Crazy Field Bet

This may sound crazy, but just play along with me for a minute.

Imagine a "field bet" where 3 dice are thrown.

Scenario #1:
- Players win when the numbers total 3-8 or 13-18. (12 winning combinations) Both #3 & #18 pays double.
- Players lose if the dice total 9-12 (4 losing combinations)

Scenario #2:
- Players win when the numbers total 3-7 or 14-18. (10 winning combinations) Both #3 & #8 pays double (maybe even triple)
- Players lose if the dice total 8-13 (6 losing combinations).

This is for a game that will be offered at a charity fundraising event, however, it is a real money wager.

It sounds like a Sic Bo or Chuck a Luck type of game.

Quote: Riva1

This may sound crazy, but just play along with me for a minute.

Imagine a "field bet" where 3 dice are thrown.

Scenario #1:
- Players win when the numbers total 3-8 or 13-18. (12 winning combinations) Both #3 & #18 pays double.
- Players lose if the dice total 9-12 (4 losing combinations)

Scenario #2:
- Players win when the numbers total 3-7 or 14-18. (10 winning combinations) Both #3 & #8 pays double (maybe even triple)
- Players lose if the dice total 8-13 (6 losing combinations).

This is for a game that will be offered at a charity fundraising event, however, it is a real money wager.

Scenario 1: if I worked it out correctly has a 4.6...% player edge (in other words, bad for the charity)

Haven't looked at the numbers for Scenario 2, but I would expect it to have a house edge, *likely, even with "triple pay on 3 and 18"

Quote: ksdjdj

Scenario 1: if I worked it out correctly has a 4.6...% player edge (in other words, bad for the charity)

agree

Quote: ksdjdj

Haven't looked at the numbers for Scenario 2, but I would expect it to have a house edge, *likely, even with "triple pay on 3 and 18"

House edge over 33%. Lose probability over 66%
make 8 a winner (9-13 a loss) at about 14% house edge (depending on 2x or 3x pay) and a 58% lose probability

Yes, indeed. It is a part of a game that I have been in the process of designing for a few years now. The game (layout) is a derivative/combination of sic bo, craps, roulette and Chuck-a-Luck.

A game like this would probably never be offered in a real casino. However, at charity gambling events, for real; money, I could see people being attracted to this game.

I'd post a pic, however, I do not see how that is a feature of this website.

I agree with 7craps, Scenario 2 would have about a 33.3% house edge, paying 3/1 on 3 and 18.

You probably want to keep the variance*** low if it is over a day or a weekend, but what kind of house edge are you looking for?

***: I probably won't be able to help you work this out, but I think you generally want to keep the odds as close to "even money" as possible (but still keep it "fun , exciting" etc).

Quote: ksdjdj

I agree with 7craps, Scenario 2 would have about a 33.3% house edge, paying 3/1 on 3 and 18.

You probably want to keep the variance*** low if it is over a day or a weekend, but what kind of house edge are you looking for?

***: I probably won't be able to help you work this out, but I think you generally want to keep the odds as close to "even money" as possible (but still keep it "fun , exciting" etc).

I am not uncomfortable with a 33% house/edge. At events such as these, neither are the players.

What is important to remember, and I have been doing this for decades, is that "if" the sponsoring organization is willing to engage in a "real money" and "at-risk" activity, they must structure each and every game heavily in favor of the house. Why? It is because they are only open for business for 8 hours, for 1 day per year. The real casino is open 24/7/365. A casino will always recover the losses. The charity cannot.

When I started doing this years ago, an old-timer came up to me and handed me a piece of paper listing four "rules". This is what the letter read:

Rule #1.
The casino wins by always staying within its mathematical guardrails

Rule # 2
By allowing a player to gamble beyond the table’s limit, the house is at an instantaneous disadvantage

Rule #3
The reason that a time-limited house has not pulled in a profit is that it is not open long enough to take advantage of its mathematical advantage

Rule #4. The house must create, maintain, & leverage its mathematical advantage for the few hours & days that it is open

Pretty smart, eh?

If you tweaked scenario 2 to pay 4/1 on "any triple" (inc. triple 3 and 4) then you would probably have a nicely balanced game (fun, exciting) the house edge would still be decent for a charity(~25%) and the pays should be fairly quick and easy for the dealer.
Just read your above post.

Obviously you can customize the pay table however you want. For a charity event, where people know their losses are essentially donations to the cause, I'd recommend an HE in the 7%-10% range. That way people will at least get some entertainment for their money while still having a chance of winning, all while pretty much guaranteeing the charity makes money. Just be careful with your min/max bet range.

Quote: Gialmere

Obviously you can customize the pay table however you want. For a charity event, where people know their losses are essentially donations to the cause, I'd recommend an HE in the 7%-10% range. That way people will at least get some entertainment for their money while still having a chance of winning, all while pretty much guaranteeing the charity makes money. Just be careful with your min/max bet range.

Absolutely good advice.

Here in Michigan, the state just changed the number of chips that some organizations can sell to players from $15,000 per day, to $80,000 per day. That is HUGE for us because we would often sell out the $15k during the first hour. If you can't sell chips to players, new players will not come into the room and current players, unable to re-stock, will go home.

We have absolutely no intention of increasing our wager limits as a result of the chip sales limit. Rather, we plan to keep everything the same, i.e., "maximum bets, payouts, etc." However, now that we can sell $80,000 in chips per day, we are going to open up our room at noon (versus 6:00 p.m.) and allow players to purchase up to $500 chips at the cage per visit.

Yes, indeed. It is a part of a game that I have been in the process of designing for a few years now. The game (layout) is a derivative/combination of sic bo, craps, roulette and Chuck-a-Luck.

A game like this would probably never be offered in a real casino. However, at charity gambling events, for real; money, I could see people being attracted to this game.

I'd post a pic, however, I do not see how that is a feature of this website.

Quote: Riva1

(snip)We have absolutely no intention of increasing our wager limits as a result of the chip sales limit. Rather, we plan to keep everything the same, i.e., "maximum bets, payouts, etc." (snip)

I know you just said "...no intention of increasing the wager limits...", but I just did some simulations for this game, and I think you should either:

1) have two tables (if there is enough space) one with the "standard" $2 (min) $5 (max) betting limits and make the other a "high rollers table" with $5 (min) and $20 (max) betting limits.

or

2) have one table with a betting limit of $2-$10, instead of the standard one you use ($2-$5, going by your other threads?)

The main reason for this is, the game would be a "sure winner^^^ " for the charity.
^^^: if you expect the game to play for 200 rounds, or more.


Can you tell me what the profit/take has been for the last 3+ events and what the table limits were for similar games (eg "craps/sic bo" type games with 25-40% house edge)?

Note: you can PM me, if you do not want to make the info general knowledge.

---
Spelling not checked