3cp side bet
May 27th, 2013 at 3:13:31 PM
permalink
I was down to my last $15 for my session recently and I decided to try 3CP for the first time. I won a few hands and lost a few and then I hit a royal. I didn't have anything on the pair plus bet because I never play side bets. After reading the house percentages on the site here it seems that the side bet carries one of the lowest house edges. Of all the "sucker" bets in the casino is there any that carries a lower house edge than the pair plus bet?
May 27th, 2013 at 3:57:14 PM
permalink
It depends what the pay table was for the pair plus. the most common one being used now has around a 7.28% house edge,so yes there are othe side bets with a lower house edge. Match the dealer for example. On the WOO site it has the house edge for many different sidebets.
Happy days are here again
May 27th, 2013 at 4:50:21 PM
permalink
Yeah, I'm sure you were playing the 7.28% edge table Mikey. I haven't seen a casino with a better paytable in a long time. It's a big reason I avoid playing 3CP because others will nag you to playing pair plus when the base game is a much better bet.
May 27th, 2013 at 5:24:14 PM
permalink
Thanks everyone. I must have been looking at the wrong figures.
May 27th, 2013 at 6:45:57 PM
permalink
It depends where you were. In Vegas I think the 1-3-6-30-40 paytable (7.28% house edge) is the only one you'll find. But outside of Vegas the 1-4-6-30-40 paytable (2.32% house edge) can still be found, and I think there's an AC casino that has the 1-4-6-30-40-50 Mini-Royal paytable (2.14% house edge).
May 27th, 2013 at 8:10:35 PM
permalink
Vegas does have many crappy paytables on certain games. And try telling a craps dealer you want to buy the 9 or 5, for a deer in the headlights look.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
May 27th, 2013 at 9:19:17 PM
permalink
Quote: JBIt depends where you were. In Vegas I think the 1-3-6-30-40 paytable (7.28% house edge) is the only one you'll find. But outside of Vegas the 1-4-6-30-40 paytable (2.32% house edge) can still be found, and I think there's an AC casino that has the 1-4-6-30-40-50 Mini-Royal paytable (2.14% house edge).
I'm not for sure which payable that I was playing at had but I was sure wishing I had money on the side bet when I pulled the royal!!! Thanks so much for posting the different payables. Helps to explain where I went wrong in my assumption of the house edge. I love this site!!!
May 27th, 2013 at 10:53:14 PM
permalink
by the way... why the heck did 1-4-6 pairplus paytables change into 1-3-6 almost everywhere? The house wasn't satisfied with a 2.3% edge on the bet?
May 27th, 2013 at 10:54:26 PM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoVegas does have many crappy paytables on certain games. And try telling a craps dealer you want to buy the 9 or 5, for a deer in the headlights look.
I don't understand... buy bets are super easy for crap dealers because they pay the same as pass line odds bets. All they have to do is take a 5% commission when the bet is booked, which is also easy.
May 27th, 2013 at 11:12:34 PM
permalink
Quote: Mikey75I'm not for sure which payable that I was playing at had but I was sure wishing I had money on the side bet when I pulled the royal!!! Thanks so much for posting the different payables. Helps to explain where I went wrong in my assumption of the house edge. I love this site!!!
If it was in Tunica, it probably is 1-3-6-30-40 and a sucker bet. That's the standard across most of the Midwest I think as well. Actually the only big hit I ever had on pair plus was when I played "Boston 5" (now a dead game) at Amerstar St. Charles ~8 years ago. I only played the game once or twice, iirc.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/boston-5/
They had a 3 card side bet on your first 3 cards, and I only played it because the 3 card pay table on Boston 5 was still 1-4-6-30-40 while the 3CP tables at the casino had already converted to 1-3-6-30-40. I believe circa 2005 was a major transition year for many Pair Plus tables, iirc. I got 3 Jacks in the hole for my biggest table game payout ever for one hand...$150 for the pair plus bet and $195 overall. Unfortunately I did not improve to a full house or quads though.
Quote: sodawaterby the way... why the heck did 1-4-6 pairplus paytables change into 1-3-6 almost everywhere? The house wasn't satisfied with a 2.3% edge on the bet?
Partly I guess, but if you watch a 3CP table, you'll see why. I personally think they should have went to 1-4-6-25-40 instead (3.49%), but hey, I care about the player. It's the same reason CET went to "21+3 Extreme" instead of regular "21+3", which is still wildly popular in St. Louis. I just walked by Hollywood's St. Louis BJ tables last night, and noticed their 21+3 tables state the payouts like this:
21+3 bet pays (verbage with respect to initial bet I don't exactly remember):
Straight Flush 9
3 of a Kind 9
Straight 9
Flush 9
May 28th, 2013 at 12:02:23 PM
permalink
I was playing at the Lucky Lady in Caruthersville. As much as that place seems to sweat the money I'm sure it was the worst of the two pay tables. It took the dealer a couple of minutes to pay off my win when I hit the royal and I didn't even have a bet on the pair plus. After I hit the royal I walked away. I'm going to be headed back to Tunica this week and I'll pay closer attention to the pay tables there.
May 30th, 2013 at 8:07:54 PM
permalink
Our casino just put in a 6 card Bonus bet. Your 3 and dealer 3 makes a hand.. They said that hous edge is ~10%. The strange thing is you can only play $1.. Is that typical??
May 30th, 2013 at 8:53:51 PM
permalink
Depends on the casino. And only 10%? I'd like to see that paytable.
May 31st, 2013 at 8:48:14 AM
permalink
Quote: ewjones080Our casino just put in a 6 card Bonus bet. Your 3 and dealer 3 makes a hand.. They said that hous edge is ~10%. The strange thing is you can only play $1.. Is that typical??
Why would they even bother adding a side bet that you can only place 1 on?? It's not like that's going to make the casino much money. Especially if the odds are ~10%.
May 31st, 2013 at 9:01:15 AM
permalink
Quote: tringlomanePartly I guess, but if you watch a 3CP table, you'll see why. I personally think they should have went to 1-4-6-25-40 instead (3.49%), but hey, I care about the player.
This paytable (40-25-6-4-1) is the most common one (possibly only one?) found in WA state. Once again WA's gaming weirdness pops up.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
May 31st, 2013 at 10:23:43 AM
permalink
Quote: Mikey75Why would they even bother adding a side bet that you can only place 1 on?? It's not like that's going to make the casino much money. Especially if the odds are ~10%.
If the paytable pays out for a 6-card royal, that would be a good reason. CET still charges $5 for it since they can afford it.
May 31st, 2013 at 12:38:38 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterby the way... why the heck did 1-4-6 pairplus paytables change into 1-3-6 almost everywhere? The house wasn't satisfied with a 2.3% edge on the bet?
The extra unit win on the flush was felt by some houses, in terms of hold, so the 1-3-6 became the de facto paytable. On multi pay line side bets with 30:1+ payouts, one can expect a house edge of around 7% as common.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 12:58:40 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanThe extra unit win on the flush was felt by some houses, in terms of hold, so the 1-3-6 became the de facto paytable. On multi pay line side bets with 30:1+ payouts, one can expect a house edge of around 7% as common.
what do you mean by "felt, in terms of hold?"
I just don't understand how 2.3% is not enough. It's pure greed. Every casino in Europe since the time of Dostoyevsky had 35-1 roulette with the same house edge as 1-4-6 PP and they did well enough to afford all those crystal chandeliers.
May 31st, 2013 at 1:25:44 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterwhat do you mean by "felt, in terms of hold?"
I just don't understand how 2.3% is not enough.
This is true. So let me explain:
On wagers where the payouts can be in very high multiples (say 30:1 for trips, or 40:1 for a straight flush), a considerably larger portion of the player's win might not be re-played back into the table, locking in losses for the house on the big win. This is the concern, view, or posture towards side bets where there is a mix of low edges and high payouts. When Three Card poker was initially released with the 1-4-6 paytable in AC, the hold on the game was small, and often negative (the casinos lost money on the game), and the game originally had a bad reputation as a "dumper" by casinos. The low-edge high-payout pair plus bet was blamed, and was modified to 1-3-6, and 3CP was reintroduce to better success.
Quote: sodawaterIt's pure greed.
Then don't play at a casino if you feel it is usurious. Rent a movie. The casino operator may argue that it needs to keep its lights on, and that those lights may need to be chandeliers.
Quote: sodawaterEvery casino in Europe since the time of Dostoyevsky had 35-1 roulette with the same house edge as 1-4-6 PP and they did well enough to afford all those crystal chandeliers.
This is comparing apples to oranges. Roulette is a different game than 3CP, and different games have - and require - different and tailored house edges to be effective. Roulette generally has more money value on the table in action per round, can support more players, and with its money in action more spread out/less concentrated as the risk per round. What works for roulette might not work for 3CP (as was the case in its initial introduction).
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 1:36:42 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanThis is true. So let me explain:
On wagers where the payouts can be in very high multiples (say 30:1 for trips, or 40:1 for a straight flush), a considerably larger portion of the player's win might not be re-played back into the table, locking in losses for the house on the big win. This is the concern, view, or posture towards side bets where there is a mix of low edges and high payouts.
So the house totally ignores that this is only a temporary loss; do they really expect gamblers to quit playing a game longterm when they just won significantly at it? Sure, they may have lost vs. that person today, but now the house is 95%+ likely to have a sucker that now LOVES the game and will be playing much more regularly. With your response, why don't we chop down all video poker down to 95% or lower because they can't risk having ANY winners; sadly, casinos are mostly trying to do that.
May 31st, 2013 at 1:49:57 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneSo the house totally ignores that this is only a temporary loss; do they really expect gamblers to quit playing a game longterm when they just won significantly at it?
No.
It is when the design of a game appears to produce a consistent loss for the house, (or too many winners) - as was the case in Three Card poker's initial introduction - will they consider it a problem, and then change the game's characteristics. In other words, these winning players come back not to lose it back, but to win even more again, too much as far as the house is concerned. Just because winning players come back, it doesn't mean they'll lose it back in the future - if the game is out of whack. And this will be the case if a game is improperly designed, or unbalanced to the player's side. A game cannot be "too much toward any one side" - in order to work well as a casino game.
Quote: tringlomaneSure, they may have lost vs. that person today, but now the house is 95%+ likely to have a sucker that now LOVES the game and will be playing much more regularly. With your response, why don't we chop down all video poker down to 95% or lower because they can't risk having ANY winners; sadly, casinos are mostly trying to do that.
No.
It is not that they "cannot risk having winners." Indeed, casinos need and want to have sufficient winners, or else no one would play.
Each game offering has to be closely tailored to both its potential popularity (read: having winners), as well as being profitable enough for the house to offer. It's not a question of chopping a game down too much, or having it too generous. It's a question or issue of having a precise balance where the game both feels good to the player, and is also profitable for the house.
The simple fact of the matter is that players will always, and intrinsically feel that just about any house edge is too high, hence complaints of this nature from the people who DO play these games. The games that work have a proper balance, and the successful casino will decide what this is.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 1:59:45 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanIt's a question or issue of having a balance where the game both feels good to the player, and is also profitable for the house.
Yeah, that's the ultimate goal, and from the house's perspective, I totally see why they moved to 1-3-6-30-40. Virtually everyone who plays the game likely could care less about the difference, but they do care that trips and a straight flush pays 30 and 40 to 1. It just annoys me personally though because I would like to play 3CP occasionally with pair plus, but my math sense cannot justify it with the standard paytable. If they offered 3CP with a high enough minimum though, 1-4-6-30-40 would still be profitable to the house and bigger properties could still absorb the swing at least.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:08:19 PM
permalink
I will admit it is impossible to please everyone all of the time, in terms of game offerings and designs, and table limits, etc.
But casinos can do a good enough job, when the game feels right, plays right, and is both profitable to the house and a rewarding gambling experience for the player.
Many players feel "Well, we vote with our feet, we really control it" - and true enough.
But a part of me feels that whenever a player walks into a casino, it is the casino who is really controlling "the feet" here, and is doing so by authentically offering a competitive product, some complaints or imperfections not withstanding.
But casinos can do a good enough job, when the game feels right, plays right, and is both profitable to the house and a rewarding gambling experience for the player.
Many players feel "Well, we vote with our feet, we really control it" - and true enough.
But a part of me feels that whenever a player walks into a casino, it is the casino who is really controlling "the feet" here, and is doing so by authentically offering a competitive product, some complaints or imperfections not withstanding.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:10:37 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdanif the game is out of whack. And this will be the case if a game is improperly designed, or unbalanced to the player's side.
How can a game be unbalanced to the players' side if players will lose, on average, 2.3% of every dollar they bet? Do the immutable laws of statistics not apply to your argument?
May 31st, 2013 at 2:15:27 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterHow can a game be unbalanced to the players' side if players will lose, on average, 2.3% of every dollar they bet? Do the immutable laws of statistics not apply to your argument?
1. Because 2.3%, while appropriate and very fine for a flat bet or main bet (like the main bet in Pai Gow Poker), is considered too low for a multi-pay line, high payout side bet (like the fortune bet) on a table game. Granted, there are always exceptions, but this is the general consensus.
2. What is immutable is what the casino boss is willing to offer. His dart board trumps the immutable laws of statistics. If he orders Three Card Poker with the 1-3-6 Pair Plus pay table, in it goes.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:18:00 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterHow can a game be unbalanced to the players' side if players will lose, on average, 2.3% of every dollar they bet? Do the immutable laws of statistics not apply to your argument?
For most tables, I agree, but if you have a casino where most of their players are betting $5 on pair plus, then the house only collects 11.6 cents per hand on pair plus. It starts to minimize the utility of the side bet. But the biggest reason they moved to the current table is that ploppies are too stupid to notice...and greed of course.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:20:02 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan1. Because 2.3%, while appropriate and very fine for a flat bet or main bet (like the main bet in Pai Gow Poker), is considered too low for a multi-pay line, high payout side bet (like the fortune bet) on a table game.
And this goes back to my point. It is only "considered" too low out of greed. There was no "need" for the change, only greed.
Three card poker was the most successful carnival game ever. It was doing fine before the casinos decided to steal an extra unit every time time the player got dealt a flush.
Like I said earlier, Euro wheels offer 35-1 payouts with a similar house edge as the old PP table, and they do just fine. And Euro wheels get a LOT fewer hands/hour at that edge than the 3cp PP gets for the same risk on the casino's side.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:20:06 PM
permalink
1. Gotta admit, money talks!
2. different games, different parameters. The low edge PP bet didn't work well on 3CP, and is basically gone. What works for single-zero Roulette doesn't work for card games. Yes, roulette is slower, but it has more money in action and less risk per hand.
2. different games, different parameters. The low edge PP bet didn't work well on 3CP, and is basically gone. What works for single-zero Roulette doesn't work for card games. Yes, roulette is slower, but it has more money in action and less risk per hand.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:22:53 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterThree card poker was the most successful carnival game ever. It was doing fine before the casinos decided to steal an extra unit every time time the player got dealt a flush.
But the change didn't drastically lower the popularity of the game, did it? If it didn't, it's just a smart move by the casinos preying on the math-retarded (most casino gamblers).
May 31st, 2013 at 2:26:28 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneBut the change didn't drastically lower the popularity of the game, did it? If it didn't, it's just a smart move by the casinos preying on the math-retarded (most casino gamblers).
Yeah, agreed. It was out of exploitation, not necessity. Carnival players tend to be the least sophisticated of the table gamblers, so they get taken advantage of again and again.
May 31st, 2013 at 2:26:42 PM
permalink
3CP wasn't doing fine with its original 1-4-6 paytable. It got pulled, and then had to be re-introduced in Mississippi with the newer 1-3-6 paytable. This cost 3CP a few years of growth and patent time.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 31st, 2013 at 4:46:11 PM
permalink
Comparison of Drop/AGR/Holds between FY 2004 (typical 1-4-6-30-40) and FY 2008 (typical 1-3-6-30-40) in Illinois. The holds definitely go up as one probably expects. Was the old hold too low? Eh, it wasn't too high for sure; the only game with a significant lower hold was/is blackjack. And if it wasn't so popular, casinos would probably love to rip out blackjack as well. Most of the other "carny games" had a hold closer to the 2nd table, from visual inspection. This was mainly out of my own curiosity, and I don't feel like this data makes a huge argument for either side. And also, does anyone have tips on making tables faster than I do? Copying/pasting dat and col and row sucks.
Looks like Nevada made this a little easier on me with the twelve month summaries:
Here are the holds by "Fiscal Year" (July-June) for 3CP for the $72M+ revenue casinos on the Strip.
What's interesting about this is changing the paytable to 1-3-6-30-40 virtually did NOTHING to the hold percentage, and the hold %ages were much healthier vs. Illinois from the get go (longer gaming time, obv). The hold only began to creep up with the 6 card bonus bets with even higher house edges began to appear. Well played CET.
| Month | Units | Drop | AGR | Hold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2003 | 14 | $5,047,424 | $760,142 | 15.06% |
| Aug. 2003 | 11 | $4,272,682 | $716,956 | 16.78% |
| Sept. 2003 | 10 | $4,312,248 | $646,406 | 14.99% |
| Oct. 2003 | 10 | $4,026,791 | $713,950 | 17.73% |
| Nov. 2003 | 13 | $5,628,229 | $835,792 | 14.85% |
| Dec. 2003 | 13 | $6,323,073 | $1,329,110 | 21.02% |
| Jan. 2004 | 13 | $6,367,279 | $1,205,326 | 18.93% |
| Feb. 2004 | 13 | $6,419,073 | $1,156,717 | 18.02% |
| Mar. 2004 | 13 | $6,171,261 | $1,355,826 | 21.97% |
| Apr. 2004 | 14 | $6,540,652 | $1,104,062 | 16.88% |
| May 2004 | 14 | $6,855,279 | $956,997 | 13.96% |
| Jun. 2004 | 14 | $6,997,550 | $1,351,227 | 19.31% |
| FY '04 | $68,961,542 | $12,132,511 | 17.59% |
| Month | Units | Drop | AGR | Hold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2007 | 19 | $7,654,417 | $1,831,702 | 23.93% |
| Aug. 2007 | 19 | $8,163,692 | $2,043,372 | 25.03% |
| Sept. 2007 | 21 | $7,815,830 | $1,742,930 | 22.30% |
| Oct. 2007 | 20 | $6,977,396 | $1,701,787 | 24.39% |
| Nov. 2007 | 17 | $7,397,306 | $1,817,518 | 24.57% |
| Dec. 2007 | 18 | $7,285,490 | $1,807,530 | 24.81% |
| Jan. 2008 | 18 | $7,326,163 | $1,649,852 | 22.52% |
| Feb. 2008 | 18 | $6,800,782 | $1,755,962 | 25.82% |
| Mar. 2008 | 18 | $6,627,976 | $1,601,319 | 24.16% |
| Apr. 2008 | 18 | $7,265,181 | $1,726,207 | 23.76% |
| May 2008 | 18 | $6,686,039 | $1,669,504 | 24.97% |
| Jun. 2008 | 18 | $7,093,678 | $1,425,120 | 20.09% |
| FY '08 | $87,093,950 | $20,772,803 | 23.85% |
Looks like Nevada made this a little easier on me with the twelve month summaries:
Here are the holds by "Fiscal Year" (July-June) for 3CP for the $72M+ revenue casinos on the Strip.
| Year | Units | Drop | AGR | Hold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY '02 | 23 | $100,052,572 | $26,644,000 | 26.63% |
| FY '03 | 55 | $238,211,289 | $62,459,000 | 26.22% |
| FY '04 | 71 | $312,427,076 | $83,543,000 | 26.74% |
| FY '05 | 77 | $366,063,988 | $98,398,000 | 26.88% |
| FY '06 | 91 | $419,592,218 | $112,157,000 | 26.73% |
| FY '07 | 95 | $403,093,578 | $109,843,000 | 27.25% |
| FY '08 | 98 | $382,951,493 | $102,631,000 | 26.80% |
| FY '09 | 101 | $328,183,178 | $87,789,000 | 26.75% |
| FY '10 | 102 | $297,578,098 | $84,780,000 | 28.49% |
| FY '11 | 105 | $302,783,676 | $91,259,000 | 30.14% |
| FY '12 | 122 | $328,213,951 | $104,930,000 | 31.97% |
What's interesting about this is changing the paytable to 1-3-6-30-40 virtually did NOTHING to the hold percentage, and the hold %ages were much healthier vs. Illinois from the get go (longer gaming time, obv). The hold only began to creep up with the 6 card bonus bets with even higher house edges began to appear. Well played CET.
May 31st, 2013 at 8:53:08 PM
permalink
Borgata in AC is the casino that has 1-4-6-30-40-50, with 50 for the mini royal, but it is for the 3 card bet on Let It Ride Bonus. However, they do have a slightly better 3Card PP pay table: 1-3-6-30-50-100, 50 for the straight flush and 100 for the mini royal. And they don't have a third bet, making it a simpler game that you can sit at a bit longer.
I've played a lot of 3CP, and while a lot of players hit the trips or straight flush and keep playing, many of those squirrel away the blacks. And a lot of players play the game specifically to hit that bet. I have. So, figure the loss of that unit on the flush as the cost of the variance. And while it has helped with the hold, it has affected the way the game gets played. In my case, I used to play the game with green chips, but now I play with reds. I can put a quarter up at 2.4%, but not at 7.5%. (ish, for those who will accuse me of in exactness.) I see a lot less play at green and black, and more at $10 and $5.
I've played a lot of 3CP, and while a lot of players hit the trips or straight flush and keep playing, many of those squirrel away the blacks. And a lot of players play the game specifically to hit that bet. I have. So, figure the loss of that unit on the flush as the cost of the variance. And while it has helped with the hold, it has affected the way the game gets played. In my case, I used to play the game with green chips, but now I play with reds. I can put a quarter up at 2.4%, but not at 7.5%. (ish, for those who will accuse me of in exactness.) I see a lot less play at green and black, and more at $10 and $5.
A falling knife has no handle.
May 31st, 2013 at 10:33:36 PM
permalink
Quote: MoscaI see a lot less play at green and black, and more at $10 and $5.
Was this even before the economy tanked?
June 22nd, 2013 at 11:14:27 AM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan3CP wasn't doing fine with its original 1-4-6 paytable. It got pulled, and then had to be re-introduced in Mississippi with the newer 1-3-6 paytable. This cost 3CP a few years of growth and patent time.
Could this be attributable to hole carding? Even thought AP's were not likely to play the PP bet, the casino would need to balance the overall return of the game between them and the ploppers. I could see a change in pay tables being the first reaction before finding and adjusting poor dealing behaviors.
From what I have read, many casinos have since made the necessary adjustments to decrease the possibility of hole carding, yet the pay tables have not come back up. Sounds very much like they way oil companies work... When a problem arises, prices go up; when the problem is taken care of, bring the price down slowly or not at all!
It’s a dog eat dog world.
…Or maybe it’s the other way around!
June 22nd, 2013 at 12:19:44 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
June 22nd, 2013 at 12:32:55 PM
permalink
I watched two drunk ladies take the casino for several hundred dollars on 3cp. It was odd, they never even looked at their cards. They laid all reds out and played the side bet and wanted the dealer to turn their cards over for them. They couldn't seem to lose. They side bet we hitting and they where racking up the green and black chips. Almost made me want to sit down and try my luck lol.
