beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14230
December 31st, 2013 at 11:37:10 AM permalink
I am far from an expert on human psychological factors, but I think if you did have a 2-tier bet structure it would not chase away those who are attracted to high odds. This is common on many sidebets, where the min-max is different, just for the reasons you mention; they don't want the exposure of a long-odds bet coming in for big money. Nearly all the blackjack sidebets I've seen have such a restriction, and many carnival games as well. I suspect the Firebet on craps has a table maximum that's lower than the table itself, but I don't know that (others on here can confirm it). So there's lots of precedent for doing it.

In the end it's certainly up to you; you know your crowd, your dealers' level of proficiency, your risk tolerance, but I still think a 2 tier system will maximize your profits on the table while limiting your risk to an acceptable level.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Riva
Riva
Joined: Apr 3, 2013
  • Threads: 73
  • Posts: 449
February 6th, 2014 at 5:37:09 PM permalink
OK....last chance..I am going to have the color break on the "any triple" changed to some variation that identifies it as its own wager/bet.

I am also going to change the payout to 20:1 so as to be more "fair".

Finally. I will make the payout on "specific triple" to 50:1 instead of 40:1.

Last chance..any other suggestions?

As always...thanks!
Riva
Riva
Joined: Apr 3, 2013
  • Threads: 73
  • Posts: 449
March 2nd, 2014 at 4:53:57 PM permalink
I know that this is a stale thread but, somebody just made a suggestion to me which I think has some merit....

Again, I am going to change the "any triple" to 20:1 to be more fair. And, we'll make a "specific triple" 50:1 for the same reason.

Previously, there was some discussion that we should limit the "specific triple", "specific number" and "any triple" to a $1 max bet in order to limit house exposure. That certainly makes sense however, I think it adds to player/dealer confusion, specifically, "Why a $5 max on these spots and, only a $1 max bet on these spots?"

Here are the suggestions I received that I would appreciate any input....

Rather than have a two-tiered wager platform, make the entire table a "same wager" platform. Specifically: every wager spot has the same minimum/maximum wager limit: $1. Yes, you'll lose the $5 action on the low h/e spots while limiting house exposure on the spots where there is high house exposure.

I happen to think that the latter is the better/safer path overall. Plus, it kills most dealer player confusion: "All bets $1.00 minimum/maximum". Sort of clarifies things, don't you think? Makes it like roulette..arbitrary wagering: (" a dollar here and a dollar there, and a dollar here and, a dollar there, and a dollar here," etc.)

The second suggestion was to change the name of the game so as to better coincide with the wager/betting strategy. "Chuck-A-Luck" has significant "traditional value" as a game but, few combine the name with any sort of wager strategy. The suggestion was to change the name of the game to coincide with the wager regimen while retaining the theme of "winning".

Here are the some suggestions from my colleague based on this new betting/wager platform...

"Buck-O-Luck"

"Buck-A-Luck"

"Dollar Dayz"

"Buck Fever"

As always, your input is appreciated. Thanks.
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 196
  • Posts: 2535
March 2nd, 2014 at 5:53:51 PM permalink
Hi Riva,

I like "Dollar Dayz" or "Buck Fever".
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14230
March 2nd, 2014 at 8:13:31 PM permalink
Those are both good. Maybe also consider

One Buck Chuck (my favorite)
Dollar Dice
Bet the Buck
Bucks for Bonz
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Riva
Riva
Joined: Apr 3, 2013
  • Threads: 73
  • Posts: 449
March 3rd, 2014 at 6:09:41 PM permalink
Thanks for the input regarding the name of the game. I happen to like "one buck chuck' because it invokes both the classic name "chuck-a-luck", as well as pragmatic platform that all bets on the layout are for $1 only. Good call.

Now...is this a smart wager strategy, specifically making all bets $1, both low h/e as well as high h/e? I am thinking that at the end of day, making all bets $1, will encourage more random h/e placements. Thoughts?
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 196
  • Posts: 2535
March 3rd, 2014 at 6:14:10 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Those are both good. Maybe also consider

One Buck Chuck (my favorite)
Dollar Dice
Bet the Buck
Bucks for Bonz



How about:
Chuck One Buck or Chuck-A-Buck.
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14230
March 3rd, 2014 at 6:23:17 PM permalink
I think to a certain extent you're solving a problem you don't have. If there's a concern about people betting more than allowed on the high-odds bets, you could simply use a color scheme on the layout, either in the color of the printing and borders, or do a background, that differentiates the $1 only bets from the $1-5 low-odds bets and makes it easier for both the player and the dealer to know which bets go where. That would satisfy a broader base of gamber's desires than just making it $1 across the board, and I think it would make you more money in the long run. You still have a healthy HE even on the lower odds bets, so you'll still make money on those. And you offer the opportunity for $1 players to pepper the layout if they want to.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Riva1
Riva1
Joined: Jan 14, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 23
March 1st, 2020 at 8:58:16 AM permalink
Good morning.


I know that I've kicked this thing around forever and, I appreciate everyone's input.

First...pic at bottom.

I showed this monstrosity to a few people that used to deal roulette for many years at our events. After making some nice comments about the look and feel of the layout, one person made a comment that made a ton of sense. He said, "I hope you're going to a policeman nearby because you'll need one."

Some background... If you can believe it, many years ago players would simply put a $1 house chip on the various bets on a roulette table. There could be 10 players, with each place $1 bets all over the layout. A chip here, a chip there, times 10! As you can imagine, there were arguments galore with each spin between players claiming that a winning bet belonged to him/her. The way the dealers weaseled out of the argument was to say "we pay the wager, not the person." Or, "Remember your bets because we don't".

Sometimes it got very intense. Typically players simply walked away from the table after only a few spins. Dumb. The real reason the dealers did not want to use unique colored chips was it was a lot more work rakeing and stacking chips with every spin. Dumb 2x.

To me, the solution was quite simple. Have one person spinning the wheel and stacking chips and the other person watching the layout, taking losing bets and then paying winning bets. With that, we incorporated colored chips, the fights ended and players stayed at the table for hours at a time. Duh!

To be honest, I had not thought about this aspect of this new game, however, it has all the making of the issues I described above surrounding our roulette game in the past.

The game is designed to handle about 6 players per side, right and left. Let's say each player places five, $1 bets that's thirty $1 wagers. It is certain that there will be fights as to which bet belongs to which player. Playing with colored roulette chips toally eliminates that issue. However, the only problem with this might be that making payouts could be very slow because you have to pay in the player's color.

The only alternative to colored chips is to position the bet in relation to where the player is standing, just as they do in craps. Payouts would be a breeze in that scenario.

Finally, playing with colored chips will, in my opinion, keep players at the table for longer periods. I could see a player handing over $20 in house chips and we instantly give him/her a stack of 20 say, red roulette chips.

Thoughts?

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/gkRFPyS0/Screen-Shot-2020-02-25-at-7-01-03-PM-page-001.jpg[/img]
Last edited by: Riva1 on Mar 1, 2020
Gialmere
Gialmere
Joined: Nov 26, 2018
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 1777
March 1st, 2020 at 11:54:09 AM permalink
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.

  • Jump to: