My New Casino Game - Casino Spades
This is my new casino game and the first one I have created.
For those with a good memory, I posted an earlier iteration that wasn't too popular with people. This is version 2.0.
The game is a casino variant of the hugely popular game of Spades--a game played by millions worldwide. Many of the rules will be instantly recognized by regular and casual Spades players.
The math report was done by Charles Mousseau. The HA is -2.34%.
The patent process has been started--shepherded by Richard Newman.
Here is the link to the demo. Please check it out. http://tgscience.com/casino-spades/
Opinions welcome. Thanks.
Introduction and General Procedure:
1. Casino Spades is played with one fifty-four card deck of cards, consisting of a standard deck of cards along with two jokers, a “small joker” and a “big joker”.
2. Play will begin with the player making two wagers: the “First Card” and the “Second Card” wagers. These wagers must be of an equal amount.
3. Each player is then dealt two cards, face down, and the dealer is dealt two cards, face down; players may not exchange information about each other’s cards.
4. Each player then decides whether to check, and receive no additional cards, or make a Raise wager equal in amount to the First Card wager, and receive two additional cards.
5. Once all players have decided whether or not to raise, the dealer will reveal the first of his cards.
6. Each player then selects one card to play against the dealer’s first card, and a second card to play against the dealer’s unexposed card; any player who raises then discards his other cards.
a. Note: when selecting cards, the player must play a card that matches the suit of the dealer’s card, if at all possible. If the player does not do this, his First Card, Second Card and Raise wagers will all be forfeited. In the case of a player raising, this will require the dealer to keep the player’s discards separate, to review after the hand and ensure the player did not renege.
7. Each player’s first card is matched against the dealer’s first card, as follows:
a. If either side has a trump card and the other does not, that side wins.
b. If both sides have a trump card, the higher ranking trump card wins.
c. Trump cards are, in order:
i. Big joker (highest),
ii. Little joker,
iii. Two of diamonds,
iv. Two of spades,
v. Remaining spades, from ace down to three (lowest)
d. If neither side has a trump card, and the dealer and player’s suits do not match, the dealer wins with one exception: a non-trump ace of a different suit than the dealer’s non-trump card counts as a tie.
e. If both player and dealer have the same non-trump suit, the highest ranking card wins.
f. Non-trump cards are, in order:
i. Ace (highest),
ii. Remaining cards, from king down to deuce (lowest).
8. The second cards are then compared in a similar fashion.
9. The “First Card”, “Second Card” and “Raise” wagers are resolved in the following fashion:
a. If the player did not raise:
i. If the player has won both the first and the second cards, his First Card wager pays at a rate of 2:1, and his Second Card wager pays at a rate of 3:2.
ii. Otherwise, the First Card and the Second Card wagers pay even money if their respective cards won, lose and are collected if their respective cards lost, and push if their respective cards pushed.
b. If the player raised:
i. The First Card and the Second Card wagers pay even money if their respective cards won, lose and are collected if their respective cards lost, and push if their respective cards pushed.
ii. If the player wins both the first and second cards, his Raise wager pushes; otherwise, it is collected.
10.All cards are collected, and a new round may begin.
I didn't finish reading after that, but having to keep track of the suits in that way really complicates the procedure. If you can't deal it face up then I don't see that procedure making it to a live game.
Quote: darkozThe HA is -2.34%.
Hi darkoz,
Do you mean: The HA is +2.34% (Maybe is the way you write it, it looks like negative 2.34%).
Disclaimer: I am a casino employee and have been one for a long time. I'm also a fledgling game developer.
I found this game very hard to play. I didn't completely understand the rules as you wrote them and when I tried to play the game on Charles' website, I couldn't always figure out why I won, why I lost and why sometimes I won one, lost two.....
Anyway, I wish you all the best and hope you break the bank!
The 2 of Diamonds is ranked higher than the 2 of Spades in a game called Casino Spades, where spades are the low trump. ...No. That just feels like a cheap loss when it happens. I can lose to a joker-- jokers are the most powerful card out there, of course. But a 2D is upsetting.
It feels almost offensive that the absolute best case scenario when you raise is winning 2:3. Call it something else-- I don't feel like I'm raising my bet here; I'm just buying extra cards to improve my chances.
I'm not sure of the exact reason and will think on this, but I'm unhappy that I have to pick my second card before the dealer opens it.
End result-- if I were a player seeing this for the first time, I'd read the literature (and be very confused, if the original explanation is what I'm reading) and MAYBE stand there and wait until somebody else sits down to play to try to figure out what on earth is actually going on here... and then mentally barf and run for the hills.
I, personally, would play this game happily; I like complicated strategy games. I do see some drawbacks to widespread acceptance, some dealing issues, possibly some game protection problems. I don't know if you want detailed feedback, or generalities, or something else. Are you asking (and prepared for) the forum to tear it up with constructive criticism if that's how it goes?
Whatever your answer, congrats on taking a chance on doing it, and furthering new development!
Definitely try and simplify the rules you posted above.
Otherwise best of luck!
But a more exact strategy I'm wondering...
Raise about everything except one trump with at least a 6 or 7 off trump (or any two trumps)? I don't think I raise AA either. I could be way off. Mainly it seems like we are trying to luck into the big 2 to 1 and 3 to 2 payouts. I lost 50 bets...but took me about an hour.
On the game design, you wouldn't know which joker was big or little until you saw both first. And it's probably a spades thing, but the 2 of diamonds and spades being high trumps will throw dealers and players off at first.
Nice house edge target though, assuming that's not "element of risk".
The 2 of diamonds rule is silly. Get rid of it. I have played spades for 30 years and all I can see is that causing issues for players that forget the rule. Why does it exist?
Edit: I had the king of spades and it lost to 2 of spades. Is that what you are trying to explain in rules? If so, dump it. Why would you have it play that way? I feel that is another confusing issue that is sure to cause problems with dealer error and players expecting to win.
Overall, this is way too complicated to succeed as a casino game, IMO.
Quote: jopkeYou lost me at 6.a.
I didn't finish reading after that, but having to keep track of the suits in that way really complicates the procedure. If you can't deal it face up then I don't see that procedure making it to a live game.
Spades are powerful. Every other suit is weak. It becomes real easy to follow with a few tries. Spades players will understand why their Spades cards are winning.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesHi darkoz,
Do you mean: The HA is +2.34% (Maybe is the way you write it, it looks like negative 2.34%).
The edge is in the house favor. I may have expressed it wrong. Charles would not have allowed me to present a game that was in the players favor. He worked very hard on it, lol.
Quote: darkozThe edge is in the house favor. I may have expressed it wrong. Charles would not have allowed me to present a game that was in the players favor. He worked very hard on it, lol.
He means HA = House Advantage. So for this game it's +2.34%. And that's not "element of risk"? Or is it?
Quote: TomspurI'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so please don't read too much into my next statement:
Disclaimer: I am a casino employee and have been one for a long time. I'm also a fledgling game developer.
I found this game very hard to play. I didn't completely understand the rules as you wrote them and when I tried to play the game on Charles' website, I couldn't always figure out why I won, why I lost and why sometimes I won one, lost two.....
Anyway, I wish you all the best and hope you break the bank!
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. Here is a link to Spades play on Wikipedia which may help. The game is quite easy actually (more easy than poker or blackjack in my opinion). Learning basic strategy is definitely much easier. Will post that soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spades
Quote: darkozThanks for taking the time to look at it. Here is a link to Spades play on Wikipedia which may help. The game is quite easy actually (more easy than poker or blackjack in my opinion). Learning basic strategy is definitely much easier. Will post that soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spades
Thanks, appreciate the info!
Quote: beachbumbabsDarkOz,
I, personally, would play this game happily; I like complicated strategy games. I do see some drawbacks to widespread acceptance, some dealing issues, possibly some game protection problems. I don't know if you want detailed feedback, or generalities, or something else. Are you asking (and prepared for) the forum to tear it up with constructive criticism if that's how it goes?
Whatever your answer, congrats on taking a chance on doing it, and furthering new development!
I have a thick skin. I worked as a Hollywood screenwriter for awhile lol.
I discovered early on that just about everyone in Hollywood is a "no" man, not a "yes" man. Then when the film gets made and makes a zillion dollars everyone has amnesia about what their original answer was, so I take every no with a little grain of salt. :)
Quote: PokeraddictWhy would I ever raise in this game? I don't get paid anything extra it seems and it can make me draw a card that forces me to follow suit instead of trumping. It seems like any time I raised it cost me money and gave me no benefit.
The 2 of diamonds rule is silly. Get rid of it. I have played spades for 30 years and all I can see is that causing issues for players that forget the rule. Why does it exist?
Edit: I had the king of spades and it lost to 2 of spades. Is that what you are trying to explain in rules? If so, dump it. Why would you have it play that way? I feel that is another confusing issue that is sure to cause problems with dealer error and players expecting to win.
Just curious where you play Spades? I play in the northeast and southwest of the U.S. The rules have been pretty consistent but there are regional differences. Below are the variations copied directly from Wikipedia I have always played and therefore are what I incorporated into my game.
Trump variations[edit]
Deuces High: All 2s count as the highest spades. The order becomes, highest to lowest : 2S, 2♦, 2C, 2H, then all the rest of the spades, Ace through 3. There is another variation, when playing with the Jokers, that the 2♦ and the 2S are high trumps, then Ace, King, etc.
Jokers High aka Easy Spades: Both Jokers are positioned as the highest Spades. So instead of just 13 spades, there are now 15 spades. This in effect takes the Queens out of question, meaning one need not bother to question whether the queen will win a trick, it will most likely not. With more spades and removing the question from the queens makes this variation an easier game to play. If both jokers are played in one trick, the Big Joker (full color, red, or larger graphic) beats the Little Joker (black-and-white, or the "guarantee" card with smaller art).
A related variation is Joker-Joker-Deuce-Ace in which the ranking is Big Joker, Little Joker, 2S and AS.
Jokers High Alternate: Similar to Jokers High above, if the Big Joker is led, opponents must play their highest spade in that trick. If the Big Joker is played during a hand, opponents are not forced to play their highest spade. This variation makes bidding more complex, as one cannot count on their highest spade as winning a trick, Big Joker excepted. This variation is commonly played with all 54 cards, using the Kitty dealing variation above.
Edit: Okay, I had to edit the post because of formatting issues so it should be clearer now.
Quote: PokeraddictWhy would I ever raise in this game? I don't get paid anything extra it seems and it can make me draw a card that forces me to follow suit instead of trumping. It seems like any time I raised it cost me money and gave me no benefit.
The 2 of diamonds rule is silly. Get rid of it. I have played spades for 30 years and all I can see is that causing issues for players that forget the rule. Why does it exist?
Edit: I had the king of spades and it lost to 2 of spades. Is that what you are trying to explain in rules? If so, dump it. Why would you have it play that way? I feel that is another confusing issue that is sure to cause problems with dealer error and players expecting to win.
Thanks for taking the time to look at it.
Since everywhere I have played regionally in the U.S. 2S and 2D are high trumps, it is not a silly rule. It is the rule. There are so many variations that incorporating all of them would have been impossible. I chose the ones I was most familiar with. In the end, although the math would be affected, I am not totally averse to rule changes but the majority of people I know would freak if the deuce of diamonds did not win against a king of spades.
Someone above called their loss to a deuce of diamonds as a cheap loss but it is also a cheap win if you happen to be the one holding it. (I feel the same way when dealer gets a blackjack and I had twenty.)
Quote: tringlomaneHe means HA = House Advantage. So for this game it's +2.34%. And that's not "element of risk"? Or is it?
Directly from Charles math report:
Results:
1. With optimal play by the player, the house will win, on average, an amount equal to 2.34% of the betting unit; this figure is commonly known as the “house edge”.
2. With optimal play by the player, the average bet size will be 2.15 units, meaning the house advantage can also be expressed as (2.34% of one unit / 2.15 units = ) 1.09% of all money wagered; this figure is commonly known as the “element of risk”.
Quote: darkozThe edge is in the house favor. I may have expressed it wrong. Charles would not have allowed me to present a game that was in the players favor. He worked very hard on it, lol.
Is this game open to collusion? If it is play live with 6+ players.
If possessing two trumps always stand.
If possessing one trump and one non-trump 8 or higher preferable to stand.
If possessing one high trump(8 or higher) and one non-trump 7 or lower always raise
If possessing one low trump(7 or lower) and one non-trump 7 or lower preferable to raise
If possessing no trumps always raise
If possessing one trump and (non-trump)Ace always stand
If possessing one non-trump 8 or higher and (non-trump)Ace preferable to raise.
If possessing one non-trump 7 or lower and (non-trump) Ace always raise.
Note that when a move is preferable, you have some leeway in making what is the smart move.
These are my basic strategy plays. If someone mathematically calls me out, they are only based on my non-mathematical experience of playing thousands of hands of my own game.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesIs this game open to collusion? If it is play live with 6+ players.
Charles is working on advantage play and other security issues. He didn't seem too concerned from our discussion. I paid him to perform an analysis so there would be no question about it but he is still working on it.
Edit: To be more clear, No, Charles did not think there was any issues here. But he is still performing the final analysis.
Quote: darkozCharles is working on advantage play and other security issues. He didn't seem too concerned from our discussion. I paid him to perform an analysis so there would be no question about it but he is still working on it.
Edit: To be more clear, No, Charles did not think there was any issues here. But he is still performing the final analysis.
I may not raise, if I known some or most of the key cards are gone.
Or raise more if I known most of the key cards are still in the deck.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesI may not raise, if I known some or most of the key cards are gone.
This version is single deck with a shuffle after each hand. The multi-deck version is more complicated (because of suits and tie decisions needing to be accounted for) so I have not developed that one yet.
Quote: darkozThis version is single deck with a shuffle after each hand. The multi-deck version is more complicated (because of suits and tie decisions needing to be accounted for) so I have not developed that one yet.
I dont think you understood what Stephen was saying...
Quote: mrsuit31I dont think you understood what Stephen was saying...
I believe he is asking if he knows what other players are holding (trumps or non-trumps) it would affect his decision to raise or not.
Charles is still doing an analysis of this so I can't really answer more on the topic.
Quote: darkozCharles is still doing an analysis of this so I can't really answer more on the topic.
I understand... Just didn't understand what your response had to do with his question haha
Quote: darkozplaying strategy:
If possessing two trumps always stand.
If possessing one trump and one non-trump 8 or higher preferable to stand.
If possessing one high trump(8 or higher) and one non-trump 7 or lower always raise
If possessing one low trump(7 or lower) and one non-trump 7 or lower preferable to raise
If possessing no trumps always raise
If possessing one trump and (non-trump)Ace always stand
If possessing one non-trump 8 or higher and (non-trump)Ace preferable to raise.
If possessing one non-trump 7 or lower and (non-trump) Ace always raise.
Note that when a move is preferable, you have some leeway in making what is the smart move.
These are my basic strategy plays. If someone mathematically calls me out, they are only based on my non-mathematical experience of playing thousands of hands of my own game.
This is close to how I was playing the game by the end, but this is your strategy, not Charles's correct?
Because given the numbers from him, it looks like you raise only 15% of the time, which sounds very wrong to me.
Quote: tringlomaneThis is close to how I was playing the game by the end, but this is your strategy, not Charles's correct?
Because given the numbers from him, it looks like you raise only 15% of the time, which sounds very wrong to me.
Correct, this is my strategy. Based on playing experience.
Are you certain Charles is advocating raising only 15% of the time? That cannot be correct. You want to raise more often than not with a weak hand to strengthen what you have and you have a 75% (approx.) chance of getting a weak hand (3 out of 4 suits).
I actually think it's better to remove the 2's rule and add jokers instead, if needed by the maths. It's easier for players and dealers alike. (Note 3CP got rid of the three 3s rule).
As to collusion I'm guessing the main decisions you make are whether to pay for extra cards and if you don't have a trump left which side-suit card to play for the second trick. Usually you'd pick the highest card (technically the one known to have more outs), but sometimes you could accurately tell it was better to play a Jack of one suit than the Queen of the other. I played a few hands and this scenario never turned up (e.g. Qh 9h 8h Jc).
Quote: charliepatrickIt's an interesting game if you understand tricks. The 2d is confusing and it's annoying if they cause you to make a mistake. For instance the dealer led the 2d and the computer (correctly) forced me to play a spade rather than the 8d. Similarly the 2s (I found myself trumping the first trick with the 2s and using a "lower" trump for the second trick) - it is really annoying making such a mistake when, in practice, it makes no difference to the game whether the 2s is high or low.
I actually think it's better to remove the 2's rule and add jokers instead, if needed by the maths. It's easier for players and dealers alike. (Note 3CP got rid of the three 3s rule).
As to collusion I'm guessing the main decisions you make are whether to pay for extra cards and if you don't have a trump left which side-suit card to play for the second trick. Usually you'd pick the highest card (technically the one known to have more outs), but sometimes you could accurately tell it was better to play a Jack of one suit than the Queen of the other. I played a few hands and this scenario never turned up (e.g. Qh 9h 8h Jc).
Thanks Charlie
It might be easier to put a big message on the felt that reads "Deuce of Spades and Diamonds are high cards. Deuce of Diamonds is considered a Spade."
If in the end, this change makes the selling point I am not against it. The high deuces are a very popular variant of the game where I play so I prefer to keep them for the time being.
Quote: darkozCorrect, this is my strategy. Based on playing experience.
Are you certain Charles is advocating raising only 15% of the time? That cannot be correct. You want to raise more often than not with a weak hand to strengthen what you have and you have a 75% (approx.) chance of getting a weak hand (3 out of 4 suits).
I agree that you should be raising more than 15% of the time, but he says the average wager is 2.15 units. When you don't raise, the wager is 2 units. When you raise, the wager is 3 units. So the percentage you raise is simply the two digits after the decimal point in this case. Maybe Charles can explain the discrepancy.
I agree it is a nice feature that makes your game different from others - and you may hear people saying "it's that game where the 2d...". Also it may attract people who have played the variation before.Quote: darkoz...high deuces are a very popular variant of the game where I play...
I was merely looking at it from the punter's point-of-view who may know trick taking but not played games such as this or Euchre with their unique trump rules. I know when learning a game one will initial make costly mistakes and I would find it annoying to lose a hand because I forgot the 2 rule.
Making mistakes, such as hitting 14 vs 6 or calling blind at 3CP, isn't so obviously wrong - yes it technically costs them money - but sometimes it works out in their favour and they're happy. However in this game, misplaying 2's can only ever cost.
Another idea, which is easier to remember, is to make all 2's wild highest trumps (bridge suits decide order) and possibly remove the Jokers.
When I was playing I tended to raise most the time. It may be than one was better off gambling and playing the two cards due to the higher payoffs, whereas having raised one lost the raise bet quite often. Perhaps it's a psychological play that one would rather play a better hand (i.e. from 4 cards) than 2, same as standing 15 vs 10.
Quote: tringlomaneI agree that you should be raising more than 15% of the time, but he says the average wager is 2.15 units. When you don't raise, the wager is 2 units. When you raise, the wager is 3 units. So the percentage you raise is simply the two digits after the decimal point in this case. Maybe Charles can explain the discrepancy.[/q
Below are the numbers he gave me. I don't know if this will answer your question.
Appendix:
Breakdown of results
Event #(Event) P(Event) Odds (1-in) Net Return Value
No raise, player wins first, player wins second
623,973,350 0.134220 7.5 3.5 0.46977
No raise, player wins first, player loses second
734,214,775 0.157933 6.3 0 0.00000
No raise, player wins first, player pushes second
52,622,325 0.011319 88.3 1 0.01132
No raise, player loses first, player wins second
212,898,875 0.045796 21.8 0 0.00000
No raise, player loses first, player loses second
143,988,950 0.030973 32.3 -2 -0.06195
No raise, player loses first, player pushes second
29,270,150 0.006296 158.8 -1 -0.00630
No raise, player pushes first, player wins second
6,856,325 0.001475 678.0 1 0.00147
No raise, player pushes first, player loses second
30,747,500 0.006614 151.2 -1 -0.00661
No raise, player pushes first, player pushes second
943,250 0.000203 4928.6 0 0.00000
Player raises, player wins first, player wins second
717,214,519 0.154277 6.5 2 0.30855
Player raises, player wins first, player loses second
675,122,838 0.145222 6.9 -1 -0.14522
Player raises, player wins first, player pushes second
60,132,207 0.012935 77.3 0 0.00000
Player raises, player loses first, player wins second
607,865,702 0.130755 7.6 -1 -0.13076
Player raises, player loses first, player loses second
660,432,205 0.142062 7.0 -3 -0.42619
Player raises, player loses first, player pushes second
59,729,885 0.012848 77.8 -2 -0.02570
Player raises, player pushes first, player wins second
5,002,260 0.001076 929.4 0 0.00000
Player raises, player pushes first, player loses second
27,201,288 0.005851 170.9 -2 -0.01170
Player raises, player pushes first, player pushes second
673,296 0.000145 6904.7 -1 -0.00014
Totals 4,648,889,700 1 Return -2.34%For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Quote: charliepatrickI agree it is a nice feature that makes your game different from others - and you may hear people saying "it's that game where the 2d...". Also it may attract people who have played the variation before.
I was merely looking at it from the punter's point-of-view who may know trick taking but not played games such as this or Euchre with their unique trump rules. I know when learning a game one will initial make costly mistakes and I would find it annoying to lose a hand because I forgot the 2 rule.
Making mistakes, such as hitting 14 vs 6 or calling blind at 3CP, isn't so obviously wrong - yes it technically costs them money - but sometimes it works out in their favour and they're happy. However in this game, misplaying 2's can only ever cost.
Another idea, which is easier to remember, is to make all 2's wild highest trumps (bridge suits decide order) and possibly remove the Jokers.
When I was playing I tended to raise most the time. It may be than one was better off gambling and playing the two cards due to the higher payoffs, whereas having raised one lost the raise bet quite often. Perhaps it's a psychological play that one would rather play a better hand (i.e. from 4 cards) than 2, same as standing 15 vs 10.
Hi Charliepatrick,
You have some good points here.
Quote: charliepatrickI agree it is a nice feature that makes your game different from others - and you may hear people saying "it's that game where the 2d...". Also it may attract people who have played the variation before.
I was merely looking at it from the punter's point-of-view who may know trick taking but not played games such as this or Euchre with their unique trump rules. I know when learning a game one will initial make costly mistakes and I would find it annoying to lose a hand because I forgot the 2 rule.
Making mistakes, such as hitting 14 vs 6 or calling blind at 3CP, isn't so obviously wrong - yes it technically costs them money - but sometimes it works out in their favour and they're happy. However in this game, misplaying 2's can only ever cost.
Another idea, which is easier to remember, is to make all 2's wild highest trumps (bridge suits decide order) and possibly remove the Jokers.
When I was playing I tended to raise most the time. It may be than one was better off gambling and playing the two cards due to the higher payoffs, whereas having raised one lost the raise bet quite often. Perhaps it's a psychological play that one would rather play a better hand (i.e. from 4 cards) than 2, same as standing 15 vs 10.
Yes, the idea was to have a higher payoff for not raising. Raising gives you a better chance of winning because you can choose the best of four cards as opposed to the best of only two cards. It makes the strategy that much more tricky than just raising for more cards most of the time.
Charles worked really hard on getting the payoff perfect on the stand. 2:1 on both was too much so he finally managed it with the 3:2 on the second hand.
However, I can see it as intimidating/confusing to those unfamiliar with the game of spades or other trick-taking games with trump cards. I wonder what percentage of casino table game players have played spades before?
As to the deck/rank issues, I've played both the no joker and the jokers & 2's (as high trump) spades variants. I can certainly see the 2d as a 'high trump' tripping up those not familiar with the variant. In addition, depending on the card manufacturer, the visual difference between the 2 jokers in a standard deck may be very subtle, and a hi joker vs. lo joker showdown may cause some confusion. If you could use a specialized deck, the 2's and jokers could be printed such that the confusion would be minimized. Table placards explaining the 2's & jokers would help, but, with a standard deck, I still think you would get upset customers in situations where: their As was beaten by a 2d or 2s; their hand was DQ'd when they accidentally renegged not knowing their 2d was trump; etc.
One other thing that was kind of odd for me as a spades player was the presence of the 2c and 2h in the deck. We typically removed these cards when we would add the jokers to keep the deck at 52. Seeing them in my hand on your demo made me pause for a moment. Not sure what a 54-card vs 52-card deck does to your math, though.
Finally, as others have mentioned, I would want to change the term "Raise" to something else, perhaps "Buy." Typically, in casino games (poker & poker carny games), "raise" means to increase one's bet in order to win more. Here, a "raise" effectively increases your bet to win less money.
Quote: tringlomaneI agree that you should be raising more than 15% of the time, but he says the average wager is 2.15 units. When you don't raise, the wager is 2 units. When you raise, the wager is 3 units. So the percentage you raise is simply the two digits after the decimal point in this case. Maybe Charles can explain the discrepancy.
I'm getting 2.605 average units and an Element of Risk of 0.9% using the data copied from the appendix. Here it is formatted slightly better.
| Raise | First | Second | Pays | Combos | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Win | Win | 3.5 | 623,973,350 | 0.1342198654 | 0.4697695291 |
| No | Win | Lose | 0 | 734,214,775 | 0.1579333609 | 0 |
| No | Win | Push | 1 | 52,622,325 | 0.0113193318 | 0.0113193318 |
| No | Lose | Win | 0 | 212,898,875 | 0.04579563912 | 0 |
| No | Lose | Lose | -2 | 143,988,950 | 0.03097276109 | -0.06194552217 |
| No | Lose | Push | -1 | 29,270,150 | 0.006296159274 | -0.006296159274 |
| No | Push | Win | 1 | 6,856,325 | 0.001474830646 | 0.001474830646 |
| No | Push | Lose | -1 | 30,747,500 | 0.006613944831 | -0.006613944831 |
| No | Push | Push | 0 | 943,250 | 0.0002028979092 | 0 |
| Yes | Win | Win | 2 | 717,214,519 | 0.1542765188 | 0.3085530375 |
| Yes | Win | Lose | -1 | 675,122,838 | 0.1452223825 | -0.1452223825 |
| Yes | Win | Push | 0 | 60,132,207 | 0.0129347459 | 0 |
| Yes | Lose | Win | -1 | 607,865,702 | 0.1307550278 | -0.1307550278 |
| Yes | Lose | Lose | -3 | 660,432,205 | 0.142062352 | -0.426187056 |
| Yes | Lose | Push | -2 | 59,729,885 | 0.01284820438 | -0.02569640876 |
| Yes | Push | Win | 0 | 5,002,260 | 0.001076011763 | 0 |
| Yes | Push | Lose | -2 | 27,201,288 | 0.005851136455 | -0.01170227291 |
| Yes | Push | Push | -1 | 673,296 | 0.0001448294202 | -0.0001448294202 |
| Total | 4,648,889,700 | 1 | -0.02344687464 |
Also while playing the demo I got this hand:
I believe I should have gotten even money on the first and pushed the second.
Quote: JoemanInteresting game, darkoz. As someone who is familiar with the game of spades, I was able to understand the game fairly quickly. If I saw it in the casino, I would want to give it a try.
However, I can see it as intimidating/confusing to those unfamiliar with the game of spades or other trick-taking games with trump cards. I wonder what percentage of casino table game players have played spades before?
As to the deck/rank issues, I've played both the no joker and the jokers & 2's (as high trump) spades variants. I can certainly see the 2d as a 'high trump' tripping up those not familiar with the variant. In addition, depending on the card manufacturer, the visual difference between the 2 jokers in a standard deck may be very subtle, and a hi joker vs. lo joker showdown may cause some confusion. If you could use a specialized deck, the 2's and jokers could be printed such that the confusion would be minimized. Table placards explaining the 2's & jokers would help, but, with a standard deck, I still think you would get upset customers in situations where: their As was beaten by a 2d or 2s; their hand was DQ'd when they accidentally renegged not knowing their 2d was trump; etc.
One other thing that was kind of odd for me as a spades player was the presence of the 2c and 2h in the deck. We typically removed these cards when we would add the jokers to keep the deck at 52. Seeing them in my hand on your demo made me pause for a moment. Not sure what a 54-card vs 52-card deck does to your math, though.
Finally, as others have mentioned, I would want to change the term "Raise" to something else, perhaps "Buy." Typically, in casino games (poker & poker carny games), "raise" means to increase one's bet in order to win more. Here, a "raise" effectively increases your bet to win less money.
Thanks for those excellent suggestions. The game is obviously still in early development so I don't see much of a problem making placard changes.
In fact, the table on the video demo has no info and Charles may be adding that.
You are correct that the low deuces (clubs and hearts) are removed normally. They have to be when dealing a Joker Spades game since the deal is usually evenly distributed amongst four players. I decided to keep those cards in the deck since the table was going to play out to six or eight people and an equal distribution of cards was not an issue. Taking them out would affect Charles math at this point.
I don't like the 2 of diamonds rule. I would eliminate it.
It's going to be a hard sell to get it into casinos. You are going to have to be able to explain the game to Table Games people and Dealers are going to have to be able to explain the game to players in 30 seconds or less and have them understand it. I don't know if that can be done to a non spades player.
Good luck!
ZCore13
Quote: mipletI'm getting 2.605 average units and an Element of Risk of 0.9% using the data copied from the appendix. Here it is formatted slightly better.
Raise First Second Pays Combos Probability Return No Win Win 3.5 623,973,350 0.1342198654 0.4697695291 No Win Lose 0 734,214,775 0.1579333609 0 No Win Push 1 52,622,325 0.0113193318 0.0113193318 No Lose Win 0 212,898,875 0.04579563912 0 No Lose Lose -2 143,988,950 0.03097276109 -0.06194552217 No Lose Push -1 29,270,150 0.006296159274 -0.006296159274 No Push Win 1 6,856,325 0.001474830646 0.001474830646 No Push Lose -1 30,747,500 0.006613944831 -0.006613944831 No Push Push 0 943,250 0.0002028979092 0 Yes Win Win 2 717,214,519 0.1542765188 0.3085530375 Yes Win Lose -1 675,122,838 0.1452223825 -0.1452223825 Yes Win Push 0 60,132,207 0.0129347459 0 Yes Lose Win -1 607,865,702 0.1307550278 -0.1307550278 Yes Lose Lose -3 660,432,205 0.142062352 -0.426187056 Yes Lose Push -2 59,729,885 0.01284820438 -0.02569640876 Yes Push Win 0 5,002,260 0.001076011763 0 Yes Push Lose -2 27,201,288 0.005851136455 -0.01170227291 Yes Push Push -1 673,296 0.0001448294202 -0.0001448294202 Total 4,648,889,700 1 -0.02344687464
Also while playing the demo I got this hand:
I believe I should have gotten even money on the first and pushed the second.
Is the math a problem or issue then? Sorry, this is not my specialty. Do I need to alert Charles?
As for the screen shot, Charles and I went back and forth on the non-trump A vs. A issue. At one point I thought it might even make a good jackpot payout if it was achieved as above on the second hand. Then I got scared and figured with my luck someone would hit the jackpot first day (you see you got it very quickly)
The odds of getting non-trump A vs. non-trump A are pretty high so I believe we went with that being a win for the player, just not a jackpot win. Non-spade A versus dealers non-trump of any other card is a push.
I will confirm it with Charles. Like I said this scenario was bounced around several times so I'll make sure his math and the demo are in sync.
Quote: darkozQuote: mipletI'm getting 2.605 average units and an Element of Risk of 0.9% using the data copied from the appendix. Here it is formatted slightly better.I believe I should have gotten even money on the first and pushed the second.
Is the math a problem or issue then? Sorry, this is not my specialty. Do I need to alert Charles?
As for the screen shot, Charles and I went back and forth on the non-trump A vs. A issue. At one point I thought it might even make a good jackpot payout if it was achieved as above on the second hand. Then I got scared and figured with my luck someone would hit the jackpot first day (you see you got it very quickly)
The odds of getting non-trump A vs. non-trump A are pretty high so I believe we went with that being a win for the player, just not a jackpot win. Non-spade A versus dealers non-trump of any other card is a push.
I will confirm it with Charles. Like I said this scenario was bounced around several times so I'll make sure his math and the demo are in sync.
The math is probably right, I'm guessing Charles made some typo or copied the average bet wrong. Raising 60.5% sounds right. You could ask him just to make sure.
So a nontrump ace wins vs another non trump ace but pushes versus lesser cards? Why??
I don't even think you included that in the massive amount of rules you wrote, which needs to be significantly pared down. Changing that to a push wouldn't be a bad thing either since it looks like your game actually has an EOR less than 1% now.
If you would want some jackpot side bet payout, just give a bonus to anyone dealt two jokers, or a joker plus ace of spades, or any spade, etc.
The way the game currently is, you really can't add any significant extra pays to the main game without making it having a razor thin house edge. For example, if getting dealt two jokers paid 10 to 1 for each bet instead of 2 to 1 and 1.5 to 1, that would reduce the house edge by 1.15%.
Quote: tringlomaneThe math is probably right, I'm guessing Charles made some typo or copied the average bet wrong. Raising 60.5% sounds right. You could ask him just to make sure.
So a nontrump ace wins vs another non trump ace but pushes versus lesser cards? Why??
I don't even think you included that in the massive amount of rules you wrote, which needs to be significantly pared down. Changing that to a push wouldn't be a bad thing either since it looks like your game actually has an EOR less than 1% now.
If you would want some jackpot side bet payout, just give a bonus to anyone dealt two jokers, or a joker plus ace of spades, or any spade, etc.
The way the game currently is, you really can't add any significant extra pays to the main game without making it having a razor thin house edge. For example, if getting dealt two jokers paid 10 to 1 for each bet instead of 2 to 1 and 1.5 to 1, that would reduce the house edge by 1.15%.
Okay, I will confirm with Charles on the Aces issue as well as the possible typo.
Thanks.
I took a look at the hit rate using Miplet's template (one of my favorite metrics when trying to understand the playing experience) and I think this may be the problem:
Wins 30.1%/Pushes 21.8%/Loss 48.1%.......only winning or adding to your chip stack on 3 out of 10 hands doesn't "feel" great. I spend a lot of hands just hoping to win one of the two tricks and break even if I haven't raised. Once you raise, it seems like you are just trying to avoid losing both betting units by hopefully winning one of the two tricks and netting a loss of -1 unit.
The game will have some resistance with players, dealers and therefore properties as despite the millions of spade players out there, it is not a commonly understood game by the majority of casino players or more importantly casino dealers.
Here is a test I would conduct: Put together three hand examples on paper with straightforward plays and ask a group of dealers if they know based on their knowledge of "Spades" how to best play each hand. Tell them this is a grouping of hands in a game based on the popular game of Spades and the common rules of Spades apply. See how they do. My guess is that 80% won't know that they are forced to follow suit if they can with the cards in their hand and they won't easily understand that the 3 of Spades beats the King of Hearts if those two cards are squared off against one another.
My point is that I just don't think Spades is as common as you think it is amongst the employees and patrons of your typical casino. I could be wrong but this is what I see.
Setting the general knowledge of Spades aside, I think you need to re-vamp the game to provide for more single unit wins and therefore less pushes and less mulit unit wins. That hit rate for net wins needs to climb to at least 38%-40% for players not to feel like they are getting sucked dry and the game.
That is just one guy's opinion, so take it for what that is worth!
Lot of things have been brought up already that I noticed. Including several things that ended up changing my game for commercial viability. I'm going to write up what I thought needed attention, and if it's in common with others, chances are that should reinforce their recommendation; suggest you ignore the fact that some things are redundant.
I'm assuming we're talking live play even though we're discussing an electronic version.
1. Much as you love your variant, you're going to have to go to a standard poker structure on the rankings, Ace high. Leave the Two Jokers in and the 54 card deck. But you have to dump the 2 of diamonds as a ranking trump. So you'll have 15 trump and 39 non-trump. Changes the numbers some but can't be helped. Simplify. Simplify. Simplify. This is one I had to change in OftM as well.
2. Aces tie a non-trump other suit is a cool, off-beat rule. Off-ace beats other off-ace is kind of fun but will get paid wrong because it doesn't happen enough to be easy for dealers to remember the exception; dealers need 1-rule per situation. I suggest you make it a tie like the rest. Games that have a lot of odd little exceptions make dealers hate them; causes arguments at the table, stops play, kills tips, causes call-downs from the Eye and write-ups. Dealers that don't like your game won't sell it well, and they're your front line. Simplify.
3. The biggest game killer of them all is the renege rule. 60% of the hands (which means EVERY hand with 2 or more players, statistically) will contain a raise. Your game's edge requires a person to follow suit, even if they have 2 trump out of 4. So you're going to make the dealer stop every hand for every player that raises to "verify they haven't cheated" (know that's not the intent, but that's the effect), by the dealer having to play your hand through mentally as well. If the two played cards are acceptable, that's not enough (assuming face-down); the dealer has to verify the hand result was not manipulated. Are you kidding me?
Because, yes, if you're allowed to trump (and there are games like Hearts and Pitch where you are allowed) instead of following suit, or allowed to play an offsuit ace instead of following suit, on card 1, the game is going to be +EV (player's advantage) by a long way. If cards are dealt face-up, you're begging for player collusion and +EV again because so much is exposed. Let alone the underlying messages to the player that their strategy has to be validated, and that when they do "raise", they're often not making their best percentage play. Huge negative emotions you're generating there from player to dealer, to game, to casino. This is both a game protection issue and a dealer error inducer, let alone what it does to the player's retention interest. As the game is now with odd rankings this factor makes the game impossible for the dealer. With simplified rules/rankings as in 1-2 above, it's barely workable.
4. "Raise" as has been mentioned, is a misnomer. You never get paid for that bet; the best you can do is "save" it and push that bet. But "buy" is also not correct, because it remains on the felt. However, if you WERE to "buy" for 1x, could you make the pay consistent with the 2:1 and 3:2? Simpler paytable for the dealers to pay the same on a win, get rid of 1 betting circle (better commercially; makes room for a progressive or other sidebet). Big opportunities for dealers to mispay with the same spots getting different pays based on how many cards they have.
Sorry for the hammer. Please keep in mind that dealers rotate among several different carnival games (and other pits like BJ or craps) in virtually every pit I've played, and may only deal your game once a month or something; it has to be clear and easy for them with no thorns among the roses. Hope this was helpful.
No, Beachbumbabs, it is very helpful to me. I posted the game for feedback. As I said, I've dealt with Hollywood on screenplays and you always get hammered. There are always re-writes!
I have yet to walk into an executives office and they said on the first read, "fantastic script, no changes, shooting is a go." Trust me, its every screenwriters fantasy, but it never happens.
I don't expect this to be much different but it helps if I've worked out the kinks prior to going to the casinos.
I feel from the comments I am very close. Mostly non-spades players have big problems. I would get the same from non-poker players if trying to get them to play my new poker variant. We haven't heard of too many Spades casino players because there is no Spades game for the casino so I am hoping to grab that untapped market.
Let me mull over everyone's suggestions and see how I can make them fit.
