Vague thoughts on a new poker game
Poll
 | 19 votes (63.33%) | ||
| | 4 votes (13.33%) | ||
| | 3 votes (10%) | ||
| | 4 votes (13.33%) |
30 members have voted
Seriously, I've had this idea for a game in the back of my head for a while and it's never quite come together. The basic hook is that the player gets to choose whether to play it safe and go for a more likely win at a lower payout, or go for the tougher win at a higher payout. For example:
1) Player makes ante bet, gets 5 cards.
2) Player decides "go for it" or "play it safe". If they go for it, they make a raise bet on a spot that says "5" and they stand with their 5 cards. If they play it safe, they make a raise bet on a spot that says "7" and they get two more cards.
3) Dealer gets 7 cards. Best 5 card hand wins.
4) Raise bets on the 7 spot are paid at 1 to 1, raise bets on the 5 spot are paid at 2 to 1 (or whatever odds work). It will probably take a paytable with bonus amounts for big hands to fine tune the numbers. Ante probably also pays at even money. Maybe there's a qualifier for paying the ante or something -- I haven't worked the numbers yet. Ties probably lose; maybe they push.
Variations are plentiful; the initial player hand might only be 4 or 3 cards, then the player would choose between receiving an additional 1 or 2 vs. an additional 3 or 4. The raise bet might be more than 1x. The player can be allowed to make both bets with the correct procedure (e.g. resolve the 5 vs. dealer first, then deal the 2 extra cards, then resolve the 7 vs. dealer).
But the basis of the game is allowing the player to pick whether he wants to play a longshot vs. a safer win, and to pay winners accordingly. What do you think about that basic concept as the primary strategic decision in a game?
Quote: WizardI like it. I'd make it a choice between 0, 1, or 2 extra cards. Between forcing a negative bet, like the Blind in Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em, or a dealer qualifier, I would go with the qualifier. You could always add on an insurance side bet, to hedge against that.
I like it, maybe even three cards for a possible push.
1. Name? "You make the call," "Call your hand," "Lock it in," "Less is more," a lot of possibilities.
2. Start with 3 and a monster paytable, if needed, then add two... if needed, then add two more.
3. Player qualifies with a pair [?]
Quote: PaigowdanLooks impressive:
1. Name? "You make the call," "Call your hand," "Lock it in," "Less is more," a lot of possibilities.
2. Start with 3 and a monster paytable, if needed, then add two... if needed, then add two more.
3. Player qualifies with a pair [?]
Starting to look like PaiGowMania...geez, I loved that game. Really too bad it died.
Build-a-win. Money Manager. Boss Poker. Portland Poker.
http://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/puntoluckydrawbaccarat.html Lucky Draw Baccarat uses the same idea, that you usually [depends on pay table being used, as there was a 322 at one stage] stand on initial 6+ and pay to draw a second card (as you could get the 3-1 bonus) - without the bonus you would usually stand.
Quote: allinriverkingWouldn't this game be similar to 3-5-7 Poker? I played that years ago, don't remember exactly how that game went.
No, in 3-5-7 Poker you are no playing against the dealer.
http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/activities/game-rules/pai-wow.pdf
Quote: BuzzardIs this related to Pai Wow Bonus ?
http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/activities/game-rules/pai-wow.pdf
Pai Wow Bonus is a Side-bet for Pai Gow Poker (invented by Roger Snow).
Quote: BuzzardAWWWWW Stephen, you ruined all the fun. SIGH
Sorry, Buzzard.
I've inverted the rule structure of the original, perhaps making the game simpler in the process:
1) Player makes ante bet, gets 2 hole cards.
2) Player decides "go for it" or "play it safe". If they go for it, they make a raise bet on a spot that says "7" to play against a 7-card dealer hand; if they play it safe, they make a raise bet on a spot that says "5" to play against a 5-card dealer hand. Then either way they get 3 more cards for a total of 5 cards. They could make both bets if they wanted.
3) The dealer reveals whichever hand(s) the player bet against, and the best 5 card hand wins.
4) Raise bets on the play it safe 5 spot are paid at 1 to 1, raise bets on the go for it 7 spot are paid at 2 to 1 (whatever odds work). It will probably take a paytable with bonus amounts for big hands to fine tune the numbers. Ante probably also pays at even money, pushes sometimes, etc.
In the first (OP) version, the player was picking which of two hands to play vs. the dealer's hand. In this version, the player only has one hand, but is picking which of two dealer hands to play against. Is this version better or worse?
Quote: WizardI like it. I'd make it a choice between 0, 1, or 2 extra cards. Between forcing a negative bet, like the Blind in Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em, or a dealer qualifier, I would go with the qualifier. You could always add on an insurance side bet, to hedge against that.
Okay, it's been a while but I finally got around to crunching the numbers based on those three options. Here's a brief statement of the rules right now:
1) Player makes a $5 ante bet and a $5 main bet, and gets 5 cards.
2) Based on the 5 cards, the player decides to draw 0, 1, or 2 extra cards. They move their main bet to a circle with the appropriate label and the dealer delivers those cards. The player now has a 5, 6, or 7 card hand.
3) The dealer reveals a 7 card hand.
4) The dealer must have a pair or better to qualify, about 83% of the time. If the dealer doesn't qualify, the ante bet pays 1-1 and the main bet pushes.
5) If the player beats or ties the dealer after drawing 0 cards, the main bet pays 3-1 and the ante pays 1-1.
6) If the player beats or ties the dealer after drawing 1 card, the main bet pays 2-1 and the ante pays 1-1.
7) If the player beats or ties the dealer after drawing 2 cards, the main bet and ante bet both pay 1-1.
8) If the dealer beats the player, both bets lose.
Like RDW said, "ties win" is a nice touch, and it really doesn't impact the edge at all so I left it in. It turns out that the main bet is positive under optimal strategy, though not by much after the qualifier, and the ante is negative under that strategy. Interestingly, the ante bet is also positive but only if you use its own optimal strategy, which totally ruins the edge on the main bet. I'm reasonably sure that there is no combined strategy that yields an overall +EV on the game, though I'd obviously check that before I'd submit to regulatory. Based on an initial quick analysis and then 1B hands of simulation, I'm getting an overall house edge of about 1.27%. I could do several things to bump that up a little, like increasing the qualifier a bit (pair of 3s or better, etc.)
What do you think so far? Any comments, questions, or admissions of bigotry?
Quote: MathExtremistWhat do you think so far? Any comments, questions, or admissions of bigotry?
Spectacular. I haven't confirmed your math, but assuming it is correct, the game looks great. The game would then lend itself to sidebets with high payouts.
It's different enough to come under the 'unique' category.
May need a couple of other tweaks or side-bets added to it but I could see it attracting players.
I also like the concept, as I mentioned above. A comment about the Main bet, if I may; what happens if the player folds, rather than drawing any cards? Is there ever a time under Optimal Strategy where it's best to fold rather than drawing 2 cards? I'm looking at possibly some casino discomfort at moving any bet from one circle to another, rather than adding money to the layout, and whether the game still works if the player puts up only an initial Ante bet, then the Main bet gets placed in one of the 3 circles as a continuation bet. That would also allow for 1 less circle on the layout, so less possible player confusion and more room for sidebets.
But, if there are a significant number of hands that should be folded, the casino will not collect the Main bet with that procedure. What would the HE be if the Main bet was not part of the initial play? And it would appear, but you do not explicitly state in the revised rules, that Ante must equal Main in either procedure. Is that correct? Thanks.
Quote: beachbumbabsME,
I also like the concept, as I mentioned above. A comment about the Main bet, if I may; what happens if the player folds, rather than drawing any cards? Is there ever a time under Optimal Strategy where it's best to fold rather than drawing 2 cards? I'm looking at possibly some casino discomfort at moving any bet from one circle to another, rather than adding money to the layout, and whether the game still works if the player puts up only an initial Ante bet, then the Main bet gets placed in one of the 3 circles as a continuation bet. That would also allow for 1 less circle on the layout, so less possible player confusion and more room for sidebets.
But, if there are a significant number of hands that should be folded, the casino will not collect the Main bet with that procedure. What would the HE be if the Main bet was not part of the initial play? And it would appear, but you do not explicitly state in the revised rules, that Ante must equal Main in either procedure. Is that correct? Thanks.
There is no folding in his latest set of rules. Why are you worried about folding when it's not part of the game? Do you worry about what happens when you 7-out at the blackjack table?
Quote: sodawaterThere is no folding in his latest set of rules. Why are you worried about folding when it's not part of the game? Do you worry about what happens when you 7-out at the blackjack table?
I don't 7-out at the blackjack table. His current mechanism forces a 2x ante bet to be in play, but requires movement by the player of a bet already placed. Most table games avoid a move of chips already in action (craps come-bet being an exception, for one) for game protection; in both craps and House Money, where bets are moved, it's the dealer that places them, not the player. So I'm wondering if this movement is enough to make the game unattractive to a casino, and if it does, whether there's a work-around doing it this way. It may not even be a game-killing concern, which is why I'm asking if it is. The requirement of Ante = Main would be a deterrent to capping/pinching the Main bet as it's moved, if that's a requirement, so that's why I referenced that as well. The dealer should be able to tell pretty easily if the Main bet has been pinched or capped if it must match the Ante.
Edit; what the house loses in not getting 2x on a bad hand could be more than made up by a player folding before the dealer exposes his hand; he wouldn't have to pay the player that folded and lost his ante before he found out he didn't qualify and had to pay the remaining ante bets. So it might work well.
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't 7-out at the blackjack table. His current mechanism forces a 2x ante bet to be in play, but requires movement by the player of a bet already placed. Most table games avoid a move of chips already in action (craps come-bet being an exception, for one) for game protection; in both craps and House Money, where bets are moved, it's the dealer that places them, not the player. So I'm wondering if this movement is enough to make the game unattractive to a casino, and if it does, whether there's a work-around doing it this way. It may not even be a game-killing concern, which is why I'm asking if it is. The requirement of Ante = Main would be a deterrent to capping/pinching the Main bet as it's moved, if that's a requirement, so that's why I referenced that as well. The dealer should be able to tell pretty easily if the Main bet has been pinched or capped if it must match the Ante.
Your point about the chip movement is valid. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about your several sentences worrying about folding when folding is not a part of his game.
Hand signals still would need to be developed. At first I though about number of fingers extended, but I'm not sure if that would work for everyone.
Quote: sodawaterYour point about the chip movement is valid. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about your several sentences worrying about folding when folding is not a part of his game.
I got ahead of myself in how I wrote that. His game HE may depend on the player losing the entire 2x bet on a bad hand. If he did it the way I suggested, the player could then fold and forfeit the ante only, rather than losing both on a hand that doesn't seem worth trying to improve. Since you're simply head-to-head with the dealer, rather than against a bonus paytable, I would think something above 90% of hands are worth trying to improve. As it is, there is no fold, because no matter how bad the hand, you would try to save it by drawing 2. If the player had the option of folding (kind of a surrender of 1/2 the base bet as opposed to 2x ante), it would change both the optimum strategy and the HE, but get rid of the chip movement. So I'm wondering what that break point in the OS would be, and how much being allowed to fold for 1/2 would mess with the HE. Stacy said there are circumstances where both bets under different circumstances are +EV; this could make that worse or flatten it.
Quote: beachbumbabsME,
I also like the concept, as I mentioned above. A comment about the Main bet, if I may; what happens if the player folds, rather than drawing any cards? Is there ever a time under Optimal Strategy where it's best to fold rather than drawing 2 cards? I'm looking at possibly some casino discomfort at moving any bet from one circle to another, rather than adding money to the layout, and whether the game still works if the player puts up only an initial Ante bet, then the Main bet gets placed in one of the 3 circles as a continuation bet. That would also allow for 1 less circle on the layout, so less possible player confusion and more room for sidebets.
But, if there are a significant number of hands that should be folded, the casino will not collect the Main bet with that procedure. What would the HE be if the Main bet was not part of the initial play? And it would appear, but you do not explicitly state in the revised rules, that Ante must equal Main in either procedure. Is that correct? Thanks.
In the version above, there is no folding -- just deciding where to put the Main bet. I'll look into the idea of making the Main bet a Raise bet instead and adding the option of (a) forfeiting the Ante or, in another version, (b) keeping the Ante but just not making another bet and then playing with just the 5 initial cards. I'm not sure you'd ever want to do either, though...
Edit: yes, in the analysis above, Ante = Main.
Quote: endermikeIt should be the dealers job to move the money. They could leave it in place for one of the options and move it to a different circle for the other 2 choices.
Hand signals still would need to be developed. At first I though about number of fingers extended, but I'm not sure if that would work for everyone.
He could call it "Rock, Paper, Scissors" and the signals would match: Fist (0) Rock, Paper (1) Hand straight out, Scissors (2) with 2 fingers spread. lol....
I agree with endermike about the dealer moving the bet for game protection.
If the player can make an initial Ante, see the first five cards, and then either make a Main bet on one of the three options or forfeit the Ante, that's a negligible effect. The player only properly folds 0.028% of the time (744 hands out of 2.6M). In truth, players would be likely to fold more often than that, so adding that option is actually a sneaky way of making the game hold more due to those "over-folding" mistakes.
If the player has the option of seeing the five cards and then either making the Main bet or "standing" by not making the Main bet, and thereby playing the original 5 cards against the dealer at the existing Ante rules, that happens a lot more often, about 24.2% of the time. Adding that option but keeping everything else the same yields a slightly positive overall game, about +0.4%. So that would need to be addressed via one of the other techniques.
I'm leaning toward the option of letting the player actually fold and forfeit the Ante. Folding/forfeiting is more consistent with traditional poker sensibilities, even though in this particular case you almost never do it. Element of Risk drops from -1.272% to -1.256%. So basically the rules are:
a) Make your Ante bet
b) If you like your cards, make a matching Raise bet on one of the three options; if not, fold and forfeit the Ante.
c) Dealer gets 7 cards, play as above.
At some point I'll get around to reworking my analyzer so I don't have to rely on simulation at all, but this game is far too big for a naive brute-force analysis. I've made heavy use of equivalence classes; I'm just not done yet and I have to work on other things for a while. A bonus: I taught myself how to do parallel programming in C# on my new 8-way Haswell machine.
BB is right on the players being able to touch their bets after looking at their cards....that won't fly procedurally.
Aren't you going to need separate side bet pay tables depending on how many cards the player draws? That will be the challenge with adding the side bets....unless you tie them to the 7 card dealer hand and use a PGP type 7 card side bet pay table (aka Fortune or Emperor's Challenge).
Quote: MathExtremistQuick update:
If the player can make an initial Ante, see the first five cards, and then either make a Main bet on one of the three options or forfeit the Ante, that's a negligible effect. The player only properly folds 0.028% of the time (744 hands out of 2.6M). In truth, players would be likely to fold more often than that, so adding that option is actually a sneaky way of making the game hold more due to those "over-folding" mistakes.
If the player has the option of seeing the five cards and then either making the Main bet or "standing" by not making the Main bet, and thereby playing the original 5 cards against the dealer at the existing Ante rules, that happens a lot more often, about 24.2% of the time. Adding that option but keeping everything else the same yields a slightly positive overall game, about +0.4%. So that would need to be addressed via one of the other techniques.
I'm leaning toward the option of letting the player actually fold and forfeit the Ante. Folding/forfeiting is more consistent with traditional poker sensibilities, even though in this particular case you almost never do it. Element of Risk drops from -1.272% to -1.256%. So basically the rules are:
a) Make your Ante bet
b) If you like your cards, make a matching Raise bet on one of the three options; if not, fold and forfeit the Ante.
c) Dealer gets 7 cards, play as above.
At some point I'll get around to reworking my analyzer so I don't have to rely on simulation at all, but this game is far too big for a naive brute-force analysis. I've made heavy use of equivalence classes; I'm just not done yet and I have to work on other things for a while. A bonus: I taught myself how to do parallel programming in C# on my new 8-way Haswell machine.
Yep, that works. Cool! Hope you get back to it and take it forward.
Quote: MathExtremist [earlier]I'm back for more. Whether that's feedback or punishment remains to be seen...
I've inverted the rule structure of the original, perhaps making the game simpler in the process:
1) Player makes ante bet, gets 2 hole cards.
I feel "WAY too little information" is provided in two cards that can reach out as long as seven cards. NO ONE would "fish" as no one would have a straight or flush draw, and would also misleadingly overplay AK or a small pair; Start with a 3 to 5 card hand - as there's WAY more striptease in a hand that shows a little flesh.
Quote: MathExtremist2) Player decides "go for it" or "play it safe". If they go for it, they make a raise bet on a spot that says "7" to play against a 7-card dealer hand; if they play it safe, they make a raise bet on a spot that says "5" to play against a 5-card dealer hand. Then either way they get 3 more cards for a total of 5 cards. They could make both bets if they wanted.
3) The dealer reveals whichever hand(s) the player bet against, and the best 5 card hand wins.
4) Raise bets on the play it safe 5 spot are paid at 1 to 1, raise bets on the go for it 7 spot are paid at 2 to 1 (whatever odds work). It will probably take a paytable with bonus amounts for big hands to fine tune the numbers. Ante probably also pays at even money, pushes sometimes, etc.
In the first (OP) version, the player was picking which of two hands to play vs. the dealer's hand. In this version, the player only has one hand, but is picking which of two dealer hands to play against. Is this version better or worse?
First one, me feels.
.............
Quote: MathExtremistQuick update:
If the player can make an initial Ante, see the first five cards, and then either make a Main bet on one of the three options or forfeit the Ante, that's a negligible effect. The player only properly folds 0.028% of the time (744 hands out of 2.6M). In truth, players would be likely to fold more often than that, so adding that option is actually a sneaky way of making the game hold more due to those "over-folding" mistakes.
Allow folding; a strategy would be to fold on (let's say) an 8-high hand that doesn't have a flush or straight draw, or a hand that doesn't have a face-card or a flush/straight draw. People can spot a "bad start" hand, - and allowing a little flex on EV/HE from it could be factored into the game.
Quote: MathExtremistIf the player has the option of seeing the five cards and then either making the Main bet or "standing" by not making the Main bet, and thereby playing the original 5 cards against the dealer at the existing Ante rules, that happens a lot more often, about 24.2% of the time. Adding that option but keeping everything else the same yields a slightly positive overall game, about +0.4%. So that would need to be addressed via one of the other techniques.
Dealer qualifies with a pair of 5's instead of a pair of 2's, etc, or the player's 5-card hand gets a better pay table with a stronger hand ("Ace bonus pay table") with a starting pair of Aces in the 5-card hand and plays it as 5 cards. Like winning with a straight or better in UTH gets your Bind bet paid, etc.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm leaning toward the option of letting the player actually fold and forfeit the Ante. Folding/forfeiting is more consistent with traditional poker sensibilities, even though in this particular case you almost never do it. Element of Risk drops from -1.272% to -1.256%. So basically the rules are:
a) Make your Ante bet
b) If you like your cards, make a matching Raise bet on one of the three options; if not, fold and forfeit the Ante.
c) Dealer gets 7 cards, play as above.
At some point I'll get around to reworking my analyzer so I don't have to rely on simulation at all, but this game is far too big for a naive brute-force analysis. I've made heavy use of equivalence classes; I'm just not done yet and I have to work on other things for a while. A bonus: I taught myself how to do parallel programming in C# on my new 8-way Haswell machine.
Awesome on that!
As for strategy, I'll tell you, Steve H. will be able to come up with an optimal strategy for the game very quickly. That is fine.
Something like "Play a 5-card hand with jacks or better if you don't have a straight or flush draw (JJ+ is +EV against a dealer's blind 7-card hand); go for more cards with either a weak hand or any good draw."
Love it.
Quote: ParadigmStacy, this game is good! I agree with the latest Ante and then "make a play bet in a spot that designates the number of cards you want to draw" procedure.
BB is right on the players being able to touch their bets after looking at their cards....that won't fly procedurally.
Aren't you going to need separate side bet pay tables depending on how many cards the player draws? That will be the challenge with adding the side bets....unless you tie them to the 7 card dealer hand and use a PGP type 7 card side bet pay table (aka Fortune or Emperor's Challenge).
Yes, I'm thinking about either a dealer 7-card paytable or a a player initial 5-card paytable, though the latter would be slower because you'd need to do N evaluations per deal instead of just 1. I think the dealer paytable side bet would also be a good hedge for when the player has a good hand, stands on 5 cards, and the dealer outdraws them.
Quote: MathExtremistYes, I'm thinking about either a dealer 7-card paytable or a a player initial 5-card paytable, though the latter would be slower because you'd need to do N evaluations per deal instead of just 1. I think the dealer paytable side bet would also be a good hedge for when the player has a good hand, stands on 5 cards, and the dealer outdraws them.
True; hands per hour and dealing ease is paramount in getting it adopted.
The 5, 6, and 7 card hand different paytables could be printed on the felt, and would add interest and strategy (but dealer work and complaints.)
Quote: PaigowdanTrue; hands per hour and dealing ease is paramount in getting it adopted.
The 5, 6, and 7 card hand different paytables could be printed on the felt, and would add interest and strategy (but dealer work and complaints.)
It would add strategy, but that's bad here because you'd be stuck weighing whether to play the right strategy by the Raise bet or by the side bet. You obviously can't accept a side bet after the first five cards because that's way too much information (or all of it, if the player draws zero).
For a dealer's hand paytable bet, I'd probably also offer a few progressive jackpot configurations on something like a 7-card royal, just to give the option of using electronics and commanding a higher lease rate.
Quote: MathExtremistIt would add strategy, but that's bad here because you'd be stuck weighing whether to play the right strategy by the Raise bet or by the side bet. You obviously can't accept a side bet after the first five cards because that's way too much information (or all of it, if the player draws zero).
For a dealer's hand paytable bet, I'd probably also offer a few progressive jackpot configurations on something like a 7-card royal, just to give the option of using electronics and commanding a higher lease rate.
A dealer's hand progressive has some pluses and minuses:
Splitting the jackpot dilutes the top awards, but it also forces some action for every round, as when no other player is playing it, one would HAVE to play with its no-sharing payout ("you own the full win if it happens"), or with one other player. A dealer's hand progressive always has pot odds for the big awards.
A player's hand progressive has something to say for it; it's all mine if I hit it.
So....Can you deal 7-card packets (as the I-deal machines have that setting), and then have the dealer pull the top two cards back, to only be dealt if the player needs more? - this way, the two unused cards of the hand can then be used for the player's 7-card progressive, keeping the pay table clean to run.
Quote: PaigowdanA dealer's hand progressive has some pluses and minuses:
Splitting the jackpot dilutes the top awards, but it also forces some action for every round, as when no other player is playing it, one would HAVE to play with its no-sharing payout ("you own the full win if it happens"), or with one other player. A dealer's hand progressive always has pot odds for the big awards.
A player's hand progressive has something to say for it; it's all mine if I hit it.
So....Can you deal 7-card packets (as the I-deal machines have that setting), and then have the dealer pull the top two cards back, to only be dealt if the player needs more? - this way, the two unused cards of the hand can then be used for the player's 7-card progressive, keeping the pay table clean to run.
Sure, I could do it that way. I could even allow the player to divide their raise bet onto two or more hands; for example, if you start with a $10 ante and you get a pair of aces with three suited cards to one of the aces, maybe you bet $5 on 0 cards to stand on the aces, and another $5 on 2 cards to draw to the flush. If the aces alone get beat, but you make the flush, it's a wash. Of course, then I'd have to figure out what happens to the ante -- win, lose, or draw? I could also increase the qualifying criteria to make room for up to a 2x raise like in Caribbean Stud. I haven't done the numbers yet but it would be cleaner if the dealer qualified with (say) a pair of 4s or better, and then you could bet $5 on the Ante and then either $5 on two options or up to $10 on one of them. Do you ever see a scenario where players would want to cover all three options and have bets riding on all of 0, 1, and 2 extra cards?
Anyway, I don't want to start exploring all these possible game options yet without first nailing the analyzer, and that still needs some effort in order to make it practically efficient. According to the Wizard's charts, Caribbean Stud has 19,933,230,517,200 combinations (19 trillion) and Pai Gow Poker has 8,250,459,031,214,390 (8 quadrillion). This game has 134,194,494,487,893,840 (134 quadrillion). To anyone who's ever analyzed Caribbean Stud or Pai Gow Poker, how long did it take your code to run?
Quote: PaigowdanA player's hand progressive has something to say for it; it's all mine if I hit it.
So....Can you deal 7-card packets (as the I-deal machines have that setting), and then have the dealer pull the top two cards back, to only be dealt if the player needs more? - this way, the two unused cards of the hand can then be used for the player's 7-card progressive, keeping the pay table clean to run.
Dan, I like this 7 Card Player packet idea a lot! It has the added suspense of showing the player whether they made the right decision to draw 0, 1 or 2 cards plus allowing for the 7 card player side bet.
Definitely would need a set procedure on how the dealer places the two "potential draw cards" in the draw boxes as switching the order would impact which card the player received if they chose to draw just one card....this is a bit of a drawback on procedural simplicity, but workable in my opinion, particularly with the benefit of all the cards dealt out at the start of the hand
Of course you have hole carding & edge sorting issues with the players draw cards dealt and in front of them, but there are security procedures that can be put in place to combat this (i.e. draw cards are the top 2 cards slid off the 7 card packet for hole carding protection, using a turn & a riffle before placing cards in shuffler for edge sorting).
Dealer 7 card packet could stay in the discard tray until all players have acted.....why pull it out before then?
ME, I would switch my vote from the dealer hand based side bet to 7 Card Player packets and a side bet based on those 7 player cards.
Quote: ParadigmDan, I like this 7 Card Player packet idea a lot! It has the added suspense of showing the player whether they made the right decision to draw 0, 1 or 2 cards plus allowing for the 7 card player side bet.
Thanks! [I get paid to think like this on table games....]
-- Remember that in many poker and carnival games the Dealer himself reveals the cards as needed to play out and complete the hand (flop, turn, River)...so why not do this when it benefits the player (main hand...then Full Progressive)? Stacy can also do this to have a consistent and simple 7-card "Pai Gow style bonus" - with a surprise end of round "turn-over" winner being a great plus to player! Players would squeal "Dude! This game is AWESOME!" [Fist-pumping and chest-banging to ensue on a win, - with more install orders to come in for Stacy...this is what we can a "win-win."]
Quote: ParadigmDefinitely would need a set procedure on how the dealer places the two "potential draw cards" in the draw boxes as switching the order would impact which card the player received if they chose to draw just one card....this is a bit of a drawback on procedural simplicity, but workable in my opinion, particularly with the benefit of all the cards dealt out at the start of the hand.
Easy to handle and codify into procedures.
Quote: ParadigmOf course you have hole carding & edge sorting issues with the players draw cards dealt and in front of them, but there are security procedures that can be put in place to combat this (i.e. draw cards are the top 2 cards slid off the 7 card packet for hole carding protection, using a turn & a riffle before placing cards in shuffler for edge sorting).
Same regular game protection situation for any current casino game. Expect casino floormen and pit managers to operate at their standard level of general incompetence. Again, Easy to handle, deal and codify into procedures.
Quote: ParadigmDealer 7 card packet could stay in the discard I-deal dispensing tray until all players have acted.....why pull it out before then?
Exactly. It's like sex. So why pull it out too early when you're not ready to, and when you don't have to? (That's called the rhythm method, and it doesn't work, Fr. Gamble can tell ya.) I say, "don't pull it out until it's time." Keep the card packet in there and safe, until you are ready to bring it out.
I say, "Why give some low-life AP player [like my very fine mathematicians] an even break to edge-sort and hole-card when we're here to service the wholesome, salt-of-the-Earth, innocent, good-faith All-American ploppie casino players on such a great game?"
:)
Quote: MathExtremistSo basically the rules are:
a) Make your Ante bet
b) If you like your cards, make a matching Raise bet on one of the three options; if not, fold and forfeit the Ante.
c) Dealer gets 7 cards, play as above.
This game sounds like a winner. Make this the "base" game and then add in the high house percentage side bets for the gamblers.
Quote: ParadigmDan, I like this 7 Card Player packet idea a lot! It has the added suspense of showing the player whether they made the right decision to draw 0, 1 or 2 cards plus allowing for the 7 card player side bet.
I get the appeal of the 7-card player hand bet, especially for the rabbit-hunting aspect, but I'm not sure you'd want to have the cards come out in advance and just sit on the table. That seems ripe for cheating opportunities. Here's how I see the game being dealt.
Layout, from the player's viewpoint:
[ X ] side bet area
[0][1][2] raise bet areas
[ A ] ante bet area
The player makes the ante bet and the side bet. Then they get 5 cards. If they fold, they tuck the 5 cards under the side bet for resolution later (or just push the cards forward if the bet wasn't made).
Then the non-folding players decide what to do by putting their raise wager in the appropriate spot. The dealer then delivers the requested number of additional cards to the raise area; if the side bet is made, any more cards needed to get to 7 are delivered to the side bet area. So if you've made the side bet, then raise and draw 0, the dealer delivers 2 cards to the side bet spot. If the side bet isn't made, no additional cards are dealt, beyond what the player raised for. Cards delivered to either the raise or side bet spots are face down and not touched by the players, ever.
If you're using a packet ejection shuffler as opposed to dealing by hand, the first round for the player is always 5 cards; the second round is always 2 cards but the dealer will discard any non-raise cards if the player doesn't have the side bet. (This makes shuffler programming easier and requires no button pushing mid-hand). If the player makes the side bet, the cards will either be split 0/2, 1/1, or 2/0 between the raise and side bet spots. If the player doesn't make the side bet, the dealer will either discard 2, 1, or 0 cards depending on whether the player draws 0, 1, or 2. Card handling is easy when the player either stands or draws 2; when the player draws 1, the packet of 2 is delivered to the raise area and the dealer slides the top card back, either to put it on the side bet spot or in the discard rack. This process ensures that the lower of the two cards (the first one out of the shuffler) is always the card played against the dealer's hand anytime the player draws 1.
Then the dealer reveals 7 cards, and in turn reveals the player cards and resolves all their bets. I just dealt a few rounds; I think this is much cleaner than putting two cards in a "waiting" spot until after the player decides.
1) From player's viewpoint at the top would be Side Bet (as you have it), next Ante Bet then the 0, 1, 2 Raise Area spots closest to the player. I don't think you want the player's hand traveling over the Ante Bet to make the raise due to capping risk on the way over the top. Think UTH arrangement where play bet is closest to player.
2) If there are procedures to get around hole carding or edge sorting the two "draw cards", I would put them out there. No mid hand card delivery means faster play and the rabbit hunting/7 Card Player Side Bet options are very attractive. Check with teliot/PGD to see if they think there are insurmountable risks in having draw cards face down prior to the Raise bet. Also see 3) below.
3) If you deal 7 cards as needed, that is going impact the flow of cards to players in later positions. Same with a player's draw decisions and I don't think you want a player at center position watching cards he/she needed being delivered to the next spot and saying "if the A**H*** at 1st base would have just made the side bet like you are supposed to, I would have won my hand!!" Any player decision that impacts which cards later players get is going to be ripe for frustration, particularly if the reason is because someone didn't make the side bet and drew no cards.
As you indicate in the 1 draw card option above, sliding back the top card to use in the side bet counteracts any hole carding opportunities, I think you could use the same type of action (slide the top 2 cards into the raise card area) when starting with 7 card player packets.
So my dealing procedure would be:
A) 7 card packet to player pulled out of Shuffler, top two cards fanned off the pack in front of dealer and the bottom 5 cards picked up and delivered to player. Top two cards slid into two boxes labeled "1" & "2" next to each other above the Side Bet spot. Repeat for all players making ante bets.
B) Dealer's 7 Card Packet either removed last from shuffler and slid in front of dealer or left in tray until all players have acted (to counteract hole carding bottom dealer card).
C) Player's make raise/fold decisions (tuck folding player's cards with side bets in play under the side bet and collect Ante).
D) Dealer removes/reveals 7 card hand.
E) Player's hands revealed and settled in order.
