Which paytable is more likely to attract players?
Poll
 | 3 votes (37.5%) | ||
| | 5 votes (62.5%) |
8 members have voted
March 16th, 2016 at 8:12:44 AM
permalink
Table A
6 pays 500 to 1.
7 pays 50 to 1
8 pays 25 to 1
9 pays 5 to 1
10 pays 2 to 1
11 pays even money
12-27 player loses
28 pays even money
29 pays 2 to 1
30 pays 3 to 1
31 pays 4 to 1
32 pays 5 to 1
33 pays 500 to 1
Table B
6 and 33 pays 50 to 1
7 and 32 pays 10 to 1
8 and 31 pays 5 to 1
9 and 30 pays 4 to 1
10 and 29 pays 3 to 1
11 and 28 pays 2 to 1
12 and 27 pays even money
Which one would attract more players. Assume you are playing with a single deck w iDeal shuffler. These payouts are for the 3 card totals with Aces always worth 11. (This is the bonus feature to Casino Over Under.)
The HE for table B is slightly lower but assuming a player didn't know that fact, would table A be more appealing? That 500 to 1 would be tough to resist. Is that too high for table games?
6 pays 500 to 1.
7 pays 50 to 1
8 pays 25 to 1
9 pays 5 to 1
10 pays 2 to 1
11 pays even money
12-27 player loses
28 pays even money
29 pays 2 to 1
30 pays 3 to 1
31 pays 4 to 1
32 pays 5 to 1
33 pays 500 to 1
Table B
6 and 33 pays 50 to 1
7 and 32 pays 10 to 1
8 and 31 pays 5 to 1
9 and 30 pays 4 to 1
10 and 29 pays 3 to 1
11 and 28 pays 2 to 1
12 and 27 pays even money
Which one would attract more players. Assume you are playing with a single deck w iDeal shuffler. These payouts are for the 3 card totals with Aces always worth 11. (This is the bonus feature to Casino Over Under.)
The HE for table B is slightly lower but assuming a player didn't know that fact, would table A be more appealing? That 500 to 1 would be tough to resist. Is that too high for table games?
March 16th, 2016 at 8:19:50 AM
permalink
1) I'm assuming this is a 3 card total for a blackjack side bet, since you didn't specifically say =P.
2) 500-1 would trigger a W2 on a $3 bet... Thus your 500-1 on a $5 bet would be $2500, but after taxes really be about 1850. Your 500-1 is more like 370-1 then, which sucks.
3) I'm more of a fan of balanced pay tables. Thus, instead of 1 insane chance of winning big (like the lottery) sprinkle that payout in to the rest of the more common hits to make players feel like they win a decent amount more often.
Thus, table B gets my vote... Though I'd still like to see better odds more evenly distributed.
What's the HE for these pay tables?
2) 500-1 would trigger a W2 on a $3 bet... Thus your 500-1 on a $5 bet would be $2500, but after taxes really be about 1850. Your 500-1 is more like 370-1 then, which sucks.
3) I'm more of a fan of balanced pay tables. Thus, instead of 1 insane chance of winning big (like the lottery) sprinkle that payout in to the rest of the more common hits to make players feel like they win a decent amount more often.
Thus, table B gets my vote... Though I'd still like to see better odds more evenly distributed.
What's the HE for these pay tables?
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
March 16th, 2016 at 8:42:28 AM
permalink
Assuming 10 and face cards count as zero? Most players will go for the 500-1 payoff I think. If you could make the 6 and 33 pay 100 to 1 and then increase some of the other payoffs I think would be better and as Romes said you would avoid taxables.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
March 16th, 2016 at 8:43:51 AM
permalink
I was assuming 10's and face cards were all a value of "10". Blackjack scoring except aces are always 11 for the side bet... How else would you get 32 other than A-A-10?
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
March 16th, 2016 at 8:51:31 AM
permalink
Thanks Romes. This is the bonus bet for my game Casino Over Under. The bonus in my game is placed before you see a card. Then after it's placed you get three cards and the three card total determines the outcome w aces always 11. I made the bonus the way I did b/c I wanted to give casinos free reign to play with the odds to make the HE whatever they want. I have a great spreadsheet tool that lets you change the number of decks and payout odds and it tells you the corresponding HE. So that way a casino can make the HE whatever they want. the HE for table A is 16.34%. The HE for table B is 11.8%. (Assuming single deck)
March 16th, 2016 at 8:52:35 AM
permalink
My issue with table A is that you might lose too quickly... So players might start to bet it, but stop after they lose too much (where I am with the Fortune bet). Would need frequency and total return esque charts to make an appropriate determination
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
March 16th, 2016 at 8:53:00 AM
permalink
Face cards are worth 10
March 16th, 2016 at 8:55:37 AM
permalink
I guess my question wasn't clear enough. I am looking for which table would be more attractive to an average player. Actually my game is tailored to new and novice players. So which one do you feel those type of players would find to be more appealing.
March 16th, 2016 at 8:57:32 AM
permalink
Quote: RomesWhat's the HE for these pay tables?
A is 16.3439%; B is 11.8089%
Here are the counts by value:
| 6 | 4 |
| 7 | 24 |
| 8 | 48 |
| 9 | 92 |
| 10 | 136 |
| 11 | 200 |
| 12 | 268 |
| 13 | 352 |
| 14 | 512 |
| 15 | 740 |
| 16 | 896 |
| 17 | 1080 |
| 18 | 1196 |
| 19 | 1336 |
| 20 | 1408 |
| 21 | 1508 |
| 22 | 1800 |
| 23 | 1856 |
| 24 | 1652 |
| 25 | 1472 |
| 26 | 1264 |
| 27 | 1108 |
| 28 | 920 |
| 29 | 784 |
| 30 | 840 |
| 31 | 504 |
| 32 | 96 |
| 33 | 4 |
Last edited by: ThatDonGuy on Mar 16, 2016
March 16th, 2016 at 9:04:27 AM
permalink
Players will get killed using Table A. 16.3% house edge. Way too top heavy. Almost 40% house edge if they don't hit a 50 or 500 payout which only happens 1 in 690 hands.
Edit to Add: My ways are 3 times what they should be as I just edited my original spreadsheet.
A
B
Edit to Add: My ways are 3 times what they should be as I just edited my original spreadsheet.
A
| Hand | Ways | Probability | Pays | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | 0.000180995 | 500 | 0.090497738 |
| 7 | 72 | 0.001085973 | 50 | 0.054298643 |
| 8 | 144 | 0.002171946 | 25 | 0.054298643 |
| 9 | 276 | 0.004162896 | 5 | 0.02081448 |
| 10 | 408 | 0.006153846 | 2 | 0.012307692 |
| 11 | 600 | 0.009049774 | 1 | 0.009049774 |
| 12 | 804 | 0.012126697 | -1 | -0.012126697 |
| 27 | 3324 | 0.050135747 | -1 | -0.050135747 |
| 28 | 2760 | 0.041628959 | 1 | 0.041628959 |
| 29 | 2352 | 0.035475113 | 2 | 0.070950226 |
| 30 | 2520 | 0.03800905 | 3 | 0.114027149 |
| 31 | 1512 | 0.02280543 | 4 | 0.091221719 |
| 32 | 288 | 0.004343891 | 5 | 0.021719457 |
| 33 | 12 | 0.000180995 | 500 | 0.090497738 |
| 13-26 | 51216 | 0.772488688 | -1 | -0.772488688 |
| Total | 66300 | 1 | -0.163438914 |
B
| Hand | Ways | Probability | Pays | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | 0.000180995 | 50 | 0.009049774 |
| 7 | 72 | 0.001085973 | 10 | 0.010859729 |
| 8 | 144 | 0.002171946 | 5 | 0.010859729 |
| 9 | 276 | 0.004162896 | 4 | 0.016651584 |
| 10 | 408 | 0.006153846 | 3 | 0.018461538 |
| 11 | 600 | 0.009049774 | 2 | 0.018099548 |
| 12 | 804 | 0.012126697 | 1 | 0.012126697 |
| 27 | 3324 | 0.050135747 | 1 | 0.050135747 |
| 28 | 2760 | 0.041628959 | 2 | 0.083257919 |
| 29 | 2352 | 0.035475113 | 3 | 0.106425339 |
| 30 | 2520 | 0.03800905 | 4 | 0.152036199 |
| 31 | 1512 | 0.02280543 | 5 | 0.114027149 |
| 32 | 288 | 0.004343891 | 10 | 0.043438914 |
| 33 | 12 | 0.000180995 | 50 | 0.009049774 |
| 13-26 | 51216 | 0.772488688 | -1 | -0.772488688 |
| Total | 66300 | 1 | -0.11800905 |
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
March 16th, 2016 at 9:17:39 AM
permalink
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4iO8iAYDCeksUXqdasNyB7961d-Wboo5SIVt2hgdWE/edit?usp=sharing
That link is the math that supports Table A having a HE of 16.34% (Single deck)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fkZpx9Ftdpq3IgibKc3eRzSt2sSj-fwzmHgM-_wR094/edit?usp=sharing
That is the link to support Table B having a HE of 11.8% (single deck)
That link is the math that supports Table A having a HE of 16.34% (Single deck)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fkZpx9Ftdpq3IgibKc3eRzSt2sSj-fwzmHgM-_wR094/edit?usp=sharing
That is the link to support Table B having a HE of 11.8% (single deck)
March 16th, 2016 at 9:23:48 AM
permalink
These are just two of the many variations that have been discussed w various casinos. I picked these two b/c they were so different. One is more balance than the other and one is way more top heavy. I would love to know what the perfect combination is but I guess that is a matter of taste. I posted this to get what you guys think. Thanks to those who have answered.
Also, the most mathematically sound may not necessarily be the most appealing to new and novice players.
Also, the most mathematically sound may not necessarily be the most appealing to new and novice players.
March 16th, 2016 at 9:55:10 AM
permalink
Your original question is a designer's $64k question - whether to offer jackpot, a long shot (500/1 to 100/1), a nice hit (50/1 thru 20/1) or flat. There are many current bets around that offer all of these.
(a) Various jackpot bets are already around that use 3-cards (but from multiple decks) so suited trips etc. can be created - bet =£1/50p
(b) The obvious long shot that seems to work is Top 3 (270 to 90/1 for Suited Trips, Str Flush and Trips) - max bet = £10.
(c) Compare this with bets such as Pair+ (3CP) - c.f straight up in roulette, say £100.
(d) Prime (paying 3/1 or 4/1) or 21+3 (paying 9/1).
Personally I think your House Edge is way too high and the house would make more money offering a max of 20, 25 or 50/1 at about 3-5%. However sometimes playing with the maths will determine the exact payout values. The other thing is using fewer values (e.g. 1 2 5 20) might be easier for the dealer.
As you say the mathematical analysis doesn't always get the right answer - Top 3, with a high house edge, has been relatively popular with players.
This site gives a good list of some side-bets used in the UK.
http://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/blackjacktop3.html
(a) Various jackpot bets are already around that use 3-cards (but from multiple decks) so suited trips etc. can be created - bet =£1/50p
(b) The obvious long shot that seems to work is Top 3 (270 to 90/1 for Suited Trips, Str Flush and Trips) - max bet = £10.
(c) Compare this with bets such as Pair+ (3CP) - c.f straight up in roulette, say £100.
(d) Prime (paying 3/1 or 4/1) or 21+3 (paying 9/1).
Personally I think your House Edge is way too high and the house would make more money offering a max of 20, 25 or 50/1 at about 3-5%. However sometimes playing with the maths will determine the exact payout values. The other thing is using fewer values (e.g. 1 2 5 20) might be easier for the dealer.
As you say the mathematical analysis doesn't always get the right answer - Top 3, with a high house edge, has been relatively popular with players.
This site gives a good list of some side-bets used in the UK.
http://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/blackjacktop3.html
March 16th, 2016 at 9:58:02 AM
permalink
There are some general guidelines:
1. Short (favoring pay table B), so that the players and dealers can sink their teeth into it as easier.
2. Bottom-heavy, so that players feel some return to them during their sessions.
If you look at the popularity of the Pair Plus side bet on Three Card Poker, this says a lot. This side bet has a very high patronage rate, is elegant, and just works.
1. Short (favoring pay table B), so that the players and dealers can sink their teeth into it as easier.
2. Bottom-heavy, so that players feel some return to them during their sessions.
If you look at the popularity of the Pair Plus side bet on Three Card Poker, this says a lot. This side bet has a very high patronage rate, is elegant, and just works.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
March 16th, 2016 at 10:03:24 AM
permalink
Great analysis charliepatrick. My game is a counting game so I wanted to stay away from anything poker like such as trips or a flush of any kind. Just my personal strategy to keep things very simple.
I agree these HE %'s are high which is why I prefer using 6 decks. That brings the table B way down to just over 5%.
Thanks for the site.
I agree these HE %'s are high which is why I prefer using 6 decks. That brings the table B way down to just over 5%.
Thanks for the site.
March 16th, 2016 at 10:04:45 AM
permalink
Thanks Paigowdan. I haven't played three card in a long time. I forget how pair plus works. I will check it out.
March 16th, 2016 at 10:16:16 AM
permalink
Double digit house edge with the good payoffs being a bit lop sided... Most of the time players will spend losing. Do you know what the hit rate is?
Definitely ditch the higher lop sided pay table. Also, up the payouts of the more average hands a bit. Make the HE something like 5%. We don't need more 10%+ house edges in the world, that's just awful.
Definitely ditch the higher lop sided pay table. Also, up the payouts of the more average hands a bit. Make the HE something like 5%. We don't need more 10%+ house edges in the world, that's just awful.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
March 16th, 2016 at 10:16:20 AM
permalink
You're welcome.
Pair Plus is considered a model side bet because it is clear, short, sensible, and has a good hit rate. More than half of the player return should come from "session-seen" hand rankings.
A 500:1 top payout is not a risk to a large operator, but might scare a small card room; besides, you want to leave something for a progressive table. A progressive is possible with colored or suited 6's and 33's as the rare top triggers.
The other items is that as a count-based game, well, is the side bet game countable from a shoe? If the game gets hit it gets taken out. AP work on a game is always effort well spent. Solutions here include CSMs and single deck machine dealt packets of cards.
Pair Plus is considered a model side bet because it is clear, short, sensible, and has a good hit rate. More than half of the player return should come from "session-seen" hand rankings.
A 500:1 top payout is not a risk to a large operator, but might scare a small card room; besides, you want to leave something for a progressive table. A progressive is possible with colored or suited 6's and 33's as the rare top triggers.
The other items is that as a count-based game, well, is the side bet game countable from a shoe? If the game gets hit it gets taken out. AP work on a game is always effort well spent. Solutions here include CSMs and single deck machine dealt packets of cards.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
March 17th, 2016 at 7:12:17 AM
permalink
I had Joe Shipman do EOR analysis. That guy is great. If anyone needs any math done he is amazing. The game's vulnerability is very similar to BJ. Your solutions are dead on and I even have some additional measures for using the higher number of decks. I also heard something very interesting from a few different casino execs about card counting. I was quite surprised by this. Apparently, there has been so much advancement in technology on both sides of the game that classic counters are not as big an issue as other strategies. I was told they are easier to catch then they used to be and sometimes they can expose them by toying with the betting limits. I was told there are a lot of times the casino knows who they are and let them do it anyway with a close eye on them and if they get out of hand they take action. I was told they nail them in different ways such as comps. So between the measures I was told to take and the interesting information I learned, I feel real good about that subject.
March 17th, 2016 at 7:21:51 AM
permalink
Romes I agree with you 100%. If you look at my app that tells you what I felt was best to use. However, the fact that my experience is so limited was part of the reason why I set the bonus up to give casinos freedom to make the corresponding HE whatever they want. Just by modifying the odds on the pay table you can change it to the exact HE you want. One of the main reasons I posted this is I just heard from one of the biggest casinos I have talked to yet and they were the ones that suggested that top one. I didn't know something like that was even an option. I was told in Vegas if my HE on the bonus is under 10% forget it. I was surprised by that but what the heck do I know. I am like a sponge in the process. I try to pick things up every day b/c other than occasional gambling sessions I am as green as it gets.
March 17th, 2016 at 9:50:00 AM
permalink
Which are you using in Mississippi? Rae you now doing this single deck everywhere?
.
March 17th, 2016 at 10:30:36 AM
permalink
I think all of the voters so far besides myself are 100% wrong. Table A will attract many more players because of the big potential jackpot.
The problem is that you will lose those players much quicker and their experience will be worse than if they played Table B.
The problem is that you will lose those players much quicker and their experience will be worse than if they played Table B.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
March 17th, 2016 at 10:59:22 AM
permalink
Quote: DRichI think all of the voters so far besides myself are 100% wrong. Table A will attract many more players because of the big potential jackpot.
The problem is that you will lose those players much quicker and their experience will be worse than if they played Table B.
This doesn't account for:
1. You actually need a bottom heavy frequent hit rate on a side bet to satisfy players.
2. You'll need to justify a progressive, and it is harder to do if the felt side bet competes or offers progressive-like payouts.
3. Smaller card rooms don't like jackpot-like felt-based side bets, and often won't install games that give them too much exposure.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
March 17th, 2016 at 11:10:17 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanThis doesn't account for:
1. You actually need a bottom heavy frequent hit rate on a side bet to satisfy players.
2. You'll need to justify a progressive, and it is harder to do if the felt side bet competes or offers progressive-like payouts.
3. Smaller card rooms don't like jackpot-like felt-based side bets, and often won't install games that give them too much exposure.
I agree completely, but the question was "What attracts players". The average casino player isn't walking around plotting paybacks on graph paper looking for asymptotes, they are looking for big wins. They do not understand the concepts of variance and volatility although they clearly experience them.
I think the perfect analogy would be which attracts more players:
$1 3 coin 3 Reel Double Diamond Megabucks machine
or
$1 3 coin 3 Reel Double Diamond standalone machine
We can all agree that the better value and better time on device will be the stand alone game but yet if you put those two machines next to each other the Megabucks would attract more players.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
March 17th, 2016 at 1:11:18 PM
permalink
Mr suit: I am using whatever ones those in charge of the field trial at Magnolia Bluffs say we should use. It appears we are going in with table B that pays 50 to 1 for the big payout but if they want to change I am ready and willing.
I have to give credit to Drich as he was one of the few that answered in the manner I was hoping for. I agree that new and novice players are not going to be looking at my game or any other any where near the level that some of you gentlemen have examined it. However, I always love hearing the analysis and learning from it so I got the bonus plan. (Anyone remember Ford Fairlane? Man, time flies!!)
I have to give credit to Drich as he was one of the few that answered in the manner I was hoping for. I agree that new and novice players are not going to be looking at my game or any other any where near the level that some of you gentlemen have examined it. However, I always love hearing the analysis and learning from it so I got the bonus plan. (Anyone remember Ford Fairlane? Man, time flies!!)
March 17th, 2016 at 1:16:27 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichI think all of the voters so far besides myself are 100% wrong. Table A will attract many more players because of the big potential jackpot.
The problem is that you will lose those players much quicker and their experience will be worse than if they played Table B.
I forgot to vote but as i said in my earlier post i think most gamblers will go for the big payout in table A.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
March 17th, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichI agree completely, but the question was "What attracts players". The average casino player isn't walking around plotting paybacks on graph paper looking for asymptotes, they are looking for big wins. They do not understand the concepts of variance and volatility although they clearly experience them.
Correct, they are not walking around pre-judging the bets on such mathematical criteria. They will, however, feel the effect of a well-designed side bet versus a poorly-designed side bet after trying it. The goal as designer is to keep them playing your game with bets that feel good to the player without necessarily knowing the technical reasons why.
Quote: DRichWe can all agree that the better value and better time on device will be the stand alone game but yet if you put those two machines next to each other the Megabucks would attract more players.
I anticipate that most tables offered will be with progressives. The word I have gotten from both distributors and operators is that casino players play progressives on the chance to win big (and that their lives would be ruined if they did NOT have the option when they got that big hand) - and that they patronize table progressives in a BIG way. Think of it this way: it is a lottery ticket for just a dollar, and on the next hand.
Operators like offering progressives because of the higher house edge, the additional income, and because large payouts are paid from a player meter pool, reducing their own exposure.
We wish the kobalj the best!
Last edited by: Paigowdan on Mar 17, 2016
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
