Mulligan Poker debuts in Calgary
Quote: coilman
7.If the player made the Pair Plus bet and takes a Mulligan, then he forfeits the Pair Plus bet but may remake it. The outcome of the new Pair Plus wager is based on the Mulligan hand.
The casino was paying off on BOTH..... PAIR PLUS bets if the person played the mulligan hand and put money down on that bet again.
LOL...even the good dealer did this? I hope this isn't the main reason for the game's popularity. Let's put it this way, if they end up playing it this way in Kansas, the 4.75 hour drive for me to the middle of nowheresville would be a lot more reasonable now. But then I would be a jerk AP'ing Wiz's game too. :( If I am understanding what is happening correctly, this gives the player an edge of 55.6% of a single pair plus bet if he takes a mulligan on every non-pair. If this wasn't the Wiz's game, I would keep this to myself and hope they did it in Kansas if it gets installed there...haha
Young fella had bet $5 ante and $10 pair plus....got a pair of 5's with a small card...puts out the money for the mulligan hand and gets the other pair of 5s and a face card
dealer first hand was nothing so drew second hand again nothing to beat the pair of 5s in either of the players hands
he was paid on both ante $5 bets and both pair plus bets
other times they had a good first hand (pair or better)played the mulligan hand.....would win with the first hand and lose the second hand only get paid on the paid ONLY on pair plus bet on the first hand not on the ante bets
wish i could have filmed it but tooo many COWBOYS dressed all in black suits with Cowboy hats on walking all around the place
Anyway, I just faxed the casino warning them of the potential error. Hopefully they will check their faxes before any AP's read this thread and head over there.
What I was thinking in my head was, if you took a mulligan, the first pair plus bet could still win if the 2nd hand won pair plus. With his description, I'm not sure if that's the case, and the way they are currently playing the game, it may even be hurting the player! But then again, I really don't understand what is going on.
Quote: coilmanother times they had a good first hand (pair or better)played the mulligan hand.....would win with the first hand and lose the second hand only get paid on the paid ONLY on pair plus bet on the first hand not on the ante bets
wish i could have filmed it but tooo many COWBOYS dressed all in black suits with Cowboy hats on walking all around the place
This sounds like this makes the game more in the house's favor.
rule 6 is not being followed
6.If the player chooses to take a Mulligan, then he must make a Mulligan bet equal to his Ante bet and exchange his original three cards for three new cards
EXCHANGE HIS ORIGINAL THREE CARDS FOR THREE NEW CARDS..
.....thus ONLY ONE HAND IN PLAY FOR PLAYER
Mike's game is actually very straight forward, and shouldn't be a problem to deal, and I am saddened (but not always surprised) by what I am reading here, concerning getting dealers and floormen being "in line" on a new product introduction.
In their defense [of a casino operator], it is a disruption and a change in procedures (we all may have to learn a new game), - but it is part of the very basic job requirement (in that, well...we may have to learn a new game from time to time). May we do it well.
This is one of the reasons why a game intro should involve multiple properties - and if it doesn't, the distributor should be politely "on top" of that property - so that it does indeed have its most fair viewing.
One would expect at this point in the gaming industry, that you do not intro a new game at a property - only to inadvertently trash it. A good faith effort means a lot, and is very visible. This is not just being discussed on Internet forums, but in the fact that players may walk into a casino, and may wish to try a new game that may have very fine merit, and wonder why it is not opertional.
A new game should be presented in the best possible light, if it were to be taken in by a casino operator in the first place.
A casino operator should never install a new game, - "just to trash it." I understand snafu's happen, but really.
Quote: coilmanYoung fella had bet $5 ante and $10 pair plus....
Was the "$10 pair plus" bet...
A. At the same time as the Ante bet only?
B. At the same time as the Mulligan raise only?
C. $5 at the time of the Ante and $5 at the time of the Raise.
D. None of the above.
Quote: WizardWas the "$10 pair plus" bet...
A. At the same time as the Ante bet only?
B. At the same time as the Mulligan raise only?
C. $5 at the time of the Ante and $5 at the time of the Raise.
D. None of the above.
player checked his hand had pair of 5s and small card on his first bets of $5 ante and $10 PAIRPLUS bet
for some unknown reason he wants the mulligan hand even with his first hand being the above,,,,, he again bets $5 ante and $10 PAIRPLUS bet in the spots for the MULLIGAN hand before he is dealt his Mulligan set of three cards
on his mulligan hand he also receives the other two 5s in the deck and a face card
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
both hands were good enough to beat the dealers hand
the dealer checked the mulligan hand first saw it was a pair which beat the houses hand and paid off the ante bet first and as per the payoff scale paid even on the PAIRPLUS bet made on the players mulligan bet
next the dealer flips over the same players first three cards he was dealt ... again a pair is in it and player had made PAIRPLUS wager of $10 at the start of the game...dealer pays player off $10 on PAIRPLUS bet he originally made on the first hand as per PAIRPLUS payoff scale
Quote: coilmanYoung fella had bet $5 ante and $10 pair plus....got a pair of 5's with a small card...puts out the money for the mulligan hand and gets the other pair of 5s and a face card... he was paid on both ante $5 bets and both pair plus bets
Quote: coilmanhe again bets $5 ante and $10 PAIRPLUS bet
Then Why didn't you mention the additional $10 Pairplus bet in the example? I assumed by omission, and from previous posts of yours, that he didn't make one. Now I look like an idiot for sending a very strongly worded fax to the casino about a dealer error that doesn't exist. Maybe I just interpreted your original posts badly, but you caused me quite a bit of alarm. In my opinion you really could have phrased the issue a lot better.
Quote: tringlomaneBy his description I think they are playing the game wrong. Can you take a mulligan on a pair of 5s and still get paid on the original hand if it beats the dealer?
I think we're confusing the issue even more with this question, but if the player takes a Mulligan it makes no difference to the Ante and Raise bets whether or not the original hand beats the dealer.
Quote: WizardI think we're confusing the issue even more with this question, but if the player takes a Mulligan it makes no difference to the Ante and Raise bets whether or not the original hand beats the dealer.
Right, when the game is played correctly. But everything I have read today makes me think something is wrong because no one should be redrawing pairs if that hand will not be the one evaluated for the ante/mulligan bets. I guess its possible players could play the game that way thinking its the correct play??
I'm just trying to totally understand what all is going on. :)
Quote: Wizard of Odds
3.Play starts with the player making an Ante bet. The player may optionally make a Pair Plus bet.
4.The dealer shall give the player and himself three cards each. The dealer's cards are dealt face down.
5.The player has the choice to stand or take a Mulligan.
6.If the player chooses to take a Mulligan, then he must make a Mulligan bet equal to his Ante bet and exchange his original three cards for three new cards.
7.If the player takes a Mulligan, then he may make a new Pair Plus bet based on the Mulligan hand.
From coilman's description, it looks like the player was able to take a mulligan and NOT exchange his cards and therefore get paid on two three card hands, which clearly is against rule 5 and 6 of the game.
If a player initially places an optional PP bet and then elects to make a Mulligan bet after receiving an initial hand containing a Pair, isn't the original hand is used to settle the original PP bet?
I recall from G2E that when you had an Original PP in play and elected a Mulligan, they would tuck your Original hand under the original PP wager so that those cards were used to settle the original PP bet.
If that is the case, then if a player did elect to Mulligan an original hand containing a Pair, made the Mulligan bet and a 2nd PP bet, received a Mulligan hand that also contained a pair, he would be paid on all four bets (Ante, Mulligan and both PP bets) if his hand did beat the dealer.
Quote: ParadigmI recall from G2E that when you had an Original PP in play and elected a Mulligan, they would tuck your Original hand under the original PP wager so that those cards were used to settle the original PP bet.
It seems they are doing that in Calgary too.
It would be different situation if both PP bets in play were decided by the Mulligan Hand, in which case the player would be getting "two shots" at making a pair or better on the first PP bet placed. That would definitely be a problem!
Quote: boymimboI'm confused.
From coilman's description, it looks like the player was able to take a mulligan and NOT exchange his cards and therefore get paid on two three card hands, which clearly is against rule 5 and 6 of the game.
Yes, so the way the rules are currently written on the site isn't quite the way they are playing in calgary.
Quote: ParadigmI hope this question will clear things up:
If a player initially places an optional PP bet and then elects to make a Mulligan bet after receiving an initial hand containing a Pair, isn't the original hand is used to settle the original PP bet?
I recall from G2E that when you had an Original PP in play and elected a Mulligan, they would tuck your Original hand under the original PP wager so that those cards were used to settle the original PP bet.
If that is the case, then if a player did elect to Mulligan an original hand containing a Pair, made the Mulligan bet and a 2nd PP bet, received a Mulligan hand that also contained a pair, he would be paid on all four bets (Ante, Mulligan and both PP bets) if his hand did beat the dealer.
Quote: WizardIt seems they are doing that in Calgary too.
Yeah, that's what I think, and that's fine as long as the mulligan hand always decides the ante and mulligan bets. Optimal strategy is still preserved this way, and the house isn't being exploited here. But it allows players to play much, much worse compared to optimal strategy. The Wiz's original rules made it painfully obvious that you don't take a mulligan on a pair or better.
Quote: tringlomaneThe Wiz's original rules made it painfully obvious that you don't take a mulligan on a pair or better.
I think the Calgary rules slow down the game, clutter up the table, and are a bit unethical. The Calgary rules seem to tempt the player to take a mulligan on a good hand, which was not my intent.
In Three Card Poker if the player folds he forfeits his Pair Plus bet. No need to bother leaving it on the table to adjudicate. I assume this was done in the interests of speeding up the game. It also protects the player from his own stupidity, by hopefully stopping him from folding with a pair or better.
Then again, I've yet to see the game played in a casino.
Quote: WizardThen again, I've yet to see the game played in a casino.
It may be time for a quick trip to Calgary :-)
Afterall, how often does a developer get his game on the floor?
We need a pic of the Wiz next to the live Mulligan Poker table!!
Take a plane, see your game in action. Take in an NHL game.
-Tim
Quote: boymimboWizard, WestJet and Air Canada has direct flights from LAS to YYC for under $400 return.
Take a plane, see your game in action. Take in an NHL game.
Not a bad idea. I've never been to the wild rose providence before, and always enjoy going to new places. Then again, I just got back from a week in Costa Rica. As the married man, I'm not allowed to have too much fun on my own.
Quote: boymimboWizard, WestJet and Air Canada has direct flights from LAS to YYC for under $400 return.
Take a plane, see your game in action. Take in an NHL game.
-Tim
The NHL game will cost a packet... or are the Lames not as popular anymore?
Id be interested in the Wizards take on Cowtown though.
The Flames just traded away Iginla, which was arguably the heart and soul of the team.
Quote: thecesspitThe NHL game will cost a packet... or are the Lames not as popular anymore?
Id be interested in the Wizards take on Cowtown though.
Pushing $100+ each unless he wants far upper deck on Stubhub.
Quote: tringlomanePushing $100+ each unless he wants far upper deck on Stubhub.
$100 CAD?
Quote: Ayecarumba$100 CAD?
It doesn't really matter, both dollars are nearly at parity. Stubhub, however, is a US company, and sells in USD.
The Sac n' Fox casino in Kansas should install the game in 30 to 45 days.
Geography is a factor in game success, so perhaps Calgary just isn't the right market for a 3CP variant game. I am always amazed at how successful Spanish 21 is up in WA and how hard it is to find the game in other geographic markets.
Quote: WizardTime for an update. Sad to say, the Stampede casino in Calgary pulled Mulligan after the field trial. The hold percentage was fine (20%-22%), but game didn't drop enough money. In other words, it didn't make as much as the other tables. Such is the fate of most new games.
The Sac n' Fox casino in Kansas should install the game in 30 to 45 days.
Any thought to tweaking the game to increase the drop? Is speeding up play the only way?
Quote: AyecarumbaAny thought to tweaking the game to increase the drop? Is speeding up play the only way?
Actually he could increase the hold by speeding up play but the only way to increase drop is to get players to put more cash money on the table.
Quote: ParadigmGeography is a factor in game success, so perhaps Calgary just isn't the right market for a 3CP variant game. I am always amazed at how successful Spanish 21 is up in WA and how hard it is to find the game in other geographic markets.
Washington has got to the be quirkiest state when it comes to gambling. They seem to like games that have failed elsewhere, and dislike the ones that the rest of the country likes.
I'll try to visit the game when it gets to Kansas to get a better feel for how the public likes it.
Quote: WizardWashington has got to the be quirkiest state when it comes to gambling. They seem to like games that have failed elsewhere, and dislike the ones that the rest of the country likes.
I'll try to visit the game when it gets to Kansas to get a better feel for how the public likes it.
Wiz, I would love to play one of your games if one ever gets approved up here in WA.
Quote: AcesAndEightsWiz, I would love to play one of your games if one ever gets approved up here in WA.
Thanks! Hopefully that day will come.
I recall that when Caribbean Stud debuted, they gave out T-shirts to players who played at least half an hour. It got me to try it. I'm a sucker for a "free" shirt.Quote: bigfoot66Actually he could increase the hold by speeding up play but the only way to increase drop is to get players to put more cash money on the table.
Quote: AyecarumbaI recall that when Caribbean Stud debuted, they gave out T-shirts to players who played at least half an hour. It got me to try it. I'm a sucker for a "free" shirt.
That is a good idea. It has been known to happen where shills were hired to attract players to new games too.
The good is that I don't have to stress over what to do in Kansas, because I won't be going there.
The bad is that the Sac-n-Fox pulled Mulligan out already and put Three Card Poker back in. I'm not sure what is next for the game. It may be that Shufflemaster decides that two strikes and you're out.
The Victory out of Port Canaveral is an independent group. They have about 30 tables, and they're operating in International Waters, so they can do what they like without a lot of permitting needed for a new game. And you and the family would enjoy Cocoa Beach much better than anywhere in Kansas. I can't say I can introduce you to their DTG, but I can check into it for you if you want. Currently they have BJ - some with sidebets, UTE, 3CP(2), Minibac, 3 craps, 2 roulettes, LIR bonus. Along with 600-700 slots. You can't get on a UTE or 3CP table most sessions. They're good people who run a casino because they enjoy it, and wanted to keep doing it here after the SunCruz and Sterling both had crooked admins and put them out of work.
Quote: beachbumbabsWell, if you can get them to put it in somewhere, I'll come shill for it for a week. I like it, conceptually and variance-wise. I hope it will continue to grow.
Thanks! You can be my shill anytime.
Quote:The Victory out of Port Canaveral is an independent group...
Shufflemaster has the rights to market the game. They may decide they don't want it any longer, in which case I may get back to you on this.
Quote: WizardAs I mentioned earlier, the Mulligan didn't do well in Kansas. Shuffle Entertainment (formerly ShuffleMaster) decided that they we were not going to go any further with the game and reverted all rights back to me. If any casino owners reading this are interested in trying out the game (for free of course) let me know.
:(
