hook3670
hook3670
Joined: May 17, 2011
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 436
March 28th, 2013 at 1:31:17 PM permalink
Bally's now has one table of no commission Pai Gow. It was just installed in early April. I think that is the first, that I have seen, on the east coast.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 3321
March 28th, 2013 at 1:58:44 PM permalink
Quote: hook3670

Bally's now has one table of no commission Pai Gow. It was just installed in early April. I think that is the first, that I have seen, on the east coast.



do you mean pai gow poker? borgata in ac has a few "ez pai gow poker" tables in addition to its much busier fortune pai gow poker tables. the ez tables are usually empty when i play, and i avoid them because the queen-high push comes too often, and i like to bank every chance i get. banking is not allowed on no-comission pai gow poker.
hook3670
hook3670
Joined: May 17, 2011
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 436
March 28th, 2013 at 2:02:52 PM permalink
Sorry I have not been to the Borgata in a while. I will check again, I think it was called no commission pai gow but it had the same rules as ez pai gow. They had a big board that kept track of the hands since a queen high and an envy bonus had come along, and when I left it was some long time between queen high hands. Now the bonus has totally different payouts than the fortune one.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
March 28th, 2013 at 2:31:04 PM permalink
Quote: hook3670

Sorry I have not been to the Borgata in a while. I will check again, I think it was called no commission pai gow but it had the same rules as ez pai gow. They had a big board that kept track of the hands since a queen high and an envy bonus had come along, and when I left it was some long time between queen high hands. Now the bonus has totally different payouts than the fortune one.



It is EZ Pai Gow. Some properties use a different bonus paytable, though most use the standard 8,000:1 paytable. In New Jersey, different paytables are often selected.


Quote: sodawater

do you mean pai gow poker? borgata in ac has a few "ez pai gow poker" tables in addition to its much busier fortune pai gow poker tables. the ez tables are usually empty when i play, and i avoid them because the queen-high push comes too often, and i like to bank every chance i get. banking is not allowed on no-comission pai gow poker.


Correct, Banking is optional on EZ Pai Gow, and most operators eliminate banking when installing EZ Pai Gow tables.

However, the majority brand of the Pai Gow games at the Borgata is EZ Pai Gow, and not Fortune, and it is precisely because EZ Pai Gow does indeed get more action. A casino operator orders more of a table because it is busier than the other tables, not because it is less busy. The order books don't lie.

As for the queen high occuring too often, it occurs once in 58 hands, - or in about 1.7% of the rounds dealt.
NO other casino game has a rarer non-qualifier than EZ Pai Gow.

By comparison, in regular commission Pai Gow, a player gets shorted on 100% of the hands he manages to win, which is about one in three hands, - not one in 58.

I would say that paying commission "comes too often" at 1 in 3 hands, and for this reason big money players in particular prefer EZ Pai Gow.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 3321
March 28th, 2013 at 2:47:32 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

and for this reason big money players in particular prefer EZ Pai Gow.



i understand you are passionate about the game you invented, but this is a really dubious statement. I spend a lot of time in borgata's asian pit, and i have never seen anyone bet more than $100 a hand at the ez pgp table. meanwhile, I was playing fortune pai gow poker on tuesday night, and there were 2 players betting $400 a hand, and banking every other hand. the only ez pai gow table that was open for those 6 hours was dead the entire time.

if you had "big money" to bet, wouldn't you choose a variation of the game (fortune) whose house edge is significantly lower than the other option? I know I would. Dan, could you honestly say that if you wanted to bet $400 a hand on pai gow poker, you would choose the no-banking version of your game, over fortune PGP, where you would save hundreds of dollars in house edge over the course of a full session?


Most people who have enough money to bet big will at least pick the table where the house edge is eating them up less.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 3321
March 28th, 2013 at 2:50:11 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan



I would say that paying commission "comes too often" at 1 in 3 hands, and for this reason big money players in particular prefer EZ Pai Gow.



yeah, the problem with this reasoning is that when you win at fortune pai gow poker, you are "shorted" 5 percent of your win. But when the dealer gets the queen high, though it might happen a lot less, you are "shorted' 100 percent of your win.

Do you really think you can fool players into thinking that you're giving away the commission for free? Or for less than the actual value of the commission?

EZPGP has a higher house edge than the fortune game, and that is all you need to know about it.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
March 28th, 2013 at 4:49:29 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

yeah, the problem with this reasoning is that when you win at fortune pai gow poker, you are "shorted" 5 percent of your win. But when the dealer gets the queen high, though it might happen a lot less, you are "shorted' 100 percent of your win.


No, but you can look at it as being "shorted" 72% of your win on the 58th hand, - as many hands would have pushed in any case: you get a flush with a 9-3 as the low hand, or a straight with no top, or a King-high or Ace-high Pai Gow with a 10 or 9 on top; - these hands would have pushed anyway, so the push is immaterial in many hands, and so it is NOT 100% every 58 hands. It's even less, and rarer.

Quote: sodawater

Do you really think you can fool players into thinking that you're giving away the commission for free? Or for less than the actual value of the commission?


Well, the fact of the matter IS that EZ Pai Gow has a LOWER house edge than commission-based Pai Gow, so there is no fooling. See the correct math below.

Quote: sodatwater

EZPGP has a higher house edge than the fortune game, and that is all you need to know about it.


No it doesn't, so you need to get your math straight before posting it up...

According to Michael Shackleford's Gaming math site 'wizard of odds', EZ Pai Gow has a 2.469% house edge, which is LOWER than Fortune's commission-based Pai Gow, at 2.73% house edge.

Now, before you claim as facts the math about a game, - get your facts and math straight - and do some research right here at these Wizard-associated sites.

Now, if you wanted to post "I think EZ Pai Gow is crappy because I just don't like Dan," - well, then THAT I would see and respect. I believe that to be the case. If it's something Personal against me, then fine, but don't fabricate math lies about my games.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 3321
March 28th, 2013 at 5:17:06 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

No, but you can look at it as being "shorted" 72% of your win on the 58th hand, - as many hands would have pushed in any case: you get a flush with a 9-3 as the low hand, or a straight with no top, or a King-high or Ace-high Pai Gow with a 10 or 9 on top; - these hands would have pushed anyway, so the push is immaterial in many hands, and so it is NOT 100% every 58 hands. It's even less, and rarer.


Well, the fact of the matter IS that EZ Pai Gow has a LOWER house edge than commission-based Pai Gow, so there is no fooling. See the correct math below.


No it doesn't, so you need to get your math straight before posting it up...

According to Michael Shackleford's Gaming math site 'wizard of odds', EZ Pai Gow has a 2.469% house edge, which is LOWER than Fortune's commission-based Pai Gow, at 2.73% house edge.

Now, before you claim as facts the math about a game, - get your facts and math straight - and do some research right here at these Wizard-associated sites.

Now, if you wanted to post "I think EZ Pai Gow is crappy because I just don't like Dan," - well, then THAT I would see and respect. I believe that to be the case. If it's something Personal against me, then fine, but don't fabricate math lies about my games.



Wow -- talk about cherry picking numbers out of context, Dan. Heads-up fortune pai gow poker has a house edge of 1.46 percent, assuming the player takes his turn banking. I would think it's a fair assumption that anyone betting "big money" would take advantage of this extremely advantageous option. It's akin to taking the free odds at craps.

Now, I am not the wizard himself, but even I can see that 1.46% is less than 2.47%. In fact, it's a lot less, especially when playing "BIG MONEY," like you said.

Let's assume your BIG MONEY player is betting $400 a hand and plays a 4-hour session and banks when he can. Let's be generous to your cause and assume both games get out 40 hands per hour, although you yourself say EZ PGP has more hands per hour than fortune.

The fortune pai gow player has an expected loss of $915.20.

The EZ pai gow player has an expected loss of $1580.80

That's a difference of $665.60. Pretty significant. That's real money that you can spend.

So why would any big money player choose EZ PG instead of fortune PG? Please tell me.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
March 28th, 2013 at 6:55:03 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

Wow -- talk about cherry picking numbers out of context, Dan. Heads-up fortune pai gow poker has a house edge of 1.46 percent, assuming the player takes his turn banking.


Assuming what - "Assuming the player takes turn banking" you say.
for the record:
1. EZ Pai Gow doesn't forbid banking - in fact MANY installations allow banking on EZ Pai Gow.
2. It's that Casino operators - and NOT DEQ or EZ Pai Gow - are eliminating the player banking, and are using the switch-over to EZ Pai Gow to implement that [excellent] policy change in.
3. EZ Pai Gow does NOT charge commissions during a banking round, to the winning players who play against a banker; ONLY the BANKER is charged commissions during a banker round, and it is rounded up to the nearest dollar. Furthermore, the BANKER does NOT get the queen-high push or "save on a bad hand' that the house dealer gets, as it is a house-edge mechanism, and not a player edge mechanism. We were even thinking of giving the Queen-high push for the players who are playing against a banking player, so as long as it is NOT for the banker. Banker gets a queen-high, he certainly loses and pays the players, - who then pay NO commission on their own wins during a banking round!
4. On installations where player banking IS allowed on EZ Pai Gow - it has the LOWEST house edge - and the highest possible player return - of all Pai Gow poker games.
5. Casino Operators are in the process of eliminating player banking on Pai Gow Poker in general on new vendor installs and switches, and use EZ Pai Gow (which is a faster Pai Gow game), as the [great] excuse to eliminate Player banking "while they are at it anyway."

So YOUR gripe is not about EZ Pai Gow, (or ANY brand of Pai Gow poker for that matter) - as it is more about the gradual elimination of Player Banking in the casino pit, and not about my game. But I admit, blasting EZ Pai Gow is a great opportunity to take a shot at a game produced by someone you're not fond of at this board - because I suggest to casino operators - as a "Best Practices Implenetation" - to LOSE player banking for the best performance and operator profit on this game.

I also recommend discontinuing player banking on Fortune, and on Emperor's challenge (also an excellent Pai Gow offering), Imperial Pai Gow, Maccarena Pai Gow, Wazoo Pai Gow, as well as on the Happy Lucky Golden Dragon of the Emperor's Dynasty Pai Gow poker. In other words: Lose player banking in the freakin' casino pit!


Quote: sodawater

I would think it's a fair assumption that anyone betting "big money" would take advantage of this extremely advantageous option. It's akin to taking the free odds at craps.


No, this is materially incorrect. Pai Gow Players may NOT bank for more than the value of their last bet made on their previous non-banking round, so they CANNOT bet $5 a hand before banking, then bet $500 or $1,000 a hand as big money - when banking on their turn to bank.

Quote: sodawater

Now, I am not the wizard himself, but even I can see that 1.46% is less than 2.47%. In fact, it's a lot less, especially when playing "BIG MONEY," like you said.


Yes - but that 1.46% is not EZ Pai Gow or Fortune Pai Gow related, or any-brand related, for that matter. It is the policies and the "Internal controls" of the individual casino or operator to allow banking at 1.46%

Quote: sodawater

Let's assume your BIG MONEY player is betting $400 a hand and plays a 4-hour session and banks when he can.


Then he'd be banking one in seven hands on a full table, paying a HIGHER commission
Let's be generous to your cause and assume both games get out 40 hands per hour, although you yourself say EZ PGP has more hands per hour than fortune.

The fortune pai gow player has an expected loss of $915.20.

The EZ pai gow player has an expected loss of $1580.80

That's a difference of $665.60. Pretty significant. That's real money that you can spend.

So why would any big money player choose EZ PG instead of fortune PG? Please tell me.



Because:
1. You have to play a LOT of non-banking hands to get the chance to bank, so you might as well play at the lowest house edge on the BASIC non-banked game while you are waiting for your turn to bank.

2. The industry is in the active process of eliminating casino pit banking games, as an Internal Control adaptation, and as general policy for the near future. You want to bank, there's the poker room near the Buffet.

3. In addition, I work as a table games design and development manager for a very fine distributor of casino table games products. We distribute casino table game products to casino operators such as the excellent "High Card flush," the wildly popular "21+3" side bet for Blackjack, and the like. I actively recommend, as part of the game's design and usage in the casino pit, that there is simply NO troublesome player banking to confuse dealers into error, to destroy the house edge, and to bog the game down hard, which is the only real effects on us all in the casino pit, player and casino worker alike.

4. As a general "from now on policy" on any new Pai Gow or Pai Gow game variant that I've seen developed by others, generally a "no banking, no dragon hand" stipulation is written right into the game's procedural rules, so that the game cannot be offered with player banking or dragon hands as a game approval requirement, and not just a casino operator internal control for the casino to handle. This is the way of the future - casino pit games have to light, fast and profitable for casino operators. That means no player banking, no dragon hands, and no lighting of incense and praying to the your God allowed, and what have you. Just straight up house-banked action.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 3321
March 28th, 2013 at 7:00:05 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan



Because:
1. You have to play a LOT of non-banking hands to get the chance to bank, so you might as well play at the lowest house edge on the BASIC non-banked game while you are waiting for your turn to bank.



Lol... well in every game i've played in, "a LOT" is almost always exactly one hand. And... in EZ pai gow, in every installation i've ever seen, your turn to bank never comes. so it's pretty moot.

Banking is the single-most important thing in pai gow poker. It's way more important than strategy. Your game was designed to discontinue player-banking, despite this "option" to allow it, which I have never seen.

By the way, I have no personal animus toward you. i don't know where you got that idea from... I am simply stating that as a gaming consumer, it frustrates me to have to walk past 2 dead EZ PG games to wait for a seat on two fortune PG games... and I am trying to explain why it might be that any educated gambler would prefer the classic game.

  • Jump to: