Baccpo

Please have a first look at my new page on Baccpo. As always, I welcome comments, questions, and corrections. Some may wonder why I refer to the only known rules as the Melbourne variant. The game maker (TCS John Huxley) tells me they are going to release a different version soon in Canada and California. So, I'm just prepared to add another version to the page in the near future.

Thanks.

I would advise adding a little more about the procedure of the game - since it uses the Baccarat hand scoring, I was initially thinking it would be dealt similar to Baccarat - but it sounds like each player plays their own hand against the dealer hand? Is this correct or is there just one player hand, controlled by the biggest bettor? What strategy does the dealer hand follow? Needs clarification.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I would advise adding a little more about the procedure of the game

Thanks. You're right, I left out some important rules. The player can take one more card and the the dealer hits on 5 or less points or two threes. It is dealt more like blackjack, with all players going against the dealer.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks. You're right, I left out some important rules. The player can take one more card and the the dealer hits on 5 or less points or two threes. It is dealt more like blackjack, with all players going against the dealer.

Looks better, although I would still clarify the bolded part above somewhere on the page.

Seems like it might be countable with the 3-1 payout on three 3's - unlike Blackjack, the player gets paid immediately for this "natural" even if the dealer ends up with one. Of course, with a house edge around 3% (what is it with all these 3's?), the profitable situations would probably be quite rare.

I agree with Aces.....you need another sentence that would fit in between 1. and 2. that says something like "After making their main wager, each player is dealt two cards and the dealer is dealt two cards with one of the dealer's cards face up" (is that correct?).

A baccarat variant with over a 3% HE on the main game....hmmmmm.....wonder why it got pulled off the floor? But I guess that is matter for another different thread.

Quote: Paradigm

I agree with Aces.....you need another sentence that would fit in between 1. and 2. that says something like "After making their main wager, each player is dealt two cards and the dealer is dealt two cards with one of the dealer's cards face up" (is that correct?).

Done. See if you like it better now.

Quote:

A baccarat variant with over a 3% HE on the main game....hmmmmm.....wonder why it got pulled off the floor? But I guess that is matter for another different thread.

I hear the next version will have a lower house edge. What I find hard to swallow is the high house edge on the tie bet. They could afford to be a lot more generous than 10 to 1, consider the number of cards must match as well for a tie.

Quote: Wizard

I hear the next version will have a lower house edge. What I find hard to swallow is the high house edge on the tie bet. They could afford to be a lot more generous than 10 to 1, consider the number of cards must match as well for a tie.

In my opinion, the HE on the base game is pretty reasonable for a carnival game, especially since the optimal strategy is so easy to learn which will result in fewer player mistakes. It seems like a game that can be dealt pretty quickly, so provided people like it, the House should still do well on the game.

I agree with you on the tie bet, except I think that they went with the tie bet as is because it makes it easier to pay at 10:1. Given that the only pay is tie or no tie, you could make the tie pay 11:1 for an HE of about 8.77%, but then it just seems like a really strange payout.

Personally, I think a better way to have handled ties would be to have most ties pay 10:1, but then to take ties on one or two values and have them pay at a higher amount such as 20:1 or maybe even 25:1. I would probably go with a larger payout on the nine-point tie (same number of cards) since the player wins those on the base game anyway. That way you can have your nice round multiplier for the most likely payout on the bet, while at the same time reducing the HE to something more reasonable AND having a nice attractive, "Big Win," type play to attract the sucker into playing the necessarily higher HE Tie bet.

I'd like to also see the Bonus Bet at something closer to 6% HE, and I understand the need for the, "Flush," payout...as it is the most likely...but it is also the one that has the least (i.e. none whatsoever) relation to the base game!!! What can you do, though? That 10k:1 payout is still pretty sexy looking, though.

Maybe even make the Flush 5:1, except now you're down to just under 4%...

Page looks much better now; I feel like I would now understand the rules of the game after just one read through. One small nitpick, you have a typo in step #7: "In the event of a tie, the a hand with three cards..."

With respect to the game itself, I can see the appeal among blackjack players who have also played Baccarat, and find the mod-10 scoring system interesting, but want to make their own decisions. But that's a pretty small target market. I don't see the typical Asian baccarat player touching it with a 10-foot pole.

And the rules are too confusing. Win 1-to-2 on a total of 7? Why 7? Why do I win my full bet on totals of 6, 8, and 9, but not 7? Why do I win 9-point ties (when we both have 3 cards) but push other ties (unless one side has 3 cards and the other two)?

Obviously all of the above machinations are there to provide the house with the requisite edge, but the average player isn't going to understand that. It's not elegant at all.

I can see tons of dealer mistakes along with a lot of player frustration. My prediction is that this game isn't going to go anywhere.

If for nothing but its archival value, its nice to have a page on this somewhat transient game that only existed briefly but may be brought back for further casino trials.

Its essentially Baccarat with each player having his own Players Hand versus the Dealer's Banker Hand. I'll admit the payouts do seem needlessly confusing.

I think there was a good reason the casino in Melbourne yanked it.

I can't get a handle on the name for this game. What else ends in "-po" ? Not coming up with much.

Re-po.
Hypo-.
River Po.
??

Quote: odiousgambit

I can't get a handle on the name for this game. What else ends in "-po" ??

I think the "po" part if from Pontoon.

Quote: FleaStiff

If for nothing but its archival value.....its nice to have a page on this somewhat transient game....that only existed briefly....but may be brought back for further casino trials.

I believe FleaStiff is very clear and insightful here - or is simply speaking plainly here.

Quote: FleaStiff

I think there was a good reason the casino in Melbourne yanked it.

Now he is being more clear, blunt, and to the point here, and sadly I agree with him.....
If you cannot get gamblers to play a Baccarat or Blackjack based game in Melbourne, Australia - which is an Asian gaming hub of sorts - and its only install got pulled there, then that says quite a lot.

Basically, a new game has to be:
1. At least as simple and as Easy to play, maintaining the simplicity and elegance of the game(s) it is replacing.
2. If merging or mixing two separate games, it has to demonsterably improve upon both games it attempts to superceed, - and not detract by having complex or convoluted rules.

Some GOOD examples of mixing two games are:
1. "21 + 3" - which mixes Blackjack with a three card poker side bet. Now THAT game combination has over 1,000+ installs, and plays very finely.
2. Pai Gow mania - which mixes three card poker and Pai Gow poker, and it has only several installs. I've played it, and it plays well, but somewhat slowly.
In the case of these two game "mixing" examples, neither game presented here interferes with the other game in game play, and neither game changes or alters the basic rules of either game, in any way.

In other words, if you ARE going to mix two different games, you have to be as "light, discreet, and gentle as possible," - upsetting the playing rules of neither game, in order to add to both, or at least, "not detract or subtract from any."

Now, let's take a look at BaccPo's rules:

Quote: https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccpo/

Rules
1.Cards are scored as in baccarat. In particular: ◦Aces = 1 point
◦2's to 9's = Pip value
◦10's, face cards = 0 points

2. All players play against the dealer, as in blackjack. [This adds nothing new or exciting to either game, - and it goes against Baccarat methodology, and is same old Blackjack]

3. Play starts with the player and dealer receiving two cards each. As in blackjack, one dealer card is turned face up, and the other face down. [This adds nothing new or exciting to either game, - and it goes against Baccarat methodology, and is same old Blackjack]

4.The player shall have the option to stand or take one more card. [This adds nothing new or exciting to either game, - and it goes against Baccarat methodology, and is same old Blackjack; actually, it is neither Blackjack, as you can only hit once.]

5. After all players have acted the dealer will turn over his other card. Then the dealer will take a third card if he has five or less points, or two threes. [This goes against the known rules of any existing game, and adds a very strange rule of: "I gotta hit IF I HAVE A FIVE OR LESS - UNLESS I HAVE TWO THREES, OF COURSE!"

6. Hand scoring is generally the same as in baccarat, where the score is the terminal digit of the total number of points. [Yes, - but the hand scoring and hitting for the Blackjack side is totally strange, daffy, and also conflicts with Blackjack. That alone does not make it "exciting and new."]

7. In the event of a tie, the a hand with three cards shall outrank a hand with two cards. [Very arbitrary here.] Otherwise, two hands of the same number of points and cards shall tie.

8. The highest ranking hand is a 3-card 9 composed of three 3's! [Of course: - the very rare Three Card Poker hand of "three of a kind freaking 3's" is now used here - and into a very strange mix of Baccarat and Blackjack. Makes perfect gaming sense....]

9.A player 3-3-3 hand shall automatically win, and pay 3 to 1. [Adding a new, strange, and bizarre payout that only pays 3 to 1, even though three 3's, and in three cards, occurs perhaps once in every 5,000 hands or so. This would be like paying only 3:1 on a Straight Flush in poker.]

10. Any winning player 7-point hand shall pay 1 to 2. [Oh, I get it.....If I win with a Seven, then give me HALF pay.]

11. All other player wins shall pay 1 to 1. [Same as every other flat bet on the planet.]

12.Any 9-point tie, with the same number of cards in both hands, will go to the player. All other ties shall push. [This is totally against gaming conventions and protocol, as normally the dealer wins the ties. Something new to remember yet again. New and strange special rule to remember, another one.]

13.If the dealer has the higher hand then the player shall lose.

14.Side bets are available on a tie and a Bonus Bet, which are explained below. ...

I look at this new game, and I don't know what to say.

Forgive me for being hard on a new game, but you have to keep in mind that the gaming market and its gamblers may be even tougher. In fact, they are tougher. Merciless, and I am tiddlywinks here by comparison. This is one unforgiving business; if it doesn't add anything to the mix, - then it just doesn't add up.

TCS Huxley has a very small foorprint in North America, in comparison to Shufflemaster, DEQ, and Galaxy Gaming; if they attempt to introduce a fairly weak game against this competition, and on their home turf, then I do not see what it would avail.

In the bonus bet section, the "Flush" line should say, "Three Card Flush."

Quote: Wizard

Some may wonder why I refer to the only known rules as the Melbourne variant. The game maker (TCS John Huxley) tells me they are going to release a different version soon in Canada and California. So, I'm just prepared to add another version to the page in the near future.

I think you should include that comment on the page.

Quote: Paigowdan

If you cannot get gamblers to play a Baccarat or Blackjack based game in Melbourne, Australia - which is an Asian gaming hub of sorts - and its only install got pulled there, then that says quite a lot.

That depends. Did it get pulled, or did it's field trial end?

What percent of games that have a successful field trial remain on the floor without uninterruption?

I mean the fact that it got pulled doesn't automatically mean that it didn't get play or was a bad game, does it?

[it got pulled...]

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I mean the fact that it got pulled doesn't automatically mean that it didn't get play or was a bad game, does it?

Yes, it may indeed, but not always.
Quite often, a field trial is an exceedingly and very unfair way to introduce a game - One single game, at a hole-in-the-wall casino, where the pit management resents the new game presenting new challenges and work loads, and where the dealers don't "get it," and try to kill the game.

I've seen that happen at least a dozen times.

However, if the distributor has intelligent management with intelligent contacts at local "intro" casinos, - then they do take into account the market location of the introduction, and they also insure the support of the intro casino's support of the product - and at least a minimum overseeing of a new project launch - and as an intelligent casino game distributor.

Keep in mind that some VERY intelligent gaming distributors sometimes make some big market gambling mistakes.

Business Executives are Human!

New product introductions are a gamble, and some basic mistakes are often made..................................................
[Edit: I think Baccpo is very poor playing game, and a very big mistake, and I say this as a game designer and as a casino game reviewer. Feel free to disagree.]

I mean, why launch a new product with a casino operator who is out to kill the new product, or discernably won't be able or willing to support it?

I will say as a matter of "gaming industry fact" - that Shufflemaster, DEQ Systems, and Galaxy Gaming, - will never launch a new product without close co-operation and a proveable support on the part of the operator - to demonsterably support the new product.

Now what game distributor would throw a brand new product to the Wolves, so to speak - unless they were stupid, or wanted to quash and kill the new product - when they would want it to succeed?

If you are accusing TCS Huxley of "new game introduction incompetence" - that is hard to believe, based on their success in the Pacific Markets, - their primary markets.

I think the game Baccpo failed in Melbourne because it might be a weak game, - and that TCS Huxley had given it a go in good faith - to see for sure if it would succeed or not. Now, from there, they may be introducing this game in North America, probably because they may have little else to "break the North American" ice with.

Now, based on the Melbourne results, I would personally recommend not taking it to North America against Shufflemaster and DEQ, with their exceedingly strong Baccarat and Blackjack products, - but however, that business decision is up to the TCS management team, - and they should BOTH be given the benefit of the doubt, and a loud warning of the dangers, also. A LOUD warning.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

That depends. Did it get pulled, or did it's field trial end?
What percent of games that have a successful field trial remain on the floor without uninterruption?
I mean the fact that it got pulled doesn't automatically mean that it didn't get play or was a bad game, does it?

No, but I think the half-drunk crowds meandering about a casino who happened to stumble upon a new game such as Bapppo would tend to continue to stumble on by in a drunken fog, so it probably got pulled.

I think the basic game concept is pretty good. In my Tend Commandments for Game Inventors I say to never mix two or more popular games, but I think they did it fairly well. For a blackjack/baccarat variant I do think the house edge is too high. The next version will bring that down significantly.

Regarding the odd payoffs, various versions of commission free baccarat already pays 1 to 2 on some winning banker totals. The rule of the "21 automatic winner" is known from Spanish 21. The game makers dilemma was keeping the game simple and also hitting their desired house edge. I'm sure there were a lot of Emails back and forth with their mathematician, trying to hit that target.

If a real gambler is so much as half-sober, he might not consider Baccpo or another new game a good game.

Look - Even if new a game is offered in a "rough" break-in house, it can survive, or survive a re-introduction, as Three Card poker had

If a game is good, - and makes sense to a gambler to play - it will get action. AND if it gives good play - it will continue on.

A lot of good games survived a rough introduction casino, but NO lousy game ever survived, even at a good break-in house.

IF a new game:
- makes NO playing sense, or;
- kills the player, or;
- kills the house
It is GONE.

If a new game:
- has sensible rules, and is easy and sensible to play;
- gives wins and losses to the player, and was fun;
- and gives wins and loses to the house, but gives a house edge..........

It Lives On, it Takes off.

It is ALMOST that simple.

Quote:

I can't get a handle on the name for this game. What else ends in "-po" ? Not coming up with much.

Maybe it's the begin of "poker". There is a poker variant, though.

Quote: Wizard

I think the basic game concept is pretty good. In my Tend Commandments for Game Inventors I say to never mix two or more popular games, but I think they did it fairly well. For a blackjack/baccarat variant I do think the house edge is too high. The next version will bring that down significantly.

There is strong disagreement here. I think the basic concept of straight Blackjack is very fine, as is straight Baccarat - and both of these basic and fine games get very lost in this particular and awkward game mix. [Time Will Tell.]

I play Baccarat, and the only addition that I have seen so far that is strong and decent is: Shufflemater's Dragon Bonus, and DEQ's Panda-8 and Dragon-7. Between these two major distributors, they utterly dominate the Baccarat Market, and would be very tough to dislodge, - especially if Galaxy Gaming enters the North American market with a Strong Baccarat Product.

Baccpo seems to me as a very awkward game mix of the two popular games, trying to capitalize on both while offering nothing really novel, similar to "Pojack" - a mix of Blackjack and poker that went nowhere; - in Baccpo, both games are so heavily modified that NEITHER game plays anywhere near its native and instinctive recognizable game, which gamblers expect, and which is needed for game adoption, - not the either Baccarat side, nor the Blackjack side, IMO.

I feel this is not arguable. The new and strange game rules make both games more distant to the player while adding little, if nothing. The game rules are tough, arbitrary, and unrelated to either game, aside from a strange insertion of a 3-card, three-of-a-kind 3's winning a bonus.

Quote: Wizard

Regarding the odd payoffs, EZ Baccarat already pays 1 to 2 on winning Banker totals of 7, and players have accepted that rule.

Mike, this is incorrect; EZ Baccarat does not 1 to 2 on a winning Banker total of 7. You're thinking of the Baccarat U.K. and Pala Casino three-card-6 result half pay, as in the Pala Casino uses, with a side bet on the dealer's non-qualification.

EZ Baccarat pushes on a winning three card Banker 7, - it is not a half-pay, which occurs about twice and often, and is considered more game disruptive by its doubled frequency, and with its change-making half-pay result.

Quote: Paigowdan

If a new game:
- has sensible rules, and is easy and sensible to play;
- gives wins and losses to the player, and was fun;
- and gives wins and loses to the house, but gives a house edge..........

It Lives On, it Takes off.

It is ALMOST that simple.

I have to differ here. I think a good new game can get killed if the casino doesn't properly support it.

Lets look at my first game as an example. Now, I'm not saying my Ties Win Blackjack game is the greatest idea ever. It got a field trial because I was friendly with the casino manager. However, the table game manager resented all the procedure and paperwork that came with doing the field trial, and killed the game by putting it in a terrible location and staffed it with all the worst dealers. Of course, behind every game that didn't do well in field trial there is an inventor blaming the casino, so nobody puts much stock in this excuse trying to go beyond a bad field trial. The first question you'll always get is "how did it do in field trial?" If the answer isn't "outstanding!" you probably won't get a second question.

I was wrong about EZ Baccarat. What I meant to say was other versions of commission-free baccarat.

Quote: Wizard

I have to differ here. I think a good new game can get killed if the casino doesn't properly support it.

You are right, - which is why field trials would be MUCH fairer if a wider introduction were allowed; a sample of ten games, or even five, would be fairer than a single game trial in a no-where casino that didn't care about the new game. Imagine a complex new poker game such as Ultimate Texas Hold 'em - being field-trialed at a $2 Blackjack house in the ghetto such as the LxxxHxxn.

Quote: Wizard

Lets look at my first game as an example. Now, I'm not saying my Ties Win Blackjack game is the greatest idea ever. It got a field trial because I was friendly with the casino manager. However, the table game manager resented all the procedure and paperwork that came with doing the field trial, and killed the game by putting it in a terrible location and staffed it with all the worst dealers. Of course, behind every game that didn't do well in field trial there is an inventor blaming the casino, so nobody puts much stock in this excuse trying to go beyond a bad field trial. The first question you'll always get is "how did it do in field trial?" If the answer isn't "outstanding!" you probably won't get a second question.

Mike, simply put, you got unfairly screwed. Got to admit. Your BJ tie side bet was better most out there, - and was copied by some, outright theft. [The "Push your luck" Blackjack side bet that paid on ties, - later removed by a major operator.]

And yes, the field trial process is GROSSLY unfair, - which is why casino distributors look for game variations, and avoid brandy-brand new games, - because you CAN get screwed on a fine new game that is simply intro-ed in the wrong place. However, a strong game will survive if the correct intro house is selected, and it is assumed THAT if you are intro-ing a new game, you will reject the Longhorn, and "Frankie's Bus Stop Gambling Hall in Lubinville, AL." You can indeed say "No! - My game is not going to be intro-ed there...I can wait for it to be intro-ed in Shacklefordville, Monaco!"

Sometimes you cannot pick and choose your field trial, - but NO field trial is better than a bad field trial - much in the way that it is better to remain single, than to enter into an utterly horrific and absuive relationship.

But with all considered, I do view, as a game designer, Baccpo as somewhat similar to "POJACK !", - a very awkward and cumbersome mix of Blackjack and poker presented as the "next red-hot and fantastic new casino game to buy !!"

Roger Snow couldn't pitch me suspect goods, - no less TCS Huxley, or DEQ, or Galaxy Gaming - as a dice dealer, no less a Director of Table Games. [but my friend Frank Rajek....maybe...]

Quote: Wizard

I was wrong about EZ Baccarat. What I meant to say was other versions of commission-free baccarat.

Versions of a game make a difference. EZ Baccarat is a very distinguished brand name in Casino Baccarat: 500 installs, comes with the G3/I3 progressive system, etc....

Rules read much better now, good changes Wiz!

One other item I noticed in the Bonus Pay Table Analysis. Take a look at he contribution that the top two payouts make to the overall house edge. If you exclude the 10000 and 1000 to 1 events, which combined only occur 1 in 15,625 hands, the house edge on the Bonus Bet goes to the stratosphere at just under 16%.

Now I realize that you can't just exclude pay events from a pay table, but my point is that most players will never play 15,000 hands of this game and as a result will experience the 16% HE. In my opinion, too much of the overall HE is "tied up" in the very rare top pay events. This is a poor design and will result in the players "feeling" like the bonus bet is a device that carries with it a loud sucking noise as their money evaporates at a rapid pace.

As an alternate, I suggest the re-design include lower top end pay outs of 2000 & 500 to 1 (still enough to attract the big pay off adrenaline) and use the additional 4.45% to increase the more frequent pay outs. If you made the low payout 5 to 1 and instituted the 2000/500 top payouts, your overall HE falls to 8.4% and 99.99% of the time the player will experience a HE of 10%. That will provide a much better player feel to the bonus bet.

Wow.
Maybe we can still fix it.

Quote: Paradigm

One other item I noticed in the Bonus Pay Table Analysis. Take a look at he contribution that the top two payouts make to the overall house edge. If you exclude the 10000 and 1000 to 1 events, which combined only occur 1 in 15,625 hands, the house edge on the Bonus Bet goes to the stratosphere at just under 16%.

I agree. If it were me I would just remove the win for three three of spades. I would also bump up the win for a flush to 5 to 1, which will make dealing it easier. I'm not big on how they treat all the 0-point cards equally. I would do something simple like:

Suited 3-3-3
Suited three of a kind
Any 3-3-3
Any three of a kind
Flush

I like the simple paytable......I think you have harped on this "simplify" concept with many a Forum Member in the development of their games. Manipulate the paytable to an overall 7-8%% (if you want to keep a four figure payout at the top) and make it so the players experiences about 8-9% most of the time and we may have fixed at least that part of the game.

What does the group think of BaccPo versus Lucky_9 that PaiGowDan discussed last September. Both are drawing hand baccarat games.

Paradigm,

Do not look only at its mathematics. Arithmetic is done in grade school, and on TI calculators.

Gambling is done is casinos.

Look at its "playability," and its serious feasability, - and its role in realistic and future casino installs.

Baccarat is a very tough market for the base game itself.

Consider more seriously the Shufflemaster offerings, and the DEQ and Galaxy offerings.

In order to take a market, including North America - it must be a very strong new game. An exceeding strong new game.

A virtually flawless new game.

I hear ya, Dan!

This is a tough one for sure and since Lucky 9 isn't blazing new trails that I know of, I don't think there is a big market for baccarat variants with strategic decisions.

But you never know, the game isn't Dice Football or some totally off the wall game. Do you think there is a market for a Baccarat Variant or is the evolution for Baccarat strictly in the side bet market for now?

Quote: Paradigm

I hear ya, Dan!

This is a tough one for sure and since Lucky 9 isn't blazing new trails that I know of, I don't think there is a big market for baccarat variants with strategic decisions.

The thing is, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the BASE GAME of Baccarat, - zero. OR Blackjack. To touch either base game is to face 100% Failure - right off the bat - as a fundamental rule of any game design. You cannot reinevent the base game for either Baccarat - or Blackjack. Even super-fun-21 is basic blackjack, and Spanish-21 is almost nowhere.

To come up with any sort of "Spanish Baccarat" variant - any Baccarat variant whatsoever - is a 100% non-starter. Try if you want, my 1-cent ridicule wouldn't even be the start of it, - forget about a corporation investing money in a Baccarat variant. A good side bet for Baccarat, is very possible, so as long as you don't even touch the very base game of Baccarat.

To twist up one of them - if not both of them - ludicrous. You CAN come up with a side bet for any one of the two - so as long as you absolute do not touch either base game.

Quote: Paradigm

But you never know, the game isn't Dice Football or some totally off the wall game. Do you think there is a market for a Baccarat Variant or is the evolution for Baccarat strictly in the side bet market for now?

A Baccarat variant? ---- 0.000000%. Dice Football - the same 0.000000%.

A good Baccarat side bet? Yes - it is at 73.89% - if extremely good.

I've read the original page and the posts here. I'm not enthused about a Bacc-variant with 3% HE.
Since most punters are betting in multiples of $5, the Win any 7 should be 3 to 5. That will lower the HE to about 2.18% alone, and make it more savory.
The 333 payout of 3:1 is just silly, either make it 10:1 or erase it. Its only contributing 0.1% as is.
The odd rulings look like a Dealer nightmare for an obvious simple game.
I wouldn't TOUCH that side-bet. Just let it die. At least add a "Straight-Flush" gimmick Suited XYZ pays W, Suited 234 pays 3*W.

As someone who lives in Melbourne I remember when Clown opened this game. There were about 10 tables, flashing lights and huge LCD displays. The game was very popular for the first month or so and I did play the game quite a bit. After about six months the game pretty much died out and there were two tables left, decommissioned, next the Craps table.

The popularity (and the number of tables) started to wane when the table minimums went from $5 -> $10 -> $15. I think most people decided that it was probably better to to play the normal $25 mini Baccarat game.

A few observations I made during this period.

• Bonus bet was not available.
• Dealer did not draw on two three's.
• I think the dealer only got one card and acted after all the players had made their decisions.
• CSM was in operation. Not sure how many decks were in use..
• Most walk ups thought that they were playing Blackjack, however once the rules were explained they seems to get the gist of it.
• Dealer mistakes were quite rare.

Only Crown can say why they pulled the game. Its demise did coincide with the introduction of BlackJack Plus (ugh), but it simply could have been that they didn't want to have to train staff for a two table game.