Poker For Roulette - Revised. Now with 3, 4 and 5 spin versions.

As I've been promising for a few days, I finally uploaded my new website: Poker For Roulette. The major changes, obviously, are the addition of three and four spin versions.


When I was working with The Wiz on my five spin version, he kept telling me "Keep It Simple!" It was almost like a mantra. The one simplification thing neither of us thought about, was to make it fewer spins.

But doing this also eliminated another problem that Mike objected to. He felt that, since the 0 and 00 can't be fully wild (because it created WAY too many winners), that it should be eliminated entirely. I wanted to keep it as it was, just for wild straight and wild five of a kind. Wild straight primarily to prevent confusion about 0,1,2,3,4 being a straight but 00,1,2,3,4 is not. But I added a rule that there could only be one wild green used. This did not sit well with the Keep It Simple mantra.


The feed back I got from the ShuffleMaster Focus Group on May 2nd, as well as the comments from the Master himself, Roger Snow, on May 4th, convinced me that doing a version with fewer spins would be better.

So I noodled it around a bit and realized that the three spin version fixed a lot of problems. I could have the 0 and 00 be fully wild, since, with only three spins, the chances of it appearing were deminished. With only three spins, I've overcome the big objection from the focus group that five spins was too long to wait. And most important, since the greens are fully wild, as soon as one appears, you know that, at the minimum of a Wild Pair, you're automatically a winner.

What do you think?

---

For what it's worth, I then did the four spin version because it was something of a back burner project anyway. Not so much that I had originally thought that it might be better than the 5 spin version, but because it (or a six spin version!) would be needed by any new Roulette system that obtains two results in one spin, such as TCS John Huxley's Double Action Roulette.

This has the added bonus of obtaining a result in only TWO spins!

---

I'm keeping the 5 spin version because I think it would work best for Roulette slot machines and online casinos, where stakes can be smaller and gamblers are more likely to play for an extended period.

---

FYI: Going forward, I'd like to keep the discussion here, but the prior thread about Poker For Roulette is here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/3259-poker-for-roulette-side-bet/

Best of Luck Dave. My gut reaction is that the 3 spin version is better. I'm sure this has crossed your mind, but is there way to pay the same for wilds as naturals? I feel like paying less for a wild makes seeing that 0 come up a mild bummer.

Or How about instead of calling it a wild pair you just say 1 "0" pays X, 2 0's or 1 0 + pair pays Y, that way it doesn't sound like a wild is worth less than a natural...

This is just off the top of my head...

This feels like a move in the right direction to me too. I must admit I never thought of using three spins. Probably the title of the bet kept me locked into thinking of five spins as a given. You might keep an open mind to changing the name, like the "Roulette Trifecta" or something like that. I would also suggest a pay table option with a lower house edge. If forced, the 5% to 7% range.

What I think everyone can take from this is it takes some actual play for some weaknesses in a game to bubble up. The math is not the beginning, middle, and end of the story. In your case, you pretty much need a normal roulette wheel to get a feel for the pacing of the game, which few people have sitting in their basement.

I think this change can only help your odds.

Thanks also for not asking me to redo the math. I have pretty much washed my hands of that kind of consulting.

Good luck with your game. I think it feels like a more streamlined and much easier version. My only suggestion would be to echo Mike and say possibly lower the house edge to under double didgets.

Quote: Wizard

You might keep an open mind to changing the name, like the "Roulette Trifecta" or something like that.

If Shufflemaster picks it up, they pretty much have to call it "Three Card Poker For Roulette."

Or...Three Spin Win.....

no offense but from a first perspective its a little difficult to follow from the average consumer standpoint in my opinion- id also make the website a little simpler

A 40% hit rate, a lot coming from the Flush
This seems quite high.

Side bets in 3 Card Poker, even games like Video Poker, the hit rate is somewhere around the 25% range.

Would Roulette players even want a side bet that pays even money or 2 to 1?

The regular game already offers this.
I would throw away those and build more *thrill* into the side bet. (a higher SD/EV)
IMO, Lower the hit rate and increase the payouts.

Do you have the variance for the different pay tables?
Not that hard to make.

Sally

Thanks for all the replies.

A couple quick points:

I'm not married to the pay table. If the casino wants a different house edge, I'll give it to them. Hell, if they want, I'll give them the Excel formula to play with it themselves.

I'm not married to the name either.

My patent covers this type of change.

Quote: bigfoot66

is there way to pay the same for wilds as naturals? I feel like paying less for a wild makes seeing that 0 come up a mild bummer.

"Mild bummer"? Most of the time that the green comes up, the hand would otherwise be a loser.

Quote: Wizard

This feels like a move in the right direction to me too.

Thanks. That means a lot coming from you.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks also for not asking me to redo the math. I have pretty much washed my hands of that kind of consulting.

I knew that even before you took the Venetian job. I was thinking about sending you a brief "Whadda think?" email. Your full reply above pretty much gives me the answer. Thanks.

Quote: strictlyAP

no offense but from a first perspective its a little difficult to follow from the average consumer standpoint in my opinion- id also make the website a little simpler

I know. But the website's target audience is NOT the "average consumer." To a certain extent, it's not even you guys.

I designed it for casino and game distributor decision makers.

Quote: mustangsally

A 40% hit rate, a lot coming from the Flush.
This seems quite high.

I agree.

Did you look at Paytables Three and Four? Those don't pay the flush.

(Hmmm... Maybe I should redesign the paytable page so all four are across the page...)




Once again, thanks for the comments and critique.

As someone who plays nothing but roulette, my immediate feeling
is that poker has nothing to do with roulette, why combine the two.
Roulette is already too complicated for most people, thats why you
see them betting nothing but the inside numbers. They don't understand
the other bets and don't ask because they're afraid of looking dumb.
Adding poker to the mix will just give them even more to be confused
about.

My overwhelming reaction is roulette is already a slow game. A table
with 3-4 players averages about 30 spins an hour. 5-6 players and
its 25 spins an hour. A really crowded table on Fri or Sat night is lucky
to do 20 an hour. Adding a complicated side bet like this can't help
but slow down an already slow game. Its just one more thing to slow
the dealer down. Roulette is already not popular with dealers because
there is so much to keep track of and its very easy to make mistakes
Adding a whole other game on top of roulette can't help but slow it
to a crawl, which its already at when its busy.

A good example of a roulette side bet is the dragon. A picture of
a dragon is on the layout and winds its way thru 12 numbers. Its
just another dozen bet and is easy for the dealer and players to
understand. Poker for roulette is complicated and as such, will
turn people off. They can't even understand street and corner bets
now, how are you going to explain three card poker hands to them.

You're payouts are admirable, 10,000/1, 500/1. But those combinations
of numbers happen very seldom, and when people realize that
they'll stop playing the game. The reason they bet the inside numbers
is the big 35/1 payout happens all the time. They know they have a
chance at it, somebody wins it on almost every spin. You will get
old and grey waiting for your big money hands in poker to pay off,
they just don't happen very often. The psychology of roulette is its
very easy to get lucky, to spread a few chips on the numbers and
hit 2-3 in a row and make real money on a small investment. In
Poker for Roulette, it will be very hard to get lucky, nearly impossible.
So whats their incentive to play.

Anyway, you asked, I wish it was better news.

Bob, I for one share your opinion. But nothing will deter DJ. Nor should it.
His eyes are wide open and he realizes this is a dream he must pursue.
I am sure you join me in saying " GOOD LUCKY TEDDY ".

I wrote that the zero is a mild bummer, which was probably not very clear. The point is that the way you wrote the paytable emphasizes the fact that a wild pair pays less than a natural: It invites the thought Oh, I'm only getting 3 to 1, I should get 5 to 1. Just a thought.

I agree that flushes should go away on 3 Spin version.....consider this, if I just bet one color for two spins and parlayed the bet, I end up with 3 to 1 as opposed to the 1 to 1 on the side bet. For example, have the wheel pick red or black for you on the first spin, bet one unit on that color for the next spin and parlaying the winnings to the third spin....that is the same as a 3 spin flush and pays 3 to 1 instead of 1 to 1.

You are at a 22% hit rate without the flush which is in the sweet spot of 20% to 25%, in my opinion.

I also don't like the Wild payouts vs. normal payouts. Reduce the pay table to Pair/Straight/Three of a Kind/3 "Wilds"/3 of a Kind Wilds.....I don't like both the "Green" & "Wild" references in pay table....either call them Green throughout the pay table or call them Wild throughout the paytable. I vote for Wild.

Pay table is simpler with only five payouts and notation that any 0/00 are wild:

Pair: 3 to 1
Straight: 7 to 1
3 of a Kind: 15 to 1
3 Wilds: 100 to 1
3 of a Kind Wilds: 500 to 1

Gives hit rate of 22.3% with HE of approx 7.5% (per my quick math, which is suspect). It is cleaner and simpler and takes less time to complete in 3 vs. 5 spins.

What about "Three Spin Poker" for the name.....since you are using the term "Straight" in your pay table, I think you would need to stick with Poker in the name. Three of a Kind tends to be a Poker term as well. If you leave Poker out the game name, you may need to re-name your winning combinations to not refer as much to Poker.

Those are my thoughts, I think it is still going to be tough without the use of an electronic scoring system on the live table game. That is your big hurdle in my opinion on the game. You get around that in an online version as it is easily implemented in the code there. Also works on electronic roulette tables. I think the live table game version is going to be tough.

Quote: Paradigm

... Gives hit rate of 22.3% with HE of approx 7.5% (per my quick math, which is suspect). It is cleaner and simpler ...

You're right. Much cleaner and simpler.

"7.5% ... Quick math" ? The HE for your paytable is 7.75%. Pretty close for quick math!

I like your other comments as well.

Quote: Paradigm

Pay table is simpler with only five payouts and notation that any 0/00 are wild:

Pair: 3 for 1
Straight: 7 for 1
3 of a Kind: 15 for 1
3 Wilds: 100 for 1
3 of a Kind Wilds: 500 for 1

Gives hit rate of 22.3% with HE of approx 7.5% (per my quick math, which is suspect). It is cleaner and simpler and takes less time to complete in 3 vs. 5 spins.

Just some clarification that the payouts listed on the website are all for 1, not to 1.
I like this pay table the best :+)

I like the 3 and 4 spin idea... it makes it more down-to-Earth. Good luck, Dave.

On the 4 spin version. I assume a while pair is a green + any number. Which basically means anytime a green appears the current + next 3 spins are winners.

If all of that is true, why are you making the rule that wilds don't count for flushes? Can you actually get paid for both? Since all 4 spins are automatic winners with the green, having the rule for the no wild flush to me is just adding a rule that won't affect the game.



I will say that I'd actually play this now. The odds of some of the hits on the 5 spin seemed extremely rare.

About a week ago, I uploaded new versions of my Poker For Roulette website.

One of the biggest changes was to reduce it down to a single pay table for each version. And, as suggested above, those pay tables are simplified by paying wild combinations the same as naturals.

After uploading the new pages, it occurred to me that I can further simplify things by combining the math and payouts into a single page. For that reason, I didn't make any announcement about the upload. Look for the new version in a few days.


I'm sure it'll put a smile on Mike's face since he kept telling me to "Keep It Simple!" This not only keeps the concept simple, it keeps the website simple too.

Quote: soulhund79

On the 4 spin version. I assume a wild pair is a green + any number. Which basically means anytime a green appears the current + next 3 spins are winners.

If all of that is true, why are you making the rule that wilds don't count for flushes?

You're right. Since any green meens an automatic wild pair, and since flush and wild pair (and pair) all pay the same, there is no need to specify that wilds don't count for flushes. I'll change that. And no, you don't get paid for both.

Quote: soulhund79

I assume a wild pair is a green + any number. Which basically means anytime a green appears the current + next 3 spins are winners.

Actually, when a green appears on the 4 spin version, there are automatically FOUR winners: The 3 prior spins + green, 2 prior spins + green + 1 next spin, 1 prior spin + green + 2 next spins, green + 3 next spins.

Players WILL have the option to have multiple unresolved bets active at the same time. This example shows why a player would want to do that.

Quote: soulhunt79

The odds of some of the hits on the 5 spin seemed extremely rare.

Yes they are. But, if you'll note, the odds for the top two paying items in the 5 spin version are almost the same as the top two in the 4 spin version.




Thanks to everyone for the comments. Keep 'em coming!

Quote: Paradigm

I agree that flushes should go away on 3 Spin version.....consider this, if I just bet one color for two spins and parlayed the bet, I end up with 3 to 1 as opposed to the 1 to 1 on the side bet. For example, have the wheel pick red or black for you on the first spin, bet one unit on that color for the next spin and parlaying the winnings to the third spin....that is the same as a 3 spin flush and pays 3 to 1 instead of 1 to 1.

You are at a 22% hit rate without the flush which is in the sweet spot of 20% to 25%, in my opinion.

I also don't like the Wild payouts vs. normal payouts. Reduce the pay table to Pair/Straight/Three of a Kind/3 "Wilds"/3 of a Kind Wilds.....I don't like both the "Green" & "Wild" references in pay table....either call them Green throughout the pay table or call them Wild throughout the paytable. I vote for Wild.

Pay table is simpler with only five payouts and notation that any 0/00 are wild:

Pair: 3 to 1
Straight: 7 to 1
3 of a Kind: 15 to 1
3 Wilds: 100 to 1
3 of a Kind Wilds: 500 to 1

Gives hit rate of 22.3% with HE of approx 7.5% (per my quick math, which is suspect). It is cleaner and simpler and takes less time to complete in 3 vs. 5 spins.

This is a really good design suggestion by paradigm. A hit rate of about 20% is fine for a side bet, especially on a slower game. Starting a side bet table at 2:1 (which is shorthand for "3 for 1"), even or 3:1 is perfectly fine, so as long as there are higher, incremental rewards on it also, which there are. A good side bet has a hit rate of > 8% of the time (1 in 11 hands or so), though some side bets on fast games may hit as infrequently as 1 in 45 hands or so, such as the Dragon-7 side bet in EZ Baccarat.
It also gets rid of the wild versus non-wild problem very cleanly. Real clean, simple, and elegant.
Good option.

Quote: Paradigm

What about "Three Spin Poker" for the name.....since you are using the term "Straight" in your pay table, I think you would need to stick with Poker in the name. Three of a Kind tends to be a Poker term as well. If you leave Poker out the game name, you may need to re-name your winning combinations to not refer as much to Poker.

Not necessarily. "Pair Plus," "Fortune Bonus," "21+3," "Emperor's Challenge," etc. don't mention poker on these poker side bets, - and 21+3 is also on a base non-poker game, blackjack.

In the long run, the distributor decides the name. EZ Pai Gow was named by its distributor, (and that is not my game's original name), and it does very well.
And ignore nay-sayers. The only opinions you have to worry about are the distributor's opinion and their customer's opinion, and they know more about this business than most here.

an electronic system of recognizing and tracking the bet is recommended. A drop slot system for the five spin version is shown here. It has a slot, several indicator lights, and table printing to explain the lights.

Does this require major modification of existing
tables, or do new already modified tables have
to be ordered? How much does all this cost?

Quote: EvenBob

an electronic system of recognizing and tracking the bet is recommended. A drop slot system for the five spin version is shown here. It has a slot, several indicator lights, and table printing to explain the lights.

Does this require major modification of existing
tables, or do new already modified tables have
to be ordered? How much does all this cost?

Bob is referring to the Betting / Rules page, and it's reference to this image of a drop slot similar to Caribbean Stud:


I haven't gotten around to linking to this version, with a sensor similar to Let It Ride:

Note that 1 & 2 are red to indicate that they are illuminated. This is the version I had used at the Focus Group.

The drop slot variety would require all sorts of track and stuff under the table to get the token from the slot to the dealer. For that reason, I'm going with the sensor.

As far as hardware goes, all it would require is some holes in the table to mount the sensors, and a new felt with the table printing indicated. Of course, run some wires underneath, to a server somewhere, etc.

Mind you these are just concepts based upon what I imagine, and have seen in casinos. Actual design, engineering and cost estimates would be the responsibility of the game distributor.


Does that answer the question?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Does that answer the question?

Doesn't this seem like a lot to go thru for a side
bet? I'm just sayin.. It sounds like a confusing
mess of a table, with the roulette marquee and
flashing electronics for the poker. But you can't
know that because you've never seen an actual
setup.

When you see a regular roulette table, and its
busy, have you noticed there is barely room
to accomodate the players? Where would all
this new stuff go, there's no room.

Quote: EvenBob

Doesn't this seem like a lot to go thru for a side
bet? I'm just sayin.. It sounds like a confusing
mess of a table, with the roulette marquee and
flashing electronics for the poker. But you can't
know that because you've never seen an actual
setup.

When you see a regular roulette table, and its
busy, have you noticed there is barely room
to accomodate the players? Where would all
this new stuff go, there's no room.

Bob, not really. Electronic screens, meters, and sensor-lights are routinely added to gaming tables without problem. In fact, Hooters Casino now uses a fully-automated "I-Table" on Three-card poker where players make bets, fold or raise, and recieve payment via such table-based screens - even though they are dealt and see cards. It makes the table less cluttered with chips, as it just a screen. Chips are only used to buy into the table, and to cash out at the cage.

Next you will want me to believe somebody went to Hooters to play a table game !

Quote: buzzpaff

Next you will want me to believe somebody went to Hooters to play a table game !

It used to be called the San Remo casino - right next to the Tropicana casino, and across the street from the MGM Grand. It's a full-fledged bona-fide casino that was simply bought and renamed by the Hooters chain.

Bob -

How "busy" it is really depends upon how well that sensor interface is designed. That's up to the distributor.

My contribution to this is the game itself. I "designed" those devices just as a way to envision it operating, but it's really the distributor's responsibility to design and build that part of it.



Buzz -

Because they were having a free steak special for out of state visitors in May, I had dinner there one night, and played poker and craps while there.

Yesterday, I got an offer for rooms at $7 per night.

I'm VERY tempted to stay there for G2E.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Bob -

How "busy" it is really depends upon how well that sensor interface is designed. That's up to the distributor.
.

Won't the distributor have to think this is a surefire
hit of a game before they sink a lot of money into
all the electronics and installation? As a businessman,
I sure would want some proof I'm going to get a
return on my investment. Do you really see some
distributor being that gung ho on this idea?

Quote: Paigowdan

Electronic screens, meters, and sensor-lights are routinely added to gaming tables

Not to roulette tables they're not. There is a lot
going on at a busy roulette table, its undeniable.
6-8 people making bets, the dealer mucking chips.
And you want to add electronics and flashing
lights and more betting options to that scene?

I don't foresee it happening. I play roulette as
my only game and I can't imagine the confusion
that would ensue.

For what it's worth, I keep rattling around the idea of a completely non-electronic version, where the dealer handles everything, in the section of the felt between the back of the layout and where he stands. It's not a great solution, but certainly a cheap one, and one which would be enough for a field evaluation.

I'd RATHER get an electronic version. When at the Focus Group, I was using an iTable to do the demo. In my mind, it would have been relatively simple to add my bet to that system. There WAS space on the screen that could have been utilized for it.

The same goes for Rapid Roulette, as well as any of the automatic systems and stand-alone roulette slot machines.

Also, I do not plan on having any flashing lights, with the exception of the "W" light, to indicate a winner that hasn't been paid yet.

You really need to come up with a realistic side
bet that doesn't involve chopping up the tables.
Something roulette related. Concentrate on the
zeros, players love betting the zeros because
they think they're the 'house numbers'. They
would love a zeros side bet.

I've finally updated my website for my latest changes.


I've combined the wild and non-wild combinations into a single payline, making for simpler pay tables.

I've reduced the paytable offerings to one paytable per version. This allowed me to combine the paytable chart with the math chart. It also allowed me to put all the math and payouts for all three versions on a single Math & Payouts page.

These changes should make Mike happy, since he has told me about a million times "Keep it simple."


As mentioned above, I wanted to create a manual method, one that doesn't require any electronics, etc. I've designed a set of procedures that allows the dealer to reference the history display, and track the active bets manually. Read about it towards the bottom of my Casino Advice page.

This means that the only change is a new table felt and some inexpensive covers to protect the bets waiting to be resolved.

While I still believe the fully electronic version is the way to go, this is a good cheap alternative for a field test.



Opinions?

Looks good. I think the hit rate for the 5 would eventually frustrate enough players to make it not so popular, but that is just a guess.....

Yeah, that was the consensus of the focus group. But, as I mentioned on my home page, the 5 spin version is now targeted towards micro-stakes internet games. Regardless of the low hit rate, wouldn't an online player throw a penny at it? If not, offer the 3 spin version.

I think the electronic version is the only way to go. With the rolling spin feature where every spin starts another string of 3 spin bets, it is just too complicated to keep track manually.

I realize that you have the manual 3 Spin version with three sets of bets under plastic covers but this is just not a smooth, seamless solution to tracking the rolling spin feature of this game IMHO.

I like the three spin version and believe it will have to be licensed to a manufacturer/distributor of an e-table roulette game to have a future.....that could be a very nice option for a distributor as a differentiator in their e-Roulette offerring.

It is sales time DJ.....time to find a distributor that wants to add a zing to their electronic roulette table!

As I mentioned in this post, of mrsuit31's thread, I've come up with a completely manual method that does not require use of the history display.

In short, I had described using the Roulette chips and three covers to protect unresolved bets. It would be a simple matter to have a bunch of lammers available, and add a lammer under each cover to help the dealer track the previous result.

Yeah. A "bunch" means 114 lammers - 3 for each of the 38 numbers. This probably means I should include lammer racks, but it's still relatively simple.

I'll describe it better, with illustrations, on the website in a day or two.

Sigh, at the same time I'll update the math page, because I noticed several errors. I'm pretty sure that all the errors are a result of incorrectly transferring numbers when creating the web page, and that the house edges are correct, but I'll let you know. (I don't have my Excel doc with me...).

Rather than update my website, I'd like to describe my idea here, and see if you all get what I'm saying.

Here's what I already have on the site:

Quote:

Players put their Roulette chips in a space along the back wall of the table. After announcing, "No More Bets". the dealer puts a clear protective cover over these chips. Next to these chips are two more groups of covered chips, one for the previous spin and next two spins, and the other for the previous two spins and next one spin.

After taking care of the regular bets, slide all three covered groups of chips to the next position, then check the history board to make sure the correct number is being displayed as the last number, then see if the last three numbers contains a winning Poker For Roulette combination. If so, uncover the last group, pay the winners, then muck the chips for the bet. If there was no winner, uncover the last group and muck the chips.

It suddenly hit me earlier today, what I should use as the protective cover: Clear Dice Boats. (Yeah, I found out today they're called "boats" not "bowls".) Spinettis.com has these available for $5.


They also have lammer racks. I'd have to get the lammers specially made, but that's rather simple. Truth is, there's a guy at my day job that makes plastic engraved plaques in his spare time. I'm gonna ask about the lammers I need....

Does what I'm saying make sense?



On a side note I DID update the math page. As I indicated, there were a couple errors when I transferred the data, but the bottom line house edge was correct.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

slide all three covered groups of chips to the next position, then check the history board to make sure the correct number is being displayed as the last number, then see if the last three numbers contains a winning Poker For Roulette combination. If so, uncover the last group, pay the winners, then muck the chips for the bet..

Dude, I'm starting to worry about you. This reminds
me of a Gahan Wilson cartoon in Playboy 30 years
ago. A guy is in his basement watering his mushrooms
and his head is the shape of a giant mushroom. The
caption says "Harold takes his hobby much too seriously."

I believe I understand what you are saying, just not sure that the method of tracking those bets is "elegant" enough solution as PaigowDan would say.

Also, I will tell you that in WA, for example, there are many more Roulette tables without displays than with them. That is clearly not the case in Vegas and if Nevada allows the use of the displays to settle wagers, then you may have a shot. How many jurisdictions allow you to use the roulette history display to settle wagers?

I still believe that the electronic table is the way to go with the rolling three spin wager and think you are going to have a heck of a time convincing a table game director to put three chip covers and 100+ lammers on their live Roulette tables.

I agree that it's not elegant. Not even close.

But my latest idea, using lammers in areas where the display cannot be used, is designed primarily for field testing.

ShuffleMaster ultimately turned me down, primarily because they don't want to invest a lot of time and money into an electonic version of a game that they are unsure about. I gotta think that if I get a successful field trial, then they'll be more open minded.

Ditto for any other distributor.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I gotta think that if I get a successful field trial, then they'll be more open minded.

Thats just what the inventor of the Flying Pinto thought
in 1973 when him and a buddy took it for a 'field trial'
and the Pinto broke loose from the wings and they were
both killed. Some things are just never meant to be..