Idea - roulette-style card game

I've never seen anything like what I'm about to suggest anywhere and almost wonder why no one's thought of it. It's exactly what it sounds like - a game that plays like roulette, except with cards.

I take, say, six decks, an auto shuffler, and two jokers from each deck, and load them. To start off a round, I burn a card, draw three cards, let a player pick one at random, and turn it up - and that's the result of the round.

Betting would be like roulette in this manner, in that you can bet on:
-Specific card (i.e. ace of diamonds, pays 51-1)
-Split bet (i.e. ace of diamonds and ace of hearts, pays 25-1 if one hits)
-Joker (pays 25-1)
-Rank (i.e. aces, pays 12-1)
-Corner (i.e. aces of diamonds and hearts, kings of diamonds and hearts, pays 12-1)
-Joker plus two (pays 12-1)
-Suit (i.e. diamonds, pays 3-1)
-Red/black, pays even

Here's where it gets tricky - betting the "top line," or the Joker and all four aces (as I would have the board laid out) has six winners and 48 losers, so a 0% house edge would pay 8-1. The other bets have a 3.7% house edge (lower than double-zero roulette) so lowering the payout to 7-1 would make this bet a lousy one (11.1% house edge.) My solution would be to pay is at 15-2, or 7.5-1, which may require either a special 50-cent chip or quarters a la baccarat to make the house edge a little less overwhelming.

Same with a line bet equivalent (two ranks, i.e. aces and kings, or eight cards at once.) If one rank pays 12-1, two would pay 11-2, or 5.5-1, and it's the same house edge as most other bets.

Splitting the Joker and an ace would be easier in that regard, I can just call it 16-1 and deal with a 5.56% house edge.

The only real complication with the game would be the 50-cent chips. The attraction would be, of course, the lower house advantage than roulette, the familiarity of the cards, and the simplicity of the game, not to mention the possibility of a 3-card, 5-card, or other multi-turn side bet.

Quote: hwccdealer

I've never seen anything like what I'm about to suggest anywhere and almost wonder why no one's thought of it. It's exactly what it sounds like - a game that plays like roulette, except with cards.

I take, say, six decks, an auto shuffler, and two jokers from each deck, and load them. To start off a round, I burn a card, draw three cards, let a player pick one at random, and turn it up - and that's the result of the round.

Betting would be like roulette in this manner, in that you can bet on:
-Specific card (i.e. ace of diamonds, pays 51-1)
-Split bet (i.e. ace of diamonds and ace of hearts, pays 25-1 if one hits)
-Joker (pays 25-1)
-Rank (i.e. aces, pays 12-1)
-Corner (i.e. aces of diamonds and hearts, kings of diamonds and hearts, pays 12-1)
-Joker plus two (pays 12-1)
-Suit (i.e. diamonds, pays 3-1)
-Red/black, pays even

Here's where it gets tricky - betting the "top line," or the Joker and all four aces (as I would have the board laid out) has six winners and 48 losers, so a 0% house edge would pay 8-1. The other bets have a 3.7% house edge (lower than double-zero roulette) so lowering the payout to 7-1 would make this bet a lousy one (11.1% house edge.) My solution would be to pay is at 15-2, or 7.5-1, which may require either a special 50-cent chip or quarters a la baccarat to make the house edge a little less overwhelming.

Same with a line bet equivalent (two ranks, i.e. aces and kings, or eight cards at once.) If one rank pays 12-1, two would pay 11-2, or 5.5-1, and it's the same house edge as most other bets.

Splitting the Joker and an ace would be easier in that regard, I can just call it 16-1 and deal with a 5.56% house edge.

The only real complication with the game would be the 50-cent chips. The attraction would be, of course, the lower house advantage than roulette, the familiarity of the cards, and the simplicity of the game, not to mention the possibility of a 3-card, 5-card, or other multi-turn side bet.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. Perhaps you could even strip the deck of 2-5, keep the Jokers, and have the same pays as Roulette exactly? Put 6-8 decks in a CSM and keep dealing it all day long, one card at a time. Some houses might put this in where they can't get Roulette approved but can deal cards, or don't want to spend the money or the floor space on a Roulette table; the layout could be on a regular table. Might still need a table marquee to track past performance, though. And DJTB's Poker-for-Roulette sidebet would fit nicely on it.

Quote: hwccdealer

I've never seen anything like what I'm about to suggest anywhere and almost wonder why no one's thought of it. It's exactly what it sounds like - a game that plays like roulette, except with cards.

Combining cards and roulette is an idea that many people have considered. It's already in California:
http://www.inag11.com/mysterycard_roulette_lg.html
but otherwise hasn't been successful in casinos. However, I've seen variations of roulette with cards plenty of times, both in patent applications and in descriptions of game rules sent to me by clients. Look through the patent database for several versions:

https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#q=roulette+playing+card&tbm=pts

Quote: MathExtremist

Combining cards and roulette is an idea that many people have considered. It's already in California:
http://www.inag11.com/mysterycard_roulette_lg.html
but otherwise hasn't been successful in casinos. However, I've seen variations of roulette with cards plenty of times, both in patent applications and in descriptions of game rules sent to me by clients. Look through the patent database for several versions:

https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#q=roulette+playing+card&tbm=pts

There is another roulette type card game (that has no wheel) that I saw in an Oklahoma Indian Casino a few years ago that sounds very similar to this concept. I believe the name of the game is "Faro's Revenge".

" I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. "

I don't see any reason why you should do this !

Quote: Buzzard

" I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. "

I don't see any reason why you should do this !

That's an entirely different question...lol.

It is a common failing. Thinking because you can do something in life, then you should do it.

Especially when you put in the word blackjack, table game, etc. in an USPTO search engine.

Make you wonder sometimes if the inventor has even been inside a casino in his lifetime.

I have 2 old games like that: invented in 2000.

CardWin® Roulette: Cloth based on Stripped deck, 36 Playing Cards plus two jokers representing zero and double zero. Single or combination bets to match any of/all three cards dealt.

CardWin® Lotto: 52 card lay-out. Single or combination bets to match any of/all five cards dealt.

You should definitely create this game, and definitely deal it out of a 6 or 8 deck shoe. And whatever you do, don't shuffle too often. You wouldn't want to waste time that you could be spending getting more action from the ploppies :P.

Quote: AcesAndEights

You should definitely create this game, and definitely deal it out of a 6 or 8 deck shoe. And whatever you do, don't shuffle too often. You wouldn't want to waste time that you could be spending getting more action from the ploppies :P.

Hence the idea of an auto-shuffler, the kind used to take money at my casino from ploppies who play War and 6-5 Blackjack. Frankly, this type of game would be perfect for a "party pit" atmosphere with low limits and people who don't understand how to gamble. The main difficulty I would have is all the bets that would pay "x to 2" or "x and a half to 1." Also to simplify the betting structure from roulette, since, as a dealer, I try to explain the difference between $15 minimum on the outside (per bet) and $15 minimum on the inside (combined.) And the maximums are tricky, too, with inside max being $50 any way to a number but outside max being either $2500 or $5000. I would just make the whole thing "$10 minimum combined or $500 maximum combined, no more than $50 on any spot" and assume most ploppies could understand it.

If the game has been tried and failed in other places, I would love to see what didn't work. We don't have anything like it at my casino and none of my co-workers have ever heard of such an idea. I also didn't see it in PR or Vegas, so I assume it's a very niche game for now.

Quote: hwccdealer

Hence the idea of an auto-shuffler, the kind used to take money at my casino from ploppies who play War and 6-5 Blackjack. Frankly, this type of game would be perfect for a "party pit" atmosphere with low limits and people who don't understand how to gamble. The main difficulty I would have is all the bets that would pay "x to 2" or "x and a half to 1." Also to simplify the betting structure from roulette, since, as a dealer, I try to explain the difference between $15 minimum on the outside (per bet) and $15 minimum on the inside (combined.) And the maximums are tricky, too, with inside max being $50 any way to a number but outside max being either $2500 or $5000. I would just make the whole thing "$10 minimum combined or $500 maximum combined, no more than $50 on any spot" and assume most ploppies could understand it.

If the game has been tried and failed in other places, I would love to see what didn't work. We don't have anything like it at my casino and none of my co-workers have ever heard of such an idea. I also didn't see it in PR or Vegas, so I assume it's a very niche game for now.

I was poking fun at an old carnival game called "Baccalette" that was destroyed by James Grosjean. I can't find much about it on the intarwebs, other than this Cigar Aficionado article.

Frankly it doesn't sound very similar at all to your proposal. At least you are smart enough to realize the extreme countability and mandate it be dealt out of a CSM.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I was poking fun at an old carnival game called "Baccalette" that was destroyed by James Grosjean. I can't find much about it on the intarwebs, other than this Cigar Aficionado article.

Frankly it doesn't sound very similar at all to your proposal. At least you are smart enough to realize the extreme countability and mandate it be dealt out of a CSM.

The CSM is probably the easiest way to avoid counting, but an idea I would borrow from baccarat - burn, baby, burn. Maybe not in the same manner as baccarat (i.e. draw a card, burn the face value) but similar, like, say, burn three cards, draw two, let the player pick, put the burn cards and unused cards face-down in the rack to be re-shuffled.

I suppose I could also do single-deck alternating the way we do at my casino for carnival games, spit out seven cards or so, let a player pick one, and go with it. Whatever prevents counting.

MrCasinoGames' second idea is similar to mine but not quite the same, although from the link, it was hard to get details about the game. I do like the idea of a five-card draw for the game, but mainly as a side bet. For that matter, if I go with the CSM, I would borrow another idea from double-wheel roulette and take parlay bets, mainly for the idea of "Holy crap, I can win 2500-1 if I hit back-to-back kings of diamonds" and take a 14.3% house edge from greedy ploppies.

Quote: AcesAndEights

At least you are smart enough to realize the extreme countability and mandate it be dealt out of a CSM.

Why couldn't you shuffle a single deck of 38 cards, draw one card, call it, replace it, reshuffle, re-deal; or have one 38-card deck deal while the other reshuffles?

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Why couldn't you shuffle a single deck of 38 cards, draw one card, call it, replace it, reshuffle, re-deal; or have one 38-card deck deal while the other reshuffles?

I haven't seen an effective shuffle that takes less than 30 seconds.

If 3 rounds every 2 minutes is fast enough to make money, maybe.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Why couldn't you shuffle a single deck of 38 cards, draw one card, call it, replace it, reshuffle, re-deal; or have one 38-card deck deal while the other reshuffles?

Games like this can't be hand shuffle, because it is quite easy to fix the deck for a one card Draw.

e.g. you can fix it so you know which cards (just a Few cards will do) are not going to show up or which cards are likely to show up.

P.S. I have try to make games like this for over 15 years. The problems I've come across is how to overcome the security of the game without using expensive equipments.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

Games like this can't be hand shuffle, because it is quite easy to fix the deck for a one card Draw.

e.g. you can fix it so you know which cards (just a Few cards will do) are not going to show up or which cards are likely to show up.

P.S. I have try to make games like this for over 15 years. The problems I've come across is how to overcome the security of the game without using expensive equipments.

If you have replacement after every card, then multi-deck with the Mystery-Roulette shuffler would play the same as single-deck, wouldn't it, and with better mixing?

Quote: Dieter

I haven't seen an effective shuffle that takes less than 30 seconds.

If 3 rounds every 2 minutes is fast enough to make money, maybe.

Since it will take longer than that for people to place their bets, I can't imagine there will be an issue with that. I could just go with two 54-card decks, plop out seven cards, and either let players pick or use a random number generator or a die or something to pick a card (six cards if I use a die.)

As for issues like "bet pays 11-2 on a $1 bet" I think a special lammer to denote "get the player an extra buck next time" would work best. That or one that indicates they owe us 50 cents and need to pay up when they color up would be better for getting players to lose that extra dollar, but I know asking people for that extra 50 cents would suck. Might be worth it for a 3.7% house edge - higher than a lot of games but not above the Wizard's 5% red line.

Quote: MathExtremist

Combining cards and roulette is an idea that many people have considered. It's already in California

Must be an older casino. The newer tribal compacts all have bans on card roulette (as well as electronic roulette and pretty much every other kind of roulette).

Quote: Dieter

I haven't seen an effective shuffle that takes less than 30 seconds.

If 3 rounds every 2 minutes is fast enough to make money, maybe.

102 dice rolls per hour is one roll every 35 seconds.

" I've never seen anything like what I'm about to suggest anywhere and almost wonder why no one's thought of it. "

Yeah ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faro_%28card_game%29

Quote: Buzzard

" I've never seen anything like what I'm about to suggest anywhere and almost wonder why no one's thought of it. "

Yeah ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faro_%28card_game%29

It's similar to what I suggested but different enough. It would be as if I spun two roulette balls, one white and one red, and paid the white ball even money, took the red ball, and pushed everything else. It would be a bigger grind than Pai Gow and probably not nearly profitable enough even if, say, there was a 5% commission taken from winnings.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Must be an older casino. The newer tribal compacts all have bans on card roulette (as well as electronic roulette and pretty much every other kind of roulette).

Hi TDG, not sure where you've gotten that information but card roulette is quite popular in CA (ask INAG) and almost every tribal casino operates one or more vendors' versions of electronic roulette, be it with or without an automated wheel. Been in California recently?

Spinner

Quote: Spinner14

Hi TDG, not sure where you've gotten that information but card roulette is quite popular in CA (ask INAG) and almost every tribal casino operates one or more vendors' versions of electronic roulette, be it with or without an automated wheel. Been in California recently?

The last time I was in California was right about...now...no, wait...now. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am in California as I type this - in fact, I live here. Either that, or somebody in Sacramento owes me for all of those 540 forms I've been filing for the last 30 years...

Anyway, I got the information from the list of tribal compacts - and you are also right in that "almost every tribal casino operates one or more vendors' versions of electronic roulette"; of the 72 compacts, only seven have the "no roulette" provision:

Quote:

Sec. 3.1. Authorized Class III Gaming.

(a) The Tribe is hereby authorized to operate only the following Gaming Activities under the terms and conditions set forth in this Compact:

(1) Gaming Devices.

(2) Any banking or percentage card games.

(3) Any devices or games that are authorized under state law to the California State Lottery, provided that the Tribe will not offer such games through use of the Internet unless others in the State are permitted to do so under state and federal law.

(b) Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude the Tribe from offering class II gaming or preclude the negotiation of a separate compact governing the conduct of off-track wagering at the Gaming Facility.

(c) Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize the operation of the game known as roulette, whether or not played with or on a mechanical, electro-mechanical, electrical, or video device, or cards, or any combination of such devices, or the operation of any game that incorporates the physical use of a die or dice.

(d) The Tribe shall not engage in Class III Gaming that is not expressly authorized in this section and section 4.1
{which refers to how many gaming devices the tribe is allowed}.

As far as I can tell, only five casinos must operate under this condition:

• Red Hawk Casino (Placerville - compact amended 11/15/2012)
• Running Creek Casino (upper Clear Lake - 3/17/2011)
• Graton Rancheria (near Santa Rosa - 3/27/2012)
• Coyote Valley Casino (near Lake Mendocino - amended 7/27/2012)
• Winnedumah Winn's Casino (Independence - 2/28/2013)

The other two compacts are for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla (Riverside county - 6/10/2013) and Pinoleville Pomo (Ukiah - 8/8/2011), but I don't think either one has a casino open yet.

Note that the two amended compacts did not have the ban in their original versions, which leads me to think that any tribe that wants to amend its compact (say, to increase the number of slot machines it is allowed) will have to have this ban included.

Notice that all of these compacts have one thing in common - they were all signed or amended after Governor Brown took office. None of the compacts under Governor Schwarzenegger have this restriction. I'm not saying that it was necessarily Brown's idea (for all I know, it was Lieutenant Governor Newsom's idea); I'm just pointing this out.

Good research TDG and cheers for being in the state.

I thought I saw IB roulette the last time I was at Red Hawk earlier this year?

Quote: Spinner14

I thought I saw IB roulette the last time I was at Red Hawk earlier this year?

Could it have been last year? The most recent amendment didn't take effect until late May, 2013. The casino's website has a roulette page, but it is empty, and there is no link to it from its list of table games; also, a link to an IB Roulette page on the website returns a 403 (Forbidden to Access) error. It's also possible that the machines were there but the game just wasn't operating.

Red Hawk does have card craps, which is legal (as is electronic craps) as long as they don't use actual dice in any way (including just to determine which cards are drawn). The casino's website says it uses "two six-sided random number generators."

TDG,

It was december last I was there; IB Roulette was in use at that time anyway.

I like it however, if I were you I would shave my payouts across the board by about 30%. :)

Quote: Riva

I like it however, if I were you I would shave my payouts across the board by about 30%. :)

You run a church carnival, don't you?

Yes, if I ran it at church, I would shave the payouts or display lower ones. I would probably include the jokers, pay a straight-up hit 40-1, a split or a joker 20-1, a rank 10-1, and a suit 2-1. I would probably exclude red/black payoffs.

Quote: Spinner14

TDG,

It was december last I was there; IB Roulette was in use at that time anyway.

Somebody posted on Yelp that they played electronic roulette there earlier this month (September 2014). If it's not still there (and if it was, then why would all references to it be removed from its website?), then maybe they had some sort of "phase-out" period. Either that, or they could always say, "Oh, well, er, uh, um, we didn't see that change in the compact."