Payout Changes to Mississippi Stud

I visited Harrahs Cherokee Casino in NC on several occasions during the past 2 weeks, and I checked out all of their table games on multiple occasions. I saw this at their Mississippi Stud Tables:

1. "Payouts limited to $50,000" This statement was immediately below the payout tables.
2. Royal Flush payout was 800 (has standardly been 500)
3. The table limits were $10 - $25, or during busy periods the limits on some tables were raised to $15 - $25.
4. The shuffler dealt the community cards 1st (a packet of 3 cards), then the players cards (packets of 2 cards)
5. When decks were changed out there was a noticeable stoppage of play while the used decks were placed in special cases and marked with information on date and time of usage. Presumably they were to be shipped to a forensics facility and examined for signs of being marked or altered.

The most significant change, IMO, is that payoff is capped at $50,000. Given the table limits, at no time will a player's royal flush actually be paid off at 800-1 if they use the optimum betting strategy, as posted on WOO. Indeed, if the unit bet size is $15 or higher, a royal flush will always be paid off at less than the 500-1 payout that is reported on the WOO payout tables.

The standard house edge on Mississippi Stud is 4.9149%. However, with the payout limited to $50,000 and the higher Royal Flush payout, here is the house edge for Mississippi Stud as a function of bet size:

Unit Bet	House Edge
$10	4.761%
$15	5.018%
$20	5.146%
$25	5.223%
$50	5.377%

At Unit Bets above $60 (if they are allowed) the $50,000 payout cap will reduce the effective payouts on straight flushes as well. I haven't calculated those cases, because I don't know if the same payout cap would be operative at tables with higher limits.

I've checked the WOO basic strategy rules. For unit bets of $50 or less, I don't believe the existence of this payout cap will require a change in betting strategy.

Can others confirm whether the Mississippi Stud payout rules I've just mentioned are being used elsewhere? Are they only on placements with the new shufflers that deal the community cards first? Are they specific to Indian casinos or in use more widely? Any max table limits >$25 ?

It's common to see these "$50,000 aggregate" payout signs on these tables.

I've never seen the 800 to 1 payout for a royal,but many places have a max payout of 25k and I've even seen a max payout of 15k.
Are you sure it was was Mississippi stud and not Cajun Stud ,its basically the same game and it has 5 or 6 different paytables.

Quote: gordonm888

Can others confirm whether the Mississippi Stud payout rules I've just mentioned are being used elsewhere? Are they only on placements with the new shufflers that deal the community cards first? Are they specific to Indian casinos or in use more widely? Any max table limits >$25 ?

I too would like to hear a confirmation on that. These aggregate wins, which I hate, are, sadly, pretty common. Most of these big corporations should have no difficulty paying out a 50K to 80K jackpot.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

It's common to see these "$50,000 aggregate" payout signs on these tables.

You have used the word "aggregate." Does "aggregate" mean that the aggregate payout to all players at the table is limited? Or that the payout to any single player is limited?

Mississippi Stud is an unusual case because of its bet structure and payout table. A "Payout limited to $50,000" at a $15 minimum table means that, even at minimum table stakes, the posted payout for royal flushes will never be given.

Quote: Hunterhill

Are you sure it was was Mississippi stud and not Cajun Stud ,its basically the same game and it has 5 or 6 different paytables.

100% certain it was Mississippi Stud. I played at these tables on two different weekends.

Quote: gordonm888

You have used the word "aggregate." Does "aggregate" mean that the aggregate payout to all players at the table is limited? Or that the payout to any single player is limited?

Mississippi Stud is an unusual case because of its bet structure and payout table. A "Payout limited to $50,000" at a $15 minimum table means that, even at minimum table stakes, the posted payout for royal flushes will never be given.

I have seen some places say aggregate per player,and some just say aggregate.
You are correct though as far as if a player follows proper basic strategy,he will ve shorted on the royal payout depending on table mininmum.
I always thought this was deceptive.

Quote: gordonm888

You have used the word "aggregate." Does "aggregate" mean that the aggregate payout to all players at the table is limited? Or that the payout to any single player is limited?

Mississippi Stud is an unusual case because of its bet structure and payout table. A "Payout limited to $50,000" at a $15 minimum table means that, even at minimum table stakes, the posted payout for royal flushes will never be given.

I would think all are per player. Could you imagine this scenario:

Player 1 betting $100 gets dealt A, K of spades. The board comes Q, J, 10 spades. Player one gets the max $50,000 for his royal. Player 2's cards are revealed to be 9, 8 spades for a straight flush and gets nothing!

Quote: Hunterhill

I have seen some places say aggregate per player,and some just say aggregate.
You are correct though as far as if a player follows proper basic strategy,he will ve shorted on the royal payout depending on table minimum.
I always thought this was deceptive.

Well, in this specific case they did not use the word aggregate. It was printed on the felt as well as displayed on the digital sign and said "Payout limited to $50,000"

I guess the payout table can be justified because if a player bet the minimum stakes, and then bet 1x on every street and made a Royal they would actually get paid off at the rate shown on the table.

I have never paid much attention to these posted payout limits because they never seemed to "intercept my event horizon." But in Miss Stud, the Royal Flush payout represents a return of >0.6% and sometimes even the casual player at min table stakes cannot realize the House Edge that is quoted on the WOO site.

Quote: gordonm888

You have used the word "aggregate." Does "aggregate" mean that the aggregate payout to all players at the table is limited? Or that the payout to any single player is limited?

Mississippi Stud is an unusual case because of its bet structure and payout table. A "Payout limited to $50,000" at a $15 minimum table means that, even at minimum table stakes, the posted payout for royal flushes will never be given.

In Nevada, a minimum bet must pay full odds. If the table minimum is $5, 800:1 will be $40,000. I would be very interested to see what happens at a $10 or $15 table with that situation.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Quote: gordonm888

You have used the word "aggregate." Does "aggregate" mean that the aggregate payout to all players at the table is limited? Or that the payout to any single player is limited?

Mississippi Stud is an unusual case because of its bet structure and payout table. A "Payout limited to $50,000" at a $15 minimum table means that, even at minimum table stakes, the posted payout for royal flushes will never be given.

I would think all are per player. Could you imagine this scenario:

Player 1 betting $100 gets dealt A, K of spades. The board comes Q, J, 10 spades. Player one gets the max $50,000 for his royal. Player 2's cards are revealed to be 9, 8 spades for a straight flush and gets nothing!

In this case, there is a formula for each player to get their fair percentage of the total payout.

Quote: FCBLComish

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Quote: gordonm888

You have used the word "aggregate." Does "aggregate" mean that the aggregate payout to all players at the table is limited? Or that the payout to any single player is limited?

Mississippi Stud is an unusual case because of its bet structure and payout table. A "Payout limited to $50,000" at a $15 minimum table means that, even at minimum table stakes, the posted payout for royal flushes will never be given.

I would think all are per player. Could you imagine this scenario:

Player 1 betting $100 gets dealt A, K of spades. The board comes Q, J, 10 spades. Player one gets the max $50,000 for his royal. Player 2's cards are revealed to be 9, 8 spades for a straight flush and gets nothing!

In this case, there is a formula for each player to get their fair percentage of the total payout.

Unless I've been lied to, the "max aggregate" has always meant per player spot... mostly due to being payed on MULTIPLE BETS on games like this.

They have 4 different bets out by the end of the hand (ante, flop bet, turn bet, river bet). These bets are all payed separately, though some casinos allow the dealer to "total" the payout up and ship the chips... I've been to others where they are forced to pay each bet individually (what a waste of time). Thus, the "aggregate" of those 4 bets cannot exceed the table max aggregate. Thus, it's per player spot.

I don't understand how these "aggregates" are legal. Basically they have "800-1" listed as the payout, but then another sign that says "ignore that first sign, we're gonna pay you less."

At the Let It Ride tables in PA and NJ that I’ve played at , the aggregate $50,000 max payout applies to the entire hand all players involved. And it starts with the player on the far left , so if he hits a royal that should be $60,000 he gets only $50,000 and all other winners in the hand would get zero. I was just at at table a few nights ago where a customer asked the table manager that question. However , the progressive $1 bet does not count toward the $50,000 max payout so actually the royal flush winner would get up to $50k on his regular bets plus the $25,000 royal progressive jackpot

This has bugged me for decades, so I usually ask. There are several answers, mostly at different casinos/chains.

Some tables say max aggregate.
Some say max aggregate per player.
Both of those seem to mean per player.

Some tables say max TABLE aggregate.

Some of those, specifically LIR, Caribbean Stud, PGP, and UTH, have said that aggregate does not apply to the the bonus bets, only to the main bets, which means generally, you need to be most careful on LIR.

MS has a similar, but greater problem than LIR. Your bets are all part of the main game, up to 10x your ante total, the largest one I'm aware of. (A lot of MS have Pairs Plus and/or six card poker sidebets in addition, but whether those are part of the aggregate, is going to depend on the property ).

But as Gordon noted, max betting the spots at minimum at that table and aggregate cap will not result in a full payout. The OS math requires any 2 cards of a royal to be 3bet, and all subsequent hits that continue that. Which makes the aggregate cap illegal in any gaming jurisdiction I've been researching for my game developments, not just Nevada.

I would guess that, if someone were to hit it, regardless of their bet, they would have to be compensated for 800:1 x the minimum at that time, and it would hold in any gaming jurisdiction. But I think the player would have to sue to get the overage. I think the casino would point to the sign and say, TH-TH-THAT'S all, folks! And you'd have to escalate it.

I have heard, specific to PGP, that there would be a proportional aggregate applied in some circumstances, though not including any progressive. However, envy bonus is specifically EXCLUDED from that cap in all but one casino I've played, and I got different answers from two different people there about it.

I think the casinos way out of this is that the player does not have to bet 3x,they can bet 1x.
So a $10 bet would win 32k on a royal.

I can speak for WA cardrooms. There is a player aggregate and a table aggregate, which must be at least double the player aggregate. (Ex: Player aggregate $15,000; Table aggregate $30,000.)

In a table aggregate situation involving multiple players, payouts would be made proportionately to bet sizes. A player would never get paid nothing due to an aggregate, I don't care what any pit boss tried to say. If I ever witnessed it as a player, I'd be on the phone to gaming.

Quote: Hunterhill

I think the casinos way out of this is that the player does not have to bet 3x,they can bet 1x.
So a $10 bet would win 32k on a royal.

You could be right, that they might say that and win, BUT the game is approved in each jurisdiction based on the math showing a particular HE available with a particular paytable, using optimal strategy . IMO capping a potential payout below a full pay, under the OS used to calculate that HE, results in an illegal and somewhat hidden increase in that HE, and a strong case could be made for fraud.

If the person was betting more than the minimum per spot, caveat emptor on hitting the cap. But when the casino structures the game so that it's IMPOSSIBLE to receive the top pay, it's fraudulent.

If I were ever in that position, I would certainly pursue it.