Is EOR Useful? (Split from OftM Opening thread)
I know Wiz is a fan of using EoR to compare games, I didn't look at other game pages of yours to see what your protocol normally is, but thought I would at least raise the point.
I think that all game analysis should be based on the house edge: the percentage of the initial wager that the house wins. That is the only meaningful number to me, as it is a fixed percentage of a known wager. I don't think EoR is a meaningful number for either side of the table.
Yes, OFTM has a high house edge, a bit too high IMHO. But sometimes you can't let the math get in the way of a good idea.
Quote: teliotEoR = "element of risk."
I think that all game analysis should be based on the house edge: the percentage of the initial wager that the house wins. That is the only meaningful number to me, as it is a fixed percentage of a known wager. I don't think EoR is a meaningful number for either side of the table.
Yes, OFTM has a high house edge, a bit too high IMHO. But sometimes you can't let the math get in the way of a good idea.
I think that both measures are useful, for different things. For your purposes, you are right, house edge is the easiest number to work with.
EoR gives you a better indication of how much "fun" you're getting for your money, if you enjoy gambling.
If the additional money comes in the form of "odds" bets, then this makes sense. If the additional money is forced (or else you would lose a greater fraction of your initial wager), then the concept of EoR seems either redundant or deceptive. No reasonable metric of risk (e.g. variance, n_0, Sharpe ratio) is based on EoR.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceEoR gives you a better indication of how much "fun" you're getting for your money, if you enjoy gambling.
Quote: teliotEoR = "element of risk."
I think that all game analysis should be based on the house edge: the percentage of the initial wager that the house wins. That is the only meaningful number to me, as it is a fixed percentage of a known wager. I don't think EoR is a meaningful number for either side of the table.
Yes, OFTM has a high house edge, a bit too high IMHO. But sometimes you can't let the math get in the way of a good idea.
Understood, thanks for that perspective. Is EoR less of a known number because you can't assume optimal play and therefore the average wager used in determining the EoR is not a given?
Quote: teliotIf the additional money comes in the form of "odds" bets, then this makes sense. If the additional money is forced (or else you would lose a greater fraction of your initial wager), then the concept of EoR seems either redundant or deceptive. No reasonable metric of risk (e.g. variance, n_0, Sharpe ratio) is based on EoR.
I think that house edge is equally deceptive when the amount that you put at risk is significantly higher than your initial wager. It is extremely useful for calculating total expected loss (either hourly or per hand) but not really useful for anything else. Also, the dividing line between initial bet an subsequent bets is somewhat arbitrary, especially in a game where you almost never fold before putting more money at stake (eg, a game like texas hold'em bonus -- you play almost every hand for at least the 2nd bet).
I think EoR is less known because it has little value beyond that described by AoC.Quote: ParadigmIs EoR less of a known number because you can't assume optimal play and therefore the average wager used in determining the EoR is not a given?
Quote: teliotYes, I agree. The player really needs all moments of the distribution to truly understand the game. For most in the industry, the two moments ev & var suffice. Marketing only uses ev.
Question. Can EoR be quantified in terms of the moments of the distribution?
I have never studied this formally so we are way beyond my knowledge here.
I have no idea. I can't think of a way to do it. The max bet is just the negative of the min non-zero value of the random variable that maps to a non-zero probability, but I can't think of a way to get the average bet. (Actually, that's not even really true, because there could be a game where you never make the max possible bet unless you are guaranteed a win -- eg, MS Stud)
In a game where all bets pay the same (eg, MS Stud) you might be able to get the average losing bet by looking at the part of the distribution that is negative. In games like UTH where the ante, blind, and play bets are all adjudicated differently and may win or push on winning hands, I can't think of a way to even get that.
I am generally fine with total expectation; I just think that dividing it by the initial bet is somewhat arbitrary. In UTH, do you consider the initial bet to be the ante, or ante+blind. It is generally given as ante, but that is arbitrary; if you choose to divide by ante+blind instead (the blind is, after all, a required initial bet, so it's not unreasonable to do), you cut the house edge in half without changing the game.
Funny thing. I minored in statistics in my Ph.D. studies. But statistics quickly became things like measure theory, stochastic processes and Markov chains. Graduate school for me was about abstraction, not application. I saw "moments" early on, but they were never mentioned again.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI have never studied this formally.
As for B^3's game, it's a good one. It got me thinking about clones of the idea -- the types of things SHFL might do if some other company had got OFTM first. There are plenty of good ideas out there for the picking. I came up with 3 clone concepts. I hope B^3 wrote a good patent, though personally I have no interest in doing anything. For those game inventors in our midst, consider ...
Quote: teliotFunny thing. I minored in statistics in my Ph.D. studies. But statistics quickly became things like measure theory, stochastic processes and Markov chains. Graduate school for me was about abstraction, not application. I saw "moments" early on, but they were never mentioned again.
I actually had to look the term up on wikipedia. It seems fairly straightforward, but I don't have an intuitive grasp of them, so I might be missing something.
I never did much analysis or applied math. I did a lot of abstract algebra and formal logic.
That's really all I did. At least, the algebra part. Dissertation title: "Green Functor Constructions in the Theory of Associative Algebras."Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI did a lot of abstract algebra and formal logic.
Quote: teliotQuestion. Can EoR be quantified in terms of the moments of the distribution?
Back to this, I am pretty sure that not only is the answer "no", but, as it is defined, EoR cannot even be determined from the distribution itself. That is, it is possible for two different games, with different EoR's to have the same distribution.
This is because it's possible for the game to allow you to make a bet that you can't lose (eg, MS Stud), and it might only be correct to make that bet when you can't lose. But the game could also just pay you higher odds for your original bet instead of allowing you to bet more, in which case, the distribution would be identical but the average bet would be lower, which would raise the EoR.
So, I'm going to change my mind. I now think that EoR is an arbitrary and useless measure.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, I'm going to change my mind. I now think that EoR is an arbitrary and useless measure.
Perhaps this statement was too extreme. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it is prone to being gamed, so it should be used with caution.
I would add to the HE vs. EoR discussion, but you guys got way above my math pay grade in a hurry :-)
1.)Ok. About HE vs. EoR.
From an historical perspective, HE was developed for games either with no decision point, or with limited options for additional bets. Baccarat, craps, and roulette are all 1-bet and see what happens. Blackjack is the same in the great majority of cases, excepting split/double opportunities. (note: BJ receives HE adjustments for calculation based on the table options; essentially an EOR calculation while glossing over the fact that you ARE making those adjustments. The true HE of BJ should be calculated without considering EV of splits and doubles if you're going to be a purist. But of course, you're not going to ignore them. And the HE of BJ improves significantly as a result.) So are almost all sidebets (a place-a-bet and see what happens). For apple-to-apple comparisons, HE was fine until about 25 years ago, until Caribbean Stud and Let It Ride came out; each have more than a single ante bet that must be wagered (or withdrawn). Then the rest of the Carnival games, including 3CP and other variants.
Mathematically, I think it's wrong to compare HE's on historical games to Carnival games. They're apples-to-oranges, and very misleading. The full calculation must be made. HE on OftM must be calculated on optimum strategy, but optimum strategy requires an average wager of 1.91 base units (for 6 deck). Without any accounting of double wins for raises with +EV cards, or wins and losses after trading, you are misleading casinos and players about their risk relative to historical games, just as if you ignored the effect of split and double betting on BJ. So I would argue strongly for an EOR calculation, or an adjustment to HE definition to routinely and consistently add that calculation.
2)Now, as to the HE being too high. I emphatically agree, and provided an adjustment mechanism for lowering it in the low-odds win paytable feature when I sold it that Bally did not initially deploy. Live trials have shown a POSSIBLE opportunity to improve the game through the use of it; this is a small-steps process of refinement, and this may or may not be a net improvement. We are adding a form of that to the game (it may already be in effect in some live tables) in order to improve the HE/EoR without adding betting circles or complicated additional rules. I will advise this forum, especially Mike and Eliot, as soon as I know what paytable(s) are being deployed, since both of them have written reviews on the game. Further details on what that feature does are in my thread from Oct. 25, 2013, discussing the game elements.
3)As to clones/patent. I filed 3 patents, containing among them 8 variations of the game, and about 20 options. The 4th patent was written from those, by professionals but filed under our name, parsing out the exact steps of the base math in patent legalese, and containing more than a dozen claims. The IP is no longer mine, so I'm unwilling to say anything further or more specific, although I recognize that at some point it will become public information. However, I have a fair amount of confidence that any clone using the base math or any portion is in peril, and part of the reason I sold the game (rather than retaining the IP rights) was because Bally has the resources and expertise to defend the game against cloning or infringement worldwide, and the will to do it. I guess we'll see what the future holds. However, if there is someone who would like to work in cooperation with me, and has some refinement that a) is not contained within my filed variations and options and b) brings something commercially viable and attractive (a net improvement) to the game, I am open to making that a lucrative choice, assuming Bally is interested in "going there". Obviously I can't speak for them.
Think that was it from the couple dozen posts above. I may add more but am not intentionally flooding the thread if I do. Thanks again for the great discussion.
Quote: beachbumbabsFascinating discussion. Thanks, guys!
1.)Ok. About HE vs. EoR.
From an historical perspective, HE was developed for games either with no decision point, or with limited options for additional bets. Baccarat, craps, and roulette are all 1-bet and see what happens. Blackjack is the same in the great majority of cases, excepting split/double opportunities. (note: BJ receives HE adjustments for calculation based on the table options; essentially an EOR calculation while glossing over the fact that you ARE making those adjustments. The true HE of BJ should be calculated without considering EV of splits and doubles if you're going to be a purist. But of course, you're not going to ignore them. And the HE of BJ improves significantly as a result.)
No, the edge generally given in blackjack is a percentage of the initial bet. It's therefore a HE and not an EoR.
Back on topic, I actually think that the edge on your game is fine for a carnie game.
Quote: teliotLet's see, like blackjack, with doubles, splits and doubles after splits?
Sorry, B^3, but I can't read any more now. I am going out tonight (to practice with a band). But I read that much and it was too much for me to take. HE (mean/average/expected value) was developed sometime around the beginning of time as far as probability is concerned. EoR is a very new invention of Mike's that has very little to do with the actual mathematics of the games.
I'll read the rest of your post when I return. Sorry for the quick and dirty rebuke.
That's ok, Eliot, you and I are making the same point, I think, but we may be arguing about process or solutions. I'll be interested in why you think it's ok to adjust BJ HE for those factors but not OftM for the same factors. In that particular aspect, OftM is more like BJ than any of the other games in the Carnival genre. In OftM, as in BJ, you are NEVER required to fold ahead of resolution; you can simply play for 1 unit and be done. It's against your best interest to do so, as it is in BJ if you never split or double, but you can do it. Every other game (except LIR) I can think of does not allow you to stay in, and LIR does it indirectly - if you have a bad hand, you don't let your 3 bets ride.
Looking forward to further discussion.
It's a true house edge. If you bet $100 per hand in a 0.3% house edge game and play perfect basic strategy, your expected loss is 30c per hand. This is true, despite the fact that you have more than $100 at risk on some hands.
In other words, you don't lose 0.3% of your average amount at risk, you lose 0.3% of your initial wager. You lose a lower percentage of your average amount at risk.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt's not adjusted in blackjack. I'm not sure why you think it is?
It's a true house edge. If you bet $100 per hand in a 0.3% house edge game and play perfect basic strategy, your expected loss is 30c per hand. This is true, despite the fact that you have more than $100 at risk on some hands.
In other words, you don't lose 0.3% of your average amount at risk, you lose 0.3% of your initial wager. You lose a lower percentage of your average amount at risk.
Geez, wrote back and somehow lost my post. Crud.
Anyway, look at the figures below:
OFTM optimum strategy occurence - roughly compared to BJ perfect strategy (I didn't look anything up for BJ stats - they will be wrong)
Trade on Dealt Hand (2 Unit Bet): 46.154% .............. Split on BJ (2 Unit bet) (not considering resplit): 5%
Stand on Dealt Hand (1 Unit Bet): 23.077% .............. Hit or stand on dealt 2 cards (1 Unit bet) : 82%
Raise on Dealt Hand (2 Unit Bet): 30.769% .............. Double on 2 cards (2 Unit bet): 10%
Raise after Trade Hand (3 Unit Bet): 14.480% .......... Double after split or resplit (3 Unit bet, sometimes more): 2%
Hit Freq. 6D: 40.9% Win, 9.3% Tie, 49.8% Loss ...... Hit Freq. 6D: 47% win, 49% lose, 3% tie
Perhaps if CM sees this, he can help me understand what I seem to be missing about how HE is calculated. I'm guessing it's my ignorance in how that's done that's resulting in the disconnect for HE/EoR between the two games for me. Or maybe teliot, AoC, or someone else.
(netpay)(p) + (netpay)(p)
Where 1st netpay and p (probability) is for the winning side and the second for the losing side.
Not sure if this helps :)
Divide that loss by your initial bet, and you have your house edge.
Divide that loss by your average total amount of money bet, and you have your element of risk.
In blackjack, the generally quoted number is the house edge. I've never seen anyone give an EoR for blackjack, not even the Wizard.. The numbers on the Wizard's calculator are house edges.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is all pretty straightforward. Take your average loss per hand.
Divide that loss by your initial bet, and you have your house edge.
Divide that loss by your average total amount of money bet, and you have your element of risk.
In blackjack, the generally quoted number is the house edge. I've never seen anyone give an EoR for blackjack, not even the Wizard.. The numbers on the Wizard's calculator are house edges.
To me, it feels like we're talking past each other on this. To me, the HE=EoR on Blackjack because the HE is modified to reflect each individual table's rules, which almost always includes some percentage of doubles and splits, which are a larger commitment of funds/hand. There is no one HE on BJ; it's always modified. The same is true of OftM, with only the percentages of opportunities occuring different. So, if OftM HE is calculated in a similar fashion to BJ, apples to apples, the HE should be 2.00 on 6 deck.
Or not. That's the disconnect I'm trying to fix.
Quote: beachbumbabsTo me, it feels like we're talking past each other on this. To me, the HE=EoR on Blackjack because the HE is modified to reflect each individual table's rules, which almost always includes some percentage of doubles and splits, which are a larger commitment of funds/hand.
No, that is not how it is modified. More lenient splitting and doubling rules allow you to make plays with higher expectation. That expectation is still divided by the initial bet only to get the house edge.
B^3, all I can say here is that you don't seem to understand the concepts.Quote: beachbumbabsTo me, it feels like we're talking past each other on this. To me, the HE=EoR on Blackjack because the HE is modified to reflect each individual table's rules, which almost always includes some percentage of doubles and splits, which are a larger commitment of funds/hand. There is no one HE on BJ; it's always modified. The same is true of OftM, with only the percentages of opportunities occuring different. So, if OftM HE is calculated in a similar fashion to BJ, apples to apples, the HE should be 2.00 on 6 deck.
Or not. That's the disconnect I'm trying to fix.
To find the house edge, list the events (payouts) that can occur e_1, e_2, ... e_n and the probabilities of each events p_1, p_2, ... p_n. Then the house edge is the sumproduct: e_1*p_1 + e_2*p_2 + ... e_n*p_n. This is the same, no matter the game. If the payouts are -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, as they are for your game, then those are the payouts used in the calculation. In blackjack, the payouts go from -8 to +8, with 1.5 in there as well.
Go to Mike's site, you will see that is the method he used for nearly every game he lists. Instead of "e_i" he uses "Pays" or "Win." Some games are a bit tough (like blackjack), but he does this calculation as well for a couple of examples, where the p_i's are determined by simulation.
This method is used in Mike's article on your game in the third table down "Net Win — Six Decks."
To a player, EoR might be useful. For instance, I always want to know how much I need to bet on average in order to understand what the "real" bet is. In your game, for a $5 table, I need to budget as though it costs $10.
I also think that 3.8% is high, and there are options at Bally's disposal to reduce this house edge; I really hope they do, because I want to see this excellent, elegant game succeed.
Quote: FleaStiffA slot player at my local casino solved all this stuff long ago when he said "My hundred dollars, she no longer lasts enough".
Solved how? Quit playing or risks $200 now? Lol
Quote: CrystalMathBBB, the house edge is 3.8% of the initial bet. This is single most important number for a casino, because they can immediately calculate that they will earn 3.8%*initial bet. They can also base comps on this.
Well, comps are based on total action in play per hand, not just what's bet on the initial/Ante bet and the house edge on that. So, comps are based on total action and its composite HE, or EoR. In craps, they may ignore the odds part of the pass line bet, though. For UTH/HUH/Crazy4Poker, it's the average of Ante, Blind, Play bet, etc. - and its EOR. If a player is tracked at his total action, but using only the "Ante" HE or "simple house edge", the player will be over-comped. Mike's EoR view and method is very accurate and useful in the field. Clearly, he is the Master.
Quote: CrystalMathTo a player, EoR might be useful. For instance, I always want to know how much I need to bet on average in order to understand what the "real" bet is. In your game, for a $5 table, I need to budget as though it costs $10.
I also think that 3.8% is high, and there are options at Bally's disposal to reduce this house edge; I really hope they do, because I want to see this excellent, elegant game succeed.
I don't know if a 3.8% versus a 2% HE would hurt it in the sense that 99% of the people hitting a game will just buy in and play it, and the HE is plenty fair enough; there are many successful carnival games with 3%-4% HE's, and failed game with lower HE's. The question is "does the game have appeal? Does it have a good humdinger, and is it fun to play?"
If the table over-holds, it is very fine that it is adjustable.
Consistently, when we submit a new game, we submit math for multiple HE's on the main game in addition to multiple pay tables for the side bets. For example, we might have multiple paytables for an ANTE bonus so that we can adjust the main bets' HE from 0.5% to 4% on a carnival game, not just the side bets; or have qualifiers ranging from a pair of 3's to a pair of 6's, etc.
This way, if the new game is over-holding or under-holding in the field, we change the layout for the adjusted game qualifier quickly as needed, as being a part of the already submitted/approved description for the game. This, without having to re-submit the game and wait all that time, and possibly lose the game because we couldn't adjust it in the field as needed.
This may be what you did, but what I've found is total chaos with regard to this question when I interview staff in the casinos I consult with on issues like this, and I've asked this question a lot. Hundreds of times. I advise evaluation based on initial bets, which includes the Ante bet and the side bet, if applicable. I advise that additional money placed during the course of the hand should not be included. Many do this, others don't, and others have no clue. Everyone appreciates the guidance. In addition, when I inspect the edges used towards T-Win on novelty games, what you find is chaos there as well. Most of the numbers are inconsistent and without foundation. I always advise using the H/E -- those numbers are widely available. The saving grace of all of this mess is that wagers are low, so the marketing chaos indigenous to novelty games does not cost that much. What's true is that no one uses Mike's EoR for T-Win computations on novelty games.Quote: PaigowdanWell, comps are based on total action in play per hand, not just what's bet on the initial/Ante bet and the house edge on that. So, comps are based on total action and its composite HE, or EoR. In craps, they may ignore the odds part of the pass line bet, though. For UTH/HUH/Crazy4Poker, it's the average of Ante, Blind, Play bet, etc. - and its EOR.
But "comps are based on total action in play per hand" is absolutely false for blackjack. This much casino staff knows -- blackjack is initial bet only; splits and double downs are not counted as additional money towards the average bet. Again, when I interview staff, I get a variety of responses, including "I take care of my players." But, TG management usually has a policy, at least for BJ, with regard to average bet, and that policy is always based on initial bets.
Quote: teliotThis may be what you did, but what I've found is total chaos with regard to this question when I interview staff in the casinos I consult with on issues like this, and I've asked this question a lot.
I agree. In interviewing many pit workers, we often heard things like "- His name is Anthony, but they all call him Tony....I find it all so confusing...." Forget about anything that requires math. Even three card poker, where it was instructed that the average bet is "two times the Ante, times EoR, plus the pair plus bet * its HE, if played..." they just write down the ante bet, and say "be done with it, I gotta do fills..."
Quote: teliotHundreds of times. I advise evaluation based on initial bets, which includes the Ante bet and the side bet, if applicable. I advise that additional money placed during the course of the hand should not be included. Many do this, others don't, and others have no clue. Everyone appreciates the guidance. In addition, when I inspect the edges used towards T-Win on novelty games, what you find is chaos there as well. Most of the numbers are inconsistent and without foundation. The saving grace of all of this mess is that wagers are low, so the marketing chaos indigenous to novelty games does not cost that much. What's true is that no one uses Mike's EoR for T-Win computations on novelty games.
Sadly True. It is not easy to translate game spec math or complex results to the practice in the field. Pit workers do the best they can do, or at least pretend to. I do examine both HE and average bet/EoR on games, and many do, but what goes on at a distributor/manufacturer is not what's done in the field.
Quote: teliotBut "comps are based on total action in play per hand" is absolutely false for blackjack. This much casino staff knows -- blackjack is initial bet, splits and double downs are not counted as additional money towards the average bet.
Yes, this is very true, and BJ is handled with "what's in the spot." Very fine.
Cool! I was afraid we would have one of those pointless disagreements on this issue :-)Quote: PaigowdanI agree.
I think I should change my name from "teliot" to "I Disagree."
Quote: teliotCool! I was afraid we would have one of those pointless disagreements on this issue :-)
No prob! :)
We may actually often agree, - we call 'em as we see 'em and we both have accurate gaming eyes, I'd like to think.
There is little doubt that yours is one of the most intelligent voices from inside the industry.Quote: PaigowdanWe may actually often agree, - we call 'em as we see 'em and we both have accurate gaming eyes, I'd like to think.
Quote: PaigowdanWell, comps are based on total action in play per hand, not just what's bet on the initial/Ante bet and the house edge on that. So, comps are based on total action and its composite HE, or EoR. In craps, they may ignore the odds part of the pass line bet, though. For UTH/HUH/Crazy4Poker, it's the average of Ante, Blind, Play bet, etc. - and its EOR. If a player is tracked at his total action, but using only the "Ante" HE or "simple house edge", the player will be over-comped. Mike's EoR view and method is very accurate and useful in the field. Clearly, he is the Master.
I don't know if a 3.8% versus a 2% HE would hurt it in the sense that 99% of the people hitting a game will just buy in and play it, and the HE is plenty fair enough; there are many successful carnival games with 3%-4% HE's, and failed game with lower HE's. The question is "does the game have appeal? Does it have a good humdinger, and is it fun to play?"
If the table over-holds, it is very fine that it is adjustable.
Consistently, when we submit a new game, we submit math for multiple HE's on the main game in addition to multiple pay tables for the side bets. For example, we might have multiple paytables for an ANTE bonus so that we can adjust the main bets' HE from 0.5% to 4% on a carnival game, not just the side bets; or have qualifiers ranging from a pair of 3's to a pair of 6's, etc.
This way, if the new game is over-holding or under-holding in the field, we change the layout for the adjusted game qualifier quickly as needed, as being a part of the already submitted/approved description for the game. This, without having to re-submit the game and wait all that time, and possibly lose the game because we couldn't adjust it in the field as needed.
Paigowdan, CrystalMath, Eliot and the experts out there,
If a new blackjack variant has only a HE of 0.33%, do you think it would survive in the market?
Quote: UCivanPaigowdan, CrystalMath, Eliot and the experts out there,
If a new blackjack variant has only a HE of 0.33%, do you think it would survive in the market?
It's not easy to say, there are so many other variables.
But, for a HE of 0.33%, there better be a lot of player errors to compensate.
Quote: UCivanPaigowdan, CrystalMath, Eliot and the experts out there,
If a new blackjack variant has only a HE of 0.33%, do you think it would survive in the market?
blackjack games typically have single-digit holds in mature markets - and casinos are not too happy with that, with that HE being a bit slim. That's a one unit win for the house every three hundred hands from NON-counters, and not so good for keeping the lights on and the free drinks flowing.... I know we all here seek and Expect to have the casinos be our personal ATMs at the clap of our hands, - but if you're a game designer, your game HAS to make money for your customer.
BJ game variations that are fun to play, and have a house edge of at least 1% to 1.5%, and fine for the "non- expert WOV player" [ahem] should provide entertainment for the player and make money for your game customers.
Quote: Paigowdanblackjack games typically have single-digit holds in mature markets - and casinos are not too happy with that, with that HE being a bit slim. That's a one unit win for the house every three hundred hands from NON-counters, and not so good for keeping the lights on and the free drinks flowing.... I know we all here seek and Expect to have the casinos be our personal ATMs at the clap of our hands, - but if you're a game designer, your game HAS to make money for your customer.
BJ game variations that are fun to play, and have a house edge of at least 1% to 1.5%, and fine for the "non- expert WOV player" [ahem] should provide entertainment for the player and make money for your game customers.
With this game, casinos make money on side bets and player errors. I will recommend Galaxy's (Paigowdan's company) Lucky Ladies (HE = 26+%) The HE is computed with optimal play strategy. If the optimal play strategy for this variant is too convoluted for any human beings to follow, this game still has a chance.
Quote: UCivan
With this game, casinos make money on side bets and player errors. I will recommend Galaxy's (Paigowdan's company) Lucky Ladies (HE = 26+%) The HE is computed with optimal play strategy. If the optimal play strategy for this variant is too convoluted for any human beings to follow, this game still has a chance.
Time for a new thread.
Quote: odiousgambitIf BJ is HE only, then the bets for splitting and doubling must just be considered additional bets in the calculation. Otherwise, the EV could not possibly be correct.
That is not true at all.
You take your expected loss, in dollars. You divide by the initial wager, in dollars. That is house edge.
Your average amount wagered will be more than the initial wager, because of splits and doubles. But you do not include that in the house edge calculation. You just divide by the initial wager. I don't see why you think that that couldn't possibly be correct.
As to the patent questions, I am not qualified to even begin the conversation about your example. That's why RichN is my attorney, and Bally owns the IP. The most I know about patent law is that indirectly it killed my best cousin well before his time. So I consider hiring/deferring to experts money well spent.
Quote: PaigowdanThe question is "does the game have appeal? Does it have a good humdinger, and is it fun to play?"
Quote: teliotWhat's true is that no one uses Mike's EoR for T-Win computations on novelty games.
Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but isn't Mike using Element of Risk as a way to quantify the "fun" factor?
But "fun" is not quantifiable.Quote: DJTeddyBearMaybe I'm thinking of something else, but isn't Mike using Element of Risk as a way to quantify the "fun" factor?
Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking.Quote: teliotBut "fun" is not quantifiable.
From https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/15502-thank-you-wizard-for-an-important-craps-website/#post281355
Quote: WizardI don't endeavor to quantify the fun factor of bets or games.
There is a good question here, what is EoR good for? Aside from its curiosity factor and its utility to selectively deceive, the only application I know is to odds bets in craps, where the information was previously known. In this case, EoR gives a way for table games staff to determine average bet without having to separate out specific wagers. But craps is a mess -- everyone knows it is a mess -- when it comes to accurate ratings.Quote: DJTeddyBearYeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking.
Okay, this is significantly OT.
Quote: teliotBut "fun" is not quantifiable.
It is to a small degree ball-parked by a focus group of gamblers, or a trained eye.
If people spend real money (buy in), in search of gambling fun and action, then that is the litmus test. Your number of installs is quantifiable, and it isn't easy.
However, this can only be done after you've developed the game, paid for GLI and Gaming approval, convinced a casino operator, and risked a failure in all that.
That's a gamble of greater proportions as opposed to testing an electronic prototype or program or something on a work bench.
Quote: teliotThere is a good question here, what is EoR good for? Aside from its curiosity factor and its utility to selectively deceive, the only application I know is to odds bets in craps, where the information was previously known. In this case, EoR gives a way for table games staff to determine average bet without having to separate out specific wagers. But craps is a mess -- everyone knows it is a mess -- when it comes to accurate ratings.
Okay, this is significantly OT.
EoR quickly shows the real edge of Optimal Strategy betting in terms of total units played, in a multi-bet main game, in terms of that main bet's total action, and not in terms of an Ante bet. I think this has value to us.
A very good "in a nutshell" figure.
To me, EoR has no mathematical value. EoR gives a risk measurement of some sort, with the average bet replacing variance. But, the metric (sd/ev)^2 does the same thing and has valuable applications. It may measure fun in some sense, but fun can't really be quantified. Outside of craps, I have never seen it used in marketing or on-the-floor ratings. In my consulting, I am often explaining mathematical concepts. There is already way too much math for most in the industry. I think "what is it good for?" is a very valid question here.
Casino math has plenty of numbers already. Introducing a new one with no apparent utility seems at best to muddy the waters.
Quote: ParadigmIn an attempt to split off from the OFTM Thread, I pose the above question.
For me EoR is useful in that it provides me an sense of the expected loss on every dollar I wager in a game. I would rather play a game with a 5% HE & a .5% EoR than one with a 5% HE & a 5% EoR. I want to know that when I play the game correctly, the advantage the house has against me on every bet I make, not just the initial bet.
Quote: teliotThanks for splitting this off. There is a good question here, what is EoR good for? Aside from its curiosity factor and its utility to selectively deceive, the only application I know is to odds bets in craps, where the information was previously known. In this case, EoR gives a way for table games staff to determine average bet without having to separate out specific wagers. But craps is a mess -- everyone knows it is a mess -- when it comes to accurate ratings.
To me, EoR has no mathematical value. EoR gives a risk measurement of some sort, with the average bet replacing variance. But, the metric (sd/ev)^2 does the same thing and has valuable applications. It may measure fun in some sense, but fun can't really be quantified. Outside of craps, I have never seen it used in marketing or on-the-floor ratings. In my consulting, I am often explaining mathematical concepts. There is already way too much math for most in the industry. I think "what is it good for?" is a very valid question here.
Casino math has plenty of numbers already. Introducing a new one with no apparent utility seems at best to muddy the waters.
