HIGH -ev for Craps Prop Bets

I am trying to come up with a dice game that is a Craps variation, but have run into what I think might be a bit of an issue. So, I'm looking for some feedback from the forum before I finalize the game.

The game has a proposition bet area just like Craps, but with different types of bets (i.e. instead of a "ANY CRAPS" there is a "ANY SPARC", craps spelled backwards).

An ANY SPARC bet has 9 ways to win and 27 ways to lose.

I would prefer that ALL the proposition bets can be initiated with a $1 wager, but for the ANY SPARC bet, it would have a payout of 2 to 1 (3 for 1) with an -ev of 25.00%.
If it required a $2 wager to initiate the bet, I could make the payout 5 to 2 (7 for 2) and the -ev is 12.50% (a much easier -ev to swallow).

Currently, having all prop bets being intiated with a $1 wager, I have 8 bets with an -ev of 11.11%, 3 bets with an -ev of 16.67% and 1 bet with an -ev of 25.00%. (Craps has 11.11%, 13.39% and of course the Any 7 that is 16.67%, which many think is too high at 16.67%, let alone a bet with an -ev of 25.00%).

Not only would I like to reduce the -ev of 25.00% by requiring a $2 wager, but also doing the same with the bets with an -ev of 16.67%. BUT, then you have two types of propostion bets, $1 bets and $2 bets. (In addition, two of the 16.67% bets are the bets similar to a C&E bet, which would require a $4 wager to initiate both).

SO, please respond to the POLL and comment ....

Thanks

I'll respond when you show you have done your homework first.

Answer this question: who said "I have seen many game inventors try to reinvent craps and roulette, but the number to have any kind of financial success, to my knowledge, is zero. " ?

Quote: odiousgambit

I'll respond when you show you have done your homework first.

Answer this question: who said "I have seen many game inventors try to reinvent craps and roulette, but the number to have any kind of financial success, to my knowledge, is zero. " ?

The WIZARD'S 10 Commanments (number 2). But, "there's always a first time", not to mention that my first motive for trying to "reinvent" craps isn't financial success.

Quote: Wizard

2. Thou Shalt Covet Games that are Already Popular

Successful new table games take a game that is already popular and add a new twist to it. Namely poker, blackjack, and baccarat -- in that order. I have seen many game inventors try to reinvent craps and roulette, and the number to have any kind of financial success, to my knowledge, is zero.

3. Thou Shalt Keep the House Edge Under 5%

New game inventors frequently make the error of trying to butcher the player with a huge house edge. You can shear a sheep many times, but slaughter it only once. The opposite also happens sometimes, where inventors wish to release a game with a player advantage, under the incorrect notion that player errors will swing the odds back towards the casino. No game with a player advantage will last long. Well-financed advantage players will take it down like cavemen hunting a mammoth.

And it is the Wizard's 3rd commandment that states that the -ev be under 5.00%. But, "rules are made to be broken", and "there are exceptions to every rule". Whether I use two types of proposition bets to keep the -ev down to a maximum of 11.11% or one type to be less confusing to players when initiating bets (and have a ridiculous 25.00% -ev), Commandment 3 IS going to be broken.

I'm not asking if I should break the commandment, but how far I should go in breaking it... so now please repond.

If it's not about financially succeeding, I can dig it.

I'd say " it would have a payout of 2 to 1 (3 for 1) with an -ev of 25.00%." indicates you want to appeal to getting the game placed, that the House would drool over such sucker betting. You'd have to demonstrate to me some redeeming feature, or the players would hate it. Players that don't care about HE want bigger payouts, like at least 12 to one.

There is exactly one reason to have a craps bet be a minimum of $2: When it pays $x to $2.
Like the odds bet on 5 & 9: Odds are even on odds.

Do you know what happens if the player makes an odd odds bet of, say, $5 on the 5 & 9? It pays 3:2 on $4, and $1 on the last buck. I.E. $5 pays $7, while $6 pays $9.

---

25% IS way too high - for a single roll bet. Note that the FireBet has edges between 20% and 25%, depending on which paytable is used. But that's for a single bet that is active for a long time. It's a jackpot bet. As such, a higher edge is acceptable.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

25% IS way too high - for a single roll bet. Note that the FireBet has edges between 20% and 25%, depending on which paytable is used. But that's for a single bet that is active for a long time. It's a jackpot bet. As such, a higher edge is acceptable.

My thoughts are in line with that, in fact I think 25% IS way, way, way too high.

But I was afraid that having a prop bet area with some bets $1 and some bets $2 would add to the complication of the game, and as we all know "Craps is too complicated already". But, the trade off of a super high -ev would be worse I think.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Quote: odiousgambit

If it's not about financially succeeding, I can dig it.

I'd say " it would have a payout of 2 to 1 (3 for 1) with an -ev of 25.00%." indicates you want to appeal to getting the game placed, that the House would drool over such sucker betting. You'd have to demonstrate to me some redeeming feature, or the players would hate it. Players that don't care about HE want bigger payouts, like at least 12 to one.

The three bets that would be $2 bets would have payouts of 7 for 2, 11 for 2 and 13 for 2. With them being prop bets, I'm not sure how much play they would get to have the House "drool" over them.

I am leaning towards having them be $2 bets to save dealer having to always tell players to give them another chip.

But I value the opinions here, so thus the poll.

Thanks odious ...

Quote: NewToCraps

I am leaning towards having them be $2 bets to save dealer having to always tell players to give them another chip.

You would NOT be saving them the effort. People still can't remember it for odds on 5/9. Dealers constantly have to say "Odds are even on odds."

.....

do you literally mean the bets are $1 and $2 or in multiples of 2? I think restricting it to $2 is not going to fly in the casinos eyes. There are many many people who bet $10 or $25 on these high HE bets.

$1 minimum/increment and $2 minimum/increment, maximum per House rules.

For example (I know this isn't a real bet, but it helps explain the situation):

If you have a $1 minimum (and increment) bet on all double combinations [1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, 6-6]
(6 of them, so true odds of 6 for 1) it could pay 5 for 1 with a HE of 16.67.
If you were to make it a $2 minimum (and increment) the bet could pay 11 for 2 with a HE of 8.33%.

BUT, would players get confused if there were three different $2 bets and eight different $1 bets all in the center prop bet area?

I am thinking that the two different "minimum wager amount types" would have to be seperated with a little black space in the prop area (which leaving blank space in that prime real estate area comes into the decision also).

Quote: NewToCraps

Whether I use two types of proposition bets to keep the -ev down to a maximum of 11.11% or one type to be less confusing to players when initiating bets (and have a ridiculous 25.00% -ev).... so now please repond.

Any 2:1 payout with a 25% house advantage is just egregious, period. You want to push a classic craps table off the floor to make room for a new dice game with side bets having single-digit pays and double-digit HEs in an era when more casinos are offering 16- and 33-to-1 horn pays? You will redefine "rude awakening".

What I thought would be the response, is the response. Only one vote for the higher -ev, so I guess what could have been a 25% -ev, will be only 12.5% and the prop area will have to be seperated into to wager amount offerings.

To all the people who voted and commented, thanks for confirming things.