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.
You're right. There is only ONE EZ Pai Gow install - out of a hundred - that still allows banking.
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.
Player banking is only important for you, Sodawater - and so you really should be playing player-banked Pai Gow Poker in Card rooms, which is GREAT action - instead of putting demands on casino operators and their pit operations as to how THEY should run their pits. Your business won't be missed by anyone in the casino pit, although you may be a better fit in a player-banked card room.
This is true because I design the casino games that both card rooms and casino operators actually install, and I HAVE to consider our casino operators as customers first, less so the card rooms. They have to make their money just to pay the light bill and the dealers if no rake is involved. I would never design and recommend a player-banked card room game for a casino pit operation, just as I would never design and recommend a higher-edge casino-banked game for a card room.
They are two very different beasts - and your expectations and demands that a low-edge/no-edge version of Pai Gow Poker be oprational in commercial casino pits, - and at your convenience - is not going to happen. There is a "no-edge/low-edge" version of EZ Pai Gow that got no sales for card rooms, because they can just bank the public domain version (with no house edge mechanism but an hourly rake), and use public domain side bets of a gentle nature to effect the game with no license fees.
By the way, I have no personal animus toward you. i don't know where you got that idea from...
good to hear that.
I got the idea from the derogatory comments, and the unflatteringly incorrect math you posted on my game as fact on a public forum.
For the record, the game is doing great, as it had been for years, and it struck me as from "out of left field, and just factually untrue."
If you DO have something against me, then just tell me that I am fat, and that I have dingle-berries in my belly-button.
I will say that I admit I that I do need to hit the gym, but I shower every morning thoroughly, and that the dingle-berry accusation is a mathematically false statement on your part!
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.
It's the opposite at most casinos - where banking is not a major factor.
However, some casinos have "banking crew players" who hit Bankable tables, - and apparently you guys have the same schedule.
I will say that player banking IS causing at least a 2%-3% and even greater lower house edge on Fortune tables, (along with the lower-end progressive payouts also being paid out of the table rack), - and so I designed the game to be fairer to the player (lower house edge, and assuming no banking), and to PAY the operator his due table hold for offering the game.
I'm employed in this business because I REALLY think about the casino effects of our table game designs. Nay-sayers ignored, so as long as the nay-sayer is NOT an operator. Understand my job and position.
The only reason to install EZ PG over fortune is greed on the part of the operator. And that's fine. Your customer is the casino, not the player, so I understand why you cater to them.
But I am a player, and the trend, as I see it, is greed. Blackjack wasn't broken, but along game 6 to 5. PG poker was not broken, but along came EZ PG with no player banking. So, I think I have a right to express my frustration about that.
And please do not say I posted incorrect math. You are well aware that the house edge for fortune PG poker is much lower than EZ PG poker, due to the banking option. Yes, it's an option, but so are splitting and doubling down in blackjack, and taking the free odds in craps. They're all part of the game, and it's appropriate to include those options in calculating the house edge.
Player banking is only important for you, Sodawater
Like you. Love your game. Hate this statement. Seriously...come on.
Like you. Love your game....
Not meaning to get all Brokeback Mount over here on you, but wow, I really appreciate it...
That's what counts - the GAME being seen and appreciated, - I do not matter myself, really....
In a very straight way, bro, really.
Thank you, it is a great game, and yeah, I appreciate the support!
This all is like hearing: "Ignore the man who said that your daughter is ugly - I think your kid is FINE, AWESOME. (Now I, Dan, can be ugly, - and I am fine with that. Just as long as I am not broke, and my kid is doing well...)
Sorry, but I will trade banking for commission every time. Why? Everyone benefits from no commission. The Player gets more play and less headache, and no worry the dealer cheated them on commission. The house get more hands per hr, even at a lower house edge, they are happy. The Dealer has no interruptions (included banking) and can deal the game free of the clutter and mess banking dealing producer currently are.
Keep your banking; I will take EZ Pai Gow Poker NO Commission every time.
Sorry, but I will trade banking for commission every time.
Keep your banking; I will take EZ Pai Gow Poker NO Commission every time.
I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but the mathematical fact of the game is that banking is much more important. And you're not getting your commission back for free -- you are paying for that in the form of a 100% commission on winning hands when the dealer has Q-high.
I know of one place that allows the player and dealer to alternate banking instead of the opportunity going from player to player around the table as long as noone else wants to bank. So theoretically even on a full table, you can bank every other hand so long as nobody else wants it. I don't know if it helps much, but it is out there.
Yes, this is standard everywhere I have played. The other players "pass" the bank back to the house.
Also, if more than one player is taking their turn to bank, the other players can sit out. Normally what happens is that the house banks against A, B, and C. Then A banks against the house, and B and C sit out. Then B banks, and A and C sit out. Then C banks, and A and B sit out. Then the house banks, and A, B, and C all play. Result? Each player is banking 1 hand and playing 1 hand against the house. House edge: 1.46 percent.
the clumsy, slow, and frustrating commission in pai gow poker.
What kind of dealers do you have who are slow to calculate or pay winning wagers minus a 5 percent commission? It's a dollar for every $20, and a quarter for every red chip. It can be done almost in one's sleep. Most of the players who win a hand put their commission payment up before the dealer even gets to them. It's completely seamless.
This Lie that I pay 100% commission is just wrong. I do not pay on every win that lead up to the dealer getting a queen high pai gow.
The fact of the matter is I seldom push; the queen high is so rare in the dealer hand that many nights when I play I donít even see a queen high pai gow in the dealerís hand. I know on avg I will pay 18 cents on every 5$ win but when I color up with a 100$ win and spent 2 hrs with no queen high pai gow push It sure feels like commission free to me!