New Bet for Craps

Quote: MathExtremist

That's all true, but there are less than five out of thousands of members who (a) are sufficiently active to read these threads and (b) have the authority to license a game from an inventor. You're one of them, and you've made it abundantly clear what you think of the concept.

Do you think more or less of the idea after being debated? Were the OP's arguments persuasive or were they a turnoff?

ME,
I think a great deal of ONE ASPECT of the game that I really liked about the general concept, and that one part, that one component, was very "craps-oriented." AllInRiverKing's concept has perhaps a VERY good way to offer a high-payout bet within the confines of a single Point, ending on the point being resolved. (In this regard, it shares with HardPass an "intra-point" game offers a decent payout.) The complicated pay table just brought the whole thing down. I was queasy about the involved and bulky payout table, and queasy about the arbitrary roll tracking. If you make it a single payout regardless of which number becomes the point, you make the bet a lot easier and catchy for everyone. And design a way to DEAL it! Use some roll tracking method (lammers, what have you), that's EASY. The bet "Four Rolls No Seven" works with tracking rolls. And so you'll be good.

The point that I'm trying to make that a new casino game or bet has to be spot on in all aspects - 100%. Dealing, game protection, and survey-ability are all 100% crucial. NO game goes live without these characteristics. You design a new game for the casino operator just as much as you do for the gambler!

Any difficulty or cumbersome characteristic just kills a new game, - this is spelled out, I cannot stress this strongly enough.
The simple one-pay pay table helps, along with developing an easy "roll counting system" that is visible on the game, and easy to deal, will help.

To see the competition in the crap side bets area, click here.

I do understand this,

Even tho there are several payouts, once the point is established the players know from that point forward what they are playing for, it doesn't change. Example point established is 8, they know from that point they are playing for 45 to 1. Other comments in past on here, including from you Dan, was a decent hit rate around 10%, these bets average hit rate just under 5%. You also said there should be a chance to win a higher payout, something more than 50 to 1, because there are plenty of 30 to 1 bets and lower bets out there. I remembered paytable and have only viewed it a couple times. 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 to 1, regardless Craps or Crapless version; payouts are the same for both games. It's 3, 4, 5 then jump 5 to 1 increments to reach 10 then 15, then jump to 45, then jump 5 to 1 increments again until u reach 65. 10 payouts on crapless and 6 on craps. I would consider changing some but not removing the point being resolved with a 7 wins. The idea originally was to have a bet that won if the point was resolved on a set roll, in which could win, regardless of how the point was resolved.

Yes, that is the original idea, match the rolls to the point. (It gives it the bet good payout). Look at how the bet "Four rolls no seven" tracks rolls.

Ultimately, you're the designer, so it's your call as to keep the more complicated "odds" payout table based on the particular point number instead of a simple one payout result; I think it is a cause for pushback against the game (mainly from dealers and operators), and you want to eliminate ALL potential for pushback as a designer.

the 5% hit frequency isn't that bad, and is improved by including a 7-out as a win, that also adds to the bet's desirability: more hits, AND more ways to win: many parlay their hardways bets with low hit rates, - because the payout is so high. In this regard, a BIG payouts makes up for the lower hit rate, and makes hitting it that much more exciting.

Didn't mean to be harsh earlier, but you have a job to do, in tying up all lose ends that may cause player resistance and pushback. Also, develop a useful roll tracking method or process for crap games - as that will be invaluable if easy, accurate, and slick.

Quote: Paigowdan

the 5% hit frequency isn't that bad, and is improved by including a 7-out as a win, that also adds to the bet's desirability

But the problem in that regard is on that one roll only, you're rooting for a 7 or the point. I don't think you ever want to make players root against their own line bets. That's why come odds and place bets are off on the comeout. I mean, you could create the "7 In 7" bet where if you 7-out on the 7th roll of the bet, you win the prop. But there are an infinite number of possible variations on "do X on exactly the Nth roll" combinations, and even more "do X after at least N rolls" combinations. You've already pointed at the "Four Rolls No Seven" bet, and many casinos track long rolls anyway, so I don't see any of this being patentable.

My own patented Uppercut game, where a sequence of increasing numbers determines the award, was originally conceived as a dice game. Not a craps game, but a standalone dice game. You try to roll a low number to start and then larger and larger numbers to keep the sequence alive. A 7-length sequence like 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 wins the top award. It works fine as a game in and of itself: it has a ~45% hit frequency and also the occasional 25-1 payout, but it has no relevance to craps so I've never really tried to combine them.

Quote: MathExtremist

But the problem in that regard is on that one roll only, you're rooting for a 7 or the point. I don't think you ever want to make players root against their own line bets. That's why come odds and place bets are off on the comeout.

True, but in this case it is more "any point resolution or ending," including making the point. I feel this is actually neutral, as hitting the point also wins.

Quote: ME

I mean, you could create the "7 In 7" bet where if you 7-out on the 7th roll of the bet, you win the prop. But there are an infinite number of possible variations on "do X on exactly the Nth roll" combinations, and even more "do X after at least N rolls" combinations. You've already pointed at the "Four Rolls No Seven" bet, and many casinos track long rolls anyway, so I don't see any of this being patentable.

True, that part can be public domain, but what may be patentable is a method or mechanism on HOW the rolls can be tracked, especially if done very well. That would be a device method. It would have to be real easy to use, to be commercially usable on a live crap game, I will say. I also assume that AllInRiverKing's patent should add or cover a "7 in 7" occurrence, along with its basic "Point in Point Rolls." (Point in Point wouldn't be a bad name for it.)

Quote: ME

My own patented Uppercut game, where a sequence of increasing numbers determines the award, was originally conceived as a dice game. Not a craps game, but a standalone dice game. You try to roll a low number to start and then larger and larger numbers to keep the sequence alive. A 7-length sequence like 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 wins the top award. It works fine as a game in and of itself: it has a ~45% hit frequency and also the occasional 25-1 payout, but it has no relevance to craps so I've never really tried to combine them.

As a good general base game method, you have a multi-game mechanism here!

Quote: Paigowdan

True, that part can be public domain, but what may be patentable is a method or mechanism on HOW the rolls can be tracked, especially if done very well. That would be a device method. It would have to be real easy to use, to be commercially usable on a live crap game, I will say. I also assume that AllInRiverKing's patent should add or cover a "7 in 7" occurrence, along with its basic "Point in Point Rolls." (Point in Point wouldn't be a bad name for it.)

Tracking has been done for a while, though. The Atlantis in Reno uses iPod Touches to count rolls on a nearby LCD monitor. Several companies have attempted display technology for dice games; I think SHFL did once, and I know TCS and DigiDeal have them. It's been around in Roulette for decades so I'm still skeptical that a patent can be obtained on tracking rolls. Plus, that's not what the OP has claimed to invent.

And he can't claim the 7-in-7 method because I invented it a few minutes ago. :)

Quote: Paigowdan

I will say it would be very tough to sell this as an additional bet in areas where the casino dice tables already have some proprietary side bet on it. No operator will pay for two vendors on the same game if they can help it. makes it tough.

Dan, you need to bundle ME's Hard Way Pass and AceCraakers Double D with Small/Tall/All and now Galaxy really will have a three bet offering that can truly be called Bonus Craps!

You get the benefits of S/T/A and get to add a "Fire" type bet with the "Double D" and the "Hard Way Pass" is another good long shot prop bet. That is a pretty good package of side bets to sell to operators. I can see the sales pitch now "Why just have the Fire Bet when you can have all these options in one simple payment to Galaxy"?

From an "I play for the fun, not to just win big" perspective ... a confusing payout takes more brain power and that results in less fun. My personal opionion on longer to resolve bets is that it is more time between "fun events",, even when the payout is bigger.

Quote: Paradigm

Dan, you need to bundle ME's Hard Way Pass and AceCraakers Double D with Small/Tall/All and now Galaxy really will have a three bet offering that can truly be called Bonus Craps!

You get the benefits of S/T/A and get to add a "Fire" type bet with the "Double D" and the "Hard Way Pass" is another good long shot prop bet. That is a pretty good package of side bets to sell to operators. I can see the sales pitch now "Why just have the Fire Bet when you can have all these options in one simple payment to Galaxy"?

For a real winning combination - IMHO - add the SOSI Bet and have a four way winner ! (Gotta keep marketing it)

So,

Would these characteristics be good for a side-bet in Craps?

1) bet hit frequency of 6.30%
2) a payout table of 1 to 1, 2 to 1, 10 to 1 and 50 to 1
3) bet explained to players/dealers/casino mgr. in 30 seconds or less, appx. 4 sentences total
4) bet resolved every 1 to 3 rolls
5) bet loses on any total of 7 being rolled
6) because max of 3 rolls, tracking only requires to track 3 rolls and three items
7) bet house edge 7.07%
8) bet mimics other game that people are familiar with

Quote: allinriverking

1) bet hit frequency of 6.30%
2) a payout table of 1 to 1, 2 to 1, 10 to 1 and 50 to 1
3) bet explained to players/dealers/casino mgr. in 30 seconds or less, appx. 4 sentences total
4) bet resolved every 1 to 3 rolls
5) bet loses on any total of 7 being rolled
6) because max of 3 rolls, tracking only requires to track 3 rolls and three items
7) bet house edge 7.07%
8) bet mimics other game that people are familiar with

1.) Given some of the more likely pays (based on #2), I think it should hit more often.
2.) That's not bad, you might want to get something around 100-1, or better, for the top pay. Plenty of single-roll props paying 30 to 1, so 50 to 1 doesn't really excite me. If you could come up with some sort of Progressive, that'd be sweet.
3.) Yup.
4.) Not a big deal, the Fire Bet is pretty popular and generally takes longer, in fact, Pass/Don't Pass generally take longer.
5.) Works for Right Way players, I'd say, they're used to that. If there's a way to avoid that being the case on the CO, though, that'd be good.
6.) Again, it can take more rolls than that as long as the premise is simple enough.
7.) Not bad, could be lower. Maybe for $1.00 Min., certainly not Table Min.
8.) It should be somewhat original.

Quote: Mission146

1.) Given some of the more likely pays (based on #2), I think it should hit more often.
2.) That's not bad, you might want to get something around 100-1, or better, for the top pay. Plenty of single-roll props paying 30 to 1, so 50 to 1 doesn't really excite me. If you could come up with some sort of Progressive, that'd be sweet.
3.) Yup.
4.) Not a big deal, the Fire Bet is pretty popular and generally takes longer, in fact, Pass/Don't Pass generally take longer.
5.) Works for Right Way players, I'd say, they're used to that. If there's a way to avoid that being the case on the CO, though, that'd be good.
6.) Again, it can take more rolls than that as long as the premise is simple enough.
7.) Not bad, could be lower. Maybe for $1.00 Min., certainly not Table Min.
8.) It should be somewhat original.

1) hit frequency now 9.7%
2) pay-table now 1 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1, 20 to 1, 100 to 1 and 250 to 1
3) 45 seconds now
4) bet resolved in 1 to 3 rolls, more resolved bets per hour better for house
5) 7 winner on CO can win sometimes now
6) still only 3 rolls to track
7) house edge now 3.85%
8) it's original in that no one is combining a side-bet from this game to add to a craps game, but premise is familiar to most that play craps, as well to others that may play at craps table that plays this game.
9) bet minimum should be the same as table minimum.


Thanks Mission for input.

No Problem!