EZ Pai Gow v. Commission Free Pai Gow
The premise of these barrings is to convert what is supposed to be a winning hand into a push. Occasionally, it will push a hand that would have pushed anyway, and in some cases, a loss will be converted to a push. (Example: get a jack-high Pai Gow in EZPG.)
Which of the two games is more likely to convert a losing hand into a pushing one and by what margin? In EZPG, it would have to be a jack-high or lower. In CFPG, it feels like there are more ways to do it, since a 9x in front often indicates a bonus in back.
Also, in which of the two games does the bar happen more often, and by what margin? I'm assuming CFPG because the insurance wager only pays 30:1 instead of 50:1.
Quote: DeucekiesThis past weekend, I played Pai Gow Poker at the Golden Nugget. They have Commission Free variety, which waives commission in exchange for barring a 9-high front hand. Having played Dan's EZ Pai Gow, which bars the Queen-high back hand instead, I had a thought.
The premise of these barrings is to convert what is supposed to be a winning hand into a push. Occasionally, it will push a hand that would have pushed anyway, and in some cases, a loss will be converted to a push. (Example: get a jack-high Pai Gow in EZPG.)
Which of the two games is more likely to convert a losing hand into a pushing one and by what margin? In EZPG, it would have to be a jack-high or lower. In CFPG, it feels like there are more ways to do it, since a 9x in front often indicates a bonus in back.
Also, in which of the two games does the bar happen more often, and by what margin? I'm assuming CFPG because the insurance wager only pays 30:1 instead of 50:1.
The margin is this:
EZ Pai Gow has the Bally's "similar game" beat by a margin of one in 58 hands any rare forced push hand, versus about one in 34 hands push as a forced pushed on with Bally's product. This is because the Bally's game is really using the dealer's hand Pai Gow pushes to obtain the house edge, to remove the commission with a dealer's Pai Gow when a 9 card is present, but with some extra redundant "push anyway" hands that also have a 9 and simply get included in and added in. We've noticed this. I will stop here on this.
This may seem a bit of a conflict, - and it is indeed, - but having said that, we are hoping and do believe that there'd be very warm and cordial resolution to this all in the end.
On the game, 1 in 34 hands on Bally's game is 50%-plus more often than one in 58 EZ Pai Gow hands. That's more bad beats for the player on Pai Gow poker because flushes over straights type winning hands are now denied. So, if you have a strong hand win (such as a Flush with a jack on top), it won't win against a dealer's straight, or Ace-high Pai Gow, or King high Pai Gow, or whatever hand with a 9 on top - which would otherwise play - and pay out - for the equivalent player's real win in EZ Pai Gow.
With Bally's product, you get stuck with more bad-beat denied wins to you on their game. The 50% + difference adds up in terms of the player game experience; while both add up to a similar house edge, - you now cannot win on a "squeaker" win, and these upsets are more common now. At least in EZ Pai Gow, the low Queen-high hand was never a close bad beat like having a flush over a dealer's straight denied to you. The simple Queen-high means "okay, next hand...."
By contrast, Galaxy's new commission-free game "Commission-Free Emperor's Challenge" (going live in Delaware soon), uses an even more rare "push" hand when the player has a joker hand of a rare combination, so the dealer never gets a non-qualifying hand that can deny the winner playing a win on his strong hand. This was invented by Derek Webb, who also invented Three Card poker.
All in all, it looks like the annoying commission that short-changes you on the game is finally leaving us, with mechanisms of varying elegance.
Quote:All in all, it looks like the annoying commission that short-changes you on the game is finally leaving us, with mechanisms of varying elegance.
But you can't bank any of these games can you? That is a serious problem for people that traditionally play this game.
I have played in many Pai Gow home games and none of those players would ever play a PGP game they couldn't bank. That is part of the point of the game. I understand there are a lot of $10 bettors that feel otherwise, but there are a lot of $100 players that agree with me there. While I think these EZ versions are great, I hope they don't make the traditional version extinct.
Quote: PokeraddictBut you can't bank any of these games can you? That is a serious problem for people that traditionally play this game.
I have played in many Pai Gow home games and none of those players would ever play a PGP game they couldn't bank. That is part of the point of the game. I understand there are a lot of $10 bettors that feel otherwise, but there are a lot of $100 players that agree with me there. While I think these EZ versions are great, I hope they don't make the traditional version extinct.
I hear you, I got that.
But no-commission PGP may [sadly] make player banking extinct. [My real/honest sentiments are "not too sadly...."]
On player banking, the [casino] house suffers a HUGE reduction in house edge, - along with tremendous problems and operational snafus when operating player banked games in the pit. With EZ Pai Gow - and I designed this game - our official "recommended practices" is to bar player banking on EZ Pai Gow, and out of about 100 installs, there are TWO houses that allow it. 2%. On extremely rare occasions it was allowed for the sake of a sale, and the installs consistently performed less well.
The loss of player banking is a huge gain to the casino house in terms of efficiency and dealer performance, as well as a huge elimination of player altercation issues on live games, as well as a small loss - trivial - house edge favor to some smart-@ss player who wishes to show off his Pai Gow Poker Braggadocio by banking to a table full of players who'd wish that player would get lost.
Furthermore, the elimination of player banking actually improves Pai Gow Poker table-relations for 99% of the non-banking players and 100% of the dealers, it just smooths out and simplifies table games operations so effectively it will be gone very soon, outside of player-banked card rooms, - and this is on top of the operational efficiency provided. If you look at this issue from a casino operations Point of view, player banking on Pai Gow poker will be gone very soon, and I have to agree with this. Player banking on Pai Gow Poker has been nothing but operational messes mixed in with some player Braggadocio when doing so, and you must realistically expect its absolute departure fairly soon. It'll be as rare as 3:2 single deck, essentially and effectively gone.
It's been the red-headed step child in the casino pit that's now receiving its final dose of arsenic and funeral Mass. It really gone beyond its way out.
"Recommended Practices" to eliminate Player banking are being replace by Mandatory Practices for Pai Gow Poker to eliminate it once and for all, and codified into new Pai Gow Game regulations.
I know it'll be missed. Doesn't matter, it's a change that'll be a footnote piece of nostalgia. It's already 99% complete on the new games.
Traditions die. No American man wears a Fedora [hat] any longer when out in public. It used to be de rigueur in our culture 60 years ago.
Quote: PokeraddictBut you can't bank any of these games can you? That is a serious problem for people that traditionally play this game.
I have played in many Pai Gow home games and none of those players would ever play a PGP game they couldn't bank. That is part of the point of the game. I understand there are a lot of $10 bettors that feel otherwise, but there are a lot of $100 players that agree with me there. While I think these EZ versions are great, I hope they don't make the traditional version extinct.
Where do you play? It might be a regional thing. Where I work here in WA, we had Fortune Pai Gow before, and replaced it with Progressive Fortune Pai Gow. It's one of our most popular games, and we have exactly two players who bank with any sort of regularity. Furthermore, I have never seen anyone in the act of banking anywhere else.
Quote: PaigowdanWith EZ Pai Gow - and I designed this game - our official "recommended practices" is to bar player banking on EZ Pai Gow, and out of about 100 installs, there are TWO houses that allow it. 2%.
How does the Queen-high bar translate in those cases? Does a player-banker's queen-high push the whole table? Does a player-banker's queen-high push the dealer?
When that is the case, none of the commission free versions make sense to the players. It is a clearly a regional phenomena and I was shocked that so many WA house would operate comm. free without compensation.....I found this out trying to talk up Dan's game at a property back in 2011. The TG Manager said "we already offer commission free PGP & the players are not even required to make a minimum side bet".....it was a learning experience for me.
Quote: DeucekiesWhere do you play? It might be a regional thing. Where I work here in WA, we had Fortune Pai Gow before, and replaced it with Progressive Fortune Pai Gow. It's one of our most popular games, and we have exactly two players who bank with any sort of regularity. Furthermore, I have never seen anyone in the act of banking anywhere else.
Quote: PaigowdanWith EZ Pai Gow - and I designed this game - our official "recommended practices" is to bar player banking on EZ Pai Gow, and out of about 100 installs, there are TWO houses that allow it. 2%.
How does the Queen-high bar translate in those cases? Does a player-banker's queen-high push the whole table? Does a player-banker's queen-high push the dealer?
In cases where an EZ Pai Gow house allows player banking, the player-banker doesn't get to use a queen-high push; his hand plays for the probable loss as the hand that was dealt. The rule is "Dealer's Queen-high Pai Gow pushes" - not the player's, even if banking. Players don't get the house edge mechanism.
Furthermore, the commission IS restored during banking - for the banker only. Non-banking players do not pay a commission at any time. And since there are no 25c pieces in the rack, the player-banker's commission is also rounded up to the nearest whole dollar.
Quote: ParadigmIt has been my experience in WA that many houses don't collect a commission on PGP and reduce the HE to copies & players making the side wagers. Have you seen that as well Deucekie?
When that is the case, none of the commission free versions make sense to the players. It is a clearly a regional phenomena and I was shocked that so many WA house would operate comm. free without compensation.....I found this out trying to talk up Dan's game at a property back in 2011. The TG Manager said "we already offer commission free PGP & the players are not even required to make a minimum side bet".....it was a learning experience for me.
This is a WA convention. The commission is skipped without any added house edge mechanisms to compensate, and the PGP tables in WA are "loss leaders" for the house. It is a similar situation to where, - as a wishful example - that 3:2 single deck Blackjack is the rule for the houses, and you hope and PRAY - as the manager that the joint makes money. You'll see VERY heavy dependence on proprietary games, progressives, and other games to cover the houses' financial nut.
Quote: Paigowdan
In cases where an EZ Pai Gow house allows player banking, the player-banker doesn't get to use a queen-high push; his hand plays for the probable loss as the hand that was dealt. The rule is "Dealer's Queen-high Pai Gow pushes" - not the player's, even if banking. Players don't get the house edge mechanism.
Furthermore, the commission IS restored during banking - for the banker only. Non-banking players do not pay a commission at any time. And since there are no 25c pieces in the rack, the player-banker's commission is also rounded up to the nearest whole dollar.
At least as of 12 months ago there is one place I used to play regularly where this is not true. The player banker did enjoy the queen high push mechanism and they kept quarters in the rack.
It is really a bad thing?Quote: PokeraddictBut you can't bank any of these games can you? That is a serious problem for people that traditionally play this game.
Dan, if I recall correctly, you've stated that the house edge for EZPG is actually slightly lower than standard PGP. (The casinos are OK with the lower edge, because EZPG gets more hands per hour by not farting around with those damn quarters.)
How much lower is it? If it's at least half as much as the difference in edge between house banked and player banked on PGP, then it should be a non-issue.
Quote: bigfoot66Quote: Paigowdan
In cases where an EZ Pai Gow house allows player banking, the player-banker doesn't get to use a queen-high push; his hand plays for the probable loss as the hand that was dealt. The rule is "Dealer's Queen-high Pai Gow pushes" - not the player's, even if banking. Players don't get the house edge mechanism.
Furthermore, the commission IS restored during banking - for the banker only. Non-banking players do not pay a commission at any time. And since there are no 25c pieces in the rack, the player-banker's commission is also rounded up to the nearest whole dollar.
At least as of 12 months ago there is one place I used to play regularly where this is not true. The player banker did enjoy the queen high push mechanism and they kept quarters in the rack.
If you KNEW of all the liberties that a LOT of card rooms take with distributors'/manufacturers' products, you'd either shudder (if working for a distributor) or rejoice (if a player).
Quote: DJTeddyBearIt is really a bad thing?
Dan, if I recall correctly, you've stated that the house edge for EZPG is actually slightly lower than standard PGP. (The casinos are OK with the lower edge, because EZPG gets more hands per hour by not farting around with those damn quarters.)
How much lower is it? If it's at least half as much as the difference in edge between house banked and player banked on PGP, then it should be a non-issue.
It's 2.47% versus 2.74% non-banking, - trivial. More hands per hour makes up for the slight difference.
Quote: PokeraddictBut you can't bank any of these games can you? That is a serious problem for people that traditionally play this game.
I have played in many Pai Gow home games and none of those players would ever play a PGP game they couldn't bank. That is part of the point of the game. I understand there are a lot of $10 bettors that feel otherwise, but there are a lot of $100 players that agree with me there. While I think these EZ versions are great, I hope they don't make the traditional version extinct.
IMO, this is exactly why you see a lot of EZPG in low-roller joints where it's rare for someone to bet a green and almost unheard of for someone to bet a black. Also, it's more convenient for low-stakes games -- messing with quarters is a pain.
But high-stakes players tend not to like their traditional games being messed with. They want to bank, because banking is part of the game, and if you are betting black, commission is no big deal anyway, since it's not change any more.
It's the same reason you don't see carnie games or blackjack side-bets or blackjack variants in the high limit rooms.
Choosing a PGP game where you can't bank is like choosing a 6:5 blackjack game over 3:2.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIMO, this is exactly why you see a lot of EZPG in low-roller joints where it's rare for someone to bet a green and almost unheard of for someone to bet a black. Also, it's more convenient for low-stakes games -- messing with quarters is a pain.
But high-stakes players tend not to like their traditional games being messed with. They want to bank, because banking is part of the game, and if you are betting black, commission is no big deal anyway, since it's not change any more.
It's the same reason you don't see carnie games or blackjack side-bets or blackjack variants in the high limit rooms.
Choosing a PGP game where you can't bank is like choosing a 6:5 blackjack game over 3:2.
Then please be aware that EZ Pai Gow is THE Pai Gow Game at the Borgata in Atlantic City, and at the Barona in San Diego, where it sees TONS of Purple and gold action, and not nickel ($5) action.
If someone is betting $1,000 a hand, they are not going to pay $50 in commission a hand when they can get full pay, the rare extra push not withstanding.
Also note that commission-free EZ Baccarat has huge installs and also sees big time action.
I have inferred from your comments that a casino who installs your EZPG game has to decide if they want to allow player banking when they get the game from you. In other words, they license either the house only version, or the player bankable version.
Is this correct, or does the casino have complete autonomy to deal either a house banked or a player banked game?
Quote: RaleighCrapsDan,
I have inferred from your comments that a casino who installs your EZPG game has to decide if they want to allow player banking when they get the game from you. In other words, they license either the house only version, or the player bankable version.
Is this correct, or does the casino have complete autonomy to deal either a house banked or a player banked game?
They license the game, with player banking as a "local casino allowance or practice" that is discouraged for this game. Banking on traditional Pai Gow Poker is handled by the house (there are "ICs" or Internal controls), but DEQ recommends via "Best Practices" to eliminate banking as a performance drain on the game (which it is for any game when part of a house-banked pit). It is NOT binding, and it was not made a condition of approval to install the game, though it is a generally followed convention of the newer game.
Many houses say "Great, we really are better off without banking and its headaches - thanks for giving us a black-and-white reason to finally ditch it," as well as also: "we wish to keep it as a legacy thing." We were never told that we'd lose an install if we didn't bless player banking, but extremely few insist upon it. The Cannery casinos eliminated player banking on Pai Gow poker company-wide (they're 100% EZ Pai Gow), and their Pai Gow drop meets or exceeds Blackjack drop, which is remarkable. A lot of the Pai Gow action can simply be attributed to the fact that Las Vegas is a very mature market where PGP is huge.
I'm developing an Eight-card Pai Gow poker game (five card high side, three card poker low side) where the House way and the elimination of banking are coded into the game as 100% codified compliance requirements. Fart around with the house way or allow player banking in the pit on this game, and the Gaming control Board will be called in to chat with the Casino manager.
Quote: PaigowdanIf someone is betting $1,000 a hand, they are not going to pay $50 in commission a hand when they can get full pay, the rare extra push not withstanding.
Dan, please. People on this forum are too good at math to buy this nonsense. Save it for the casino execs.
I've never seen this in any high-limit rooms in Vegas. It's all traditional games.
Quote:Also note that commission-free EZ Baccarat has huge installs and also sees big time action.
Again, I've never once seen this at a high limit room in Vegas.
Quote: ParadigmIt has been my experience in WA that many houses don't collect a commission on PGP and reduce the HE to copies & players making the side wagers. Have you seen that as well Deucekie?
I've witnessed that in Western Washington. In Eastern WA, what I see is commission getting waived IF you put the $5 on the Fortune bonus. Sort of a meet-you-halfway arrangement. And most of our players play at least $5 on the bonus anyway, so commission rarely comes up.
Any player who sits down and tries to play nothing on the bonus immediately gets told the story of the only time we've dealt out the natural 7-card. The player came to the table, was about to bet $5 and $3 on the bonus, then at the last second changed it to $8 and $0 and proclaimed proudly "The bonus is a sucker bet!"
Technically he's right, but still. The house edge on the main bet is high enough, especially when playing an improper bet like $8, where if you care about the numbers that much, you shouldn't be playing Pai Gow anyway.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI've said it before and I'll say it again -- the reason that casinos like to get rid of player banking is not because it's a hassle -- it's the same reason that they like 6:5 BJ. It turns a good, traditional low-house-edge game into a sucker carnie game with an exorbitant edge. A game with extremely low variance and an edge in the 2.5% range? If you wouldn't play 6:5 blackjack I don't understand why you would play this.
I understand that if you bank when you're supposed to, you get the house edge down to a reasonable level for that hand, but I have never once seen someone play Pai Gow Poker for the odds. I know I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in WA, you'd be very hard pressed to find a place that will let you bank every other hand. You'll either see once every seven hands, or even once every 12 or 14 hands. And when you do get to bank, you may not exceed your previous wager. (I'm gonna start another thread on this topic.)
Pai Gow Poker is the chocolate cake of table games. You don't play it because it's good for you. You play it because of the enjoyment of a social game where people can come and go as they please, with the excitement of big payouts for premium hands, and despite the higher house edge, you lose less money because of more pushes and less hands per hour. Anybody who cares about the house edge should be staying away from Pai Gow Poker altogether, IMO.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDan, please. People on this forum are too good at math to buy this nonsense. Save it for the casino execs.
I don't believe you're sharp at math, Axiom. You would have checked the WizardofOdds site and see that it has a lower house edge, and as such would be a better value for any level play, including high-level play. That's the math, better house edge = better value of any level play.
Quote: AxiomofChoiceI've never seen this [EZ Pai Gow] in any high-limit rooms in Vegas. It's all traditional games.
Yes, the strip has mostly traditional games for high-level action. And EZ Pai Gow is at Hooters, Fiesta Henderson, Boulder Station, and Cannery here in Vegas, and these are modest-level places, true. But I'll take them and are proud of them around town, here. In terms of getting into the high-level rooms on the strip, that's a function of DEQ's sales force, not me. I don't walk around pitching my game to anyone, I let the distributor handle that, although I will defend the game. I'm a game designer, not a salesman.
Quote: AxiomofchoiceAgain, I've never once seen this at a high limit room in Vegas.
Again, I told you of the high limit rooms where it is indeed being played, in both California and in Atlantic City. I'll get to the strip yet.
...I really believe it annoys you that I have a good game out, and that I have had some success, and so you have to besmirch and belittle my game as a nickel game, eh? I believe this is apparent.
Quote: DeucekiesI understand that if you bank when you're supposed to, you get the house edge down to a reasonable level for that hand, but I have never once seen someone play Pai Gow Poker for the odds. I know I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in WA, you'd be very hard pressed to find a place that will let you bank every other hand. You'll either see once every seven hands, or even once every 12 or 14 hands. And when you do get to bank, you may not exceed your previous wager. (I'm gonna start another thread on this topic.)
Pai Gow Poker is the chocolate cake of table games. You don't play it because it's good for you. You play it because of the enjoyment of a social game where people can come and go as they please, with the excitement of big payouts for premium hands, and despite the higher house edge, you lose less money because of more pushes and less hands per hour. Anybody who cares about the house edge should be staying away from Pai Gow Poker altogether, IMO.
At reputable casinos in Vegas you can bank every other hand if no one else is banking. You don't make a wager (you are banking) but the house will wager up to 110% of your previous bet against you.
With enough additional players betting enough against you relative to your wager, this becomes +EV (although, I don't play much so I don't know the exact break-even points. It's complicated because commission is calculated on a net basis each time you bank, not gross, so 5 players betting $100 each against you has higher EV than 1 player betting $500 against you) If I see multiple people betting black or higher and not banking, I will usually sit down, bet 1 black chip per hand (actually bet $105 to pre-pay commission) and bank on my turn (1/2 the hands). It's rare though -- I don't play seriously; I don't know if I have an edge or not (since I don't know the break-even points) and I could probably set my hands better.
Quote: PaigowdanI don't believe you're sharp at math, Axiom. You would have checked the WizardofOdds site and see that it has a lower house edge, and as such would be a better value for any level play, including high-level play. That's the math, better house edge = better value of any level play.
Not if you can't bank, it doesn't.
Quote:...I really believe it annoys you that I have a good game out, and that I have had some success, and so you have to besmirch and belittle my game as a nickel game, eh? I believe this is apparent.
It annoys me that people think that it's a good game. It's crap. I think I have pointed out before the the difference in house edge between your game and a regular PGP game where you can bank is (coincidentally) almost exactly the same as the difference between real BJ and 6:5 BJ.
I don't care about commission structure vs occasionally pushing hands, but eliminating banking is just as bad as paying 6:5 on blackjacks. Banking is just as much part of PGP as getting paid 3:2 is a part of blackjack. It's just how the game is played; changing it out from under people is just an attempt to con the suckers.
It also annoys me that you consistently ignore and gloss over the fact that eliminating banking increases the house edge so much. I know that you understand this (it's not a very difficult point, after all) so I can only conclude that you are trying to trick people.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAt reputable casinos in Vegas you can bank every other hand if no one else is banking. You don't make a wager (you are banking) but the house will wager up to 110% of your previous bet against you.
Please explain this to me again. You don't make a wager, but you're still playing against the house's hand?
Here's how it would play out where I work.
Seat 1: $10
Seat 2: $15
Seat 3: $20
Seat 4: $10
Seat 5: $20
Seat 6: $20 and banking $75.
1) Seat 6 reconciles his hand against the dealer's hand for the $20.
2) Dealer's hand goes away, and all the other players reconcile their hands against Seat 6's hand.
Is this similar to what you're saying?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNot if you can't bank, it doesn't.
Here's some news: Banking does not make a +EV game for you or anyone. see: WOO Pai Gow analysis.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt annoys me that people think that it's a good game. It's crap.
This much is clear, it does annoy you that many people like and play my game, and that you think it's crap, and you say so on a public forum. Now, other people are happy for me, and still others are neutral and disinterested on the topic and prefer dice and Baccarat. People play EZ PGP as well as other games for entertainment, and the game certainly provides entertainment, and they like the improved speed of play, as well as the full-pay payouts.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think I have pointed out before the the difference in house edge between your game and a regular PGP game where you can bank is (coincidentally) almost exactly the same as the difference between real BJ and 6:5 BJ.
As stated, the decision to allow player banking on Pai Gow poker is the decision of the local casino through their "Internal controls," not anyone else's. We recommend the practice of modernizing to commission and banking free games, yet the call is still the local casino - not DEQ or Bally or Galaxy.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't care about commission structure vs occasionally pushing hands, but eliminating banking is just as bad as paying 6:5 on blackjacks.
In who's Point of View? the casino house? Even many players are annoyed to no end when someone declares, "Sir!! I wish to BANK now!" [where's John Cleese when you need him....]
Quote: AxiomofChoiceBanking is just as much part of PGP as getting paid 3:2 is a part of blackjack.
No it isn't, these are rapidly fading away as archaic legacy, and to the clear annoyance of the few to whom this is some sort of a major issue. Yet banking is such a major drawback to the casino pit and to the non-banking players, and so few people bank nowadays, that its removal doesn't affect drop or patronage by any discernible amount whatsoever, and the Cannery group as well as Ameristar are examples. Commission is gone from most new PGP games, especially no-commission games, which is my area - and what I have to focus on and implement (to the lamenting and belittling of some old guard on this). And 6:5 is absolutely standard on single deck, and even on traditional Pai Gow games the VAST majority of hands are house-banked.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt's just how the game is played; changing it out from under people is just an attempt to con the suckers.
One can reasonably argue:
1. it was how it used to be played, and;
2. The landscape of casino pit Pai Gow poker has already changed, and has been changed.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt also annoys me that you consistently ignore and gloss over the fact that eliminating banking increases the house edge so much. I know that you understand this (it's not a very difficult point, after all) so I can only conclude that you are trying to trick people.
I don't gloss over that fact, indeed I state it loud and clear: banking is both less cost-effective (less profitable) for the house, and the non-banking players dislike it, it bogs down the game's speed and introduces dealer errors and table altercations, - and so the places where banking has been eliminated are doing just fine without it without these problems and headaches from it. And I'm being very open and honest and clear about this trend.
Brave New World.
Quote: DeucekiesPlease explain this to me again. You don't make a wager, but you're still playing against the house's hand?
Here's how it would play out where I work.
Seat 1: $10
Seat 2: $15
Seat 3: $20
Seat 4: $10
Seat 5: $20
Seat 6: $20 and banking $75.
1) Seat 6 reconciles his hand against the dealer's hand for the $20.
2) Dealer's hand goes away, and all the other players reconcile their hands against Seat 6's hand.
Is this similar to what you're saying?
Kind of, but seat 6 does not bet $20. The dealer will take $20 out of the tray and place it as a wager against seat 6.
Seat 6 is banking. The dealer is just another player. So, rather than "Seat 6: $20 and banking $75", I would write "Dealer: $20; Seat 6: Banking $95"
Remember that commissions are charged on net win (not separately on every bet) so this is an important distinction.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSeat 6 is banking. The dealer is just another player. So, rather than "Seat 6: $20 and banking $75", I would write "Dealer: $20; Seat 6: Banking $95"
Remember that commissions are charged on net win (not separately on every bet) so this is an important distinction.
Ok. I see the difference.
There's one more reason not to bank in WA. Commission is charged on gross win, not net win.
Quote: DeucekiesOk. I see the difference.
There's one more reason not to bank in WA. Commission is charged on gross win, not net win.
What?
So, in a 2-player (plus dealer) game, if both players are betting $100, and you bank (so the house bets $100 against you, and the other player bets $100 against you) and you win one but lose the other, you owe $5 commission?
That is a scam...
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceChoosing a PGP game where you can't bank is like choosing a 6:5 blackjack game over 3:2.
The huge difference being that the majority of PGP players that play a version that allows them to bank, simply don't bank......so their edge and play are unaffected by playing a version that does not allow them the option to bank.
Every player playing a 6:5 BJ game is affected by the change in HE versus playing a 3:2 game.
This is the difference which makes the decision to play EZ PGP/ Comm. Free NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same decision to play 6:5 vs. 3:2 BJ for, dare I say, 90% of PGP players that don't opt to bank every other hand.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat?
So, in a 2-player (plus dealer) game, if both players are betting $100, and you bank (so the house bets $100 against you, and the other player bets $100 against you) and you win one but lose the other, you owe $5 commission?
That is a scam...
Precisely.
Quote: ParadigmThe huge difference being that the majority of PGP players that play a version that allows them to bank, simply don't bank......so their edge and play are unaffected by playing a version that does not allow them the option to bank.
Every player playing a 6:5 BJ game is affected by the change in HE versus playing a 3:2 game.
This is the difference which makes the decision to play EZ PGP/ Comm. Free NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same decision to play 6:5 vs. 3:2 BJ for, dare I say, 90% of PGP players that don't opt to bank every other hand.
Thanks!!! (M.T., you're awesome...)
For non-banking players, which are the vast majority, the commission-free games are both better in HE for the player, and faster - with less useless coinage mucking that never added anything to the game.
Now....I have to design games that consider BOTH player and operator, so the dyed-in-the-wool AP would NEVER be happy with a compromise - which is what all casino games are and have to be (and why we bemoan and wail so much over here, because it isn't a perfect world from our AP point of view...).
Yet if I had to design a "pure player" Pai Gow game, I'd offer:
1. Bank as much as you want.
2. Player wins all copies except against the banker.
3. Player wins all disputes ("just pay the player what he wants, Mr. Dealer, not a problem, just real happy to have him here, all players are SO awesome....")
4. No commission. Hold it, pay the player a commission, in fact! Bet $100, win $105.
This game would be sooo popular it would be ridiculous. It would also be un-offerable.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice.
It annoys me that people think that it's a good game. It's crap. .
Wow, I annoy you because I enjoy playing PGP, regardless if its commission or not commission.
I enjoy the game. Thats all that matters. I am well aware of the odds. Odd wise, its the worst game I play, but I still enjoy it.
Its fun.
Too me, having fun in life is what counts the most to enjoy your life.
I have fun playing PGP. Its a good game due to the fun factor.
Therefore I play because too me, life is all about fun
Quote: ParadigmThe huge difference being that the majority of PGP players that play a version that allows them to bank, simply don't bank......so their edge and play are unaffected by playing a version that does not allow them the option to bank.
Every player playing a 6:5 BJ game is affected by the change in HE versus playing a 3:2 game.
This is the difference which makes the decision to play EZ PGP/ Comm. Free NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same decision to play 6:5 vs. 3:2 BJ for, dare I say, 90% of PGP players that don't opt to bank every other hand.
Players play a lot of games poorly. When we talk about house edge, we usually assume optimal play. Most players never surrender, never split 9's, and never hit a 16, and always take even money, but we still quote the optimal house edge, not the edge from ploppies who don't know how to play.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePlayers play a lot of games poorly. When we talk about house edge, we usually assume optimal play. Most players never surrender, never split 9's, and never hit a 16, and always take even money, but we still quote the optimal house edge, not the edge from ploppies who don't know how to play.
And your point is....that the house edge is invalid in discussing a game's merit - because someone might not play it optimally?
And a player is a ploppie for not banking when it isn't even offered by a casino in the first place? Or for going to the casino to play a negative EV game just for entertainment? By this logic, the ONLY sharp play is pro poker room play or +EV advantage play, and every else is a clown move.
Quote: PaigowdanAnd your point is....that the house edge is invalid in discussing a game's merit - because someone might not play it optimally?
My point is that when we say that the house edge of a blackjack game is 0.3% (or whatever), we make that statement assuming optimal play. We make that statement even if there are rules like surrender, which very, very few players take advantage of.
We should do the same when quoting the house edge of a PGP game, and optimal play in PGP includes banking at every opportunity. The fact that the majority of players play sub-optimally is not really the point.
Quote: PaigowdanAnd a player is a ploppie for not banking when it isn't even offered by a casino in the first place?
Choosing to play PGP at a casino that doesn't allow banking is just as much of a ploppie move as choosing to play blackjack at a casino that has 6:5 on all their games. The cost is about the same (around 1.4%)
However, Axiom is correct, that being, for the 'educated' Pai Gow player, the loss of banking is a loss to the player. Just like 6:5 BJ is a loss to a player as opposed to 3:2 BJ. I believe it is your refusal to admit this point that is the source of contention here.
I agree with everything you say about the game being better for the casino, and the majority of the players liking it better. And it certainly eliminates the contention between the players when a player banks, and the rest of the players get upset, incorrectly feeling that one of their own is trying to take their money too. The number of players who are incapable of understanding how player banking does not affect the game is unbelievable. Sheep.
I also agree that there are very few of us left that bank whenever we can. Sure it forces me to sometimes have more at risk for one hand than I would ever bet, but since I win the ties when I am banking, I am happy to do so. I think some people who understand banking don't do it because of this risk, but there are just so many more who don't understand the advantage they are letting slip by.
Your game eliminates all of these issues. But for the EDUCATED Pai Gow player, the loss of player banking is A LOSS to the player. There is no way to spin away from this fact.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMy point is that when we say that the house edge of a blackjack game is 0.3% (or whatever), we make that statement assuming optimal play. We make that statement even if there are rules like surrender, which very, very few players take advantage of.
We should do the same when quoting the house edge of a PGP game, and optimal play in PGP includes banking at every opportunity. The fact that the majority of players play sub-optimally is not really the point.
No, PGP doesn't include "banking at every opportunity," in exactly the same way that many Blackjack tables do not allow surrender on their games, or re-splitting aces, or doubling on any two cards. Furthermore, Player Banking is decided by the casino house, - not the game distributor - where it can be 1 in 6 deals to next bank, going around all the player spots, or 1 in 2 deals, or 1 in 3 deals (where the casino says the dealer must bank twice before player banking can resume.) I dealt Pai Gow in such a casino with that rule.
So, if you claiming this, then this is not the game distributor's house edge that the distributor procured for the game during the approval process, - so the house edge would vary not based on the game, but on the current and local rules of some joint offering the game.
Like I said, to compare apples to apples, you compare a non-banking house edge on a commission-free game TO the non-banking house edge of the traditional commission game - to ascertain the exact effect of a house edge mechanism - when compared head-on to the traditional game.
Quote: R.C.Your game eliminates all of these issues. But for the EDUCATED Pai Gow player, the loss of player banking is A LOSS to the player. There is no way to spin away from this fact.
Yes. And it is because the casino operator has to offer games that cover expenses, as sadly, the operator has to remain in business to offer the games to us.
In terms of an EDUCATED Pai Gow player - or any other EDUCATED game gambler, the EDUCATED person does not gamble. Does NOT spend time in a casino. At all. Period, end of story.
You're equating here partaking in recreational gambling as being un-EDUCATED. If so, it is un-educated to attend movies, restaurants, or shows, as they are also recreations that also cost money (-EV), and have no chance of a return.
Quote: PaigowdanNo, PGP doesn't include "banking at every opportunity,"
Please re-read what I wrote.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePlease re-read what I wrote.
No. I read it the first time.
Mathematical reports for determining PGP House edges are done with:
1. optimal play being optimal hand sets against a declared dealer's house way - with no banking.
2. The GLI approval reports and BMM approval reports are done this way. In other words, the Gaming Control Board house edge determination is done with no player banking consideration. The non-banking house edges for PGP are the official game house edges, and optimal play is "best hand set."
3. Banking is a player bonus offered by the casino house or operator which may reduce the house edge, but never to player +EV.
4. Player banking is falling out of favor and use with casino operators as a problem or issue, and will occur if players still play PGP without it.
Quote: PaigowdanNo. I read it the first time.
So, I wrote that optimal play at PGP includes banking at every opportunity (which is undeniably true), and you replied with a statement about PGP rules?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, I wrote that optimal play at PGP includes banking at every opportunity (which is undeniably true), and you replied with a statement about PGP rules?
1. There is no optimal play vis-à-vis banking - when banking is not offered, or not offered liberally. By this definition, optimal play is simply the act of shopping for the casinos that still happen to offer good banking rules.
2. base house edge is determined by Optimal play, considered "as best hand set against dealer house way."
3. The ONLY accurate way to compare house edges between PGP variants is to compare non-banking base performances with the same house way.
Quote: PaigowdanBy this definition, optimal play is simply the act of shopping for the casinos that still happen to offer good banking rules.
Yup. Just like optimal blackjack play involves shopping for casinos that still offer 3:2 payouts on blackjack.
1.4% is 1.4%; it makes no sense to give it up in PGP but not in blackjack. Both are sucker games if they don't have the right rules.
Scam? Hardly.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat?
So, in a 2-player (plus dealer) game, if both players are betting $100, and you bank (so the house bets $100 against you, and the other player bets $100 against you) and you win one but lose the other, you owe $5 commission?
That is a scam...
If the house had banked that hand, the loser loses, and the winner wins 95%. The house gets their commission. So, just because you're banking, doesn't mean you don't owe the commission for the privilege.
Yet another reason to prefer EZPG.
Quote: DJTeddyBearScam? Hardly.
If the house had banked that hand, the loser loses, and the winner wins 95%. The house gets their commission. So, just because you're banking, doesn't mean you don't owe the commission for the privilege.
It's just not the way it's traditionally done. They are changing the rules to favor the house.
Quote:Yet another reason to prefer EZPG.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Any non-banking PGP game still has about double the house edge, regardless of how they handle commission on banked hands.
That's like saying, well, I stubbed my toe, may as well amputate the whole leg.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice1.4% is 1.4%; it makes no sense to give it up in PGP but not in blackjack.
It's not a question of it making sense; it's becoming a question of it still being offered in the near future. What makes no sense is always expecting and demanding what is no longer being offered.
I like to play UTH and Heads Up hold 'em, and I KNOW casinos change the TRIPS pay tables over time, causing a house edge spread that'll be wider than this 1.4%. I'm not going to call ahead and ask, "Hello MGM casino, - are you using the good 3-4-7-9 pay table at 0.74% on your Ultimate Texas Hold 'em Trips pay table, or the crappy 3-4-7-8 pay table at 3.34%?" If I get quads or a straight flush, I'll have a good session, if I get crap hands, I'll have a losing session.
It makes no sense to give it up here for this game, either, I suppose, and that I should quit gambling because the 3-4-7-9 Trips pay table is now next to impossible to find.
Quote: AxiomofChoiceBoth are sucker games if they don't have the right rules.
Every -EV game in the casino is a sucker game if you choose to look at it that way. All games have to have rules that cover the casino's light bill and salaries. Good seats at a concert that cost five times what the lousy seats cost are a bad AP move and a sucker bet, if we look at it like that.
Quote: PaigowdanIt's not a question of it making sense; it's becoming a question of it still being offered in the near future.
Are we talking about blackjack or PGP now?
My only point here is that PGP with no banking is no different from 6:5 blackjack. It is increasing the house edge by 1.4% and hoping that the suckers won't notice.
Quote: PaigowdanYes. And it is because the casino operator has to offer games that cover expenses, as sadly, the operator has to remain in business to offer the games to us.
In terms of an EDUCATED Pai Gow player - or any other EDUCATED game gambler, the EDUCATED person does not gamble. Does NOT spend time in a casino. At all. Period, end of story.
You're equating here partaking in recreational gambling as being un-EDUCATED. If so, it is un-educated to attend movies, restaurants, or shows, as they are also recreations that also cost money (-EV), and have no chance of a return.
As far as I know, casinos have been making money pretty much hand over fist for the past 2 decades. During that time, they have built extremely fancy palaces, all while offering 3:2 BJ and banking on Pai Gow Poker. So to claim that taking away player banking is necessary for the casino to stay in business is not much of a debate point, and in fact, really weakens the rest of your points.
When you attend movies, shows, and restaurants, you are getting something in return for your money. The movie may suck, the steak is overdone, and the show was lip synched, but you got something for your money. I'm not sure how you can claim any of these are -EV or, for that matter, +EV situations.
It doesn't matter if the player is educated or un-educated. The loss of player banking costs them some money. The fact that the un-educated are too dumb to realize they are losing a chance at money is irrelevant.
I want to gamble. And I want to play in the way I have the best chance to win. So I bank in Pai Gow. But according to your definitions, I am a recreational gambler, therefore I can't care about HE. If I care about HE, then I am educated, and I don't gamble.
Is this really what you believe?
Again, congrats on a great game and I am jealous of the income you are receiving now, and more importantly, what you will be getting in the future. I am surprised that other commissionless versions aren't violating your patent(s).
