Poll

1 vote (6.25%)
7 votes (43.75%)
6 votes (37.5%)
2 votes (12.5%)
3 votes (18.75%)
1 vote (6.25%)
1 vote (6.25%)
2 votes (12.5%)
2 votes (12.5%)

16 members have voted

mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1319
December 9th, 2016 at 7:50:58 AM permalink
Thank you all for the insight and more importantly, the kind words.

Lucky, you know I agree with what you had said.

Joeman, I am obviously with you on the M$ vs. Classic favorite. However, like you and everyone else said, the market may take to Classic much quicker (while M$ did so well in MI, but things happen).

Babs, on day you learn that my name is Brent :p lol.

I am waiting on the final word for an install in the NE area (don't want to be specific and jinx anything) for M$ 31. But I started promoting Classic a few days ago. Hopefully, this will help some get over the hump and give the Classic version a go. However, we all know how that goes...
.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 5490
December 9th, 2016 at 8:50:34 AM permalink
I definitely like both games... I would imagine in your industry the simpler the game the better it is for the casino and the players; so I also agree with DJT on the KISS method.

That being said I wanted to check how you modified the pay tables to make up for not having any moneysuit multipliers. You added more odds to the top heavy section of the pay tables to balance the math out. I personally would love to see SMALLER sections of winning where you can win "more" easier at the bottom of the pay tables and keep the top how it was with moneysuit.

To me, when I do win, 99% of the time it feels like a 1-1 or maybe a 2-1 thrown in. That's a lot of the fun of the game for me, is seeing the big odds get pushed back to me, or at least not winning the "minimum" when I do (because to me the money in the game is past the first pay).

Example (NOTE: I did NOT check the return on this to see how it lands but this is just an example of a more 'balanced' system in my opinion):

17..............Push
18-19.......1 to 1
20-22.......2 to 1
23-25.......3 to 1
26-28.......4 to 1
29-30.......5 to 1
Trips.........6 to 1
31.............10 to 1
Mini.........20 to 1

While this "slightly" contradicts the KISS by adding a couple more pay lines, I think it adds some "simplicity" by counting up the pays 1 at a time. I think this would add a lot more EXCITEMENT to the game because the player would feel like they got a "big hand" (i.e. anything more than the minimum 1-1) more often too.

Again, I didn't check the math, but if you could slim down the zones for winning so there could be more chances to win more than the minimum, I think that would help the excitement and feel of the game a lot.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1941
December 9th, 2016 at 9:49:38 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

I definitely like both games... I would imagine in your industry the simpler the game the better it is for the casino and the players; so I also agree with DJT on the KISS method.

That being said I wanted to check how you modified the pay tables to make up for not having any moneysuit multipliers. You added more odds to the top heavy section of the pay tables to balance the math out. I personally would love to see SMALLER sections of winning where you can win "more" easier at the bottom of the pay tables and keep the top how it was with moneysuit.

To me, when I do win, 99% of the time it feels like a 1-1 or maybe a 2-1 thrown in. That's a lot of the fun of the game for me, is seeing the big odds get pushed back to me, or at least not winning the "minimum" when I do (because to me the money in the game is past the first pay).

Example (NOTE: I did NOT check the return on this to see how it lands but this is just an example of a more 'balanced' system in my opinion):

17..............Push
18-19.......1 to 1
20-22.......2 to 1
23-25.......3 to 1
26-28.......4 to 1
29-30.......5 to 1
Trips.........6 to 1
31.............10 to 1
Mini.........20 to 1

While this "slightly" contradicts the KISS by adding a couple more pay lines, I think it adds some "simplicity" by counting up the pays 1 at a time. I think this would add a lot more EXCITEMENT to the game because the player would feel like they got a "big hand" (i.e. anything more than the minimum 1-1) more often too.

Again, I didn't check the math, but if you could slim down the zones for winning so there could be more chances to win more than the minimum, I think that would help the excitement and feel of the game a lot.

18% player advantage.
I like Classic 31. The perfect strategy should be lots simpler than the M$ one.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1319
December 9th, 2016 at 10:36:10 AM permalink
Quote: miplet

18% player advantage.
I like Classic 31. The perfect strategy should be lots simpler than the M$ one.



No wonder why Romes wanted that.... SMH. Also, Romes, the bonus payouts went up a pretty solid amount on the lower ends. The base game, there isn't really much I was able to do with the lower end, when removing the Money$uit. At least not without dropping the top pays down to virtually nothing.

Thank you Mip. Feel free to chime in with that optimal strategy at any time lol...
.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1319
December 9th, 2016 at 10:49:17 AM permalink
Romes, here is the detailed breakdown of the events probability for the base game for you. Courtesy of the fine work of miplet. This is on the game math tab on the site in greater detail....


17------------- 5.22855%
18-23----------24.995847%
24-27----------4.28922%
28 & 29-------1.39921%
30------------- 0.55111%
Trips---------- 0.76498%
31------------- 0.35017%
Mini-Royal---- 0.07240%
.
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 2145
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
December 9th, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

......
Trips.........6 to 1
....

If I understand it you need trips at 8 to 1 to make it reasonable to play pairs 2-5 with an unmatched 10 (pair of 6's have additional outs of A's). The total needs to be greater than -49 to make the EV of playing better than the -1 of folding.
Consider 2s 2h 10d...
Card(s)PaysOutsTotal
2d 2c
(1+8)/1
2
+18
7d
(0+0)/1
1
+0
8d 9d Jd Qd Kd Ad
(1+1)/1
6
+12
49-9 others
-2
39
-78
Totals
49
-48
I think similar logic applies to 2s 2d 7d and similar hands where the total of your best suit is 9 or more (not having the 10d means the outs are two 2's, one 8d and six 9-Ad).
Edit: Adjusted table as 17 doesn't pay anything for Ante nor Raise bets.
Last edited by: charliepatrick on Dec 9, 2016
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1941
Thanks for this post from:
charliepatrick
December 9th, 2016 at 11:23:59 AM permalink
17 pushes on both the Ante and Play.
I'll do the basic strategy soon. I just can't run the program from my phone. Hopefully it's the right one that I found as there has been many versions of this game.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1319
December 9th, 2016 at 11:40:44 AM permalink
Quote: miplet

17 pushes on both the Ante and Play.
I'll do the basic strategy soon. I just can't run the program from my phone. Hopefully it's the right one that I found as there has been many versions of this game.



Ill PM you the links to the spreadsheets I used to calculate this math. Hope that will help navigating through the 47 you have done for me at this point.
.
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 2145
December 9th, 2016 at 12:17:14 PM permalink
Quote: miplet

17 pushes on both the Ante and Play...

Thanks. Personally I'd prefer the Ante to pay for a winning 17, but can understand if the maths prevents that happening.

As an aside I know other games where the payouts for various results have to be set so it's correct strategy that the player "Goes For It".
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1941
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
December 9th, 2016 at 1:23:20 PM permalink
Quote: charliepatrick

Thanks. Personally I'd prefer the Ante to pay for a winning 17, but can understand if the maths prevents that happening.

As an aside I know other games where the payouts for various results have to be set so it's correct strategy that the player "Goes For It".

Even pushing the play and paying the Ante changes to a player advantage of 2.5%. You would need to cut the other payouts too much.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous

  • Jump to: