Vague thoughts on a new poker game

Maybe, reference the dealing procedure, they could come off in 7 packets, and the top 2 could be moved to the sidebet, whether it's been bet or not. If a player folds, their hand can be combined there awaiting resolution, or all 7 burned if they didn't bet the sidebet. If a player bet 0, the cards either don't get used, or are available to the sidebet. If betting 1, the top card can be turned to combine (they don't need to see it before resolution), then the second card for the sidebet. And betting 2, both cards can be turned for evaluation. That way, the dealer's hand always comes off last, no player's cards are dependent on another's decision, and the shuffler can just deal on a paigow setting (though set for 52 cards, not 53). I think the simplest procedure would be the one least vulnerable to mistakes, and this would be a more efficient deal than 2 rounds, though the dealer would have to manually separate the top 2 from the bottom 5.

I don't see the dealer cards being left in the machine until last, though, whether you use this distribution or another, because the shuffler has to finish the count to verify the deck is complete, and it can't do that with cards on the lip.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I don't see the dealer cards being left in the machine until last, though, whether you use this distribution or another, because the shuffler has to finish the count to verify the deck is complete, and it can't do that with cards on the lip.

This is an issue, but I think you just push the "rest of deck" dump button after removing the dealer's pack. It does cause a delay in that the table has to wait for the green light/deck verification to be complete before dealer opens their hand. Trade off to protection of hole carding the bottom dealer card.

I recall reading either a Teliot post (here or APHeat) or someone else indicating some properties are using this method for 3CP to combat hole carding. With a full table there will only be 3 cards to verify by shuffler, increasing by 7 cards for every empty spot.....would certainly be a property by property decision.

Quote: Paradigm

This is an issue, but I think you just push the "rest of deck" dump button after removing the dealer's pack. It does cause a delay in that the table has to wait for the green light/deck verification to be complete before dealer opens their hand. Trade off to protection of hole carding the bottom dealer card.

I recall reading either a Teliot post (here or APHeat) or someone else indicating some properties are using this method for 3CP to combat hole carding. With a full table there will only be 3 cards to verify by shuffler, increasing by 7 cards for every empty spot.....would certainly be a property by property decision.

You want to make me unhappy, give me a look at the straight flush in 5 I'm holding while the dealer's hand sits on the lip, then have the shuffler misfire and void the hand after they finally clear the machine. I will get up and leave right there.

I hear ya Babs....but properties will fade the odds of that happening or put in some other procedure not to get holecarded on the other 40000 hands.

Quote: Paradigm

I hear ya Babs....but properties will fade the odds of that happening or put in some other procedure not to get holecarded on the other 40000 hands.

Agree with Paradigm. Misdeals are very rare, and a dead hand is a dead hand. Usually, a rare misdeal with save you from an average or losing hand, and you catch a break, although it is annoying. Having the players look at the cards as soon as they get them and setting the hand straight away really speeds play on I-deal machines, so the dealer waiting to pull his cards out until this is done is really no time lost. The cards get completely shuffled for the next round and are ready to go while the dealer does his takes and pays.

So Babs, leaving the cards in until the dealer needs them does not slow the game down, - as the shuffling still occurs while the dealer is processing the current round of play. The next deal will be ready on time. Allowing the risk of hole carding and edge-sorting will hurt ME's game when it happens. Keep in mind that edge-sorting and hole carding (if dealt sloppily) can occur on the two "waiting" cards for the player as well as the dealer's hand, already posing a little more risk for the game. You see why I am against this "rhythm method" of card dealing. The cards should NOT be pulled out only early, - only when you're good and ready - because it allows for hole-carding and edge sorting AP play.

Also, I feel the layout doesn't need separate spots (- and additional layout clutter) for 5, 6, and 7 card hand spots.

If there are two cards waiting, the player uses the 5-card hand Pay table.
If there is one card waiting, the player uses the 6-card Pay Table.
If there are no cards waiting, the player uses the 7-card Pay Table.
THEN the 7-card progressive is resolved.

Questions for ME:

1. on what player hand types does a player ask for a 6-card hand, instead of a 5 or full 7-card hand? It seems a player will generally choose between 5 and 7 card hands, rarely the 6-card hand. If you need more cards, you'll take two, not one. Do note that the player won't really have a bad break by playing a 5-card hand, because he'll choose to play 5-cards only with a winning type hand; And if he DOES form a monster hand seeing the 6th and 7th card, well, that's why he bet the progressive and side bets. Let's say the player has a pair of Aces with no flush/straight draw. So with this hand he plays his 5-card Aces hand. The turnover cards are also aces, so he wins quads on the progressive and sides. Sure, if the dealer had a straight his main bet lost, but he makes it up big time on the progressive/sides. He'll be thankful and happy. Players will be compelled to play the progressive and sides because of this. (Stacy - a sales pitch - "The participation rate is exceptionally high because of the game's [brilliant] design..." and the casino manager will see dollar signs installing it.)

2. Players, IF choosing 6 cards, may THEN ask for #7 if unhappy with the draw. Now you have an additional delay and cause for pushback.

It is rare to draw just 1 card and play with 6. Somewhere around 1-3% of the time, and removing the option only changes optimal return by a fraction of a percent. The actual hand types where you'd draw to 6 are something like an uncoordinated high pair, tens or queens, with no real drawing outs to a strong 7-card hand. I thought this might be the case; that's why the original design was just "stand on 5, or draw to 7".

That two-option version would certainly be simpler. You either stand or draw. If you draw, the dealer puts the extra 2 cards by your raise bet. If you stand and you've made the side bet, the two cards go by the side bet. If you stand and haven't made the side bet, you don't get the two cards at all. Winning raise bets pay either 1-1 or 3-1, depending on whether you drew or not. The layout has only three betting circles, just like 3CP:

[side bet/progressive]
[ante]
[raise]

And the player simply uses hand signals or verbal "hit" or "stand" to indicate their choice, just like blackjack. That's easy enough.

Do you think it would be a better game if the player only had those two draw options, but could also choose between raising 1x or 2x? The options would be fold, stand/raise 1x, stand/raise 2x, hit/raise 1x, hit/raise 2x. The last one might be proper on a hand like a pair of aces with four to a flush.

I could bump up the qualifier a bit to give room for this. Maybe a pair of 3s or 4s. Overall, what do you think of this option?

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Players, IF choosing 6 cards, may THEN ask for #7 if unhappy with the draw. Now you have an additional delay and cause for pushback.

I realized I didn't answer the second question. No, I didn't intend for the player to get two bites at the apple. You make your choice and live with it. Plus, optimal strategy would be far too complicated if there were two decision points.

I like the 2x just through observation of how people actually play UTH. Most folks are not comfortable with the 4x bet in all cases where it's called for, and like to bet 3x on what they consider a marginal hand. I think the 2x bet will get more play in much the same way; they have a nice pair or two small pair, and will risk getting 2x instead of 3x by getting one more card, but will not want to bet 1x on a good, not completely pat hand. So I think that's a feature on your game that is more attractive than your optimal strategy would indicate, and I think it will draw people to the game.

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you think it would be a better game if the player only had those two draw options, but could also choose between raising 1x or 2x? The options would be fold, stand/raise 1x, stand/raise 2x, hit/raise 1x, hit/raise 2x. The last one might be proper on a hand like a pair of aces with four to a flush.

I could bump up the qualifier a bit to give room for this. Maybe a pair of 3s or 4s. Overall, what do you think of this option?

I like being able to raise 2x and to chose a short or long hand. Of course, on a dealer's non-qualifier it would be better to pay the Raise bet and push the Ante, so the players who raised 2x aren't miffed. This would also make a higher qualifying forgiving, getting your 2x raise paid.

ME, I vote for two options, stand or draw 2 cards.....(that damn PGD is full of good ideas!!)

On the raise 1X or 2X decision, what does that do to the odds pay related to standing on 5 cards? I remembered you were going to be able to pay the 5 card hand like 3-1 if they beat the dealer with their 5 cards against the dealers 7 cards. Can you still pay those odds if you allow the multi-unit raises?

Paying the odds on the 5 Card Hand played against the dealer's 7 cards hand is a key differentiator of your game concept...don't lose that feature if that is the only way to allow the multi unit raise feature. I would pick the former vs. the later.

Also, I would be careful on raising the qualifier too high. I think you want the dealer to qualify on at least 5 out of 6 hands. UTH seems to have a pretty good qualifying rate based only on my feeling when playing. 3CP rates feels too low (I say that and someone is going to inform me that the qualification rate in 3CP exceeds UTH...I haven't checked the math, this is based only on feel).

Assuming you can allow a 2X or 1X raise option, I think adding it allows another opportunity for players to make a mistake......and that is good for the game and the casino. Remember, one of the reasons UTH is such a great game for the casinos is very few players are playing it correctly, so even though it has a .52% EOR, the game still holds as if it had a 5% HE.....brilliant design by Pacman. If you can add an opportunity for players to make a mistake that wins them less than they should (by raising on 1X when they should raise 2X), put that in....they will still feel the "I win" experience, but be paid less than they should have......that is a beautiful thing from a game design standpoint.

Quote: Paigowdan

I like being able to raise 2x and to chose a short or long hand. Of course, on a dealer's non-qualifier it would be better to pay the Raise bet and push the Ante, so the players who raised 2x aren't miffed. This would also make a higher qualifying forgiving, still getting your 2x raise paid.

I'll try looking at all of this. Because the probabilities don't change, I'm outputting the stats into a spreadsheet and determining the optimal strategy after the fact based on the pays, so here's what I'll collect:

For each relevant 5-card hand:
a) When the player stands and plays 5 vs. dealer's 7 cards: win, lose, draw, dealer non-qualify
b) When the player draws 1 and plays 6 vs. dealer's 7 cards: win, lose, draw, dealer non-qualify
c) When the player draws 2 and plays 7 vs. dealer's 7 cards: win, lose, draw, dealer non-qualify

It's easy enough to ignore the 6 cards if that's not an option, and it's also easy to adjust the payouts after the fact so I can explore all the ante/raise payout combinations and dial in the EV.

I'll run 4 sets of numbers, one each for dealer qualifying with any pair, pair of 3s or better, pair of 4s or better, and pair of 5s or better. 5s is probably too tight but it's easy enough to get the data. I'll post again when I have the numbers.

BTW, for anyone who wants to follow along, I can simulate/evaluate about 1.15M hands/second. If you can do better, post your kung fu here.

Could not post earlier. Way too late to catch up. Just thinking of all the fun once I post my game. Just a simple combination of basic Blackjack, penny slots, and video poker.

Quote: Paradigm

ME, I vote for two options, stand or draw 2 cards.....(that damn PGD is full of good ideas!!)

On the raise 1X or 2X decision, what does that do to the odds pay related to standing on 5 cards? I remembered you were going to be able to pay the 5 card hand like 3-1 if they beat the dealer with their 5 cards against the dealers 7 cards. Can you still pay those odds if you allow the multi-unit raises?

Paying the odds on the 5 Card Hand played against the dealer's 7 cards hand is a key differentiator of your game concept...don't lose that feature if that is the only way to allow the multi unit raise feature. I would pick the former vs. the later.

Also, I would be careful on raising the qualifier too high. I think you want the dealer to qualify on at least 5 out of 6 hands. UTH seems to have a pretty good qualifying rate based only on my feeling when playing. 3CP rates feels too low (I say that and someone is going to inform me that the qualification rate in 3CP exceeds UTH...I haven't checked the math, this is based only on feel).

Assuming you can allow a 2X or 1X raise option, I think adding it allows another opportunity for players to make a mistake......and that is good for the game and the casino. Remember, one of the reasons UTH is such a great game for the casinos is very few players are playing it correctly, so even though it has a .52% EOR, the game still holds as if it had a 5% HE.....brilliant design by Pacman. If you can add an opportunity for players to make a mistake that wins them less than they should (by raising on 1X when they should raise 2X), put that in....they will still feel the "I win" experience, but be paid less than they should have......that is a beautiful thing from a game design standpoint.

I missed this before, but yes, a 5-card winner would still pay 3-1 regardless of whether the player raised 1x or 2x. FYI, I think I'll switch terminology to "call" and "raise" -- that goes nicely with "fold".

And yes, the mistake factor in this game may be on the high side, especially when adding the 2x option. But having all the stats in a spreadsheet makes it easy to plug in sample strategies (fold on X or below, call/draw2 on X-Y, raise/stand on Y+) and see what the edge would be. I expect to be doing a lot of those in short order.

I'm aware of the tradeoff between frequency and EV when it comes to setting the qualifier. Here are the numbers for the four options I'm considering:
Any pair: Dealer doesn't qualify 17.412%
Pair of 3s or better: 20.831%
Pair of 4s or better: 24.223%
Pair of 5s or better: 27.589%

I'll have to see where things fall out once I add the 2x raise option. The game is already pretty thin as-is, so it won't surprise me if adding the 2x option pushes it positive if I keep the qualifier as any pair. I don't really want to do something like "pair of 2s with a J kicker or better" because that's less elegant, but I suppose I could if needed. On the other hand, if I use Dan's suggestion of actually paying the raise at even money (whatever it is) when the dealer doesn't qualify, that would take the sting out of a higher hit frequency. It's all going to come down to what can I afford. Stay tuned.

Pair of 5s or better: 27.589% ? ? ?

Can't see anyone playing a game with that high of a DNQ.

Quote: Buzzard

Pair of 5s or better: 27.589% ? ? ?

Can't see anyone playing a game with that high of a DNQ.

Agreed, I just had it in there before I knew what the game looked like.

Initial results are in: it looks like even with that high of a qualifier, adding the 2x raise pushes the game very far positive. With an "any pair" qualifier, the game is even more player-favorable, about +29% edge and +11% ER (avg wager is about 2.5 total).

So, either I punt on the raise option or I can require a side bet.

If I punt on the raise option, the player simply chooses fold, call/stand, or call/draw 2. That sims out to -0.5% edge (-0.25% ER) after 1.4B hands. The player almost never folds so the avg. wager is 2. Due to player mistakes, it would play stronger than -0.5%, and extra play on the side bet at whatever edge that has would increase that overall.

If I allow the 2x raise, and pay the raise bet at even-money on a DNQ while pushing the ante, *and* add a mandatory side bet with an edge of -30%, the overall edge is -1.20% with an ER of -0.34%. I'm torn about this. At first blush, I don't necessarily like the mandatory prop bet. On the other hand, the numbers work out really well and the prop bet (Trips: a paytable on trips or better) would yield a lot of hands where overall you're betting 3 and pushing, or betting 3 and winning 1. That makes for a much smoother ride than a lot of poker games; it's very slot-like so you'd get lots of "time on device". Plus, it makes the procedure easy w.r.t. the two extra cards. You'll always see them; the only question is whether you use them vs. the dealer.

Alternately, I can raise the qualify threshold from any pair to 3s or higher. As before, that brings the DNQ from 17.4% to 20.8%, but it makes the non-raise game have an edge of -2.82% (-1.41% ER) before the side bet, and the Raise + mandatory side bet game have an edge of -2.8% (-0.8% ER) when I drop the side bet edge to -27.4%. So that gives some more room to play with.

Due to the extra flexibility of the fold/call/raise structure, I'm leaning toward that. I can always add a 4th bet spot for a real progressive/long-shot bet. Trips hits about 17% of the time so it's not a total long-shot. If I do that, the layout looks like:

[Trips][Progressive]
[Ante]
[Play]

The player bets one unit each on Trips and Ante, optionally makes the Progressive, and then the deal happens. The dealer pulls packets of 7 cards, slides two under the Trips bet, and gives the other five to the player. If the player folds, they put their cards under the Trips bet and the Ante is taken. If not, they make either a Call (1x Ante) or Raise (2x Ante) bet in the Play spot and indicate whether they want to use the two cards.
If the player beats or ties the dealer with 5 cards, their Play bet wins 3-1 and their Ante wins 1-1.
If the player beats or ties the dealer with 7 cards, their Play bet wins 1-1 and their Ante wins 1-1.
If the dealer doesn't qualify, the Play bet wins 1-1 and the Ante pushes.
If the dealer beats the player, both Play and Ante lose.
Trips is paid based on all 7 player cards regardless of what happened to Ante/Play.
And to recap above, if the dealer qualifies on any pair and the Trips bet has a -30% edge, the overall edge is -1.2% and the element of risk is -0.34%. If the dealer qualifies on 3s or better and the Trips bet has a -27.4% edge, the overall edge is -2.8% and the element of risk is -0.8%.

FYI, both of these sets of numbers are based on simulation runs of over 1.5B hands each so I'm reasonably confident in them. The last step would be to confirm via full iteration but that's too big for right now. I promised myself I'd get back to other work but I just couldn't stay away. It's like getting down to the last chapter of a book and realizing you have to do other things. Now I really do have to do other things...

Edit:
Maybe the layout looks like this instead:
[Progressive]
[Ante] = [Trips]
[Play]

Now where have we seen that before?

Quote: Buzzard

Pair of 5s or better: 27.589% ? ? ?

Can't see anyone playing a game with that high of a DNQ.

Okay.
Three Card Poker:

Dealer non-qualifier: 30.41%
Installs: a Gazillion.

Quote: MathExtremist

Agreed, I just had it in there before I knew what the game looked like.

Initial results are in: it looks like even with that high of a qualifier, adding the 2x raise pushes the game very far positive. With an "any pair" qualifier, the game is even more player-favorable, about +29% edge and +11% ER (avg wager is about 2.5 total).

So, either I punt on the raise option or I can require a side bet.

If I punt on the raise option, the player simply chooses fold, call/stand, or call/draw 2. That sims out to -0.5% edge (-0.25% ER) after 1.4B hands. The player almost never folds so the avg. wager is 2. Due to player mistakes, it would play stronger than -0.5%, and extra play on the side bet at whatever edge that has would increase that overall.

If I allow the 2x raise, and pay the raise bet at even-money on a DNQ while pushing the ante, *and* add a mandatory side bet with an edge of -30%, the overall edge is -1.20% with an ER of -0.34%. I'm torn about this. At first blush, I don't necessarily like the mandatory prop bet. On the other hand, the numbers work out really well and the prop bet (Trips: a paytable on trips or better) would yield a lot of hands where overall you're betting 3 and pushing, or betting 3 and winning 1. That makes for a much smoother ride than a lot of poker games; it's very slot-like so you'd get lots of "time on device". Plus, it makes the procedure easy w.r.t. the two extra cards. You'll always see them; the only question is whether you use them vs. the dealer.

Alternately, I can raise the qualify threshold from any pair to 3s or higher. As before, that brings the DNQ from 17.4% to 20.8%, but it makes the non-raise game have an edge of -2.82% (-1.41% ER) before the side bet, and the Raise + mandatory side bet game have an edge of -2.8% (-0.8% ER) when I drop the side bet edge to -27.4%. So that gives some more room to play with.

Due to the extra flexibility of the fold/call/raise structure, I'm leaning toward that. I can always add a 4th bet spot for a real progressive/long-shot bet. Trips hits about 17% of the time so it's not a total long-shot. If I do that, the layout looks like:

[Trips][Progressive]
[Ante]
[Play]

The player bets one unit each on Trips and Ante, optionally makes the Progressive, and then the deal happens. The dealer pulls packets of 7 cards, slides two under the Trips bet, and gives the other five to the player. If the player folds, they put their cards under the Trips bet and the Ante is taken. If not, they make either a Call (1x Ante) or Raise (2x Ante) bet in the Play spot and indicate whether they want to use the two cards.
If the player beats or ties the dealer with 5 cards, their Play bet wins 3-1 and their Ante wins 1-1.
If the player beats or ties the dealer with 7 cards, their Play bet wins 1-1 and their Ante wins 1-1.
If the dealer doesn't qualify, the Play bet wins 1-1 and the Ante pushes.
If the dealer beats the player, both Play and Ante lose.
Trips is paid based on all 7 player cards regardless of what happened to Ante/Play.
And to recap above, if the dealer qualifies on any pair and the Trips bet has a -30% edge, the overall edge is -1.2% and the element of risk is -0.34%. If the dealer qualifies on 3s or better and the Trips bet has a -27.4% edge, the overall edge is -2.8% and the element of risk is -0.8%.

FYI, both of these sets of numbers are based on simulation runs of over 1.5B hands each so I'm reasonably confident in them. The last step would be to confirm via full iteration but that's too big for right now. I promised myself I'd get back to other work but I just couldn't stay away. It's like getting down to the last chapter of a book and realizing you have to do other things. Now I really do have to do other things...

Edit:
Maybe the layout looks like this instead:
[Progressive]
[Ante] = [Trips]
[Play]

Now where have we seen that before?

Re: 2x raise vs. 0-1-2 for 1x format.

I liked the 0-1-2 format better as a player, but can definitely see the 2x raise v. 1x raise option being attractive. And very nice to get to look at 5 cards before you make the 1x v 2x v fold decision. Both formats have very good -EV/EOR numbers, I think, and the dealing procedure is slightly cleaner on the 2nd, but extremely similar to what I suggested earlier to make the 0-1-2 deal easily, so either could still work. This layout also has 1 less circle, so simpler = better. Still room for an optional bad beat sidebet as well.

I definitely think any pair is a much better choice as a qualifier than "a pair of x's", whatever that pair might be. The more the dealer qualifies, the better. And if you have to give up the 2x to keep the better qualifier, I think I would prefer that overall, but could be persuaded otherwise.

Your second layout at the end is ideal, I think, for the game as proposed. And I like the idea that it pays big odds to balance and hits 1 in 6 hands or so. At a full table, then, someone should get paid every hand. (But then I'm a sucker for a high-paying sidebet).

All my opinion, but I think you're really onto something. Good luck with it!

Quote: MathExtremist

If I punt on the raise option, the player simply chooses fold, call/stand, or call/draw 2. That sims out to -0.5% edge (-0.25% ER) after 1.4B hands. The player almost never folds so the avg. wager is 2. Due to player mistakes, it would play stronger than -0.5%, and extra play on the side bet at whatever edge that has would increase that overall.

I also think you stick with the draw none or draw two cards......particularly when drawing 1 card is rarely the correct play. Player draws two or none, one hand signal to indicate.....very smooth/elegant.

1) Punt on 2X raise...it isn't worth adding a mandatory side bet to make it work
2) Need to address the "player almost never folds" situation.....I think you want players to correctly fold about 1 in 6 hands. Maybe you force a 2X raise to stay & draw two cards but only allow a 1X raise to stand pat with the five cards. That would have the added benefit of identifying which decision the player makes based on the bet made.
3) 0.25% without lots of opportunities for player mistakes will not work, what happens if you take out the feature that the player wins ties? Players don't expect to win ties so pulling this out may be an easy way to marginally increase the HE.

So what do those numbers look like? 1X Play Bet on no Draw & 2X Play Bet when drawing 2 Cards (only Two Card Draw, No Draw or fold are player options), 3-1 on five card play bets that win, 2X 1-1 on 7 card play bets that win, Ties Push. Hopefully that helps with folding frequency and HE.

Quote: Paigowdan

Okay.
Three Card Poker:

Dealer non-qualifier: 30.41%
Installs: a Gazillion.

3 card versus 7 card just a tad different, I think.

Quote: Buzzard

3 card versus 7 card just a tad different, I think.

Yes, but it not because of the frequency of a qualifier.

There are a lot of factors in ME's new game.

I agree. Just that after deciding on which way to play your hand, then a 27% DNQ might be frustrating to a player. That's all.

Welcome back. New job seems to be more time consuming than dealing ? ? ?

Quote: Buzzard

Welcome back. New job seems to be more time consuming than dealing ? ? ?

Thanks. And yes, A LOT more.

When I dealt, I never took work home; now I do big time. I am happy to do it, as I am into this work and industry, but such a position is demanding and time-consuming. I will say that when you wear a uniform and punch a time clock, you truly have your off time to develop games on your own time or relax. Now it's deadlines and projects, and that comes with a price. But in my life I'd rather be designing games than dealing games.

Quote: Buzz

I agree [on dealer qualifiers]. Just that after deciding on which way to play your hand, then a 27% DNQ might be frustrating to a player. That's all.

On this, I understand, but there are many types of dealer qualifiers, and they all play very differently.
A dealer qualifier that converts a completely won hand into a completely pushed hand, like EZ Pai Gow, has to be 1 in 25 to one to one in 50 or so hands, as it's a heavy penalty when it happens.

A qualifier that gives a partial win (only the Ante or Play pushes while the other wins) may occur very frequently, as the player is guaranteed the win on at least one of his main bets. Three Card Poker is almost one in three hands.

A qualifier that pushes a bet but keeps the other bet in action to win OR lose, and a probable winner, may be 1 in 4 to 7 or more hands or so, as the hand is still in action for a probable win, AND to win with a Raised multi-unit bet. You raise 2x or more and you WIN 2x or more, so the pushed Ante bet means even less in action. And if you get a rare loss by playing a weak hand, you still get your Ante bet back.

Also to consider is a player's hand qualifier, such as a player must win with a pair or better, which removes a small amount of rare loses for the dealer to adjust the house edge. This can be one in 50 hands for a 2% house edge - and for one player at a time - on an otherwise even game, so it removes the 'dead rounds' of play that a dealer's qualifier always causes. Plus, if the player has any sort of decent hand, he then cannot be "non-qualified out."

Gamblers "feel" these qualifying events differently.

Also, I wish to remind designers that the ANTE=BLIND type mechanism (where there is a heavy House Edge side bet "equaled" to a player-edged Ante/Play bet combo) is patented and is used by the two big boy distributors).

" Also, I wish to remind designers that the ANTE=BLIND type mechanism (where there is a heavy House Edge side bet "equaled" to a player-edged Ante/Play bet combo) is patented and is used by the two big boy distributors)."

I think that will only stand still somebody with deep pockets challenges it. But what the hell do I know ?

Double Action Blackjack made the inventor a lot of money in Colorado. 6 player spots, 2 boxes per player. play 1 or 2, that's all folks.
And I do mean that's all there is !

Quote: Buzzard

" Double Action Blackjack made the inventor a lot of money in Colorado. 6 player spots, 2 boxes per player. play 1 or 2, that's all folks.
And I do mean that's all there is !

There's an update:
Do see: Double Action Blackjack.

Well, it was in Colorado over 20 years. So I imagine the trademark expired ?

Just so you know I don't make this shit up !

http://www.google.com/patents/US5280915

Quote: Paradigm

I also think you stick with the draw none or draw two cards......particularly when drawing 1 card is rarely the correct play. Player draws two or none, one hand signal to indicate.....very smooth/elegant.

1) Punt on 2X raise...it isn't worth adding a mandatory side bet to make it work
2) Need to address the "player almost never folds" situation.....I think you want players to correctly fold about 1 in 6 hands. Maybe you force a 2X raise to stay & draw two cards but only allow a 1X raise to stand pat with the five cards. That would have the added benefit of identifying which decision the player makes based on the bet made.
3) 0.25% without lots of opportunities for player mistakes will not work, what happens if you take out the feature that the player wins ties? Players don't expect to win ties so pulling this out may be an easy way to marginally increase the HE.

So what do those numbers look like? 1X Play Bet on no Draw & 2X Play Bet when drawing 2 Cards (only Two Card Draw, No Draw or fold are player options), 3-1 on five card play bets that win, 2X 1-1 on 7 card play bets that win, Ties Push. Hopefully that helps with folding frequency and HE.

All of that, plus ties win because the effect is negligible, and also pushing on call/raise but paying *2-1* on the Ante for DNQ, yields -1.41% house edge and -0.55% element of risk. The strategy breakdown is bet2/draw2 70%, bet1/draw0 15%, fold 15%. It's like you're clairvoyant or something. Plus, -1.41% house edge is serendipitous since craps is my favorite game. Maybe it's my second-favorite game now. That structure also allows me to make the Trips bet optional so I could adjust the paytable however I wanted.

But does that make the game too simple? Let's walk through it:
1) Make the Ante bet, 1 unit.
2) Get your cards.
3) Call (bet 1x) and stand, or Raise (bet 2x) and draw 2, or fold and give up your ante.
4) Dealer reveals. If DNQ, win 2 units on Ante, no-action on call/raise.
5) If win or tie, call bets win 3 units (3-1 on 1 unit), raise bets win 2 units (1-1 on 2 units). Losers are swept.

So the possible outcomes are +4 (edited), +3, +2, -1, -2, -3. That's it. The edge is compelling, but I wonder if the game is too simple. I also wonder if players would get upset that they can't raise+stand, or call+draw. What do you think?

Meanwhile, this is a good candidate, but I'm also going to work on a candidate where you can call or raise in any situation (or at least raise+stand), but winning with a 5 card hand starts at less than 3-1 and increases depending on what you win with.

Edit:
Okay, quick update because spreadsheets are quick:
1) Make the Ante bet, 1 unit.
2) Get your cards.
3) Call (bet 1x) and stand or draw 2; Raise (bet 2x) and stand or draw 2; or fold and give up your ante.
4) Dealer reveals. If DNQ and stand, win 1 unit on Ante, no-action on call/raise. DNQ and draw 2, no action at all, even Ante.
5) If win or tie, call or raise wins 2.5-1 on stand, wins 1-1 on draw 2. Losers are swept.

The 2.5x pay on a call+stand is mildly annoying but it turns out you're never supposed to do that, and 2.5x pay on a 2x raise is easy. The possible outcomes are +6, +3.5, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, so lots more variety. This version has an edge of -1.52% (another craps-related number...) and an element of risk at -0.68%.

If I change 2.5x to 2x, that makes the edge enormous so I can move that money into bonuses for standing on a good hand and winning. E.g. call/raise + stand and win pays 2x for pair or worse, maybe 3x for 2 pair, 5x for trips, etc. But that needs more code...

(The trick here was to eliminate the pay for DNQ when the player has 7 cards.)

No matter how you slice it, I think that game protection is going to be a problem here, in that you need to get around the problem of the extra two cards - the information of which is of extreme importance to the player. I can't see programming an i-deal to select n players x 5 and then x players x 2. And i see problems too in dealing out a seven card deck with the dealer giving five to the player and putting another two in a pile to be seen later -- too much chance for cheating, I think, and too many dealer errors in dealing a pretty unique game.

But what is the danger of dealing out the proper amount of cards and then hand dealing the two cards to the player who asks for them?

The way I see the play is:

- Deal the five card hands first. Leave the cards in the shoe or even in the shuffler.
- Make the players make the betting decisions (fold, stand, raise).
- Burn the top card before dealing out the extra cards.
- Deal the two extra cards out to each player face down (surprise), sliding the cards under the player's bet.
- Deal the seven card hand out to the dealer face up.
- Pay.

I like this game.

Quote: MathExtremist

So the possible outcomes are +3, +2, -1, -2, -3. That's it. The edge is compelling, but I wonder if the game is too simple. I also wonder if players would get upset that they can't raise+stand, or call+draw. What do you think?

Still going through the last post, but doesn't the player win +4 on a five card beat? 3-1 on the call bet and 1-1 on the ante?

Quote: Paradigm

Still going through the last post, but doesn't the player win +4 on a five card beat? 3-1 on the call bet and 1-1 on the ante?

Yes, sorry - was looking at the wrong row. +4, +3, +2 are the possible winners, -1, -2, -3 are the possible losers.

Quote: boymimbo

No matter how you slice it, I think that game protection is going to be a problem here, in that you need to get around the problem of the extra two cards - the information of which is of extreme importance to the player.

Do you think the procedure of taking the 7 card packet out of the I-deal, sliding the top 2 off the packet and sliding them into a draw box closest to the dealer solves this problem? I envision the two cards being squared up one on top of the other while never being lifted off the felt, then slid to a box area above the side bet wager.

Quote: Paradigm

Do you think the procedure of taking the 7 card packet out of the I-deal, sliding the top 2 off the packet and sliding them into a draw box closest to the dealer solves this problem? I envision the two cards being squared up one on top of the other while never being lifted off the felt, then slid to a box area above the side bet wager.

I admit, I'm still wary of this. I think it's better to deal the cards later, but I'll defer for now on this point. I'd assume you could program a packet shuffler to do anything, but I think by hand it's safer to just deal as needed.

I would add a side bet on your hand that goes like this:

(Only one bet, you get paid based on what you played).

Seven card hand - same payout as Ultimate Texas Holdem trips bet, table 4.
Five card hand - same payout as Let it Ride bonus, table 2, but pay starting at a pair of 7s instead of a pair of 10s.

This would create some interesting side betting opportunities as people might draw for extra cards hoping to get a bonus.

Quote: MathExtremist

I admit, I'm still wary of this. I think it's better to deal the cards later, but I'll defer for now on this point. I'd assume you could program a packet shuffler to do anything, but I think by hand it's safer to just deal as needed.

I kind of agree with this, and I would not make the cards visible to the player (stay in the shuffler, or on the side) until the players had made their raise decisions. I would also burn the top card.

Quote: MathExtremist

So the possible outcomes are +4 (edited), +3, +2, -1, -2, -3. That's it. The edge is compelling, but I wonder if the game is too simple. I also wonder if players would get upset that they can't raise+stand, or call+draw. What do you think?

Simplicity is good.....you have to put out games that are comprehendible by the lowest common intelligence denominator of both dealers and players to reach the broadest audience.

I think the 3-1 pay on the stand with 5 cards will be more than enough of a win.....sure, they would love to raise more on a pat 5 card hand & win 3-1, but a 4 unit win is going to be a nice hand. Only 1 unit less than a good UTH hand win where player 4X's but doesn't hit a Blind Pay and just beats the dealer that qualified.

1.41% is good, but I still think a .55% EOR is going to be skinny unless you think there are big mistakes that will be made? You are going to need players making mistakes to get the "experienced" EOR up to 1% to 1.25%.....maybe higher. The game is not going to be quick. Maybe the Trips Bet participation helps there. Don't make that pay table too generous. You may have to put a 5% HE on that which many will criticized.....but you don't need everyone to play it, just enough to get your actual win/hold compelling for the casino.

The 70%/15%/15% is beautiful distribution between play/fold/dealer doesn't qualify.....I love it when the math works and glad you can run it. I am more the creative type.

Quote: boymimbo

I kind of agree with this, and I would not make the cards visible to the player (stay in the shuffler, or on the side) until the players had made their raise decisions. I would also burn the top card.

OK, agree ME would need to consider this issue further. Would love to get input from Teliot & PGD on this protection issue.

I don't think this game protection issue is a game killer here, should be able to come up with a acceptable work around.

Quote: boymimbo

I would add a side bet on your hand that goes like this:

(Only one bet, you get paid based on what you played).

Seven card hand - same payout as Ultimate Texas Holdem trips bet, table 4.
Five card hand - same payout as Let it Ride bonus, table 2, but pay starting at a pair of 7s instead of a pair of 10s.

This would create some interesting side betting opportunities as people might draw for extra cards hoping to get a bonus.

Query how often side bet strategy and main bet strategy would conflict, putting the player in a position to not be able to play both bets optimally?

While I agree that this could be a interesting twist, if it will create competing strategies between the main & side bet, those situations will be frustrating to the player.

Sorry for monopolizing the thread, ME......curious on the win/hit rate of the game in its current form? Hoping for around 40%, below 35% would mean additional tweaking of the play.

A bonus game based on your 5 card or 7 card hand would be difficult to do because of the conflicting strategies. So, you would have the 5 card bonus and the 7 card bonus bet, and you can bet both. And then everyone gets the five + two card hand? Or you let the bonus bet dictate the strategy of the game having more people "go for it" on seven card hands despite confliting themselves on the strategy.

And you would get collusion with people being dealt 3K on whether the fourth of the suit is out there.

---

Anyway, I like the soundness of the original game, but I would up the qualifying hand in exchange for being allowed to vote 3x on your raise. There needs to be a careful balance though as you don't want to run into people getting pissed off because the dealer never qualifies and you have a good hand (Caribbean). So perhaps you have to limit it at 2X.

" Simplicity is good.....you have to put out games that are comprehendible by the lowest common intelligence denominator of both dealers and players to reach the broadest audience."

Well said, sir !

Quote: Paradigm

Sorry for monopolizing the thread, ME......curious on the win/hit rate of the game in its current form? Hoping for around 40%, below 35% would mean additional tweaking of the play.

Amount	%	Event
+4	7.6%	call/stand/win
+3	22.8%	raise/hit/win
+2	14.8%	Dealer non-qual
-1	15%	fold
-2	4.8%	call/stand/lose
-3	35%	raise/hit/lose

So the total frequency of making money is 45.2%, though not all of that comes from actually beating the dealer.

Edit: for clarity, this is the distribution for the following rules:
1) Make the Ante bet, 1 unit.
2) Get your cards.
3) Call (bet 1x) and stand, or Raise (bet 2x) and draw 2, or fold and give up your ante.
4) Dealer reveals. If DNQ, win 2 units on Ante, no-action on call/raise.
5) If win or tie, call bets win 3 units (3-1 on 1 unit), raise bets win 2 units (1-1 on 2 units). Losers are swept.
Dealer qualifies with any pair or better.

Quote: MathExtremist

...

Okay, quick update because spreadsheets are quick:
1) Make the Ante bet, 1 unit.
2) Get your cards.
3) Call (bet 1x) and stand or draw 2; Raise (bet 2x) and stand or draw 2; or fold and give up your ante.
4) Dealer reveals. If DNQ and stand, win 1 unit on Ante, no-action on call/raise. DNQ and draw 2, no action at all, even Ante.
5) If win or tie, call or raise wins 2.5-1 on stand, wins 1-1 on draw 2. Losers are swept.

The 2.5x pay on a call+stand is mildly annoying but it turns out you're never supposed to do that, and 2.5x pay on a 2x raise is easy. The possible outcomes are +6, +3.5, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, so lots more variety. This version has an edge of -1.52% (another craps-related number...) and an element of risk at -0.68%.

If I change 2.5x to 2x, that makes the edge enormous so I can move that money into bonuses for standing on a good hand and winning. E.g. call/raise + stand and win pays 2x for pair or worse, maybe 3x for 2 pair, 5x for trips, etc. But that needs more code...

(The trick here was to eliminate the pay for DNQ when the player has 7 cards.)

Some random thoughts on various points...

In 4, could the DNQ stand = 2x ante, DNQ draw 2 = 1x ante, and that's where the 2.5 (# 5) becomes 2? I think that would be slightly easier to pay correctly and keep more people in on bad hands.

I agree with whoever said it would be suitable to deal 7 in a packet and slide the top 2 over, rather than 2 rounds. If anything gets hole-carded, it's in the 5 card hand so not as impactful. Dealing a 2nd round, either by hand or by Ideal, is more hole-card exposure potential than doing it this way, and the dealer's cards don't change and can be left in the machine until resolution.

Simple is definitely a big plus to all the guys I talked to, fwiw (in my very limited exposure). Simple is good for the dealer and the player. I like complicated games myself; but simple, clean, easily understood are big sales points out there.

That set of data is with dealer qualifies with any pair? That looks pretty good and appears pretty volatile, players playing this type of game will like that.

With the game rules in good shape, time to focus on the mechanics & protection.

Quote: beachbumbabs

In 4, could the DNQ stand = 2x ante, DNQ draw 2 = 1x ante, and that's where the 2.5 (# 5) becomes 2? I think that would be slightly easier to pay correctly and keep more people in on bad hands.

That essentially adds 1x whenever the dealer doesn't qualify (stand goes from 1x to 2x, draw goes from 0x to 1x). DNQ happens about 17.4% of the time, so this would add 17.4% to the payback, pushing it into the +15% range. Moving the 5-win pay from 2.5x to 2x doesn't fully wipe that out; the game is still positive by a few points.

Plus, I could always just make the call/stand payout 2x, while the raise/stand payout is 2.5x (5 total). That makes everything integral, and you're never supposed to call/stand anyway so this way nobody would. Because it's never optimal, this doesn't change the edge at all. It's still 1.52%

Edit: for those trying to follow along, Babs is discussing a different version than the immediately prior posts.

It looks like you already took this out, but avoid any 2.5X pays, avoid "pinks" in the tray unless absolutely required.

Quote: MathExtremist

Amount	%	Event
+4	7.6%	call/stand/win
+3	22.8%	raise/hit/win
+2	14.8%	Dealer non-qual
-1	15%	fold
-2	4.8%	call/stand/lose
-3	35%	raise/hit/lose

So the total frequency of making money is 45.2%, though not all of that comes from actually beating the dealer.

Edit: for clarity, this is the distribution for the following rules:
1) Make the Ante bet, 1 unit.
2) Get your cards.
3) Call (bet 1x) and stand, or Raise (bet 2x) and draw 2, or fold and give up your ante.
4) Dealer reveals. If DNQ, win 2 units on Ante, no-action on call/raise.
5) If win or tie, call bets win 3 units (3-1 on 1 unit), raise bets win 2 units (1-1 on 2 units). Losers are swept.
Dealer qualifies with any pair or better.

Missed this edit, sorry, ME. This looks much better than the version I was referencing and kills the .5 pays while paying all antes.

I really like the proportion of pays for call vs. raise and draw; it looks like a win/win bet. Very nice.

ME, it looks as though you are close to finalizing 1 or 2 workable versions.

I think the concept is good and the game has definitely got potential.

When you weigh up your ways to get this to market then please include me on your list before you finally decide.

Quote: MathExtremist

Amount	%	Event
+4	7.6%	call/stand/win
+3	22.8%	raise/hit/win
+2	14.8%	Dealer non-qual
-1	15%	fold
-2	4.8%	call/stand/lose
-3	35%	raise/hit/lose

So the total frequency of making money is 45.2%, though not all of that comes from actually beating the dealer.

Edit: for clarity, this is the distribution for the following rules:
1) Make the Ante bet, 1 unit.
2) Get your cards.
3) Call (bet 1x) and stand, or Raise (bet 2x) and draw 2, or fold and give up your ante.
4) Dealer reveals. If DNQ, win 2 units on Ante, no-action on call/raise.
5) If win or tie, call bets win 3 units (3-1 on 1 unit), raise bets win 2 units (1-1 on 2 units). Losers are swept.
Dealer qualifies with any pair or better.

Minor update with this version. Optimal strategy has the above distribution, yielding roughly -1.41% edge and -0.55% element of risk. Optimal strategy is complicated, however. With a simple strategy of "call/stand on any 2 pair or better, raise/draw on any pair or worse, never fold" the edge is about -3.6% and the element of risk is -1.25%. That's acceptable, if counter-intuitive. Don't you want to fold with a bad hand?

It turns out, not often. I'm actually concerned that players may fold too much and get crushed -- folding any non-pair is a very bad mistake. Here's an example: with the rules above, what do you do on each of these admittedly bad hands?
a) 8s 7h 6h 4h 2d
b) 8s 7s 6h 4h 2d
c) 8s 6s 3s 7h 2d
d) 8s 6s 3s 2s 7h
e) 8s 7h 2h 6d 3c
f) 8s 3s 7h 2h 6d