La Pair'e

La Pair'e started a field trial at the El Cortez yesterday (Sep 19, 2019). I parked extremely far away and navigated a maze of Life is Beautiful fencing to take a look.

I haven't seen such a simple game that was so hard to explain since Chinese War. It must have taken me half an hour at the table to understand it. Other players and bystanders looked equally confused. The game is difficult to compare to anything, but, if forced, it has some similarities to Flip&It. If that comparison doesn't help, think of a cross between Three Card Poker and roulette.

Please click the link in the large font for my attempt at an explanation. You will notice I get a low 1.11% house edge for the Poker Hand bet, which makes me worry I either misunderstand the rules or did the math wrong. I welcome a confirmation or correction on that, as well as on anything.

The question for the poll is would you play La Pair'e?

This looks like it would be a fun game at low stakes with a bunch of friends. Seems like it would run pretty slowly with a lot of people at the table, so if the minimum was low enough you could nurse it for drinks while still having a good time.

It also looks like a cross between poker and Faro.

Quote: TigerWu

It also looks like a cross between poker and Faro.

I thought it was a faro variant at first. The dealer spoke very little English, as usual for a field trial game, so I had to figure it out based on watching and the awful rack card. I shouldn't even call it a card, but a piece of paper.

Are multiple hands dealt from a deck before shuffling, or is the deck shuffled after each hand?

Typo Alert: The table that should be labeled "2nd Card Bets Analysis" is mislabeled as First Card Bets Analysis. Also, Rule #2 has a confusing typo.

Um, the Pairs Bet analysis looks like it may have more than one glitch.

On the number of combinations for Three of a Kind, it looks like you overlooked the combinations that are one joker plus a natural pair.

I also get a slightly different number (228) for the straight flush combinations. No that one is okay.

Quote: gordonm888

Are multiple hands dealt from a deck before shuffling, or is the deck shuffled after each hand?

From shuffle for each hand.

Quote:

Typo Alert: The table that should be labeled "2nd Card Bets Analysis" is mislabeled as First Card Bets Analysis. Also, Rule #2 has a confusing typo.

Thanks. Fixed.

I agree with your numbers for Flush and Straight combinations. Which is troubling. Maybe I made the same error you did?

EDIT: I now agree that your "Three of a Kind" number is correct. I had made some unfathomable error.* I now have duplicated all the numbers in your Pairs Bet Analysis. Sorry for the confusion.

*I was away from my computer, and was doing all the calculations in my head - and apparently got confused on 3oak. I have now done them all more systematically and recorded them on a spreadsheet. Complete agreement with your numbers.

Thanks, Gordon, for double checking my numbers. In case anyone else is interested, here is a breakdown of my math.

Event	0 jokers	1 joker	2 jokers	total
Two jokers	0	0	52	52
Mini royal	4	24	0	28
Straight flush	44	176	0	220
Three of a kind	52	156	0	208
Straight	720	600	0	1320
Flush	1096	424	0	1520
Pair	3744	1272	0	5016
Other	16440	0	0	16440
Total	22100	2652	52	24804

If the 1.11% is correct, and there seems to be potential for high payoff (100x, 50x, 25x), I could see this being worth a try. Especially since EC will prob have a low limit on it ($5, I assume?). This seems like a good “Low edge game where I can drink and not worry about making a stupid mistake.”

Quote: TinMan

If the 1.11% is correct, and there seems to be potential for high payoff (100x, 50x, 25x), I could see this being worth a try. Especially since EC will prob have a low limit on it ($5, I assume?). This seems like a good “Low edge game where I can drink and not worry about making a stupid mistake.”

It's possible they don't count A-2-3 as a straight, or something like that. As I recall, the bet range was $5 to $50.

Another small typo alert: the last table is about the First Card Red / First Card Black bets but is titled "Any Pair'e Analysis."

Suggestion: It might actually make the most sense to scrap that table altogether and put the return for First Card Color bets as the last line of your "First Card Bets Analysis" table; they are all grouped together in the pay tables on the felt itself and on the rack card, and they are all roulette-style bets but with 54 instead of 37/38 possible outcomes. I think the actual betting spots on the felt for the color bets are grouped with "Poker Hand" and "Any Paire" only because they want all of those within easy reach of every player. If you do keep the color bets in a separate table though, you can get rid of the "0" in the "Pays" column of the "Total" row.

I'm guessing this was dealt from a single deck held in the dealer's physical hand as opposed to a Three Card Poker-type shuffler that spits 3 cards out into a tray? If so, do you recall if the deck was hand-shuffled or machine-shuffled, and what the burn card procedure was before each hand?

Thanks for that correction.

As for the First Card Red/Black bet, that doesn't count as a "First Card" bet, according to the rule card nor the way the game is dealt. The dealer doesn't adjudicate that until the end. That is one of many reasons my write-up is so confusing.

Quote: Wizard

La Pair'e started a field trial at the El Cortez yesterday (Sep 19, 2019). I parked extremely far away and navigated a maze of Life is Beautiful fencing to take a look.

I haven't seen such a simple game that was so hard to explain since Chinese War. It must have taken me half an hour at the table to understand it. Other players and bystanders looked equally confused. The game is difficult to compare to anything, but, if forced, it has some similarities to Flip&It. If that comparison doesn't help, think of a cross between Three Card Poker and roulette.

Please click the link in the large font for my attempt at an explanation. You will notice I get a low 1.11% house edge for the Poker Hand bet, which makes me worry I either misunderstand the rules or did the math wrong. I welcome a confirmation or correction on that, as well as on anything.

The question for the poll is would you play La Pair'e?

VIDEO-Demo La Pair'e.

Quote: Wizard

As for the First Card Red/Black bet, that doesn't count as a "First Card" bet, according to the rule card nor the way the game is dealt. The dealer doesn't adjudicate that until the end. That is one of many reasons my write-up is so confusing.

That's strange — a bet where everyone knows the outcome after the first card but it sits unresolved on the felt for two more rounds of betting.

Just put any game out there and people will play....... Nice job for the video, MrCasinoGames

Slotlady plays La Pair'e at the El Cortez...

Quote: Ajaxx

That's strange — a bet where everyone knows the outcome after the first card but it sits unresolved on the felt for two more rounds of betting.

In the Slot Lady video they adjudicate the first card red/black bets sometimes after the second card and sometimes after the third. At least in the first two hands played. I should see if the casinos will let me make videos like this.

Quote: Wizard

I should see if the casinos will let me make videos like this.

I bet Sarah would talk to you about it. She's had good luck downtown (D, Fremont, El Cortez) & could probably discuss how she worked it out.

Edit: Also, she's a dormant member here. She'd probably be more welcomed in the current environment than she was when she last tried to engage with us. Maybe invite her back?

Thanks Gialmere and Slotlady. A very nice video. Hope Wizard could do this type of videos for new games, at G2E or Table Game Conf.

A loss of $300 in 36 min. What is the house edge?

After a hand the dealer takes half the deck and rotates it before placing it in the shuffler - obviously, to safeguard against edge sorting. They then cut the deck to take the cards that you saw and place them in the middle of the deck before placement in the shuffler.

Seems like a game I wouldn’t mind playing $5 on the first card red/black after a long day of green to black chip blackjack. I would play it for the slow pace and to milk two or three adult beverages.

if the first two cards do not form any kind of connecting hand why even go to the third card?

Quote: Wizard

In the Slot Lady video they adjudicate the first card red/black bets sometimes after the second card and sometimes after the third. At least in the first two hands played. I should see if the casinos will let me make videos like this.

Mike--If you make videos like this, I'd certainly watch them. That said, could you bring yourself to make a sucker bet every hand? In her videos, she's always betting a side-bet, often for $5-25 every hand. I guess you could consider it a cost of production, but she's probably losing $50-100 in EV per hour video just in side bets.

Separately, after watching the La Pair'e video, I'm far less likely to ever play this. Pretty boring. In addition, it annoys me that "Any Pair'e" doesn't truly mean "any pair". It means 1st card and 2nd card pair, not 1st card and 3rd card pair or 2nd card and 3rd card pair. Also, it seems to be going for the feel of roulette a little, but you don't get the excitement of watching a ball bounce around and seeing the close calls. They just flip over a card. No suspense. I don't see this being successful.

I am curious how it would work with multiple people at the table. It looks like you each have a personal section for the base bets (red/black/pair/3CP-lite) but the "center" bets are communal. Would they use roulette style checks? Or rely on player memory (bad idea)? Or would the dealer have to be involved and set bets like at a craps table?

Quote: TinMan

In addition, it annoys me that "Any Pair'e" doesn't truly mean "any pair". It means 1st card and 2nd card pair, not 1st card and 3rd card pair or 2nd card and 3rd card pair.

this was also confusing to me especially when the joker came out. any joker means that there is a pair on the table no matter what.

Quote: TinMan

....Also, it seems to be going for the feel of roulette a little, but you don't get the excitement of watching a ball bounce around and seeing the close calls. They just flip over a card. No suspense. I don't see this being successful...

I immediately thought of jurisdictions that don't allow balls/wheels and have card based roulette (e.g. California & Mystery Card Roulette). Oklahoma used to also be this way, but believe that law was changed in 2019 to where they now allow regular roulette.

I think the game is boring as well, but I don't play roulette for that reason and that is clearly the target player audience. I guess the appeal to those players would be higher payouts possible than roulette which they may opt for given a comparable HE.

I’m staying at El Cortez last night and tonight. I spoke to one of the dealers about it and she told me that it’s very slow and confusing and not many people play it. That part was obvious to me since on the several occasions that I checked, the table was empty.

Here’s a photo of the new, slightly improved, rack card. Although it has some minor wording changes, the only real improvement is to add the El Cortez logo, and it’s on real card stock paper.

I present the side with the Le Pair’e logo first since that was the side facing out in the rack card holder on the table.

Quote: Wizard

I should see if the casinos will let me make videos like this.

You’ll note that the camera angle was such that it showed only the layout - no faces.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I spoke to one of the dealers about it and she told me that it’s very slow and confusing and not many people play it. .

I feel like changing the layout could go a long way to making this more understandable. It's really a pretty simple game (other than some annoying quirks--eg., the joker is only a joker with respect to some bets but not others), but the layout is confusing. For example, there are essentially 3 main bets: (1) what will the first card be, (2) will the second card form a pair and (3) will the three cards form certain hands. But as the layout is arranged, the top row corresponds to the 2nd card bet (will there be a pair), the middle row corresponds to the 1st card bet and the three card bet is indicated in a very different format tucked away in the bottom of the layout. That bottom row also contains a variant of the 2nd card bet ("any pair'e"), which means there are two very different areas of the felt that are impacted by the second card.

OK, is it just me being dense, or do you get much better odds playing all of the ranks individually vs playing the Any Pair bet? It seems to me $1 bets on all of the ranks, including jokers pays a lot better than a $14 Any Pair bet.

Quote: mmaschin2

OK, is it just me being dense, or do you get much better odds playing all of the ranks individually vs playing the Any Pair bet? It seems to me $1 bets on all of the ranks, including jokers pays a lot better than a $14 Any Pair bet.

Actually, it's the other way around. Here are the house edges according to the Wizard of Odds article:

• Pair of Jokers (1300:1) — 9.08%
• Pair of Any Other Rank (225:1) — 5.24%
• Any Pair'e (50:1 when jokers hit, 16:1 when other pairs hit) — 3.77%

If that seems unintuitive, it might be because you noticed that 16×$14 = $224, which is less than $225, and that 50×$14 = $700, which is much less than $1300. So you might think that by betting $1 on all 14 ranks you would get $225 when a regular pair hits and $1300 on a joker pair, as opposed to $224 on a regular pair and $700 for the jokers if you bet $14 on Any Pair'e. The only other possibility is that no pair comes out, in which case both strategies cost you exactly $14, so it might seem like the person doing 14 individual bets is better off for every win and in the same boat for every loss, putting them ahead overall.

Here's why that math isn't valid: if you bet $1 on all 14 ranks and a pair of queens hits, the $13 bet on the 13 other ranks is lost, so your actual profit would be $225 - $13 = $212, less than the $224 from Any Pair'e. In the rare case that a pair of jokers hits, you get $1300 - $13 = $1287, which is definitely better than the $700 from Any Pair'e, but since that is 78-times less likely, the 14-individual-bets strategy comes out behind way more than it comes out ahead.

You can arrive at the same result by thinking (like a video poker player) in terms of revenue instead of profit, meaning you look at the ratio of how many total chips you end up with versus how many you start with. In that framework, even money bets like red/black would be called 2-for-1 instead of 1-to-1, the straight-up pair bets would be called 226-for-1 instead of 225-to-1, and the Any Pair'e would be 17-for-1 instead of 16-for-1. By saying "for" we're essentially acting as if the house always takes your original wager upfront and then adds 1 extra unit back into the payout when you win (which is equivalent to keeping your original wager as we are used to). Betting $1 units on all 14 ranks would pay $226-for-$14 on every regular pair (because you're putting up $14 for the house upfront and you end up with $225 + your $1 original winning bet), whereas betting a $14 unit on Any Pair'e would be pay 17×$14-for-$14 bet, i.e. $238-for-$14.