Faro.… anyone ever play it?

I head about the game watching DEADWOOD a few years back. I looked it up looks like it stuck around into the 80's Could it ever make a comeback with some side bets?

It must have offered something to all those western saloon patrons. If some casinos are finding profit in restoring "old style" slots that actually feature dropping quarters into trays, then why not bring back Faro also?

From Wikipedia: Survived in Nevada casinos until 1985.

From Wikipedia: Although not a direct relative of poker, faro was played by the masses alongside its other popular counterpart, due to its fast action, easy-to-learn rules, and better odds than most games of chance."

Okay folks: fast action, easy to learn and better odds .... whose for jumping on board the bandwagon?
Except for that "better odds" part that might dampen the enthusiasm of a casino owner, everything sounds great.
Of course all those game-developers won't want to touch it, since its in the public domain and doesn't have a cutesy name they can trademark. However the players, remember them?, might like it.

Apparently the problem was the fraudulently constructed dealing boxes. In this day and age of acrylic plastics with see thru innards and tough examiners from the Gaming Board, you don't have to worry.

Yeah, yeah.. I know. Saying "remember the players" is the Nevada equivalent of that New Yorker rube who asked "Where are the customer's yachts?". Cutesy names and patents are how game developers make their money, but casino owners make their money on people who gamble. Not "Heads in Beds" or "Las Vegas Visitors" or Casino Gawkers. And if the average guy can't walk into the casino and happily be playing the game, no amount of "cutesy game name" or "patent protection" is going to make the casino rich.

At G2E I got into a conversation with someone about Faro. It might have been a member here.

He said "The edge on Faro was so low that a casino would --"

I expected him to finish that sentence with "not offer the game." His next word was "cheat."

Quote: DJTeddyBear

At G2E I got into a conversation with someone about Faro. It might have been a member here
He said "The edge on Faro was so low that a casino would --"
I expected him to finish that sentence with "not offer the game." His next word was "cheat."

Okay, I guess you do have a point but I also think that the edge on a 100x craps game is pretty darn low and I sure don't think Casino Royale cheats one whit.
If its that easy to learn perhaps it will supplant that Big Wheel near the entrance way or will be a come-on to the slot players wandering by the pit area. Maybe the comp rate will be really teensy on it. I dont know. Casinos do not have to show on a profit on their shrimp cocktails. They just have to show that people who show up there to gamble want the shrimp cocktails. Same thing with Faro. Heck, Bingo sure doesn't got no high house edge... but all those retired women get social security checks each and every month.... the casino sure cares about that.

I love Faro. I did a little writeup on it on one of my blogs (complete with reviews of playable digital versions of the game); I'll just post a link rather than rehashing it all here:

http://www.gamblingstories.info/06/historic-gambling-games-faro/

Totally noncommercial blog, BTW.

When my wife and I visited Virginia City last weekend, we took a glance at what was promoted as the "suicide table", a casino table that was originally a Faro table, later was converted to Blackjack, and finally was converted back to Faro for display. The story went that there were three occasions on which the operator of the game lost so much money to the customer that they committed suicide, perhaps unable to pay the debt. There was suggestion that at least one of the suicides had a bit of help.

I was not familiar at all with the game, but according to the wall poster describing this history, the only house advantage was in winning half the wager when the next two cards formed a pair. Apparently this HE was not sufficient to allow the house to make much of a profit on operation of the game, and it exposed them to a fairly high variance. The all-too-common solution was to pack the deck with pairs. The table included a counter that looked a bit like an abacus, apparently allowing and promoting counting of the cards that had already been dealt since the shuffle. It seems that with everyone knowing the count of every card, the only way to pack the deck with pairs would be to stack a legitimate deck rather than allowing a true shuffle.

Okay.
No real house edge?
Great for a saloon. Sell booze and offer a free Faro game? Sort of the equivalent of a free pool table today?

Or ... no house edge but hope to figure out how its gaffed and still get rich?

Or ... no house edge, so its gaffed, but gettin' cheated beats singing to a bunch of cows?

Why didn't someone run an honest Faro game but charge chair rent?

What sort of a "bank" was there?
What sort of table limits applied?

Quote: FleaStiff

Okay.
No real house edge?
Great for a saloon. Sell booze and offer a free Faro game? Sort of the equivalent of a free pool table today?

Or ... no house edge but hope to figure out how its gaffed and still get rich?

Or ... no house edge, so its gaffed, but gettin' cheated beats singing to a bunch of cows?

Why didn't someone run an honest Faro game but charge chair rent?

What sort of a "bank" was there?
What sort of table limits applied?

I had read the house edge was small. Thats why I'm thinking it could be modified with some interesting side bets to make it more enticing for both players and casino's. Faro 2.0 could be fun. I just hate seeing table games die off to electronic boxes...sigh.

Quote: heather

I love Faro. I did a little writeup on it on one of my blogs (complete with reviews of playable digital versions of the game); I'll just post a link rather than rehashing it all here:

http://www.gamblingstories.info/06/historic-gambling-games-faro/

Totally noncommercial blog, BTW.

Enjoyed the article. Thanks for sharing.

Quote: heather

I love Faro. I did a little writeup on it on one of my blogs ....

Heather, I should have read your writeup to begin with. Just got around to reading it, and it is obvious that many of my earlier comments are redundant for anyone who had read your article. Neither your article nor the "suicide table" poster I read showed the actual house advantage for this game, just saying it was too low. Have you seen or calculated it?

Played it online. I can't see it as a live table game, but I could see developing and deploying a few machines for it. Low house edge, but when you consider how many people will put a Jackson in the bartop machine and play until it is gone to kill time, why not?

if im interpreting the rules correctly, optimal strategy would be to bet when there is only one card of any rank left in the deck. that would make it a neutral game since you can no longer lose on a doublet.

This is a major necropost, but I just found this while googling.

I don't think the house edge is that small. The house edge is derived from the house taking 1/2 of a bet from the corresponding square wen the winner and loser hands match. The wizard's analysis has it as 1.5% per bet resolved, which is similar to Pai Gow Poker with banking rules. Also, it seems like it could move faster than blackjack and you'd have people making more bets.

Quote: FleaStiff

Of course all those game-developers won't want to touch it, since its in the public domain and doesn't have a cutesy name they can trademark. However the players, remember them?, might like it.

No. This is not the case here. It would be a simple matter to develop a house edge mechanism, or as a last resort, charge a commission, for the game. (I'm famous for this particular gaming skill, the "No Commission house edge mechanism....") I may do this just as an exercise....if you ever see "EZ Faro" being field trialed somewhere, you'd know.

The fact of the matter is that there is next to no demand for a Faro based game. Believe me, if there were, then Roger [Snow] or I would have been all over it. I've reviewed Faro based games and had had to decline. In fact, we'd listen to a Faro game pitch for laughs and giggles...(We can't ask our sales force to sell them to operators....they have some input.).

I cannot imaging a gaming distributor sales rep being asked by a Table Games Director or casino manager "What else have you got?" - and answering, "Well, we've got this EXCITING new Faro variant here, it goes for $795 per table month....."

What about some lobbyist money?

Faro Badge in Boy Scouts?
Faro Night Parties in private homes with newspaper coverage?
Faro Night parties as sales presentations for personal carry holsters for women?
Faro Night segments on TV sit coms... heck, those writers have to come up with something, that's for sure!
Faro Night Society
Faro at street fairs.

You've got to work up some sort of market. Do like the pill pushers do: Invent the disease, stir up fear about it... then sell the darn placebos.

I've got it....

The Faro Party Pit !!!!!

I still think there is a market for a vintage table games concept. People already like vintage slots...why not have a table games parlor with faro, chuck-a-luck, pass-line only craps (or whatever, hazard?), and some other oddballs.

It's a pipe dream that will never happen, but it could go over well in a place like Virginia City.

That's true.

I know of a casino in Canada - a real local's casino - that offers a casino cribbage game called Cash Crib. Seriously, I kid you not. VERY well done game, very professionally done, proper dealing procedures, fine math analysis, artwork, - the whole nine yards.

I'm sure there's a market for Faro at a few scattered casinos, but for a distributor to offer a game it has to have wide appeal.

There is a niche or boutique market for many special games. 40 or so casinos in the world still have 6-card mini Pai Gow, and SHFL will take the income. Why not? But to develop or introduce a specialized game for an extremely limited market is a monumental task.

I may design a Faro variant with a 2.5% house just as an exercise...

It's GOT to have a Western twang to it....Boot Hill Rawhide Wagon-wheel friggin' Faro.....

Quote: bbvk05

This is a major necropost, but I just found this while googling.

I don't think the house edge is that small. The house edge is derived from the house taking 1/2 of a bet from the corresponding square wen the winner and loser hands match. The wizard's analysis has it as 1.5% per bet resolved, which is similar to Pai Gow Poker with banking rules. Also, it seems like it could move faster than blackjack and you'd have people making more bets.

No, the house edge is indeed too small. Small houses went bankrupt, out of business on that game, and other casinos simply didn't offer it. The main bets - case bets and flat bets - had essentially no house edge ( 0.25% ), and sharp players played it. This is like being allowed to take down your pass line bet - AND keep your odds bet! Believe me, I cringed.....

It was like offering Roulette with NO zero; remember, American casinos ADDED an extra zero to the game to increase the house edge on small action tables, leaving single zero ("True French Roulette") for $25 action and above. Just about every American casino uses American Roulette (as well as 6:5 single deck) - and NOT single zero Roulette for a reason. If a game holds less than 10%, it gets modified, like 6:5.

I'm looking at Faro, and to quote the rules from Mike's page on Faro: "2. If the Winning card and Losing card are equal in rank, then bets on that rank will lose half." If it lost 1 unit, it would raise the HE to 0.5% on that bet alone, STILL obscenely low (in my casino cop eyes...) and yet even faster to deal without half-loss change-making - greatly increasing the game's pace and smoothness...while increasing the house edge....I like it....I have a start on it....

Edit: Also on that page is this assessment: [quote Mike Shackleford's analysis] "The lower right cell reflects a house edge of 0.23%. If we ignore ties, then the expected loss per bet resolved is 1.52%. " Because the ties are results (and are certainly game-slowing), consider the edge an accurate 0.23%. The ties are a massive 85% of the game, way worse than PGP - TALK about a drinking game. No wonder it was played in freakin' saloons...those "tie returns" are going up to a 2.9% house edge in "EZ Faro...." even in Pai Gow, copies are losses...

Quote: Paigowdan

I may design a Faro variant with a 2.5% house just as an exercise...

What would the house edge be if all player bets lost on any hand that the winning and losing cards were both either a king or a queen (either a tie or one of each)?

I think it would be a little over 2% if the deck were shuffled every hand, but with the cards being tracked, players would be searching for advantage (lower HE) hands on which to play. Maybe there is some variation of this that comes close to your desired 2.5% HE. Making it king, queen, or jack might make the HE a little too high but cover the case of players adjusting their bets when the edge drops. It would never go to a player advantage.

Saloons already had their customers, money being made on booze, food, etc. with a variety of commerce being conducted.

I would imagine Faro was probably often leased out to itinerant Faro dealers with the "house" not taking any of the risk.

Quote: Paigowdan

No, the house edge is indeed too small. Small houses went bankrupt, out of business on that game, and other casinos simply didn't offer it. The main bets - case bets and flat bets - had essentially no house edge ( 0.25% ), and sharp players played it. This is like being allowed to take down your pass line bet - AND keep your odds bet! Believe me, I cringed.....

It was like offering Roulette with NO zero; remember, American casinos ADDED an extra zero to the game to increase the house edge on small action tables, leaving single zero ("True French Roulette") for $25 action and above. Just about every American casino uses American Roulette (as well as 6:5 single deck) - and NOT single zero Roulette for a reason. If a game holds less than 10%, it gets modified, like 6:5.

I'm looking at Faro, and to quote the rules from Mike's page on Faro: "2. If the Winning card and Losing card are equal in rank, then bets on that rank will lose half." If it lost 1 unit, it would raise the HE to 0.5% on that bet alone, STILL obscenely low (in my casino cop eyes...) and yet even faster to deal without half-loss change-making - greatly increasing the game's pace and smoothness...while increasing the house edge....I like it....I have a start on it....

Edit: Also on that page is this assessment: [quote Mike Shackleford's analysis] "The lower right cell reflects a house edge of 0.23%. If we ignore ties, then the expected loss per bet resolved is 1.52%. " Because the ties are results (and are certainly game-slowing), consider the edge an accurate 0.23%. The ties are a massive 85% of the game, way worse than PGP - TALK about a drinking game. No wonder it was played in freakin' saloons...those "tie returns" are going up to a 2.9% house edge in "EZ Faro...." even in Pai Gow, copies are losses...

I don't think you have an accurate picture of how the game goes. You seem to think that ties slow the game down? They don't at all. Everyone places bets, dealer pulls two cards ... Winner 8, loser 4. Pays the 8's takes the 4s, the rest of the best just sit there, and virtually everyone keeps their unresolved bets up (like placing 6 and 8 in craps).

Saying the edge in Faro is .23% is like saying the edge for placing the 6 is .46%.... it's not really the way you should look at it if you are trying to calculate variance. The player has to overcome a 1.52% edge to be profitable.

Broken houses are not indicative of the game, in my opinion, but poorly bankrolled houses. Blackjack is a closer game than Faro and only fly-by-nights bet busted by it.

Yeah, I don't see the problem. If you hang around, you can't get a very good edge over time, and why would ties slow down the game? What, does the dealer go around to every number to see which ones they didn't deal? Plus the game could run quite fast. The commission would be a pain, though.

Although it's my understanding that in its day, faro was about as honest as three-card monte.

Quote: bbvk05

I don't think you have an accurate picture of how the game goes. You seem to think that ties slow the game down? They don't at all. Everyone places bets, dealer pulls two cards ... Winner 8, loser 4. Pays the 8's takes the 4s, the rest of the best just sit there, and virtually everyone keeps their unresolved bets up (like placing 6 and 8 in craps).

Yes, I actually do, and it's my business.
The unresolved "long lingering" bets are precisely the problem. LOOK at a Roulette table - it gets swiped CLEAN per spin. Or Craps on a seven-out - swiped CLEAN, also.

Bets resolved are key to casino house wins, and excessive ties - pushes - are the enemy [except to the cocktail waitress]. Faro is a "drinking game" gone extreme.

Quote: bbvk05

Saying the edge in Faro is .23% is like saying the edge for placing the 6 is .46%.... it's not really the way you should look at it if you are trying to calculate variance. The player has to overcome a 1.52% edge to be profitable.

- And so does the CASINO need to overcome that edge to keep its lights on and pay the dealers. And it's house edge is really 0.23%, and yes, shoe-long pushed bets cost the casino a fortune, and so factor into its house edge. Those are Live Bets that are doing nothing for anyone on a live game - and yes, they do count! - Mike has got it right!

So with Faro - it isn't bets resolved per hand - it's bets resolved per freakin' shoe. The fact of the matter is that gambling halls didn't make squat on the game, nor was it particularly exciting, and the game is now totally gone, dead.

You had a death combination of:
1) Little action for the players or house, and;
2) virtually no real profit for the casino house or gambling hall.

The game has long since died. This thread is its resurrection, - because the game ain't played no longer in real life [IRL.]

Quote: bbvk05

Broken houses are not indicative of the game, in my opinion, but poorly bankrolled houses. Blackjack is a closer game than Faro and only fly-by-nights bet busted by it.

That's true, but only part of the problem with Faro.

If Faro were BOTH an exciting game that was patronized, and a profitable game for the casino operator - it would still be around.

It would have made it as a "permanent casino game." It hadn't.

There are 26 decisions per deck x the number of bets on each square for each 52 card deck. Each two card flip is going to have multiple bets decided. The game was known for being fast, and I guarantee it would have more decisions per hour than blackjack, assuming full tables for both. And faro has a much higher edge per decision than blackjack.

It also has a higher edge and is faster than the pass line by far. If the problem with faro is this fictional razor thin edge, then why do casinos allow pass line bets?

You are calling it slow, but it was known as an exceptionally fast game. I think blackjack swept faro away because it calls for decisions and people like that. Faro is just a lesser game, but its not boring. Also it was clearly plenty profitable when players played it. Any moderate perusal of western hisyory makes that quite clear. Declining popularity in the face of blackjack killed it, not low house edges.

I don't even think its right to call bets that werent decided in one flip ties. You don't call a roll of a 5 when you have a 6 place bet a tie. Its just nothing pending resolution. Swept clean happens by the end of every shoe guaranteed.

I find the game remarkably similar to casino war.

Quote: bbvk05

Also it was clearly plenty profitable when players played it. Any moderate perusal of western hisyory makes that quite clear. Declining popularity in the face of blackjack killed it, not low house edges.

Again, as played in saloons, it was such a known scam that tables with gaffed dealer boxes (with which the top two cards could be switched) were sold openly. In the modern, streamlined casino environment, though, the only issue would be lack of interest; the edge of 0.23% per hand reflects a full deck, and every card removed steepens it for cards four of which remain. Betting on cards one or more of which has been seen offers a lower edge, but only for the first half of the deck, after which even 2 have a higher one. Moreover, unlike blackjack, provided the dealer doesn't flash, the edge will never be negative. Then throw in the high-edge side bets like the turn and high/low, which you know will get plenty of interest casino patrons being what they are, the historical interest, and the lack of any royalties to pay, and you've got a game on par with craps. Solid limits, a fast dealer, a keen crowd, and one of those little placards that "all seated players must participate," and you're set.

It's one thing to rail at those who seek negative edges, but this insistence on usurious ones is ugly.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

"The edge on Faro was so low that a casino would --"I expected him to finish that sentence with "not offer the game." His next word was "cheat."

Perhaps, but why were Faro concessions often owned in partnerships? Wyatt Earp once owned one quarter of a Faro concession. It can't take four men to share something with too low a house edge to make any money.
Later, when Earp fled a murder charge by going to San Diego, he owned several saloons one of which offered 21 games including Pedro and Monte as well as Faro.

I just can't see all that hullabaloo being raised over a game that yielded no money unless the operator decided to cheat.

Quote: FleaStiff

Perhaps, but why were Faro concessions often owned in partnerships? Wyatt Earp once owned one quarter of a Faro concession. It can't take four men to share something with too low a house edge to make any money.
Later, when Earp fled a murder charge by going to San Diego, he owned several saloons one of which offered 21 games including Pedro and Monte as well as Faro.

I just can't see all that hullabaloo being raised over a game that yielded no money unless the operator decided to cheat.

But what was the business arrangement back then? Did they actually profit from the players like modern casinos do, or did they profit from the dealers; like hair salons profit from charging stylists commissions?

Quote: GH

But what was the business arrangement back then? Did they actually profit from the players like modern casinos do, or did they profit from the dealers; like hair salons profit from charging stylists commissions?

I don't know but I think it all stems from saloons brewing their own beer and often serving it warm. Spoilage and over-capacity forced them to reach out to more customers hence the free lunch and the "Victorian Games". The Free Lunch was not what would now be called a "profit center" indeed it was a loss leader, often an upscale one. The "Victorian Games" seem to have definitely been profit centers (else why would four men own one Faro concession) but I've no idea of the profitability involved.

In the 1890s, one half of Chicago saloons served a Free Lunch seven days a week. In New Orleans, scarcely could a bar be found that did not offer a free lunch, albeit usually with a "bum's rush" if no drink was purchased. In San Francisco, even Rudyard Kipling commented on the availability of the free lunch and its social equalizing influence. I doubt all this "free" stuff was offered without some form of gambling being available.