

Additionsl companies are coming out with copies of the other companies games now so that they can try and sell a site licences like Galaxy Gaming.


ZCore13

The whole thing is disgusting theft of IP. It comes down to salesmanship, marketing and undercutting, not interesting and new games development. Lazy and should still be illegal. We enforce Chinese knockoffs as theft - should be doing the same among these companies.

Quote: beachbumbabs

We enforce Chinese knockoffs as theft - should be doing the same among these companies.

Probably but it seems to be a situation wherein laziness and undercutting are rewarded because the piece of the pie they are squabbling over is not that large to be worth the legal fees and counter suits.

Quote: FleaStiff

Probably but it seems to be a situation wherein laziness and undercutting are rewarded because the piece of the pie they are squabbling over is not that large to be worth the legal fees and counter suits.

When those lawsuits WERE winnable, which was before the uspto decided not to protect game procedures, ie bilski, the distributors would spend about 1 million per lawsuit protecting their rights. That's part of the reason I sold the IP - I wanted the legal protection. It would take less than 5 minutes to rip my game off, if someone wanted to.

But if you consider, for example, a premium game like UTH, which is leased (reportedly, not verified) for about $2000 per table per month, and there are about 1000 UTH tables installed right now (again a rough estimate), that's $2 million a MONTH they're making on just one game. And the patent protection is for 20 years. So, lifetime, the potential of a single game is in the 100s of millions.

So, yeah, it was worth protecting. And worth spending some money finding and developing new games. But all that seems to be out the window.

Quote: beachbumbabs

When those lawsuits WERE winnable, which was before the uspto decided not to protect game procedures, ie bilski, the distributors would spend about 1 million per lawsuit protecting their rights. That's part of the reason I sold the IP - I wanted the legal protection. It would take less than 5 minutes to rip my game off, if someone wanted to.

But if you consider, for example, a premium game like UTH, which is leased (reportedly, not verified) for about $2000 per table per month, and there are about 1000 UTH tables installed right now (again a rough estimate), that's $2 million a MONTH they're making on just one game. And the patent protection is for 20 years. So, lifetime, the potential of a single game is in the 100s of millions.

So, yeah, it was worth protecting. And worth spending some money finding and developing new games. But all that seems to be out the window.

New games can still be protected. They do not consider a side bet as a new game or significant change to the game. There are still plenty of new games being invented.


ZCore13

Quote: beachbumbabs

When those lawsuits WERE winnable, which was before the uspto decided not to protect game procedures, ie bilski, the distributors would spend about 1 million per lawsuit protecting their rights. That's part of the reason I sold the IP - I wanted the legal protection. It would take less than 5 minutes to rip my game off, if someone wanted to.

But if you consider, for example, a premium game like UTH, which is leased (reportedly, not verified) for about $2000 per table per month, and there are about 1000 UTH tables installed right now (again a rough estimate), that's $2 million a MONTH they're making on just one game. And the patent protection is for 20 years. So, lifetime, the potential of a single game is in the 100s of millions.

So, yeah, it was worth protecting. And worth spending some money finding and developing new games. But all that seems to be out the window.

Who was the guy who failed to protect Pai Gow Poker? I forgot, but remember hearing the story about it. I played poker every day back then in Los Angeles. I remember first seeing PG Tiles at the club near Watts on Alameda. I asked, "What's that game"? Somebody said, "That's Pai Gow." I replied, "Oh, that will never catch on". Ranks among the stupidest things I've ever said, and I've said plenty of stupid things.

But anyway, someone invented PG Poker, and I think got bad advice not to bother protecting it, if I remember correctly. Can you imagine? Omg.

Quote: bobbartop

Who was the guy who failed to protect Pai Gow Poker? I forgot, but remember hearing the story about it. I played poker every day back then in Los Angeles. I remember first seeing PG Tiles at the club near Watts on Alameda. I asked, "What's that game"? Somebody said, "That's Pai Gow." I replied, "Oh, that will never catch on". Ranks among the stupidest things I've ever said, and I've said plenty of stupid things.

But anyway, someone invented PG Poker, and I think got bad advice not to bother protecting it, if I remember correctly. Can you imagine? Omg.

That was easy to find out. All I had to do was google. DUH! Also, there is a thread on this forum about it.

"Sam Torosian, owner of the Bell Card Club in Los Angeles, invented the game of Pai Gow Poker in 1985."

By the way, in my old brain I can't remember what was with the Bell Club at that point. Seems to my memory it was down already. Commerce opened in '82, the Bike in '84. I think.

I always remember Art Linkletter from the fifties. Radio and television host who made a fortune in the Hula Hoop fad. Yes, he had patent protection for it but knew it would be useless to attempt to enforce it, so he had warehouses full of the stuff and then launched the product, flooding the market before hordes of illegal knock-offs could get much market share. Tremendous financial risk for him but he knew a rear guard action by patent lawyers would not help him much.

It is terrible that its 'open season" on side bets but if only the main game is considered to be protected intellectual property, so be it.