Newly Patented Craps Side Bet

While playing Craps I've often seen the shooter make the point, and when the next point is established, it is the same number. The dealer puts the puck on that number again, and says "Back on the _____".

So, four years ago, I started the process of getting a patent on some Craps side bet ideas, one based on the "Back on the ____" situation, and ... I finally got a patent on my ideas !!

If you have tried to get a patent on a table game idea lately, you can understand my excitement on being able to get a patent issued on my idea, and although I wouldn't recommend doing it pro se,
I wrote the application, submitted it, and responded to a rejection - all on my own.

So, here it is ...



HOW THE BET WORKS

• After the point is established,
  you can make a Back On Bet^sm wager on the current point number.
  
• When the current point is made OR if there is a seven-out rolled,
  a portion of your initial wager on the bet remains active until the next point number is established.
  (Your original wager chip(s) remain, they are just temporarily "devalued").
• If the next established point number is the same as the previous point number,
  your Back On Bet^sm WINS !!
  (The payout is based on the original wager amount).
• If the next established point number is different than the previous point number,
  your bet loses.

RULES

• A Back On Bet^sm can only be initiated after the point is established,
  but must be before the point is made or before a seven-out.
• An existing bet can be increased only
  before the point is made or before a seven-out is rolled.
• It can only be made on the current point number.
• Once established it:
  cannot be taken down,
  cannot turned off and
  cannot be reduced.
• Wager increments are five dollars.

	. Wager Payout .	. Payout Ratio .	. House Edge .
Point 4 or 10	$38 for $5	7.6 for 1	5.00 %
Point 5 or 9	$29 for $5	5.8 for 1	3.33 %
Point 6 or 8	$23 for $5	4.6 for 1	4.16 %

• The HE is similar to Place bets (5.00, 3.33, 4.16),
  but with much larger payouts (7.6 for 1, 5.8 for 1, 4.6 for 1).
• It has a lot lower HE than other side bets (like - the Fire Bet and the Small, Tall or All bets).

Congratulations, please post the patent # or a link to it please.

I'm slightly confused as the figures you give corresponds with making the point and then [eventually] re-establishing it again. A 7-out should lose you the bet.

I can see why, during the come-out, you wouldn't allow an increase in bet as you've already got through Phase 1.

Point	4	5	6
Pr(made)	3/9	4/10	5/11
Pr(re-point)Point	3/24	4/24	5/24
True odds	1/24	1/15	25/264
Fair Payout (x to 1)	23	14	9.56
Fair (X FOR 1)	24	15	10.56

Gee and I just bought my Roulette system.
You are about to learn –

How you can easily turn $40 into a solid income of $10,605 a week.

How you can create a monthly income of $45,601 a month without leaving home and “working” less than an hour a day!

How you can take control of any roulette game and pull in wins faster and with a higher win rate than with any other roulette system!

How you can use our proven Millionaire Plan to bring in just about any amount of money you want playing roulette a few hours a week!

How the small group of insiders using this system is rapidly becoming Roulette Millionaires using the system that has never failed to produce record setting profits.

A link to the patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=9636571&OS=9636571&RS=9636571

Quote: charliepatrick

I'm slightly confused as the figures you give corresponds with making the point and then [eventually] re-establishing it again. A 7-out should lose you the bet.

I can see why, during the come-out, you wouldn't allow an increase in bet as you've already got through Phase 1.

Point	4	5	6
Pr(made)	3/9	4/10	5/11
Pr(re-point)Point	3/24	4/24	5/24
True odds	1/24	1/15	25/264
Fair Payout (x to 1)	23	14	9.56
Fair (X FOR 1)	24	15	10.56

I added some clarification, thank you for noting the confusion. I am redoing the payout info as well to better explain both ways the bet pays out. Thanks for the response right away so I can regroup before too many folks are confused.

If there is a seven out, then another seven before establishing a point, does the "seven" portion stay up? Wording makes me think "Yes" - but just want to double check.

I would play this when I'm shooting for five bucks. A little disingenuous to say that the bet stays up on a seven out. Not necessarily lying, but a little deceiving (is that why it's highlighted out?).

Quote: ahiromu

If there is a seven out, then another seven before establishing a point, does the "seven" portion stay up? Wording makes me think "Yes" - but just want to double check.

Yes, you are correct (I'll add a footnote about that - thanks)

Quote: ahiromu

I would play this when I'm shooting for five bucks. A little disingenuous to say that the bet stays up on a seven out. Not necessarily lying, but a little deceiving (is that why it's highlighted out?).

Actually, The bet does stay active, just that the wager amount of the active bet is reduced. I highlighted it to bring attention to it, cause not many bets can be made, be active, and yet after a seven-out, continue to be active and then pay on the bet's winning situation during the next players roll.

wow!
I read it 3 times and maybe got it.

what if you R the only shooter and you 7 out
and U R done.
what happens to the 1/2 bet that stays?

hmm,
I still don't get it
you have a video of the bet in action?

Sally

Quote: mustangsally

wow!
I read it 3 times and maybe got it.

I'm trying to figure out how to explain it with fewer words ... I hid the section that might cause confusion and labeled it "come back ..."

Quote: mustangsally

what if you R the only shooter and you 7 out
and U R done.
what happens to the 1/2 bet that stays?

Impressive - you thought of a unique situation ...
I guess you have to stay and roll until you make one more point to resolve the bet, and then DON"T make a BOB bet.
(ps, the portions are not exactly 1/2)

Quote: mustangsally

hmm,
I still don't get it
you have a video of the bet in action?

I added an example spoiler to help explain it better (??), I hope.

I can see through the various iterations you've done there are a number of different bets.
(1) Bet made during the shooter's roll that they will eventually make the current point and then eventually re-establish the same point for their next roll.
(2) Bet made during the shooter's roll that they will eventually miss the current point and the next shooter re-establishes the same point for their first roll.
(3) Bet made that the next point, regardless of the outcome of this set of rolls, will be the same as this point.

Personally I suspect it's easier for a casino to be able to clear the table on a 7-out - either by paying don't-like bets and taking everything else. Other than that I prefer the original bet you proposed, that the shooter will stay on and the next point will be the same.

Quote: charliepatrick

Personally I suspect it's easier for a casino to be able to clear the table on a 7-out - either by paying don't-like bets and taking everything else.

I guess I figured having a bet stay after a seven-out was kinda "unique and beating the system", but I had not thought about how it may make a dealers job more difficult clearing the table on a seven-out (as well as taking more time to carefully clear most but not all) - GOOD POINT - I will have to think about that .....

Looks like a good bet - but I think the point vs. seven portions add unnecessary confusion.

If you just say the bet is resolved once a point is established, and pays based off the entire wager, it is much easier to understand.

Also, what is the harm in allowing the bet to be made during a come out roll? As long as the dealers marked the previous point, it would still work the same way.

I don't get the whole thing about how it's partially live.

But at any rate, if you're really interested in the same point being reestablished, why can't you just make a hop bet on a come out roll?

many craps tables do not allow a hop bet.

Looking at the image in the patent,
seems the don't come boxes are removed.

I would put yourself into the shoes of the boxman
and think of how this can mess up the game.

That 7out that does not clear all bets
could be a thorn-in-the-side, imo

Quote: wudged

Looks like a good bet - but I think the point vs. seven portions add unnecessary confusion.

If you just say the bet is resolved once a point is established, and pays based off the entire wager, it is much easier to understand.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I don't get the whole thing about how it's partially live.

Quote: mustangsally

I would put yourself into the shoes of the boxman
and think of how this can mess up the game.

That 7out that does not clear all bets
could be a thorn-in-the-side, imo

OK ... redone to look simplier, as well as getting rid of bet staying active after a seven-out.
No more "portion of a wager" idea. The payout is much HIGHER now.

I just want to make sure I understand this bet, and then I'll offer a few comments. Please understand that I'm not trying to poo-poo this idea, if this is the only bet you have patented, that is still one more than I have!

I look at this Point of Four, let's call it, and here's what I'm getting:

Probability of Winning: (3/9) * (3/24) = 0.04166666666

Now, bets are on a For-One basis, thus:

(0.04166666666 * 110) - ((1-0.04166666666) * 5) = -0.2083333341

Which is an expected loss of $0.20833 on a $5 bet which represents a House Edge of 4.1667%, which agrees with your figures.

It would be the same for any other numbers, in terms of how to arrive at the house edge.

My Questions/Comments

1.) I can understand why having the bet still working after a Seven-Out might be a PITA for the dealers, but then again, couldn't you just have a different box for the bets completely away from the main layout? You could have it be like the Fire Bet where the player's chip gets slid to a circle marked with the player's designated, 'Number,' until resolved. Since the bet resolves on a new point established no matter what, no bets would get in the way of one another. You could just put a number near the box where the bets go indicating what point number the bet is, 'On.'

The reason why I suggest that is because, without the feature of the bet staying up, this just comes off as a really bizarre sort of Proposition Bet that, while not exactly a one roll prop (two rolls matter and we don't know how long they'll take) kind of resolves similarly to a one roll prop.

Of course that brings us to the idea in the OP:

2.) (33 * 3/24) - (5 * 21/24) = -0.25 Expected Loss $0.25, House Edge 5.00%

(Just making sure I understood how the bet functioned)

-On this, I think the main problem was designating how much of the bet is or is not active after a seven-out. It doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant whether or not the current hand is a seven-out. All you are doing is betting on whether or not the next point will be the same as the current point. It just seems like not paying attention to, "The bet is reduced," sort of verbiage makes it easier to understand. The bet pays the same no matter what. I don't understand the point of all of this, 'Proportional,' verbiage.

-How would you explain the OP version to a player? Simple: "You are betting the next point number will be the same as the point that is on."

With that said, I offer this:

3.) With the way that it works in the OP, this functions even closer to the way a one roll Proposition bet would function. Except, it could take more than one roll. I guess one thing that I don't understand is why you couldn't call it something like, 'Pick Your Point,' and make it a bet that can be made on any number before the CO roll, or anytime as essentially a Hop Bet, for that matter. I get that it's not a Hop Bet in the strictest sense, but it does resolve 66% of the time.

Offering it before the CO roll actually makes the most sense to me, because if you do that, players may place a bet on multiple numbers, if they like, and it also doesn't interfere with a seven-out clearing the layout if you do it that way.

4.) Finally, I don't know that this really calls for a $5 bet, especially not with the most recent version that you posted. I mean, the hit rate on something like a six is:

(5/11) * (5/24) = 0.09469696969 (45 * 0.09469696969) - ((1-0.09469696969)*5) = -0.2651515155 Expected Loss 5.303% HE

Okay, so essentially a 9.5% Hit Rate, at best.

I guess my point is that if you're going to ask for main bet money for a side bet that doesn't have a main bet hit rate, it's not going to take the player seeing too many red chips disappear to lose interest.

I could definitely understand the $5 on the version of the bet highlighted in the OP, the hit rate is much higher. 12.5%-20.83% depending on the number. That would still be a low hit rate for a base game, but reasonable enough for a $5 side bet.

WHAT I WOULD DO

My opinion and $0.50 would get you a cup of coffee ten years ago, now maybe half a cup at a gas station, but here's what I would do...and I don't even know that it would make this something I would play:

A.) Keep the version in the OP, keep the $5 minimum (especially since the pays are wonky without it) and make it so that the bet takes place BEFORE the CO (or anytime) and can be made on multiple numbers if the player likes. If it's before the CO only, then it will never interfere with the sweep on a seven-out.

B.) Keep the most recent version you posted, with the same rules, but make the minimum bet $1 due to the low hit rate. I mean, you're going to be competing for market share against the Fire and ATS and the Fire Bet (while less likely) offers more of a lottery style ridiculously huge payout and generally has a $1 minimum. Granted, the Fire Bet has a higher house edge, but do you really expect the average Craps player to have any inkling, if they make side bets in the first place, of the difference?

Your bet is closer to the ATS in terms of payouts, and that one comes with a $1 minimum. The payouts on the ATS are actually a little higher relative to the amount bet, of course, they have a lower hit rate.

I just don't see how this fills any great need at the $5 level, or any great want, for that matter...with the second version. Ignoring the House Edge, it seems most similar to a Hop Bet to me (other than the multi-roll factor) and those are a buck. Hard Ways are a buck. A Crap Check is a buck.

I think the Back On Bet (I dislike the redundancy of "BOB bet") is more appealing if it remains live after a seven out. Actually, it has no appeal to me if it does not stay live after a seven out.

If the side bet is positioned outside of the main area (like a Fire Bet) or directly in front of the bank, I think the dealers could easily become accustomed to sweeping around the bets after a seven out. (However, I have no experience dealing, so like Mission146 said, my opinion and $0.50 would get you a cup of coffee...)

The only confusion I have with the OP is the verbiage about the bet being devalued after the point is made or seven out. There is no verbiage about the payout being different when the next point is established. If the payout is the same regardless, then there should be no distinction.

The way I understand it, the bet is resolved every time a point is established on a come out roll. The dealers either collect the bet or payout a win. At this time or any time before the next point is established, the players can make a new Back On Bet. I see no reason for the bet to have to be made before the current point is made or seven out, only that the bet must be made before the next point is established.

Quote: BlueEagle

The only confusion I have with the OP is the verbiage about the bet being devalued after the point is made or seven out. There is no verbiage about the payout being different when the next point is established. If the payout is the same regardless, then there should be no distinction.

The way I understand it, the bet is resolved every time a point is established on a come out roll. The dealers either collect the bet or payout a win. At this time or any time before the next point is established, the players can make a new Back On Bet. I see no reason for the bet to have to be made before the current point is made or seven out, only that the bet must be made before the next point is established.

I agree entirely with your first two paragraphs, other than to say the second version might be okay at a $1 minimum, in my opinion.

FIRST QUOTED PARAGRAPH: Based on the way I did the math, my figures agree with the OP and the bet is paid the same regardless. That's why I agree that all that verbiage is unnecessary and confusing. Here's how a dealer would explain it: "The point is four, if you make this bet and four is the next point established, this bet will win you x$. If any other point is the next point established, the bet will lose."

The seven doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter at all whether the current Line Bet (ie. The Point) wins or there is a seven-out. Completely irrelevant in the OP version. The only thing that matters is whether the next point is the same.

SECOND QUOTED PARAGRAPH: I could understand why you would only want the bet to be made after a point is established, and that's because you want to resolve all of the bets at the same time. Besides, if the player makes the bet beforehand, then the player makes it not even knowing what the next point established is going to be. I guess you could do that, but if you're going to give the player the option to do it after the point is established anyway, then it is easier from a procedural sense to (generally) take all the bets at once and definitely pay them all at once.

Also, I think it makes sense when it comes to the flow of the game. Players usually wait until a point is established and then there is a flurry of activity in terms of Place Bets and Hard Ways, so you could just have players get in the habit of throwing a red chip on this bad boy just as easily as they toss in $12 and call, "Six and Eight."

I think it is important to allow the bet after the point is made or a seven out. (And there is no reason not to allow it.) It would be very craps for players to yell "back on" and toss a chip in the middle just before a new come out roll.

Quote: Mission146

1.) I can understand why having the bet still working after a Seven-Out might be a PITA for the dealers, but then again, couldn't you just have a different box for the bets completely away from the main layout? You could have it be like the Fire Bet where the player's chip gets slid to a circle marked with the player's designated, 'Number,' until resolved. Since the bet resolves on a new point established no matter what, no bets would get in the way of one another. You could just put a number near the box where the bets go indicating what point number the bet is, 'On.'

The reason why I suggest that is because, without the feature of the bet staying up, this just comes off as a really bizarre sort of Proposition Bet that, while not exactly a one roll prop (two rolls matter and we don't know how long they'll take) kind of resolves similarly to a one roll prop.

-On this, I think the main problem was designating how much of the bet is or is not active after a seven-out. It doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant whether or not the current hand is a seven-out. All you are doing is betting on whether or not the next point will be the same as the current point. It just seems like not paying attention to, "The bet is reduced," sort of verbiage makes it easier to understand. The bet pays the same no matter what. I don't understand the point of all of this, 'Proportional,' verbiage.

-How would you explain the OP version to a player? Simple: "You are betting the next point number will be the same as the point that is on."

With that said, I offer this:

3.) With the way that it works in the OP, this functions even closer to the way a one roll Proposition bet would function. Except, it could take more than one roll. I guess one thing that I don't understand is why you couldn't call it something like, 'Pick Your Point,' and make it a bet that can be made on any number before the CO roll, or anytime as essentially a Hop Bet, for that matter. I get that it's not a Hop Bet in the strictest sense, but it does resolve 66% of the time.

Offering it before the CO roll actually makes the most sense to me, because if you do that, players may place a bet on multiple numbers, if they like, and it also doesn't interfere with a seven-out clearing the layout if you do it that way.

I could definitely understand the $5 on the version of the bet highlighted in the OP, the hit rate is much higher. 12.5%-20.83% depending on the number. That would still be a low hit rate for a base game, but reasonable enough for a $5 side bet.

WHAT I WOULD DO

My opinion and $0.50 would get you a cup of coffee ten years ago, now maybe half a cup at a gas station, but here's what I would do...and I don't even know that it would make this something I would play:

A.) Keep the version in the OP, keep the $5 minimum (especially since the pays are wonky without it) and make it so that the bet takes place BEFORE the CO (or anytime) and can be made on multiple numbers if the player likes. If it's before the CO only, then it will never interfere with the sweep on a seven-out.

I disagree with making it available on a CO roll and or on any place number. Tracking which bet is in the second phase of a previous point being made vs a new bet placed on a CO of a new shooter after a seven-out becomes a problem. Also, I think it would be too confusing for the dealer to have BOB bets on various numbers at the same time.

Quote: NewToCraps

If you win either way, your $5 wager pays $38 !

.

but they keep your $5 so you net $33
$38 for $5
*****
just like BJ at 3 to 2
same as
5 for 2
they give you $5 but keep your $2


I like the OP idea
not losing on a 7out.
the layout 4 me is messy
maybe that needs to be done like the Fire Bet or Bonus Craps

If you play this in WinCraps for example
the hit rate is about ok too.
I can see players loading up when the point is 6 & 8

Sally
used the beginning of Zumma Dice rolls

I like the new explanation better!

I would just say that I don't understand why someone can't bet on the previous point to repeat if the result is a Point Made or a Seven-Out, seems like a perfect time to pimp the bet. "$5 gets you $33 if the next point is a four, again," that sort of thing. Maybe, "$5 gets you $33 if he rolls another four!" I could see people who aren't on it making the bet especially if the previous point was made, and it really doesn't affect anything procedural or change the probability at all.

Quote: NewToCraps

I disagree with making it available on a CO roll and or on any place number. Tracking which bet is in the second phase of a previous point being made vs a new bet placed on a CO of a new shooter after a seven-out becomes a problem. Also, I think it would be too confusing for the dealer to have BOB bets on various numbers at the same time.

Again, I believe you are over-complicating this. There is no "second phase". Any time after a point is established, the player may wager the Back On Bet that the next established point will be the same point. When the next point is established (regardless if it was after a seven out or not), the bet is resolved. All bets made between points being established are live and resolve when the next point is established.

I imagine this side bet would be bet most often when the first established point is 6 or 8, even if it wasn't offering the lowest house edge.

My next concern is simplicity for the players. We on this forum may understand the payout ratio, but mere recreational players and probably most dealers would be confused by the decimal point and will question why it's not rounded up to 8-, 6-, 5-for-1. Obviously that would reduce the HE and make it less desirable for the house.

Basically, the only difference I see between BOB and a Place bet on the same number is the payout and house edge.

The simplest is for the payouts to be
Point 4 - pays 6 to 1 (or 7 for 1)
Point 5 - pays 4 to 1 (or 5 for 1)
Point 6 - pays 3 to 1 (of 4 for 1)
Yes the House Edges are horrible (12.5,16.66%), but it's simple.
An alternative is to payout different values for different ways to make the point (exercise for the reader as gets house edge down to 4.16% or 8.33%).

fwiw I still prefer the idea of having to make then re-establish the point. Given the rare chance of winning the dealer's won't mind a non-integer payout.

I don't see a problem with decimal paybacks, not if you're betting $5 at a time minimum on it, anyway. If you look at a Place Bet, a six/eight is 1.1667 to one, a five/nine is 1.4 to 1, four/ten depends on whether it is a Place, Buy, Commission Always, or Commission Win Only, but still a decimal. The only thing that matters is the bet relative to the minimum unit, which is $5, that's a whole number.

Bet $5, get paid $38 which is a $33 profit on the 4/10, for instance.

After re-reading the description, and realizing that the bet is essentially a push if the CO roll is 2,3,7,11,12, I retract my previous comment about merely making a hop bet instead.

However, I agree with the other comments that the bet is too complicated. Since you're allowing people to place or increase the bet at any time, including during a CO roll, you might as well only allow people to bet it on a CO roll.

Once you do that, it becomes a self-serve bet. I.E. The dealer should not be required to move the bet anywhere. Just place the bet on the line between the pass and don't pass. If the CO roll is 2,3,7,11,12, the dealer should be able to pay/take the line bets while ignoring the BOB bet that's straddling the line.

Bonus: No special layout required.

As far as 'marking' the point to indicate which is the desired number for the BOB bet, when the dealer turns the puck over to the OFF side, leave it on the number rather than moving it to the DC box.

*MAYBE* design a new puck that says BOB/OFF on the black side...

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Bonus: No special layout required.

As far as 'marking' the point to indicate which is the desired number for the BOB bet, when the dealer turns the puck over to the OFF side, leave it on the number rather than moving it to the DC box.

*MAYBE* design a new puck that says BOB/OFF on the black side...

I like those ideas / thoughts .... hmmmm

Quote: Mission146

I don't see a problem with decimal paybacks, not if you're betting $5 at a time minimum on it, anyway.

excellent idea!
many bet $5 on the pass,come,place bets and $1 on hardways.

players should be able to bet $1 and pay a higher house edge because of it.
payout gets rounded down
just like when they make $3 place bets...

very easy to keep throwing $1 on the bet than $5
but both should work

I was playing with the bet in Wincraps
and times it just does not hit,
but then it does and sometimes 2 or 3 times in a row on the 6, for example

point 6
7out
damn

new shooter
point 6 ...winner!
next roll a 6 winner!!
bet it again.
next cor point a 6!
Yahoo!
(actually happened in the Zumma dice rolls. 6 3 times then 9 3 times. wow!)

Quote: charliepatrick

The simplest is for the payouts to be
Point 4 - pays 6 to 1 (or 7 for 1)
Point 5 - pays 4 to 1 (or 5 for 1)
Point 6 - pays 3 to 1 (of 4 for 1)
Yes the House Edges are horrible (12.5,16.66%), but it's simple.
An alternative is to payout different values for different ways to make the point (exercise for the reader as gets house edge down to 4.16% or 8.33%).

fwiw I still prefer the idea of having to make then re-establish the point. Given the rare chance of winning the dealer's won't mind a non-integer payout.

When I was looking at what payouts to use, I liked payouts of $35, $25 and $20 because it is easier to payout (not having to pay with $1 chips), but I thought the HE was too high for people to want to play it as often (most players may not even know the different HE outside of this forum ?) so that is what I based the payouts on. At 12.50, 16.67 and 16.67 - the casinos might see it as in line with prop bets and expect to get those HE figures.

It could be as high as $39, $29 and $23 for HE of 2.50, 3.33 and 4.17, but casinos might think that is too low HE for this type of bet.

Quote: mustangsally

excellent idea!
many bet $5 on the pass,come,place bets and $1 on hardways.

players should be able to bet $1 and pay a higher house edge because of it.
payout gets rounded down
just like when they make $3 place bets...

very easy to keep throwing $1 on the bet than $5
but both should work

I was playing with the bet in Wincraps
and times it just does not hit,
but then it does and sometimes 2 or 3 times in a row on the 6, for example

point 6
7out
damn

new shooter
point 6 ...winner!
next roll a 6 winner!!
bet it again.
next cor point a 6!
Yahoo!
(actually happened in the Zumma dice rolls. 6 3 times then 9 3 times. wow!)

Great post, and I wasn't actually thinking along the lines of reducing payouts for a short bet, but that makes a lot of sense!

To the rest of your post, those are good points and I could actually see this bet kind of working for players in conjunction with the Fire Bet in a way. I don't play the Fire Bet, but I imagine it can be frustrating for players when three or four points are lit up and then the next point established is the same as the previous point that was made, getting paid on it instead could ease that frustration a bit.

Players could also press this bet (to a multiple of five) in whole or in part as players often do with Place/Buy bets. Repeat the four, for instance, get paid $38 (profit $33) and maybe they leave anywhere from $10-$30 on it hoping it happens again. It should be pretty easy for the dealers just to multiply the payout by the number of red chips that are on it. "Pressure on the Back-On-Bet!" I could see that being a thing for some people.

I suppose another thing I don't understand is why to have this on a For-One basis rather than a To-One basis and the original bet stays up for the next point established automatically unless the player asks for it back, again, kind of like how a Place Bet works.

Quote: Mission146

I suppose another thing I don't understand is why to have this on a For-One basis rather than a To-One basis and the original bet stays up for the next point established automatically unless the player asks for it back, again, kind of like how a Place Bet works.

Went I was developing the idea, I didn't think people would feel that a point could repeat a third time and thought the location of the wager boxes would be in an area between the dealer and the place bets.

I thought dealers would be paying out "to one" bets but then being asked by the player to return their original wager. So I figured let the dealers pay out "for one" bets then just clear all the chips from the wager box.

Remember, I had only learned to play craps about 6 months before I wrote the patent application for this idea, I was a rookie (to some degree - still am) at having a real good understanding of all the ins and outs of the game as well as dealer perspectives, etc. (lol)

Quote: NewToCraps

Went I was developing the idea, I didn't think people would feel that a point could repeat a third time and thought the location of the wager boxes would be in an area between the dealer and the place bets.

I'm not going to concede that, but I do follow your other positions! If they didn't think it would repeat a third time, then what would make them think it would repeat a second time? If they don't think it's going to repeat at all, then you don't even have a bet, because nobody would play it!

People do it all the time with Place/Buy bets, they press them constantly. They usually end up pressing them until they eventually lose, but then, I don't really see anyone doing a, 'Full Press,' on this bet more than once. Either way, I could see people tossing in one of the reds the dealer hands them and saying, "Make it ten," or something to that effect.

Quote:

I thought dealers would be paying out "to one" bets but then being asked by the player to return their original wager. So I figured let the dealers pay out "for one" bets then just clear all the chips from the wager box.

I wouldn't do it that way because it doesn't encourage any further betting. Players could ask for Place Bets back when they hit, but the majority of players do not. If they don't press it, they usually just let the original bet ride. They make the same assumption with Hardway bets, if the bet wins, the player is paid the winnings and the bet stays up. In fact, the only dealer service bets on the entire table that don't work that way are one-roll prop bets, I think, with exception to things like the Fire Bet which do pay on a FOR-ONE basis.

I would consider this bet as most comparable to a Place Bet or a Hard Way bet. It's like both in that it is a multi-roll bet, the payouts are somewhat comparable to a Hard Way, and it is a Place bet in the sense that you are essentially just Placing one point number against the other five point numbers.

I say just leave the dealers pay out the profit amount, the player can ask for the bet back if he wants to, otherwise it stays up. Besides, wouldn't you rather have more bets on it as opposed to fewer?

Quote:

Remember, I had only learned to play craps about 6 months before I wrote the patent application for this idea, I was a rookie (to some degree - still am) at having a real good understanding of all the ins and outs of the game as well as dealer perspectives, etc. (lol)

You certainly did a great job coming up with a side bet idea and getting it patented given your relative newness to the game.

I think having a betting circle in front of the player and then moving the bets to a numbered spot, as with the Fire Bet, is the best way to go. It doesn't interfere with the Seven-Out, 'Sweep,' and as with the Fire Bet, anybody who made the bet is paid out all at once on a win and the losing chips are swept away on a loss.

Quote: Mission146

I think having a betting circle in front of the player and then moving the bets to a numbered spot, as with the Fire Bet, is the best way to go. It doesn't interfere with the Seven-Out, 'Sweep,' and as with the Fire Bet, anybody who made the bet is paid out all at once on a win and the losing chips are swept away on a loss.

The only reason I didn't go with the betting circle idea was so I wouldn't have a problem getting the patent. I wasn't sure if the patent people would reject the betting circle idea as it was part of the fire bet patent.
So when I wrote the patent application, I did my drawings showing wager boxes above the place bets. As MustangSally pointed out, in my drawings I removed the don't area (rookie mistake).
Going with the approach of betting circles would take it back to a "for-one" bet.

Quote: mustangsally

Looking at the image in the patent,
seems the don't come boxes are removed.

I would put yourself into the shoes of the boxman
and think of how this can mess up the game.

That 7out that does not clear all bets
could be a thorn-in-the-side, imo

Oops ... mistake on the drawing - taking the don't come boxes out.

Dealers have to "deal with" any place bets that are turned off not being cleared, and so they have to pick and choose which ones stay and which one go all in the same area of the place bet boxes (that is a thorn-in-the-side).

With the Back On Bets being in their own area, it will be a simple system - the entire area of Back On Bet boxes always stays on a seven-out (they will know the bet, and how it pays when the puck gets put on that point number, but otherwise stays up).

Here is a drawing with the Back On Bets in BLUE.

What's that above the Hop Bets, did your drawing keep the Fire Bet spots? That's where I was suggesting your bet could go, even on a Fire Bet table. If it's not a Fire Bet table, they could go there, and if it is, there could be another circle per spot just outside of those ones.

Quote: NewToCraps

A link to the patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=9636571&OS=9636571&RS=9636571

Congratulations on your new patent on craps bonus side bet.

You filed the patent on July 2014, and it was issued on May 2017. That's about couple months less than 3 years, and it seems like exceedingly long to me. During those years, I guess you must have encountered numerous questions from patent examiner. Since you filed the patent by yourself, it would be very beneficial to other wannabe game inventors if you can you share your experience in dealing with patent examiner and the patent process itself. Any advice you have is greatly appreciated.

Quote: 777

You filed the patent on July 2014, and it was issued on May 2017. That's about couple months less than 3 years, and it seems like exceedingly long to me.

I submitted my provisional in July 2013, then submitted my non-provisional in July 2014, so it was actually almost 4 years.

Quote: 777

During those years, I guess you must have encountered numerous questions from patent examiner. Since you filed the patent by yourself, it would be very beneficial to other wannabe game inventors if you can you share your experience in dealing with patent examiner and the patent process itself. Any advice you have is greatly appreciated.

There was a lot of wait time, only one rejection. Maybe I will do a separate post about the experience I went through start to finish with the patent portion of my Back On Bet idea. Hopefully someday in the future I can do a separate post on the experience of successfully marketing it.

Quote: NewToCraps

I submitted my provisional in July 2013, then submitted my non-provisional in July 2014, so it was actually almost 4 years.

There was a lot of wait time, only one rejection. Maybe I will do a separate post about the experience I went through start to finish with the patent portion of my Back On Bet idea. Hopefully someday in the future I can do a separate post on the experience of successfully marketing it.

Great. I wish you the best of luck and great success in marketing the Back On Bet.

Quote: Mission146

What's that above the Hop Bets, did your drawing keep the Fire Bet spots? That's where I was suggesting your bet could go, even on a Fire Bet table. If it's not a Fire Bet table, they could go there, and if it is, there could be another circle per spot just outside of those ones.

Yes, that is the Fire Bet spots above the Hop Bets area.

The main reason I thought that it would work better to have Back On Bet boxes similar to Place Bet boxes, above the don't boxes, is:
1) the wager chips would be in a box that is associated with the Back On number so during a CO roll it would be known what point number would need to be rolled to win. If the circle approach were used, there would have to be another indicator of what the Back On number is during the come out (the puck is OFF in the don't area).
2) there is a trigger for the dealer when putting the puck on the appropriate point number box the pay out winning Back On bets which are located adjacent to where the puck is (better visually to relate to two events).
The big question is if there can be an additional area carved out by squeezing the come area down in size.

It seems like you're asking questions that I already suggested solutions to, in this post:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/29184-newly-patented-craps-side-bet/3/#post599786

Quote: NewToCraps

Yes, that is the Fire Bet spots above the Hop Bets area.

The main reason I thought that it would work better to have Back On Bet boxes similar to Place Bet boxes, above the don't boxes, is:
1) the wager chips would be in a box that is associated with the Back On number so during a CO roll it would be known what point number would need to be rolled to win. If the circle approach were used, there would have to be another indicator of what the Back On number is during the come out (the puck is OFF in the don't area).
2) there is a trigger for the dealer when putting the puck on the appropriate point number box the pay out winning Back On bets which are located adjacent to where the puck is (better visually to relate to two events).
The big question is if there can be an additional area carved out by squeezing the come area down in size.

1.) Not really, you could just have a little, "Back on," puck. My reasoning is you don't need six spots above Place Bets for it because it can only be one number at a time, anyway. Also, we're back to interfering with the seven-out sweep.

Quote: Mission146

1.) Not really, you could just have a little, "Back on," puck. My reasoning is you don't need six spots above Place Bets for it because it can only be one number at a time, anyway. Also, we're back to interfering with the seven-out sweep.

You've convinced me (plus the following version would require 12 new boxes above the Place bets area), so I'm working on a design layout and what / how to use a "Back On" puck.

Here is a revised version that:

1) Includes a separate bet for each way the bet can work (Point made or Seven-Out), and
2) adds a little bonus option when the new Point is established with a Hard number...

All comments are welcome ! I'm looking for feedback.
(the payout amounts / ratios were so dealers will be making payouts in $5 increments, but that made it hard to get the house edge figures where I wanted them to be).

I think having higher payouts makes this version a bit more exciting, and if a player wanted to cover both possible options, just make a wager on both bets (although both bets would require a minimum of $10, and that is starting to get a bit high for this type of bet).


The Back On Bet^sm consists of two separate, but similar bets:

• POINT - Back On Bet^sm is a bet that after a Point is made,
  the next Point the shooter establishes is the same Point as the Point that was just made.
• SEVEN - Back On Bet^sm is a bet that after a Seven-Out is rolled,
  the next Point the shooter establishes is the same Point as the Point that existed when the Seven-Out was rolled.