One for the Money[sup]TM[/sup]

Better Wiz. Thank you.

Now I have another question(for which I can probably assume the answer). If I opt to attempt to get a 'better' card by adding my additional bet and it is worse than my original can I get my original card back or no, is it gone forever? I am sure it's clear, but just for fun, original card dealt is an 8(well I am ballsy and think I can get a better card than that), surrender that card, ante up and get a 2, well, obviously I want my 8 back.????

There's no way, the player would have a tremendous advantage being able to pay for the second card, being able to take either card, and then able to Raise again. You would even draw a card if you were dealt a King, because if it were not a King, you'd use your original King, Raise and win 3x bet.

I figured that was the answer, but for completeness, i figured I'd ask. Just like I asked at how many opportunities do I get at taking another card(I'd take, and pay for as many as it takes to get a King, if offered). And the answer was a one time shot.

Trying to look at this game like the average hooplehead would
see it. Hooplehead is Al Swearengen's name for an 'uninformed
gambler'.

First and foremost, it looks like Casino War. Doesn't matter that
it's got differences, at a glance it looks just like it. Big turnoff,
CW was never a hit, and this will turn people away.

Next, it looks simple, but has confusing rules. The dealer will
constantly be explaining what you can and can't do and this will
slow the game down immensely. We have some savvy people
here and they had trouble with it. Imagine an HH (hooplehead)
that's had a couple beers trying to catch on. Also, people will
be slow to make decisions on what they want to do. There
are too many choices and that always slows a game to a crawl.

The ace HAS to be the high card. This will be extremely confusing
to everybody and there's no reason for it not to be high. Everybody
is used to getting dealt an ace and feeling that little tingle. Here
there's just a loud THUMP as you realize it's the lowest card. And
I guarantee you, as sure as the sun comes up, people will get it
wrong all the time and raise the crap out of their ace, and be pissed
when they find out the truth.

The next is a biggie. Very shortly into the game, they'll notice the
dealer is getting a LOT of high cards. This is because he gets dealt
a pair of cards every time and there are only 3 variations that can
happen. He'll get a H-H, a L-L, or a H-L. Because he can always
choose the highest card, he has a 2 out 3 chance on every hand of
getting a high card. That's 66%! That's very hard to ignore if you're
an HH, or anybody else. This will also inevitably lead to streaks of
high cards by the dealer. It has to. There will be times when he gets
a high card 10 times in a row, or more. But he will always be getting
way more high cards, and this shoots any kind of strategy a HH might
have right in the butt.

Why would you stay on a 5 when you know the dealer gets so many
high cards? You wouldn't, nobody would. The only way you have any kind
of chance is drawing another card on a 7 or lower, always. But wait.
The chances of you winning even if you stay on an 8-9 aren't good
either. The only way to play is to always hit on a 9 or lower. The
dealer will seem to you invincible, worse that a BJ dealer on a 21
binge. Staying on an 8-9 gives too much of a chance of a push, and
who needs that.

So the average HH will maybe give it a try, and if he's not baffled by
the confusing player options, he might play for a while until he gets
sick of the all the dealers high cards and realizes he has to buy a hit
on anything less than a 9. And even then, he's only got about
a 50/50 chance of winning, and that's terrible odds. All you have at that
point is luck and we know what that'll get you. I know I'm playing
fast and loose with the math, but the HH won't have the math at
all, he'll only know what he's seeing.

Remember, all of us on the forum have years and decades of casino
and game experience. The average HH has years of wandering around
with his head up his keister. He's see's these games as, are they exciting?
Are they complicated? Can I make money? Can I at least last a long time?
Is it fair. I'm afraid this game, as it stands, is a 'no' to most of those questions

I give a 'C' for originality. A 'C' for concept, please make the ace the high card.
A 'D' for chances of making it for long in any casino. It's way too much like
another game that was never popular, and it has too many flaws going in.

Quote: Wizard

Here is how I would put the rules.

1. The game is played with a single 52-card deck.
2. Cards are ranked as in poker, excepts aces are low.
3. The object of the game is to have a higher card than the dealer.
4. After making an Ante wager, the player shall receive one card and the dealer two, face down.
5. The player has the following options: (1) Call, (2) Double his bet, while staying with his original card, and (3) Double his bet and switch for a new card.
6. If the player switches cards, then after seeing his new card, he make make an additional wager equal to his Ante bet.
7. The dealer turns over both his cards and plays the higher of the two. If they are equal in rank, then he may play either one.
8. Wins pay even money on all bets. A tie results in a push.

Do I have that right?

This is exactly right, except that one rule has changed since you posted: aces are now high as of this morning. Also, on pays, the game will most likely pay odds on a low-odds win hand, not just even money, and the low-odds win will pay to all bets. This paytable is optional, but will probably be in use in all variations of the base game. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond, Wiz.

Quote: tringlomane

Well, the customer better want them if they want to be in line with most state laws. ;) And looks I made a good guess with 10 to 1 on 2. :D I like the idea of the increased payouts on unlikely wins. Conversely a "bad beat" bonus instead could also accomplish something similar. But payouts would probably be less steep. You want steep payouts on ~rare events to keep players' interest.

trin,

You did guess well. The odds payout is kind of a one-way in the player's favor bad beat payoff; I liked doing it this way better than a bad beat on a J-Q-K, for instance. It's mandatory and positive to the player here, and allows great latitude in structuring the HE, where a bad beat would likely be a sidebet and optional. Of course, there could be both; a bad beat paytable could be added as an option.

I'm admittedly ignorant of state and tribal gaming laws and regulations; I expect that will be the next learning curve for me to crawl up. I've seen odds on table signs, felts, handout cards, display charts, different ways everywhere. Didn't know there was regulation because it hasn't been consistent in my experience.

Quote: MathExtremist

Yes, I think pitching this as an improved, more action-packed version of war is better than calling it a one-card poker game. I'd also make Aces high because Aces are high (or both) in every other casino card game, and your math still holds because you're using 13 different ranks rather than point values like BJ or Bacc.

So I still think you have some tightening to do on that list, but you're getting there. Don't focus on the similarities though, focus just on the improvements. E.g., in War you get stuck with a lousy card but in OftM you can try to improve it. In War you have to stand on a good card but in OftM you can raise. Etc.

But I wouldn't lead with house edge of "as low as 0.5%." That's too low. Lead with 1.5% or so and demonstrate that you can dial it up or down based on the paytable adjustments.

Also, be careful with the speed comparison. War will still be a lot faster than your game. Most of the time in War there are zero decisions. In your game there's always at least one, sometimes as many as three decisions. I'm not saying they aren't quick decisions, but trade/redeal/raise will still happen a fair bit of the time (I'm guessing about 15-20%?) and that requires physical action by both the player and dealer.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say one of the reasons War washed out is the house edge is way too high for a game that fast (c.f. craps at 35 decisions/hour at 1.41%). If you decrease the edge on your game to 1.5% or 1%, even if you don't have quite the blazing speed, but do have more player interaction, you might hit the sweet spot.

Thanks, ME. Aces, as of this morning, are high. The mathematical difference is nil; it was just a remnant of the party poker game.

The HE low as .5 was my comment for the forum's information. The marketing is not saying that in that way.

Your comment about speed comparison is correct. I don't know how fast War is, but I'm certain it's faster than One for the Money. In testing, and in the video, we are seeing an average round with an inexperienced dealer and 3-4 players take 24 seconds, and we're not hurrying it. That's 150 hands/hour not counting shuffles or money changing, but does count player betting and decision time, so we're not saying anything we can't back up.

I would agree that's what killed War; you can't blow the players off the table long-term. That's why the low-odds win paytable is critical and what makes the game viable; the house can tune the drop and play at full speed. We think we've found the sweet spot on that with the paytable I mentioned before or something very similar. Right now we're expecting a HE around 2.0 with an EOR of 1.0 to be very saleable, but that can be adjusted to the casino's needs.

Appreciate the thoughtful response.

Quote: Wizard

I tend to oppose comparing this game to War when trying to explain it, as there are too many differences. I'd not compare it to anything.

Regarding the aces, if forced, I would make them high. When I played Screw Your Neighbor, aces were low, but this is also quite a bit different from that game, that I think holding over that rule is not necessary. I'm not sure that many people are familiar with Screw Your Neighbor anyway.

Wiz,

As usual, you are correct. Aces are now high.

Quote: thecesspit

Quote: Wizard

Here is how I would put the rules.

1. The player may then keep his original card or switch it with the next card in the deck.
2. If the player switched cards, then he may call or raise by an amount equal to his Ante bet.

Do I have that right?

I thought the switch always cost a unit bet?

You are right, cess; A switch costs 1x the ante.

Quote: Buzzard

ACES MUST BE HIGH !

Besides already stated reasons by IQ's far greater than mine.

If strategy is trade a-6 stand 7-8-9 Raise 10-j-q-k or anything similar.

Then if A is high stand 8-9-10 will allow more mistaken raises, I think ?

Plus playing a beat the dealer game and ACE sucks ? ? ?

Buzz has been one of my secret testers, and has insisted on this ad nauseum. He wins as of this morning. Aces are high. All optimal strategy I've mentioned changes by one card up. The low-odds paytable changes to 6 and below. The math is the same.

Quote: Alan

My understanding is that it costs an extra bet to switch cards, it's not free, but I could be wrong.

You are correct. Thanks for helping to clarify while I was comatose. Vegas, baby.

Quote: Wizard

You're right, I knew that but worded it incorrectly. With the option to raise before the switch, isn't it mathematically equivalent to the choice of raising 1x or 2x to switch? I haven't done the math, but it would seem to be foolish to me to raise 2x, since you're getting a random card going against two dealer cards. Maybe the 2x option is just giving the player rope to hang himself, which players will do all the time with new games.

You may do one and only one of the following at the decision point: raise, stand, trade. You may not raise, then switch.

If you trade, you may further do one and only one of the following: stand, raise.

This order is required for the math to be correct. All actions are on 1x ante bet, or a unit, if that is a universally understood term for it.

Quote: tringlomane

So you're suggesting if someone is dealt, say, a 4, they might raise it, and then request a switch after that? Stupid move, but possible I suppose.

This is not a legal move in the game at this time. See above.

Quote: beachbumbabs

trin,

You did guess well. The odds payout is kind of a one-way in the player's favor bad beat payoff; I liked doing it this way better than a bad beat on a J-Q-K, for instance. It's mandatory and positive to the player here, and allows great latitude in structuring the HE, where a bad beat would likely be a sidebet and optional. Of course, there could be both; a bad beat paytable could be added as an option.

This is far superior to a bad beat, it keeps the player hopeful on any card he is dealt, with exception to a deuce.

That brings me back to that 2-2-2 idea...anything on that?

It's getting better Beach... Good job.


ZCore13

Quote: Wizard

ME said the maximum final bet was three units, and I didn't notice anyone correcting him. How does the player get to three units?

A player antes 1 unit. A player may buy a trade for 1 units. A player may then raise on the traded card for 1 unit.

The hit frequency of these occurences is, on a 6 deck shoe:

OVERALL
p(win) 0.415449358
p(lose) 0.492100297
p(push) 0.092450344
BY EVENT
p(stand) 0.153846154 1 unit pay
p(double) 0.307692308 2 unit pay
p(swap) 0.538461538 2 or 3 unit pay (see below)

p(swap then double) 0.166213208 3 unit pay
p(swap then stand) 0.37224833 2 unit pay

Quote: Mission146

BeachBumBabs has already posted the Optimal Strategy:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/15552-one-for-the-money-sup-tm-sup/3/#post282972

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote:

Optimal strategy: War: always go to war. One for the Money: always trade A-6; 7 is nearly a wash but trade with odds pay favored by ~.01-.03% by paytable. Stand on 8-9. Raise 10-K. (Note: for most players 7 is a wash, period, and they can justify a stand if they just want to bet the table minimum. But this is a math forum and I'm trying to be accurate and truthful.)

Thanks, Mission! This is still correct, but all values change by one. 2-7 trade: 8 wash :9-10 stand: J-A raise.

Quote: Wizard

Here is my new an improved rules.

1. The game is played with a single 52-card deck.
2. Cards are ranked as in poker, excepts aces are low.
3. The object of the game is to have a higher card than the dealer.
4. After making an Ante wager, the player shall receive one card and the dealer two, face down.
5. The player has the following options: (1) Call, (2) Double his bet, while staying with his original card, and (3) Double his bet and switch for a new card.
6. If the player switches cards, then after seeing his new card, he make make an additional wager equal to his Ante bet.
7. The dealer turns over both his cards and plays the higher of the two. If they are equal in rank, then he may play either one.
8. Wins pay even money on all bets. A tie results in a push.

aces are now high, as of this morning.

on number 5(1), the word "call" should be "stand". "call", to me, implies additional money - matching a bet. You have already ante'd, and that is the bet you are standing on or doubling. if my terminology knowledge is incorrect and they are equivalent, then fine.

otherwise, your rules are correct.

Quote: me

trade/redeal/raise will still happen a fair bit of the time (I'm guessing about 15-20%?)

Quote: beachbumbabs

p(swap then double) 0.166213208 3 unit pay

Haven't lost my touch yet!

Quote: Alan

But and the big but is, 3. there is no guarantee the the switch card is better than the original one dealt. I guess that's why it's gambling.

You have the nut, Alan; the house edge lies in the house always picking the better of two cards, no matter how bad; the player must do it in the blind.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

The way I am reading this, there are three betting options:
1. Keep your original card (total bet 1)
2. Raise your bet, which results in the card being switched, and then stand (total bet 2)
3. Raise, which gets your card switched, and then raise again (total bet 3)
From the use of the words "new card" in #7, I am assuming that you are not allowed to raise with your original card.

Don,

Options are: (bet units total)

Ante = (unit)

1. Stand on your original card (1)
2. Raise on your original card (2)
3. Swap your original card by paying 1(see below)
3a. Stand on your new card (2)
3b. Raise on your new card (3)

The instructions of mine you quoted seemed crystal clear at the time, but I see there's a possible dichotomy. Thanks for pointing that out with your question.

Quote: Alan

I haven't tested that much of the game, but I can tell you that what pisses me off is with BJ, the kill, kill, kill scenario, people(gamblers, at least myself) don't like to get beat to death. With BJ, even playing smart(basic strategy) to get killed sucks big time. Player 20, Dealer 21, Player 19, Dealer 20 wtf, this bites.

I don't like that on BJ either, Alan. This game has a variance of around 4.0 . There will be swings in both directions, and that's borne itself out in live testing. But the volatility works both ways and makes for an exciting game for such a simple thing. And the low-odds pay makes you feel like a champ when a hand you'd given up on pays more on all bets.

Quote: Alan

Better Wiz. Thank you.

Now I have another question(for which I can probably assume the answer). If I opt to attempt to get a 'better' card by adding my additional bet and it is worse than my original can I get my original card back or no, is it gone forever? I am sure it's clear, but just for fun, original card dealt is an 8(well I am ballsy and think I can get a better card than that), surrender that card, ante up and get a 2, well, obviously I want my 8 back.????

Your discard is gone forever. Too bad, Mr. Gambler. Oops!

Quote: Mission146

There's no way, the player would have a tremendous advantage being able to pay for the second card, being able to take either card, and then able to Raise again. You would even draw a card if you were dealt a King, because if it were not a King, you'd use your original King, Raise and win 3x bet.

Mission is correct. Discard is gone forever. The HE happens because the house gets to see both before choosing. You don't.

Gee Babs. Ace is high now.

So repeat after me " I was wrong and Buzz was right. "

Parallel universe ex-wives are just as stubborn as real ex-wives, it seems.

Hi, EB; thanks for weighing in. I'm going to take this in sections.

Quote: EvenBob

Trying to look at this game like the average hooplehead would
see it. Hooplehead is Al Swearengen's name for an 'uninformed
gambler'.

First and foremost, it looks like Casino War. Doesn't matter that
it's got differences, at a glance it looks just like it. Big turnoff,
CW was never a hit, and this will turn people away.

It's truly not Casino War. It may look like it to some, no question.

Quote: EvenBob

Next, it looks simple, but has confusing rules. The dealer will
constantly be explaining what you can and can't do and this will
slow the game down immensely.

This has universally NOT been our experience. We have introduced it to 15 different groups of people now, from several groups of non-gamblers, to several groups of EXTREMELY knowledgable gaming people, and there was not one who didn't know how to play it within 3 hands and from there did not make a strategy mistake or even ask how they should play it. Not one. Some were friends and relatives, but some were people who would have shot holes in us if they could.

Quote: EvenBob

We have some savvy people
here and they had trouble with it. Imagine an HH (hooplehead)
that's had a couple beers trying to catch on. Also, people will
be slow to make decisions on what they want to do. There
are too many choices and that always slows a game to a crawl.

See above. Decisionmaking speed has not been an issue in any focus group or live play demonstration.

Quote: EvenBob

The ace HAS to be the high card. This will be extremely confusing
to everybody and there's no reason for it not to be high. Everybody
is used to getting dealt an ace and feeling that little tingle. Here
there's just a loud THUMP as you realize it's the lowest card. And
I guarantee you, as sure as the sun comes up, people will get it
wrong all the time and raise the crap out of their ace, and be pissed
when they find out the truth.

You are not the first to suggest this. The ace is high as of this morning.

Quote: EvenBob

The next is a biggie. Very shortly into the game, they'll notice the
dealer is getting a LOT of high cards. This is because he gets dealt
a pair of cards every time and there are only 3 variations that can
happen. He'll get a H-H, a L-L, or a H-L. Because he can always
choose the highest card, he has a 2 out 3 chance on every hand of
getting a high card. That's 66%! That's very hard to ignore if you're
an HH, or anybody else. This will also inevitably lead to streaks of
high cards by the dealer. It has to. There will be times when he gets
a high card 10 times in a row, or more. But he will always be getting
way more high cards, and this shoots any kind of strategy a HH might
have right in the butt.

This is very simplistic, somewhat true, and modified by the player getting H or L into 8 options:

PHDHDH
PHDHDL
PHDLDH
PHDLDL
PLDHDH
PLDHDL
PLDLDH
PLDLDL

This methodology is how I originally analyzed the game (before I found me a math guy extraordinaire), seeing if it was viable. The second 4 (PL) have a subset of the same 8, because PL can change into PH or PL on a switch.
It's also important to note that 7 cards out of 13 are either stand or raise cards, for more than 50% good cards (not counting the low-odds pay in this base game evaluation). And that it's not a coin-toss of win or lose on high or low; there are ranks within each category. For example, PHDHDH is 66% for the house, 33% for the player (This combination occurs approx 16% of the time). PHDLDH is 50-50, because the DL is automatically not used (This combination occurs approx 26% of the time at 2x13%). And so on.

The win-tie-lose aggregate of the above options, with single deck, dealer gets 2, player gets 1 with a swap option and a raise option, is 42%-7.5%-50.5%. The raise on a good card either before or after swap produces a house edge of 2.925 and an EoR of 1.528 before shaving that still further with the low-odds pay, so even the base game is very viable.

In other words, 66% is grossly inaccurate and a mischaracterization of the game as a whole.

Quote: EvenBob

Why would you stay on a 5 when you know the dealer gets so many
high cards? You wouldn't, nobody would.

You never stay on a 5. You sometimes swap to a 5 and are stuck with it. However, since you're NEVER forced out of the game, you still have a shot at winning with a 5, and we're going to pay you extra if you do.

Quote: EvenBob

The only way you have any kind
of chance is drawing another card on a 7 or lower, always. But wait.
The chances of you winning even if you stay on an 8-9 aren't good
either. The only way to play is to always hit on a 9 or lower.

Your optimal strategy analysis is incorrect.

Quote: EvenBob

The dealer will seem to you invincible, worse that a BJ dealer on a 21
binge. Staying on an 8-9 gives too much of a chance of a push, and
who needs that.

A push lets you live to fight another day. Better than being forced to fold and forfeit your bet.

Quote: EvenBob

So the average HH will maybe give it a try, and if he's not baffled by
the confusing player options, he might play for a while until he gets
sick of the all the dealers high cards and realizes he has to buy a hit
on anything less than a 9. And even then, he's only got about
a 50/50 chance of winning, and that's terrible odds. All you have at that
point is luck and we know what that'll get you. I know I'm playing
fast and loose with the math, but the HH won't have the math at
all, he'll only know what he's seeing.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for taking the time. I think you're underestimating both the game and the audience. And ~50/50 odds work pretty well for red/black, odd/even, baccarat, and blackjack, so I hope they'll work well for my game, at ~51/49.

Quote: EvenBob

Remember, all of us on the forum have years and decades of casino
and game experience. The average HH has years of wandering around
with his head up his keister. He's see's these games as, are they exciting?
Are they complicated? Can I make money? Can I at least last a long time?
Is it fair. I'm afraid this game, as it stands, is a 'no' to most of those questions.

Exciting? Yes, with the speed of the deal, surprise pays, and getting to decide how to play every hand and stay in the whole way, it is.
Complicated? No, basic strategy is easy and obvious. Flows well, pays are easy to understand.
Make money? That's up to the card gods. All I can provide is the opportunity at good odds.
Last a long time? Maybe, maybe not; HE is low, volatility is high. Card gods again.
Fair? Absolutely. You pays your money, you takes your chances. 51/49's a lot better than roulette offers.

Quote: EvenBob

I give a 'C' for originality. A 'C' for concept, please make the ace the high card.
A 'D' for chances of making it for long in any casino. It's way too much like
another game that was never popular, and it has too many flaws going in.

The grades I care about are yet to come from the casino floor and the people who will play. Thanks again for the critique.

Just watched the video. Then remember Doyle Brunson is against allowing poker players wearing sun glasses. Too easy to mark a card with your fingernail and be able to identify it.
With Shipwreck might that be a problem? Not so much with switching a card as identifying top card in shoe. HUGE edge is you know that card is a king or Ace. And I do mean HUGE !

If you want to make this game far more interesting, turn the first dealer's card face-up. The player still has to beat both, but now they know what one of them is. You'll need to redo the math but maybe not that much. Perhaps you could offset by making the trade a free event.

Quote: Mission146

This is far superior to a bad beat, it keeps the player hopeful on any card he is dealt, with exception to a deuce.

That brings me back to that 2-2-2 idea...anything on that?

Mission, thanks! That was an inspiration that turned the game from good to huge for me Tuesday night - Wednesday morning. My math guy was incredible turning it around so I could demo it; we had numbers 20 minutes before we walked in.

I need to read back for the 2-2-2; you're referring to the A-A-A, before they became high, I think. (If not, please advise) We will be offering a sidebet in nearly all incarnations that will use the dealer's 2 plus the player's 1 for a 3 card bonus of some type, and that would be a paying hand for sure. I do not expect at this time to pay a premium on trips in the base game, but I love the idea, and I will give you full credit if it goes that way.

Quote: Buzzard

Just watched the video. Then remember Doyle Brunson is against allowing poker players wearing sun glasses. Too easy to mark a card with your fingernail and be able to identify it.
With Shipwreck might that be a problem? Not so much with switching a card as identifying top card in shoe. HUGE edge is you know that card is a king or Ace. And I do mean HUGE !

I think that's a problem in any card game, as is hole carding. We are recommending this as a shoe-dealt game, though it could be hand-dealt. Nicking or marking a card has to be about casino protection; I can't protect it as a designer that I know of.

Quote: MathExtremist

If you want to make this game far more interesting, turn the first dealer's card face-up. The player still has to beat both, but now they know what one of them is. You'll need to redo the math but maybe not that much. Perhaps you could offset by making the trade a free event.

The early math we did on this produced +ev with one exposed card. We haven't tried it again as we've refined the game. It's possible what you suggest could work; I think I'll pass that along, thanks, and offer you full credit if it becomes a viable option.

Quote: Buzzard

Gee Babs. Ace is high now.

So repeat after me " I was wrong and Buzz was right. "

Parallel universe ex-wives are just as stubborn as real ex-wives, it seems.

Buzz,

Me eating it at least 6 times in one thread already hasn't satisfied your lust for vengeance? How does Josie stand you?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Buzz,

Me eating it at least 6 times in one thread already hasn't satisfied your lust for vengeance? How does Josie stand you?

WHOA, I almost got suspended for writing what I thought after those first 6 words.

Quote: Wizard

You're right, I knew that but worded it incorrectly. With the option to raise before the switch, isn't it mathematically equivalent to the choice of raising 1x or 2x to switch? I haven't done the math, but it would seem to be foolish to me to raise 2x, since you're getting a random card going against two dealer cards. Maybe the 2x option is just giving the player rope to hang himself, which players will do all the time with new games.

Allowing a raise 2x on any good cards results in +ev, so I couldn't do that, and I wanted to keep it simple, so special rules like graduated raises allowed (raise on a 10 or J 2x ok, but only 1x on Q or K, or vice versa like Mississippi Stud does, for example) were not acceptable in the concept. It could work, I think, in a different version.

Silly question time : What if by paying 1x, I get a new card like now, but by paying 2x I got a second card plus got to keep the first one too ?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Don,

Options are: (bet units total)

Ante = (unit)

1. Stand on your original card (1)
2. Raise on your original card (2)
3. Swap your original card by paying 1(see below)
3a. Stand on your new card (2)
3b. Raise on your new card (3)

Got it.

Let's see how close I came this time:

Basic Strategy, with "Ace High", is:
Trade 2-7 (and raise if the new card is Jack-Ace)
Keep 8-10 without a raise
Keep Jack-Ace and raise
Without any "low odds win" bonuses, the HA I get is 2.925478%.

What payouts for winning with 2-6 are you using to get this down to 0.5%?

Quote: MathExtremist

If you want to make this game far more interesting, turn the first dealer's card face-up. The player still has to beat both, but now they know what one of them is. You'll need to redo the math but maybe not that much. Perhaps you could offset by making the trade a free event.

You'd need to redo it a ton! If the dealer's shown card were a Queen (or higher) the player would be advised to stand on whatever he/she has, or Raise King/Ace

Stand (and Lose) -1

Draw (Assuming less than Queen):

Push: (3/50) * 0 = 0

Win: (8/50) * 3 = 0.48

Lose: (39/50) * -2 = -1.56

Total: -1.08 Units

This, of course, ignores the possibility that the dealer's other card is better than a Queen.

It changes the game in a very fundamental way. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, I think it could be an equally fun variation, I'm just saying the game math would need completely done all over again.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Got it.

Let's see how close I came this time:

Basic Strategy, with "Ace High", is:
Trade 2-7 (and raise if the new card is Jack-Ace)
Keep 8-10 without a raise
Keep Jack-Ace and raise
Without any "low odds win" bonuses, the HA I get is 2.925478%.

What payouts for winning with 2-6 are you using to get this down to 0.5%?

spot on strategy, very good. It's an easy to apply strategy: low=trade, medium=stay, high=raise (essentially double).
For all the proposed changes, I think Barbara's base game is solid and worked out.
I can see a bonus on a surprise win on 2, or 2 and 3, but a house edge of 2.9% is not bad.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Mission, thanks! That was an inspiration that turned the game from good to huge for me Tuesday night - Wednesday morning. My math guy was incredible turning it around so I could demo it; we had numbers 20 minutes before we walked in.

I need to read back for the 2-2-2; you're referring to the A-A-A, before they became high, I think. (If not, please advise) We will be offering a sidebet in nearly all incarnations that will use the dealer's 2 plus the player's 1 for a 3 card bonus of some type, and that would be a paying hand for sure. I do not expect at this time to pay a premium on trips in the base game, but I love the idea, and I will give you full credit if it goes that way.

I know about the sidebet, I'm suggesting that a three-way low card tie should be the biggest win on the main game, if possible. The player's card and both of the dealer's cards all being a deuce. It capitalizes on the very aspect of the game that makes your, "Low card wins," payscale fantastic, the fact that you can draw a deuce and not immediately want to puke in your mouth.

And to think originally you were asked to puke when you got an ACE !

And yet that same woman came up with this game.

Quote: Paigowdan

spot on strategy, very good. It's an easy to apply strategy: low=trade, medium=stay, high=raise (essentially double).
For all the proposed changes, I think Barbara's base game is solid and worked out.
I can see a bonus on a surprise win on 2, or 2 and 3, but a house edge of 2.9% is not bad.

Especially with ACE high, some might be tempted to double with a 9 or 10. Really !

Quote: Buzzard

Silly question time : What if by paying 1x, I get a new card like now, but by paying 2x I got a second card plus got to keep the first one too ?

I don't think that's silly, but I think you'd only make that bet if you had a good card already. In some ways, you're already making that bet when you raise, but if a bet put you on equal footing with the house (which that would), the game wouldn't work. I don't think the math would work, but I don't KNOW that.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Buzz,

Me eating it at least 6 times in one thread already hasn't satisfied your lust for vengeance? How does Josie stand you?

Quote: Buzzard

WHOA, I almost got suspended for writing what I thought after those first 6 words.

Crow, Buzzard, crow. You know, that 2nd cousin of yours at the Roadkill Cafe?

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Got it.

Let's see how close I came this time:

Basic Strategy, with "Ace High", is:
Trade 2-7 (and raise if the new card is Jack-Ace)
Keep 8-10 without a raise
Keep Jack-Ace and raise
Without any "low odds win" bonuses, the HA I get is 2.925478%.

What payouts for winning with 2-6 are you using to get this down to 0.5%?

That's the same HA on single-deck, thanks for the validation, Don!

Also, as I mentioned before, with the low-odds paytables, the 8 becomes a wash, not a sure stand, at almost all paytables. I think you implied that but wanted to be explicit about it.

The .5 comes on six deck with a 2-4-5-15 paytable on the low-odds pay. That has an EoR of .2508%, so I doubt anyone's willing to offer it.

Quote: beachbumbabs

This is very simplistic, somewhat true, and modified by the player getting H or L into 8 options:
.

Of course it alters when you throw in the player
hands. But strictly from a novice players point
of view, he'll see the dealer getting a crap load
of high cards. Not only that, but when the dealer
gets a high card 66% of the time, 66% of those
times it will be a J-Q-K-A. This will alter a players
perception of the game. That's why I mentioned
staying on a 5, assuming the game has odds on
2-5. Why would you ever stay if you knew the
dealer gets so many high cards.

All of you here are looking at the math, and basing
your decisions on that. I'm looking at it as the average
math challenged, dipshit, hooplehead player. And
he's going to see this game differently, I don't care
what volunteer focus groups say. You need a bet
with a big payout, a zinger, something that actually
lets a player recoup losses, a bet he'll actually make.
Something with a higher HE so the casinos feel good
about it. Look at roulette, it has a HE of over 5% and
it's doing better now than it has in decades. People
love making 35/1, what do they care about HE.

" I'm looking at it as the average
math challenged, dipshit, hooplehead player. "

And you are eminently qualified to do so.

Can a math guy verify that 66% ?

Without the ability to buy a new card, the dealer will best the player 62.9% of the time. Adding the ability to buy a new card drops that to 49.2%.

How do you market to a hooplehead? It seems like their only game is roulette, which is funny because many stray to 6:5 blackjack with a max win of 2.

Quote: Buzzard

And to think originally you were asked to puke when you got an ACE !
And yet that same woman came up with this game.
....some might be tempted to double (raise) on a 9 or 10

Buzz, (and c'mon guys....)
Do let me say that Barbara's game is one of the finer - and way more polished game submissions - that I have ever had personally demoed to me.
As for the Ace, being either low or high, is a very minor convention or practice issue, and is fixable right on the spot. Ace as high? sure, done.

And the strategy is very elegant and straightforward: trade on low 2-7, stay on mid 8-10, and raise on face or Ace. VERY clean and Easy strategy.

When you trade, you do not "buy a trade" and "pay out" for it, - the money stays in play to possibly win. Nice feature.

My opinion - for what it is worth - is that it is better than Casino War - which itself has some live casino installs. The trade feature makes it look like the "house is not greedy - " keep you money in play for yourself.

Instead of nit-picking, I feel we should give Barbara a hand - or an install.

Gotta go. Will be back later.

Gee Dan, will there be any invisible " HOUSE RULES " on this game like BJ.

Constructive criticism in not nit-picking. It's try to avoid a Shipwreck !

Before Babs sets sail for Raving Table Games Conference and Galax's 1st prize, a $50,000 value

A 4th place prize is a 5 minute consultation with Dan Lubin

A 5th place prize is a 1 hour consultation with Dan Lubin