Spinner14
Spinner14
Joined: May 16, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 30
August 21st, 2015 at 11:44:25 AM permalink
Read most of the idea via your link and got through a lot of it before clicking back; I like the soul of this but (and forgive me if I missed where it answers this in your link) what's the initial motivation to wager on NutJack when the prior pool has been won and there is $0 now available to win? From your page:

"The next hand immediately begins with the jackpot value of zero."

This is the challenge faced on progressives if no seed money were used; eager to know how this might be addressed.


Also, second the point on whether or not the casino would be willing to run the cards if all players fold just to see if the bettor on NutJack wins. That's a waste of time to the property, even when getting a piece of the action.


Still like where this is coming from and how it can influence the game.

Best,

Spinner
Everyone's an expert.
discflicker
discflicker
Joined: Jan 1, 2011
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 451
August 21st, 2015 at 11:56:32 AM permalink
Quote: tongni

if you can find a game where people are betting $10 on nutjack preflop, i will fly there tomorrow



The ante bet, by itself, isn't smart, if that's what you're implying, you are right. The bet is only helpful to the live game when its allowed in the later betting phases, after players know what they're dealing with.

In fact, I've considered not even allowing it to be made at ante... pre-flop, flop and turn seem like good candidates, and the "All-In, First-Nut NutJack" variation seems like it'd be the most fun.

COOL, thanks for you positive feedback... THIS GAME HAS NEVER BEEN PLAYED BEFORE, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY IT OUT WITH SOME FRIENDS AND SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT.

Thanks for your interest.
The difference between zero and the smallest possible number? It doesn't matter; once you cross that edge, it might as well be the difference between zero and 1. The difference between infinity and reality? They are mutually exclusive.
discflicker
discflicker
Joined: Jan 1, 2011
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 451
August 21st, 2015 at 12:17:03 PM permalink
Quote: Spinner14

Read most of the idea via your link and got through a lot of it before clicking back; I like the soul of this but (and forgive me if I missed where it answers this in your link) what's the initial motivation to wager on NutJack when the prior pool has been won and there is $0 now available to win? From your page:

"The next hand immediately begins with the jackpot value of zero."

This is the challenge faced on progressives if no seed money were used; eager to know how this might be addressed.


Good question, Spinner!

If the bet is allowed in the later phases, it can be used to indicate hand-strength (or for "sanctioned bluffing"), and THAT is the main reason that I foresee it being used... in these cases, the jackpot is less likely to accumulate, but the bet will be made when appropriate; it's only a matter of time, as nut hands are not all that rare... I believe it would get played every 6th hand or so, on a full table.

My variation "First-Nut" also encourages the bet to be made because the first player to make it gets paid more.

The jackpot accumulation COULD be taken off of the rake of the live-game pot; advanced players who desire this game should be willing to pay for it in this way... we already pay for jackpots like this anyway, like it or not. Perhaps the house SHOULD setup tables like this... wherein you are playing for the jackpots that you want to play for, and this particular one would be for advanced players who want to use it to influence the live game.
Quote: Spinner14


Also, second the point on whether or not the casino would be willing to run the cards if all players fold just to see if the bettor on NutJack wins. That's a waste of time to the property, even when getting a piece of the action.


Please see my response to MathEx.. it would only take a few seconds, it is being paid for via the NutJack side-bet commission, and now it becomes a way for players to pay to see what the deck would have dealt.
Quote: Spinner14


Still like where this is coming from and how it can influence the game.


More positive feedback!! Wow, for WoV, this is VERY encouraging!!

Thanks for your interest.
The difference between zero and the smallest possible number? It doesn't matter; once you cross that edge, it might as well be the difference between zero and 1. The difference between infinity and reality? They are mutually exclusive.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 21st, 2015 at 3:36:56 PM permalink
Quote: discflicker

Ripe for AP players... if that means "Advanced Players", yes I agree. If that means Advantage Poker players who'd use the bet to bluff, then that is exactly the beauty of the idea.

THANKS for taking the time, MathEx.... I owe you a boatload of golf discs!!


No, what I mean is that advantage players would be making the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it, regardless of anything else. That would have the impact of lowering the average pool size for everyone else. In other words, it sounds strongly vulturable, like Ultimate X or accumulator slots. Vulturable games are generally a bad idea so you'll really need to nail the math in order to make this a viable long-term proposition. If not, it might have short-term success but fade away quickly, just like accumulator slots did.

And I don't need a boatload, but I wouldn't turn down a few discs and a basket for my backyard...

Edit: to address Spinner14's comment on game speed if you have to deal out the board all the time, I agree that it would slow the game down but I don't think that's a huge knock against it like it would be in a house-banked game. Hourly rake in a poker game is pretty low compared to table games so I'd expect any drop in rake volume would be more than compensated for by the win from this side bet.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
discflicker
discflicker
Joined: Jan 1, 2011
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 451
August 21st, 2015 at 5:41:35 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

No, what I mean is that advantage players would be making the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it, regardless of anything else. That would have the impact of lowering the average pool size for everyone else. In other words, it sounds strongly vulturable, like Ultimate X or accumulator slots. Vulturable games are generally a bad idea so you'll really need to nail the math in order to make this a viable long-term proposition. If not, it might have short-term success but fade away quickly, just like accumulator slots did.


That's why I have all of these variations in the way its played. I re-did the document an added a "recommendations" section, here it is-

For Casinos, I have three:

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $10 set bet, using a $1 rake from every pot > $20 to seed the jackpot, a 10% commission on all jackpots kept by the house, allowing the bet to be made upon ante and pre-flop.

This variation would be better for casinos that can pool money from multiple tables into the NutJack side-bet jackpot accumulation. These jackpots would have moderate accumulation, and the NutJack side-bet would still have a moderate effect upon the live-game strategy.

Or

“Free NutJack”, NO set bet, using a $1 rake from every pot > $20 to seed the jackpot. If you have the exclusive nut hand, you win the jackpot, just like “Royal flush suite of the day”.

This variation would also be better for casinos that can pool money from multiple tables into the NutJack side-bet jackpot accumulation. These jackpots would accumulate the most, but have very little effect upon the live-game strategy.

Or

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $10 set bet, using a $1 commission paid up-front, allowing the bet to be made upon pre-flop and flop.

This variation would be better for casinos that can’t pool money into jackpots from multiple tables. These jackpots would have little accumulation, however, the NutJack side-bet will be very effective in the live-game strategy.

For a home game:

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $10 set bet, no commission, allowing the bet to be made upon pre-flop, flop, and turn.

This variation would have a crazy impact on the live-game strategy.
Quote: MathExtremist


And I don't need a boatload, but I wouldn't turn down a few discs and a basket for my backyard...


OK, where do you live, I still have a thousand or so golf discs, and I just got 1200 brand-new Ultimate discs in for a new project I'm into, which is really frickin cool if i don't mind saying so...

http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/23037-175-grams/#post479171

http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Pointer/www/projects/IndiaDiscSports/Project175_Phase3.htm

Thanks again
The difference between zero and the smallest possible number? It doesn't matter; once you cross that edge, it might as well be the difference between zero and 1. The difference between infinity and reality? They are mutually exclusive.
andysif
andysif
Joined: Aug 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 433
August 21st, 2015 at 6:26:39 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

No, what I mean is that advantage players would be making the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it, regardless of anything else. That would have the impact of lowering the average pool size for everyone else. In other words, it sounds strongly vulturable, like Ultimate X or accumulator slots. Vulturable games are generally a bad idea so you'll really need to nail the math in order to make this a viable long-term proposition. If not, it might have short-term success but fade away quickly, just like accumulator slots did.

And I don't need a boatload, but I wouldn't turn down a few discs and a basket for my backyard...

Edit: to address Spinner14's comment on game speed if you have to deal out the board all the time, I agree that it would slow the game down but I don't think that's a huge knock against it like it would be in a house-banked game. Hourly rake in a poker game is pretty low compared to table games so I'd expect any drop in rake volume would be more than compensated for by the win from this side bet.


No, they don't have to "make the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it", they can bet AFTER they had the nut, therefore no odds are involved.

Besides, this side bet is really a poker thing. it's all about the bluff. so i don't think you can treat it like other side bet where you just simply calculate the odd.
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3522
August 21st, 2015 at 6:48:55 PM permalink
So I'm playing in a No Limit Holdem game. I either have the nut or want someone to think I have the nut. What am I going to do. Raise to $150 or place a Nut Jack bet? Seems pretty obvious the side bet won't work for no limit or hight limit games.

If it's a side bet placed pre-hand, I could see it working in low limit games. Post deal, the action and idea of the side bet already exists. It's called a raise.

You need to go back to the basics. Poker Managers don't really want to see 6 options of what could work. They (we) want to see one option that does work. It's a pretty decent idea as a pre-deal side bet. Take that and run with it.


ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
discflicker
discflicker
Joined: Jan 1, 2011
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 451
August 21st, 2015 at 6:49:14 PM permalink
Quote: andysif

No, they don't have to "make the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it", they can bet AFTER they had the nut, therefore no odds are involved.

Besides, this side bet is really a poker thing. it's all about the bluff. so i don't think you can treat it like other side bet where you just simply calculate the odd.



He likes it! I'm getting only positive feedback; this is a first for WoV.

Anyone wanna bankroll this? I can have my lawyer draw up a patent on it in no time at all.
The difference between zero and the smallest possible number? It doesn't matter; once you cross that edge, it might as well be the difference between zero and 1. The difference between infinity and reality? They are mutually exclusive.
andysif
andysif
Joined: Aug 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 433
August 21st, 2015 at 9:50:53 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

So I'm playing in a No Limit Holdem game. I either have the nut or want someone to think I have the nut. What am I going to do. Raise to $150 or place a Nut Jack bet? Seems pretty obvious the side bet won't work for no limit or hight limit games.

If it's a side bet placed pre-hand, I could see it working in low limit games. Post deal, the action and idea of the side bet already exists. It's called a raise.

You need to go back to the basics. Poker Managers don't really want to see 6 options of what could work. They (we) want to see one option that does work. It's a pretty decent idea as a pre-deal side bet. Take that and run with it.


ZCore13



if $10 isn't much in high limits, make it 50, or 100. "No limit" is not exactly no limit. There are buy-in limit for the table. Make the bet 1/10, or 1/20 of max buy-in.
Then we are talking about $50 bet for $300 jackpot on a $150 game pot. that would be quite interesting.
ShineyShine
ShineyShine
Joined: Feb 6, 2014
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 187
August 21st, 2015 at 11:08:26 PM permalink
Not sure what to make of this. I like the idea, but i can see quite a few problems with it.

You're mainly focusing on how it can be used as a bluffing tool, but i think you're forgetting the flip side to this. If a player raises big and actually does have the nuts, so therefore wants a call, unless the jackpot is a lot bigger than the the pot they're playing, i don't think they'll be wanting to give their hand strength away by making this bet. I guess it could be made as a 'reverse' bluff, but i'm not sure players would like that.

Also, kind of related to ME's point about A.P or vulturing. I don't know anything about that aspect of it, but if the jackpot was big enough, i could definitely envisage a scenario where a table of regs agree to flat call every hand pre-flop and check it down to the river to win the jackpot. This would impact the rake, and make for a very boring game.

Best of luck with it anyway.

  • Jump to: