CA Pai Gow
November 23rd, 2016 at 9:45:33 PM
permalink
I just played Pai Gow a few days ago in LA and because of California laws governing table games, the game's structured a lot differently than it is in Vegas.
I'm just gaining an understanding of how it's played, so I'll give a simple overview in the hopes that I can hash out more of the rule nuances as I gain more experience.
I've heard that in California (at least in casinos on non-Native American land), players can only play against other players and not against the house, by law.
Presumably to comply with this rule, the house places a player with a large bank at one of the players' spaces at the table and the house dealer is responsible for dealing the game and taking collections, rakes, etc. But payed or taken bets, while distributed by the house dealer, are taken out of the house-player's bank and not the dealer's tray.
To start out simply, under the rules of the casino that I played at, if I want to place a bet at a $10 min-$10k or $20k max table, the house requires that I pay a dollar collection for every hand for any bet from $10-100, a $2 collection every hand for bets from $101-200, $3 for up to $300 and so on. The house-player banks and so wins copy hands and 0-0 ties.
Wins and losses are paid and taken at even money - no commissions - but the house keeps the collection either way. Pushes are neither paid nor taken but the house also keeps the collection nonetheless.
There are different rules when it comes to players banking, too, which I don't fully understand yet.
But as an introductory lesson, could one's expected loss, per hand, be calculated if their strategy and the house way are specified? (E.g., if they're playing, say, JB advanced, JB simple, optimally, or if they stuck to playing exactly according to the casino's house way?
If so, how would one go about calculating the theoretical loss per hand?
The house-player, in this scenario, IS constrained to playing the house way. They don't set their own hands -- the house dealer takes their tiles and sets them the house way after all of the other players have set their hands, just as a typical dealer would do most elsewhere.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm just gaining an understanding of how it's played, so I'll give a simple overview in the hopes that I can hash out more of the rule nuances as I gain more experience.
I've heard that in California (at least in casinos on non-Native American land), players can only play against other players and not against the house, by law.
Presumably to comply with this rule, the house places a player with a large bank at one of the players' spaces at the table and the house dealer is responsible for dealing the game and taking collections, rakes, etc. But payed or taken bets, while distributed by the house dealer, are taken out of the house-player's bank and not the dealer's tray.
To start out simply, under the rules of the casino that I played at, if I want to place a bet at a $10 min-$10k or $20k max table, the house requires that I pay a dollar collection for every hand for any bet from $10-100, a $2 collection every hand for bets from $101-200, $3 for up to $300 and so on. The house-player banks and so wins copy hands and 0-0 ties.
Wins and losses are paid and taken at even money - no commissions - but the house keeps the collection either way. Pushes are neither paid nor taken but the house also keeps the collection nonetheless.
There are different rules when it comes to players banking, too, which I don't fully understand yet.
But as an introductory lesson, could one's expected loss, per hand, be calculated if their strategy and the house way are specified? (E.g., if they're playing, say, JB advanced, JB simple, optimally, or if they stuck to playing exactly according to the casino's house way?
If so, how would one go about calculating the theoretical loss per hand?
The house-player, in this scenario, IS constrained to playing the house way. They don't set their own hands -- the house dealer takes their tiles and sets them the house way after all of the other players have set their hands, just as a typical dealer would do most elsewhere.
Happy Thanksgiving!
November 24th, 2016 at 2:14:48 AM
permalink
You can use the Pai Gow Tiles Calculator, select the dealer and player strategy, choose None for the commission, and then subtract 1% to 10% from the result (depending on how much you are betting).
So for example, if:
- you are betting an even multiple of $100 per hand (so that the fee is at its minimum of 1%)
- you are not banking
- the banker is using the Traditional Way
- you are playing optimally against the banker's strategy,
then there is a 1.1866% house edge and you can expect to lose an average of $1.1866 per hand: $1 from the fee plus 18.66 cents from the game itself.
The house way is most likely the Traditional Way, perhaps with some additional exceptions. While I've never played California Pai Gow, it has been my experience that house way strategies are difficult to pin down because (1) they are guarded like some big secret by the casino for some ridiculous reason, and/or (2) they are nebulous and vary from dealer to dealer or pit boss to pit boss.
So for example, if:
- you are betting an even multiple of $100 per hand (so that the fee is at its minimum of 1%)
- you are not banking
- the banker is using the Traditional Way
- you are playing optimally against the banker's strategy,
then there is a 1.1866% house edge and you can expect to lose an average of $1.1866 per hand: $1 from the fee plus 18.66 cents from the game itself.
The house way is most likely the Traditional Way, perhaps with some additional exceptions. While I've never played California Pai Gow, it has been my experience that house way strategies are difficult to pin down because (1) they are guarded like some big secret by the casino for some ridiculous reason, and/or (2) they are nebulous and vary from dealer to dealer or pit boss to pit boss.
November 26th, 2016 at 10:39:02 PM
permalink
So the minimum we could expect to lose per hand, assuming we're doing the things you listed with the exception of the first, would be $1.01866/hand because (1) we'd make as small a bet as possible because any bet in and of itself is still working against a .1866% house edge (so we'd bet $10 and lose 1.866cts/hand), and (2) we give up the $1 fee every time, bringing the total expected loss to $1.01866?
And, if that's correct, is the reason our bet is still working against a house edge is that the advantages afforded the house and house-banker (taking the $1 collection, winning copy hands and 0-0 ties) offset the advantages afforded the player, like being able to play a more efficient strategy than the house way and getting paid for winning bets at even money instead of 19:20?
Another quirk is that, as I understand it so far, you can bank, but the house-player will not play when you do; instead, you have to book other players' action and/or bet against yourself by 'playing' other seats. If you do that, though, those hands must be set the house way and the dealer takes care of that (e.g., if you pick up all four tens, you can't ask to play 0-0).
I don't have a great understanding of the rule nuances yet, but it seems like, at least for $100 bets and less, the rule is that the banker pays a $3 collection (as opposed to $1) when banking. The house dealer takes that collection and drops it into their tray. The house-player does the same thing when they bank (pays the collection), but the money isn't really moving between counterparties, I'd assume, because the house-player pays it from their bank and the dealer collects it in their tray.
Now, by my math, if the collection stayed at $3; if you were playing optimally against the Traditional Way; if you were banking; and if there were no commission, any size bet over $177.57 would be +EV; the $3 fee sets you back quite a bit, but if it didn't change as bet sizes got bigger than it could be overcome: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if b were our bet size, then couldn't the breakeven bet be calculated by calculating the EV for a bet size "b", setting that equal to zero and then solving for b? E.g.:
(.302521)(b) + .285626(-b) - 3
[(b)(.016895) - 3]
[(b)(.016895) - 3] = 0
b = 3 / .016895 = 177.57
So I wouldn't be surprised if the bankers' fee were also higher for larger bets. I have to check into it more, though. The gameplay is a lot different and for me right now, I'm still at a loss in trying to understand everything that's going on when I'm at a full table and a lot of things are happening at a fast pace. I haven't really seen any of these rule variations in other casinos in really any other states.
And, if that's correct, is the reason our bet is still working against a house edge is that the advantages afforded the house and house-banker (taking the $1 collection, winning copy hands and 0-0 ties) offset the advantages afforded the player, like being able to play a more efficient strategy than the house way and getting paid for winning bets at even money instead of 19:20?
Another quirk is that, as I understand it so far, you can bank, but the house-player will not play when you do; instead, you have to book other players' action and/or bet against yourself by 'playing' other seats. If you do that, though, those hands must be set the house way and the dealer takes care of that (e.g., if you pick up all four tens, you can't ask to play 0-0).
I don't have a great understanding of the rule nuances yet, but it seems like, at least for $100 bets and less, the rule is that the banker pays a $3 collection (as opposed to $1) when banking. The house dealer takes that collection and drops it into their tray. The house-player does the same thing when they bank (pays the collection), but the money isn't really moving between counterparties, I'd assume, because the house-player pays it from their bank and the dealer collects it in their tray.
Now, by my math, if the collection stayed at $3; if you were playing optimally against the Traditional Way; if you were banking; and if there were no commission, any size bet over $177.57 would be +EV; the $3 fee sets you back quite a bit, but if it didn't change as bet sizes got bigger than it could be overcome: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if b were our bet size, then couldn't the breakeven bet be calculated by calculating the EV for a bet size "b", setting that equal to zero and then solving for b? E.g.:
(.302521)(b) + .285626(-b) - 3
[(b)(.016895) - 3]
[(b)(.016895) - 3] = 0
b = 3 / .016895 = 177.57
So I wouldn't be surprised if the bankers' fee were also higher for larger bets. I have to check into it more, though. The gameplay is a lot different and for me right now, I'm still at a loss in trying to understand everything that's going on when I'm at a full table and a lot of things are happening at a fast pace. I haven't really seen any of these rule variations in other casinos in really any other states.
