Super 4 Progressive Blackjack

Quote: 1BB

You can touch the sensors all you want. It won't make a difference because the dealer locks in the bets by using the device in the tray. It must have a name but I'll be darned if I know. Anybody? Barring a malfunction there should be no mistakes on who played the bet and who didn't.

I just call it a keypad.

The only room for error with the progressive comes from late bets (which get left there and added to the meter after the hand), something accidentally activating an idle sensor like a dealer's hand or a stray card (which the dealer may or may not opt to fix), or accidentally registering wagers twice (which again, some dealers might be wont to let slide rather than call the floor).

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

Great work miplet, thanks for the effort. However, as previously pointed out in this thread the initial bet is collected before the deal and not returned, so the payout for non-RF wins should be decreased by $5.

All of the payouts in my table are "for $5", so it is correct.

Quote: TriathlonTodd

Using the paytable that 1BB provided, and assuming an infinite deck, I am coming up with a house edge of 35.4% (!) when the progressive is at $50,000. The bet becomes breakeven at a progressive amount of $879,247.

This is my first attempt at an actuarial analysis in two years, so it is very possible that I made a mistake in the calculations somewhere.

Hand	Payout	Freq	Prob	Return
Pair	70	78,848	1.078394%	0.7549
Dealer BJ	20	214,144	2.928819%	0.5858

I'm getting 98560 for Pair (and 194432 for Dealer BJ). Are you counting the times when a player has a pair (either twos to nines or tens to kings that don't match the dealers)?

People aren't playing this game, at least when I've looked for it, and I've looked a lot. Maybe the meter tells the story. It was at $125,000 this morning. Is that good? Many are skittish on having to bet $5 every time. Others, believe it or not, have been asking what the house edge is. You should hear some of those answers from the all knowing dealers.

The keypads used to lock in the bets are also used to display table limits at the bottom of the new table signs. There are no more signs on the tables. To change limits, the game has to be stopped while a floor accesses the keypad. There have been some malfunctions but even without them it slows the game. I'm sure things will come together in due time. One thought I had was for the casino to give coupons for free bets to get this off the ground.

Same here - nobody plays the foolish thing, although in my neighborhood ($5 - $15 minimums) $5 is a real deal breaker, even without anyone knowing the absolutely horrible odds. The progressive seemed to be moving so uniformly that I thought initially it wasn't tied to actual wagering, especially since I didn't know about the "keypad". Changing table limit doesn't affect the progressive bet - it's $5 everywhere.

The $5 progressive bet did surprise me. That seems to be an awful lot, even for Mohegan Sun. $1 or $2 would probably get a lot more biters.

Quote: 1BB

People aren't playing this game, at least when I've looked for it, and I've looked a lot. Maybe the meter tells the story. It was at $125,000 this morning. Is that good?

$125,000 means it has gone up $75,000 (assuming it hasn't been hit yet). $75,000 to the board means $500,000 coin in so far, so 100,000 of those wagers have been made. I dunno how many tables they are running, but 100,000 wagers in a couple weeks doesn't seem bad to me.

The progressive has been offered for a little more than a week, and that's been during a roll-out where additional tables are being set up. Based on what has been reported in this thread I would hazard a guess that Mohegan Sun will gross at least $10,000,000 in a year. And they don't have to give any to the State of Connecticut.

High Drama at the Super 4 Progressive Blackjack Game!

Friday night at Mohegan CT, in the $5 pit in the Sky Casino, a player hit a payout on this side bet. Dealer AK, all black, Player AK, all black.

Player insists he is due $175 - $100 for two pair, $75 for all black. Dealer says no. Player insists, floor comes over, crowd gathers.

The player's argument is that since the display screen at the table does not specifically deny such an interpretation, it is valid. He has met both criteria, deserves both payouts. The discussion / argument, civil enough, bounces around between "all the rules can't fit on the screen", "show me the 'memorandum of understanding' that must exist for all these games, which is an agreement between the State of Connecticut and the tribal government", "let me speak to your manager", and so on. A crowd gathers, consisting of other players waiting for seats at the always-crowded $5 pit, players leaving their seats at other tables during their shuffle, passersby on their way to the bathroom.

The crowd generally sides with the player, except for some of the other players at his table, some of whom want the game to resume, regardless of the strength of either side. Floor person calls for a pit critter, who is "on his way". It doesn't help that dealer and floor are both barely literate in English, generally not in control and, of course, with absolutely NO authority to make even the lowest level of decision without upper management approval.

Three pit bosses arrive. Argument continues. The player refuses to back down, wants to see a written copy of the rules. Someone in the crowd mentions that there were table cards available when the game was first introduced, so show "us" a card. Senior pit boss, who at least exudes some sense of responsibility, and speaks English, denies there ever were such cards. Crowd mutters a bit about that, but still, generally amiable. The player remains calm, but firmly insists he is entitled to see, in writing, something that states clearly that there are no over-lapping or duplicate rewards available.

The lack of additional heat, thrown drinks, belligerence, or other entertainment, the crowd disperses, and a few minutes later player and senior pit boss take a walk, together. A few minutes later the player returns and reports that he got $200 in total - $75 for the first match, $100 for the second, and $25 for his trouble.

This should have been the end of it, except that a couple of hours later it happens again, at a different table. Same cards - two pair, all black. There are enough players at the second table who witnessed the first outcome to insist on the same result for this guy - who wasn't there for Round 1. Same floor guy calls for a pit boss, and this one at first refuses, but then HE makes a call, and yes, player #2 gets $175. No $25 inconvenience payout. This pit boss reports that there were three other situations "just like this, just tonight" that got paid out the same way.

I'm holding one of those cards in my hand at this very moment. The payout for two pair is $300 and same color is $100. The payouts appear on the card as they do on the table sign. There is no additional information on the card. I listed the payouts on page one of this thread.

Let's take it a step further. If the dealer has blackjack and the player does not make a hand, it pays $25 to everyone who had the $5 wager up. If a hand is made why not ask for the $25 plus the payout of the hand?

It is pretty standard for all table games that only the highest payout is awarded on a hand......if it isn't already stated that way in the rules filed with the State it will be relatively quickly along with a small sign on the tables that says players only receive highest payout. This is a minor glitch that will be easily cleared up as I doubt (but could be wrong) the game math contemplates multiple payouts on hands that hit two pay table events simultaneously.