Quik Baccarat at Palace station
On the layout, there is "51 to 1" for 0, "26 to 1" for 18, and "Quik Hit" for "1-2-3-15-16-17", 2 to 1 (??).
Does anyone know the rules?
I have some photos but don't know how to post them here.
then use brackets "[]" around IMG=your pasted image address from above and it will show it in your reply.
Quote: MathExtremistAre the side bets supposed to go on the line? What happens when a player seated at 1 or 2 wants to bet on 0? That layout looks like it will cause procedure problems.
Its the same with the URWay Egalite side bet on Baccarat/Punto Banco aswell. If you want to make certain tie bets you have to reach halfway across the table. I have no idea how they track who has bet what at a full table. Like you say, it's a procedural nightmare.
It's not the same as U.R.E. I visited Palace Station today and asked. This is one wager that has a pay table that pays if the hand result is 0, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17 or 18. The PB complained about the challenges of paying 51-to-1 if the result of the hand was a 0-0 tie, especially if the player wagers mixed-denomination chips. I agree. That's a stupid payout.Quote: KalelIts the same with the URWay Egalite side bet on Baccarat/Punto Banco aswell. If you want to make certain tie bets you have to reach halfway across the table. I have no idea how they track who has bet what at a full table. Like you say, it's a procedural nightmare.
Quote: teliotIt's not the same as U.R.E. I visited Palace Station today and asked. This is one wager that has a pay table that pays if the hand result is 0, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17 or 18. The PB complained about the challenges of paying 51-to-1 if the result of the hand was a 0-0 tie, especially if the player wagers mixed-denomination chips. I agree. That's a stupid payout.
I agree, 51-1 is a stupid payout. As a dealer, i'd hate calculating that, and 26-1. When we were deciding on the payouts for our game, we had to compromise on the optimal house edge to keep the payouts easy round figures, even if it meant pushing the HE up a bit high. We thought it was more important to make it easy for the dealers with a round figure, rather than paying something like 37-1.
Regarding the layout, and players having to reach across to place their bets, we also had similar issues. Not procedurally ideal, but not a nightmare imo. Players can pass their chips to the dealer to place if they can't reach, and if there's too many people placing bets to remember who's is who, then that's a good problem to have!
No. 51-to-1 is not a bet by itself. In U.R.E., Tie 0-0 pays 150-to-1 and has a 12.45% H/A.Quote: UCivanIs 51 to 1 on 0-0 tie a stand-alone bet? Isn't it countable?
This thing at Palace Station is a single side bet that pays if the outcome of totaling the two baccarat hands is 0, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, or 18.
Oh, I get it now. The layout is F**d up. It should be 51-for-1 and 26-for-1 and 2-for-1 (instead of 51-to-1, 26-to-1 and 2-to-1). If this game pays "to" instead of "for" then the player has an edge of 10.32% over the house. If the layout is fixed so that the payouts are "for" then this bet has a house edge of 8.16%.Quote: jopkeAny word on when this is going live?
My math could be wrong here. I'll re-do my math and double check using a different approach. Stay tuned.
Quote: teliotOh, I get it now. The layout is F**d up. It should be 51-for-1 and 26-for-1 and 2-for-1 (instead of 51-to-1, 26-to-1 and 2-to-1). If this game pays "to" instead of "for" then the player has an edge of 10.32% over the house. If the layout is fixed so that the payouts are "for" then this bet has a house edge of 8.16%.
My math could be wrong here. I'll re-do my math and double check using a different approach. Stay tuned.
Intuitively that doesn't sound right. An 18% difference for a 2% increase in pay?
Going from 1-to-1 to 2-to-1 on 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17 is not a 2% increase in pay.Quote: DRichIntuitively that doesn't sound right. An 18% difference for a 2% increase in pay?
I feel like people are just not with it today, somehow.
I double checked my work. Seems right.
Tie at 0-0 50 to 1
18 25 to 1
1,2,3,15,16,17 2 to 1
Damn layout.
Tie bet pays 9-for-1. It's very traditional to pay "for-1" on the Tie bet. Just look under "google images" and you'll see. In fact, just look at the images on the first page of this thread and you will see that the Tie bet pays 9-for-1 on that layout.Quote: ShineyShineIt would be pretty unusual for a table game to pay 'for' 1, instead of 'to' 1, yeah? I've never seen it.
I swear, I am in some kind of bizarro universe right now with these comments. Is nothing obvious?
Quote: teliotTie bet pays 9-for-1. It's very traditional to pay "for-1" on the Tie bet. Just look under "google images" and you'll see.
That's interesting, never knew that.
Excuse me if this is a silly question, but if it pays 'for' 1, i assume the dealer pays out, then takes the stake?
Quote: teliotTie bet pays 9-for-1. It's very traditional to pay "for-1" on the Tie bet. Just look under "google images" and you'll see. In fact, just look at the images on the first page of this thread and you will see that the Tie bet pays 9-for-1 on that layout.
I swear, I am in some kind of bizarro universe right now with these comments. Is nothing obvious?
Yep, you're quite right, didn't notice that. In my defence, i've had nearly a bottle of wine.
No problem. Wine is good. Vodka myself.Quote: ShineyShineYep, you're quite right, didn't notice that. In my defence, i've had nearly a bottle of wine.
http://ungamingequipment.net/
Yes.Quote: ShineyShineThat's interesting, never knew that.
Excuse me if this is a silly question, but if it pays 'for' 1, i assume the dealer pays out, then takes the stake?
Quote: teliotYes.
Ok, cheers. Thought so, just wanted to double check.
As a dealer, i'm sure i'd keep forgetting to take the stake the first few times dealing this, as it would be so unfamiliar. Similar to how i always forgot to hit soft 17 when i worked in the only casino that had that rule a few years ago, till i got used to it.
Quote: teliotQuik baccarat:
http://ungamingequipment.net/
Must be my phone access to the website, but the verbage written describing how Quik Baccarat works sounds nothing like the bet described. What am I missing?
The 51 to 1 problem that was brought up earlier absolutely requires a new layout to be printed and installed. There is no possible rebuttal when a player complains that they were shorted a unit. The layout clearly does not say "51 for 1". "51 for 1" is not the same as "51 to 1". The gaming commission would likely have a problem with it.
This is a definite problem with the table layout.Quote: TriathlonToddAnother "problem" I see with the layout is that the player and banker bets are the same distance away from the dealer. I would think that this would lead to dealers accidentally sweeping up the wrong bets. A lot of bacc tables will have the banker bets be closer to the dealer and the player bets be closer the customer. This also helps with side bets that are dependent on that side winning, like the Fortune ones. Does this "problem" require correction? No, just the dealer can't go on autopilot.
As I mentioned above, the game doesn't pay 51-to-1. That is an error that gives a 10%+ player edge. When it is fixed, the layout will either say "50-to-1" or "51-for-1" (same for the other payouts 25-to-1 and 1-to-1).Quote:The 51 to 1 problem that was brought up earlier absolutely requires a new layout to be printed and installed. There is no possible rebuttal when a player complains that they were shorted a unit. The layout clearly does not say "51 for 1". "51 for 1" is not the same as "51 to 1". The gaming commission would likely have a problem with it.
This is the company that markets the bet, but the bet is not listed on their website for some reason.Quote: ParadigmMust be my phone access to the website, but the verbage written describing how Quik Baccarat works sounds nothing like the bet described. What am I missing?
Quote: teliotIt's not the same as U.R.E. I visited Palace Station today and asked. This is one wager that has a pay table that pays if the hand result is 0, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17 or 18. The PB complained about the challenges of paying 51-to-1 if the result of the hand was a 0-0 tie, especially if the player wagers mixed-denomination chips. I agree. That's a stupid payout.
No I meant its the same as URway in the way that to place the side bet you could potentially have to reach across the whole table and it would be difficult for staff to keep track of who has bet on which number at a full table. It would be much more efficient if they had the tie numbers printed in front of each players box.
Quote: teliotYou don't reach across the whole table you just make your bet on the part of the bar that's in front of your betting spot. Unless by reaching across the whole table you mean reaching four inches.
Where I play URway there is one strip with the numbers labelled 0 to 9. This spans across the whole table. If you are in first base and want to bet the tie 9 you have to stretch across the whole table.
If he is exclusively talking about U.R. Egalite, then he is O.T. and correct. If he is saying there is any resemblance to the wagering on URE and this wager at Palace Station, that is not correct.Quote: MathExtremistYou guys are talking past each other about two different bets (and layouts)...
