Thread Rating:

mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
October 29th, 2010 at 10:59:51 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

Finsrule,
True, the jackpot will have to be Quads or better losing; a straight flush losing is considerably rarer. And Quads would make it "look more possible."

The big questions is "do we pay on only the five-card side losing" or do we pay if the full hand loses.
I'm begining to think now if the five-card side only loses. - what if you had a guy with a straight flush lose to a higher straight flush - and his two-card side just edges him out - for a zero dollar gain instead of the jackpot. He'd be screaming!



I brought this up very early in the thread, but no one addressed it. In PGP, you can lose the five card hand, but you won't necessarily lose the bet. So you'd better have a pretty clear definition of what "lose with four of a kind" means. Also, do you win the jackpot only if you don't break up the hand? Something like QQQQ432 would be played by most players as two pair--so the existence of the jackpot might make a player set his hand suboptimally. Something to consider.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
October 30th, 2010 at 2:42:26 AM permalink
Yes,
I remember. There's a lot to consider, and we have to consider everything.
The hands are defined as not broken up, unless a specific table entry has "split Full house" or "split two pairs" losing, where the full hand has to lose on this "split-up" strong hand; - otherwise all other hands are just intact five-card sides losing, which is less complicated to play and implement.
In some table payout versions we do have the separate "split full houses" and split two pairs (which is also what a split up quad hand produces), to start the payout table at a higher "hit" range, more suitable for a table side bet. But I am shying away from that version now.

And Players won't/shouldn't play their hands any differently from best play (unless they're idiots), because the payout table concerns bad beats on monster hands, which are rare occurances. Would you keep four queens together without having at least an ace top, - to try to hit a bad beat that occurs in 1 in 25,000 hands? Or would you split them, and win win the main bet anyway, which is your real shot? And you can win the Bad beat, if the payout table your using is the full "side-bet" table starting at two pairs.

It'll be simpler and wiser to make it a progressive, starting with trips or a straight losing to a better three of a kind or straight. THIS is a good starting point, because it does seem to occur frequently enough so that the progressive bet seems fair, and not a siren call. Starting at trips or a straight is for the progressive, and starting at two pairs (split and unsplit) would be the start point for a table-based side-bet spot.

Generally concerning the bet, the in-person feedback I got was:
1. Don't make the bet be dependent on a full hand loss, unless it applies to only split entries (two pairs split, and full houses split) if a table-spot side bet.
2. The full payout table "side bet" version is a lot messier and complicated than a simple five-card side loss progressive...so...
3. Keep it VERY simple: make it a five-card progressive bet of trips or a straight as the starting point, and don't have it depend on a full hand loss, just that strong element getting beaten on the five-card side. This would prevent dissatisfaction whenever a five-card monster side loss occurs while the hand pushes. The bettor denied the huge payout would then be screaming, and the bet would seem to be horribly unfair, and get a bad reputation. Scrap the full hand loss consideration: it seems unfair, and is too complicated, and would piss off players who "get a bad beat ON the bad beat!" This I do not want! So....

Five card side loses with:
Trips.....................a:1 - includes split-up full houses! :)
Straight.................b:1
Flush.....................c:1
Unsplit full house....d:1 - AK/99922 & KK/777JJ, for example.
Quads and higher...e:1 - maybe to add SF losing as top jackpot - does occur occasionally.

Please note that Five aces is not a table entry in this progressive bet because:
1. the hand KK/AAAAA down to 32/AAAAA would never lose on the five-card side, nor would it ever be reasonably played as such. (Well, five aces with a pair of K's or Q's can be kept together, if it occurs, but we are FAR more likely to see 7-card natural straight flushes than AAAAAKK.)
2. If split - which is how the hand always should be played anyway, it can still win as trip aces losing to a straight, or aces over x's losing as an unsplit full house, so it is still in the game anyway, if set correctly. (Even with an extra pair of Q's or K's, playing split would produce Aces-over-kings Full house with a pair of aces up!)
3. One would assume that if the Bad Beat progressive is bet, then so is the Dynasty/Fortune/Emperor's Bonus anyway, where five aces - regardless of how played - would make a player very happy.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 119
  • Posts: 3667
October 30th, 2010 at 10:00:14 AM permalink
I still think it needs to be just on the five-card side losing.

Is there any way to add a 2 card bad beat hand to it? For example, if JJ or better gets beaten? It might make it too complicated, you know more about that than I do.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
October 30th, 2010 at 3:40:39 PM permalink
Fins,
I agree that that a five-card loss on a straight or better would be the best version. I'll do all versions for the math and documents (table side bet starting at a midling hand, the full hand losing, and a progressive five-card side losing).

I also had the two-card side covered in the provisional patent, but I don't think a "two-carder" side surprise loss would become a product.

Hopefully, I'll have it done in a week.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 5789
October 30th, 2010 at 4:37:30 PM permalink
Dan- don't you think that you have to make this bet similar to nthe regular pai gow side bet in that 'the cards do the talking', meaning you dont have to play a flush to get paid for a flush, it just has to be 'reconstructable'. If you are going to force players to misset their hands to POSSIBLY be eligible for a 'bad beat payout' then it will be a failure. Also, as rare as a royal flush is , say, it becomes even rarer for the house to actually play it as such. So, your quads or straight flush is even LESS likely to be beaten by such a more powerful hand. I think your concept is OK, but I do not see it ever being simple or attractive enough to ever be commercially viable. But--- good luck.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 6920
October 30th, 2010 at 5:53:31 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Dan- don't you think that you have to make this bet similar to nthe regular pai gow side bet in that 'the cards do the talking', meaning you dont have to play a flush to get paid for a flush, it just has to be 'reconstructable'. If you are going to force players to misset their hands to POSSIBLY be eligible for a 'bad beat payout' then it will be a failure. Also, as rare as a royal flush is , say, it becomes even rarer for the house to actually play it as such. So, your quads or straight flush is even LESS likely to be beaten by such a more powerful hand. I think your concept is OK, but I do not see it ever being simple or attractive enough to ever be commercially viable. But--- good luck.



I agree. I think the hands have to be able to be played optimally. And reconstructed hands should still get paid. I understand Dan's point about 88xxx/88 losing to 1010xxx/99 and how that's not that rare. BUT, I don't think that's necessarily what would pay the bet since the dealer does not also have a big hand. What if the focus was shifted slightly from "my monster gor crushed!" to "I had a monster, but the dealer had a bigger monster!" So 88xxx/88 losing to 1010xxx/99 is just sad, but 88xxx/88 losing to 99xxx/99 gets paid. I think that 88xxx/xx would also be paid if the hand pushed (like against 9999x/AK). The point would just be that the dealer's best 5 card hand was higher than the player's best 5 card hand.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
October 30th, 2010 at 6:37:06 PM permalink
Soopoo,
No, not really.
1. Most of the strong hands are played as such: most straights & flushes are played as such, and if played as a two pair hand for a win, then that's the better decision. I stated earlier that hands would be played naturally, because winning the main bet with a correctly-played hand is key; for players to give up a sure win for a one-in-a-million hit is a misplay.
2. Many times the best play is keeping the strong element intact. You'd play a straight or flush with an AK or AQ instead of two pairs, as that's the better play, as common as the "two pair rule" myth is as ther better play (it often isn't). Same with a hand like 55522AQ, it's AQ/55522.
3. Many times breaking up a strong hand keeps you in the bad beat bet. breaking up a full house gives trips on the five-card side, an entry in the bad beat bet.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 5789
October 30th, 2010 at 7:27:55 PM permalink
You say 'many times'. The person playing a rare side bet is hoping for that rare time.... I stand by my comment that if you have two separate bets, and cannot play your hand to maximize both, you will not play the side bet. It will not sell.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
October 30th, 2010 at 8:29:53 PM permalink
I disagree:
The "Push your Luck" side bet sold very well - and players routinely play their hands in artificial ways to try to win the side bet, usually busting their hands.
The tie occurs about once in every 11 hands, so it's often enough to risk misplaying a hand. The bad beat bet has much rarer odds, insignificant for altering the play on the main hand.
I consider this aspect a non-issue, and state that It Will Sell.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
October 30th, 2010 at 8:30:07 PM permalink
I think rdw has a sense of the bet.

A five card side monster gets a surprise loss to an even higher hand on that side, it gets paid.
If it was split up to win the main bet, it gets paid there, in comparison to a tiny chance of winning a larger payout, that comes with a huge chance of blowing the main win.

And, If a player can try to play in "an artificial" fashion to increase his odds on a progressive, that is not necessarily a bad thing or a negative; it's simply a rare player's option.

edit 10/31: comparing just the presence of the player's strong element against the the dealer's strongest element (e.g., 99/88765 vs 77/33xxx with a flush) takes the "bad beat" out of the bad beat bet; it becomes a "best bonus versus best bonus" bet - while the hands' result, facing off against each other, can be too unrelated. A straight played as two pairs can beat a dealer's flush played as two lower pairs, where the winner of the hand also wins the "bad beat." It ceases being a pure bad beat bet, and becomes another bonus bet with a twist.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

  • Jump to: