Advantage Play 3 Card Fury
I'm proud to announce the release of my newest game called Advantage Play 3 Card Fury.
Believe it or not, I've deviated from my normal 31 based games and have now started creating a plethora of others which will begin to trickle out over the next few months.
Advantage Play 3 Card Fury is a novel spin on 3 Card Poker, where the player receives 4 cards to make their best 3 card hand to beat that of the dealer who receives ONLY 3 CARDS. To account for the tremendous edge this gives to the player, I have incorporated a forced side wager, which itself pays attractive odds on "Monster" hands, even in the event of a lose (on the top 3).
You can play the demo by clicking the game name above.
Detailed math is available on the website under the "Game Math" tab (tip of the hat to our own Miplet for running the first round of numbers for me).
I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts good, bad or ugly!
On your demo, it does say that the dealer, who receives only three cards, will qualify with a King-high or higher. Without doing any math, it is apparent to me that the player's best strategy is to never fold if the dealer needs K-x-x to qualify. This is because the dealer will not qualify with a probability that is significantly higher than 33.333%, i.e., 1/3. The side wager is lost no matter what the player does, so the only issue is whether the player can win the ante bet more than 1/3 of the time if he makes the play bet.
This means that your game math is wrong. You assume that the player folds 12.13% of the time, always losing 2 units. Your actual house edge will be lower than 4.02% if the player never folds. I expect the correct house edge is in the ballpark of 3.9%.
Quote: gordonm888I played the game demo. I thought the game was fun - a lot more fun than 3-card poker.
On your demo, it does say that the dealer, who receives only three cards, will qualify with a King-high or higher. Without doing any math, it is apparent to me that the player's best strategy is to never fold if the dealer needs K-x-x to qualify. This is because the dealer will not qualify with a probability that is significantly higher than 33.333%, i.e., 1/3. The side wager is lost no matter what the player does, so the only issue is whether the player can win the ante bet more than 1/3 of the time if he makes the play bet.
This means that your game math is wrong. You assume that the player folds 12.13% of the time, always losing 2 units. Your actual house edge will be lower than 4.02% if the player never folds. I expect the correct house edge is in the ballpark of 3.9%.
I appreciate the kind words!
According to two separate mathematicians, both of which can respond directly on here if they so choose, the strategy is to play with any Q high or better. Are you taking into account that you need to beat the dealer even if they don't qualify in order to win the Ante? I think that may be where you are getting different numbers than they are. That is definitely not my department however.
Most important to me is that you enjoyed the game!
Quote: mrsuit31I appreciate the kind words!
According to two separate mathematicians, both of which can respond directly on here if they so choose, the strategy is to play with any Q high or better. Are you taking into account that you need to beat the dealer even if they don't qualify in order to win the Ante? I think that may be where you are getting different numbers than they are. That is definitely not my department however.
Most important to me is that you enjoyed the game!
Unlike regular 3 card poker, you still need to beat the dealer to win the ante bet. I was kind of surprised it is a Q high for the player to play. Thought it would be higher, but the math says otherwise.
Quote: mrsuit31I appreciate the kind words!
According to two separate mathematicians, both of which can respond directly on here if they so choose, the strategy is to play with any Q high or better. Are you taking into account that you need to beat the dealer even if they don't qualify in order to win the Ante? I think that may be where you are getting different numbers than they are. That is definitely not my department however.
Most important to me is that you enjoyed the game!
You are correct, I did not realize that you need to bet the dealer to win the ante when the dealer does not qualify. So, I withdraw my comment, except that I do think this is a more exciting and fun version of 3CP.
In my defense, I do note that the rules about needing a King to qualify and needing to beat a non-qualifying dealer to win your ante are not included in your list of rules on the website/link for this game, so its easy to overlook or mis-understand.
Quote: gordonm888You are correct, I did not realize that you need to bet the dealer to win the ante when the dealer does not qualify. So, I withdraw my comment, except that I do think this is a more exciting and fun version of 3CP.
In my defense, I do note that the rules about needing a King to qualify and needing to beat a non-qualifying dealer to win your ante are not included in your list of rules on the website/link for this game, so its easy to overlook or mis-understand.
I thought the first rule under the Play wager was clear enough in explaining that. Perhaps I need to rethink that one and be a bit more specific....
Appreciate the kind words again nonetheless and appreciate you taking the time to play around.
Also the table art is amusing with a 4th card ace up the sleeve. Clever.
Three Card Poker is a dying game, so I wonder if this can add a little life back into it. I would definitely play it if I saw it somewhere.
ZCore13
I also agree 100%Quote: Zcore13I played it for a while a few days ago and found it to be one of the best 3 card variations I've played and much more fun than regular Three Card Poker.
3CP had a great run to say the least.Quote: Zcore13Three Card Poker is a dying game, so I wonder if this can add a little life back into it.
I used to deal 3CP by hand (in the late 1990s) before the shufflers took over and remember many wonderful sessions from that. shufflers kind of removed some of the sparks to the game.
This game has the coolness that the player gets the extra card. great to turn the table, so to speak. Many will play this game and play instead of maybe 4 card poker.
sure betQuote: Zcore13I would definitely play it if I saw it somewhere.
enjoyed the demo game
For example Caribbean Poker begat Russian Poker which begat Lunar Poker. Oddly, the whole point of tweeking CP in the first place was to force the dealer to draw and qualify so your big hand would pay off. Yet the current version off LP won't let you do this.
Quote: GialmereFor starters, I like the name "3 Card Fury". The side bet is interesting, paying on both 3 and 4 card combinations. I got a 3-card straight flush on my second hand so that was enticing. I need to sit down with this when I have more time.
Also the table art is amusing with a 4th card ace up the sleeve. Clever.
Thank you! I also liked the Ace up the sleeve. I felt it was a fun/appropriate addition to the logo for this game. I am actually having a more modern logo done, as I would like a little flasher new age logo to go along with the game. I am making sure the designer incorporates that into the logo he comes up with (at least I requested that he do so).
Quote: Zcore13I played it for a while a few days ago and found it to be one of the best 3 card variations I've played and much more fun than regular Three Card Poker.
Three Card Poker is a dying game, so I wonder if this can add a little life back into it. I would definitely play it if I saw it somewhere.
ZCore13
Thank you Z, I really appreciate that! I hope it does. When I formally start marketing the game in the next week or so, I hope to be able to supply a few locations where you can give it a go in the near future. Hopeful updates to follow on that.
Quote: 7crapsI also agree 100%
3CP had a great run to say the least.
I used to deal 3CP by hand (in the late 1990s) before the shufflers took over and remember many wonderful sessions from that. shufflers kind of removed some of the sparks to the game.
This game has the coolness that the player gets the extra card. great to turn the table, so to speak. Many will play this game and play instead of maybe 4 card poker.
sure bet
enjoyed the demo game
Much appreciated 7craps! I have always heard players (and myself) make comments about "when are we going to get more cards than the dealer?". Now I/we have an answer to that question. The novelty of the extra card, is one I think has some good legs to it (or shall I say hope). Time will tell there...
Quote: DeucekiesAbout to play the demo
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
I've just had a quick play and also fell for the Ante pays if the dealer doesn't qualify and thought you'd always play (same logic as given earlier). However if you've got to beat the dealer to win your Ante (assuming a tie is standoff) then my intuition was very similar to regular 3CP (except you can't get paid if the dealer gets something like Q32), so you would play something a tad (or is it smidge!) higher than Q64. I've quickly cranked the numbers and get that you play some Q752 or anything higher (e.g. play Qs7h5d2c fold Qs7h5d2d etc.).Quote: mrsuit31...the strategy is to play with any Q high or better....
Quote: charliepatrickI've just had a quick play and also fell for the Ante pays if the dealer doesn't qualify and thought you'd always play (same logic as given earlier).
On the live felt, this rule will sit between the Ante and Play wager circles, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Sorry about that.... Limited space on the demo layout. So perhaps that rule off to the corner doesn't do its job so well.
Quote:However if you've got to beat the dealer to win your Ante (assuming a tie is standoff)
Correct, its a standoff indeed.
Quote:I've quickly cranked the numbers and get that you play some Q752 or anything higher (e.g. play Qs7h5d2c fold Qs7h5d2d etc.).
A) Thank you for that!
B) I'll let Miplet chime in as he is the brains behind the optimal strategy :)
P.S. I've asked the mods to change the thread title to the true game name of Advantage Play 3 Card Fury. Please don't be confused if you see that pop up on the threads list shortly :)
What did you think about the game? Did you enjoy it?
If I'm playing 3CP (usually for fun) then I only play the base game. One of the nice things is you make a profit with a bad hand (Qxx-Axx) if the dealer doesn't qualify, however on this game you break even. I haven't looked into the mathematics that much but would prefer the mandated bet to push if you beat the dealer (this probably means the payouts would need to be lower and I can appreciate having a headline 25/1). There's been a discussion - https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/32402-super-three-card/ - about another 3-card poker based game and that has an interesting idea to take back some House Edge.Quote: mrsuit31What did you think about the game? Did you enjoy it?
There is a great advantage in having four cards and it means players will tend to have better hands. I actually looked at various ideas using 3 from 4 a few years ago but personally preferred giving the dealer any slight advantage going; this meant one had scope to add some nice payouts for the player or allow the dealer to always qualify. Giving the player the advantage means you need a mandated bet (or similar idea). Thus the game will tend to have more times where the player breaks even or only wins one unit, compared to the same hands the other way round where you lose two or three units.
I did enjoy playing the game, it was easy to determine whether you played or folded. Also the thought of knowing you were only up against the dealer's three cards gave a good feeling that you had a better chance "to win".
Quote: charliepatrickI did enjoy playing the game, it was easy to determine whether you played or folded. Also the thought of knowing you were only up against the dealer's three cards gave a good feeling that you had a better chance "to win".
Thank you. That is the feeling I was hoping to create!
I should be able to confirm the first trial within the next few weeks :-)
Quote: charliepatrickI've just had a quick play and also fell for the Ante pays if the dealer doesn't qualify and thought you'd always play (same logic as given earlier). However if you've got to beat the dealer to win your Ante (assuming a tie is standoff) then my intuition was very similar to regular 3CP (except you can't get paid if the dealer gets something like Q32), so you would play something a tad (or is it smidge!) higher than Q64. I've quickly cranked the numbers and get that you play some Q752 or anything higher (e.g. play Qs7h5d2c fold Qs7h5d2d etc.).
Here is my return table for Q532 all different suits:
| Hand | Outcome | Dealer Qualify | Pays | Combinations | Prob. | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Card | Win | No | 0 | 5397 | 0.312037465 | 0 |
| High Card | Tie | No | -1 | 26 | 0.001503238 | -0.001503238 |
| High Card | Lose | No | -2 | 1546 | 0.089384829 | -0.178769658 |
| High Card | Lose | Yes | -3 | 10327 | 0.597074468 | -1.791223404 |
| Total | 17296 | 1 | -1.9714963 |
Folding is -2 so you play this hand.
Quote: mipletHere is my return table for Q532 all different suits:
Hand Outcome Dealer Qualify Pays Combinations Prob. Return High Card Win No 0 5397 0.312037465 0 High Card Tie No -1 26 0.001503238 -0.001503238 High Card Lose No -2 1546 0.089384829 -0.178769658 High Card Lose Yes -3 10327 0.597074468 -1.791223404 Total 17296 1 -1.9714963
Folding is -2 so you play this hand.
1. BTW, Q532 with two suits, such as Qh5h3d2d would have an even lower EV than Q532 rainbow because with two suits there is a higher probability of a dealer making a flush. Probably closer to about -1.98.*
2. The reason that Q532 is so significantly better than JT87 is because the Q in your hand deprives the dealer of a card that will (almost certainly) beat you if it appears in the dealer's hand.
*Edit: actually the calculation in my head is that I expect Qh5h3d2d to be about -1.975. The two suited hand will result in the dealer having about 22 additional combinations that make a flush, but only about 30% of those will promote a losing hand to a winner; thus the EV should be greater than the EV of the rainbow hand by 0.3*22/c(49,3) which I think is about 0.3*0.0011. So -1.9715 + 0.0033 is about -1.975. That's how I do the calc when I am standing at the table. : 0
Quote: gordonm888
1. BTW, Q532 with two suits, such as Qh5h3d2d would have an even lower EV than Q532 rainbow because with two suits there is a higher probability of a dealer making a flush. Probably closer to about -1.98.*
2. The reason that Q532 is so significantly better than JT87 is because the Q in your hand deprives the dealer of a card that will (almost certainly) beat you if it appears in the dealer's hand.
*Edit: actually the calculation in my head is that I expect Qh5h3d2d to be about -1.975. The two suited hand will result in the dealer having about 22 additional combinations that make a flush, but only about 30% of those will promote a losing hand to a winner; thus the EV should be greater than the EV of the rainbow hand by 0.3*22/c(49,3) which I think is about 0.3*0.0011. So -1.9715 + 0.0033 is about -1.975. That's how I do the calc when I am standing at the table. : 0
Here is the exact return table for Qh5h3d2d:
| Hand | Outcome | Dealer Qualify | Pays | Combinations | Prob. | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Card | Win | No | 0 | 5388 | 0.311517114 | 0 |
| High Card | Tie | No | -1 | 25 | 0.001445421 | -0.001445421 |
| High Card | Lose | No | -2 | 1539 | 0.088980111 | -0.177960222 |
| High Card | Lose | Yes | -3 | 10344 | 0.598057354 | -1.794172063 |
| Total | 17296 | 1 | -1.973577706 |
Quote: RSI played the game on my labtop for a few minutes and thought it was pretty fun. I would expect it to be popular in the casino.
Thank you for that RS.
Otherwise what are your thoughts?
Are you using the center table arc/banner for any of that? I would want the arc to say Dealer qualifies with King high or better. Then not put it on the player spots.
Must beat dealer to win, whether dealer qualifies or not. It doesn't say that on UTH, but everyone seems to get it.
I don't know why it has to say" *Only highest event pays " twice. Could just say *Only highest event pays bonuses once.
"1x Ante" under Play would do it.
Sorry, Brent, it just seems busy and redundant.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm not loving the phrasing on the ante spot.
Are you using the center table arc/banner for any of that? I would want the arc to say Dealer qualifies with King high or better. Then not put it on the player spots.
Must beat dealer to win, whether dealer qualifies or not. It doesn't say that on UTH, but everyone seems to get it.
I don't know why it has to say" *Only highest event pays " twice. Could just say *Only highest event pays bonuses once.
"1x Ante" under Play would do it.
Sorry, Brent, it just seems busy and redundant.
This is the first round. I never like using the arch as I like showcasing the logo.
I want feedback to see what needs to be changed. Need other eyes like yours and everyone for that. No need to apologize! I am having the "1x Ante" change made to draw less attention, removing the "highest event pays" language as I agree and am minimizing the language a bit in between the Ante/Play wager circles and will see how that looks. That will be the first batch of changes.
This is what the Table looks like at the moment
.
It looks like there is an introduction of a number of new games that force you to take a high variance wager in order to offer better rules for the player. Obviously the math and the pay table has to work out but it offers a much more interesting push table and significantly more play opportunities.
This game is a winner. A couple of thoughts on the bonus bet:
- you could offer a payout on a four card two pair at say 2:1
,- you couple progressive the jackpot bets to make them more exciting and have a 25% payout for 4ofak and the full meter for the 4 card royal and mandate the bet at $5.
Good work.
Quote: boymimboPlayed this for awhile and liked it. Of course the game will mar!etc to existing 3CP and 4CP players. The bonus bet I think people will like, especially the 200-500 unit payoffs, such that they will gladly accept losing the pair and for that chance.
It looks like there is an introduction of a number of new games that force you to take a high variance wager in order to offer better rules for the player. Obviously the math and the pay table has to work out but it offers a much more interesting push table and significantly more play opportunities.
This game is a winner. A couple of thoughts on the bonus bet:
- you could offer a payout on a four card two pair at say 2:1
,- you couple progressive the jackpot bets to make them more exciting and have a 25% payout for 4ofak and the full meter for the 4 card royal and mandate the bet at $5.
Good work.
Thank you!
I had originally fiddled with the two pair payoff in the Royal Family wager but in the end decided it really isn't a good hand in this game (only a pair in the grand scheme) so didn’t think it really fit the overall feel to the game. That said, it can always be added depending on what I hear from live players.
The progressive is an option and is included in the patent application. There are a few options. I can incorporate something like you describe, can incorporate a seven card (player 4 + dealer 3) or can incorporate the top pays for the busted monsters as well. There is a lot of versatility to this one, the key and hopeful factor being “once the game is established and accepted”.
Keeping my fingers crossed, but the feedback has been overwhelming positive (with a few exceptions, but very few) so far. I should be able to release trial info already within the next few weeks :)
Quote: jackmagic777DEFINITELY the early line favorite for Raving 2019!!!!!!
Appreciate that!
I’ll probably hold off on making the Cuttig Edge exhibit decision for a while this year. Let’s see how things are going over the next few months with the game, by there is a good chance you’ll see it on the competition list :)
Quote: mrsuit31This is the first round. I never like using the arch as I like showcasing the logo.
I want feedback to see what needs to be changed. Need other eyes like yours and everyone for that. No need to apologize! I am having the "1x Ante" change made to draw less attention, removing the "highest event pays" language as I agree and am minimizing the language a bit in between the Ante/Play wager circles and will see how that looks. That will be the first batch of changes.
This is what the Table looks like at the moment
Looks like WAY too much wording from overhead. Almost a nauseating amount. Maybe do the paytables in between two spots, so you don't have so much wording. Every two spots share the wording and paytables in between.
In big font somewhere, should say "Player gets 4 card, dealer gets 3" so passerbys can see the appeal of the game.
Quote: SM777Quote: mrsuit31This is the first round. I never like using the arch as I like showcasing the logo.
I want feedback to see what needs to be changed. Need other eyes like yours and everyone for that. No need to apologize! I am having the "1x Ante" change made to draw less attention, removing the "highest event pays" language as I agree and am minimizing the language a bit in between the Ante/Play wager circles and will see how that looks. That will be the first batch of changes.
This is what the Table looks like at the moment
Looks like WAY too much wording from overhead. Almost a nauseating amount. Maybe do the paytables in between two spots, so you don't have so much wording. Every two spots share the wording and paytables in between.
In big font somewhere, should say "Player gets 4 card, dealer gets 3" so passerbys can see the appeal of the game.
I’m having my designer remove some of the language and will try and shrink down the pay tables a bit.
Let me see what I can do with some of your suggestions otherwise. I will also see about placing the player 4 vs dealer 3 language on the table front and center.
Thanks SM777!
Quote: mrsuit31Quote: SM777Quote: mrsuit31This is the first round. I never like using the arch as I like showcasing the logo.
I want feedback to see what needs to be changed. Need other eyes like yours and everyone for that. No need to apologize! I am having the "1x Ante" change made to draw less attention, removing the "highest event pays" language as I agree and am minimizing the language a bit in between the Ante/Play wager circles and will see how that looks. That will be the first batch of changes.
This is what the Table looks like at the moment
Looks like WAY too much wording from overhead. Almost a nauseating amount. Maybe do the paytables in between two spots, so you don't have so much wording. Every two spots share the wording and paytables in between.
In big font somewhere, should say "Player gets 4 card, dealer gets 3" so passerbys can see the appeal of the game.
I’m having my designer remove some of the language and will try and shrink down the pay tables a bit.
Let me see what I can do with some of your suggestions otherwise. I will also see about placing the player 4 vs dealer 3 language on the table front and center.
Thanks SM777!
It's definitely the appeal of the game, and the differentiating factor. Would be great IMO.
If you can get in big font somewhere on the layout, whether at the bottom where the players have chips, or at the top by the dealer cards, people who passby when the table is closed, or when there's 0 players can see why they should sit and play. Instead of having a dealer try to explain, they can see immediately I get more cards than the dealer.
Quote: SM777
It's definitely the appeal of the game, and the differentiating factor. Would be great IMO.
If you can get in big font somewhere on the layout, whether at the bottom where the players have chips, or at the top by the dealer cards, people who passby when the table is closed, or when there's 0 players can see why they should sit and play. Instead of having a dealer try to explain, they can see immediately I get more cards than the dealer.
I'm leaning towards the pay tables in between spots 6/5, 3/4 and 1/2 and having "PLAYER GETS 4 CARDS" to the left of the logo arching, and "DEALER GETS ONLY 3" or "DEALER GETS 3 Cards" on the right. Any preference to which I should use for the second phrase? I am liking the "DEALER GETS ONLY 3"....
Quote: jackmagic777CLASSIC 31 AND 3 CARD FURY. Best entry I have seen since Calumet Farms was winning the Derby every year
In other news, 31 Classic is going live in Mississippi :-)
Pushing through the MGC now for trial approval (contracts already signed and submitted). Once approved I'll release the details of the trial.
Back to the 3 Card Fury Layout. I didn't like how the pay tables only between the 1/2, 3/4 and 5/6 spots looked so nixed that idea. I am going to keep the individual pay tables (slightly smaller), removing a few of the redundant rules and adding the "PLAYER GETS 4 CARDS" and "DEALER GETS ONLY 3" on the center table arch next to the logo.
I like the look and am not super concerned about it being to overwhelming. Its just two pay tables. The monster is what looks so big, because of the busted monster bonus section. Of course this can always be changed, but that will be the final version for now. I will post the final full table image when it is complete either later today or manana.
Quote: SOOPOOJust played the demo. Lots of 'wins' result in no money plus or minus. Seems like a very low variance game. I think it has a real chance. I'll bet there will be 'weak' dealers that will yield a player advantage. Axel will be mad I wrote that.....
Thank you Soopoo!
The base game (Ante, Play & Monster) has an overall win rate of around 42%, overall push around 25% and an overall lose of around 33%. The Ante wins around 65% of the time. This should create a very fun, elongated time on device for players. The monster is very volatile to allow for a good deal of excitement and big streak potential to make a pretty penny as some have seen in the demo already.
The way the game will be dealt will eliminate any possibility of hole carding (bottom card of the dealer four card packet will be the discard, and the top three cards are slid into the dealer card boxes). The only thing I will need to stress is that the player's must beat the dealer to win the ante. That is the only place where I can see anything that needs attention. That said, if people are constantly deviating from optimal strategy of playing a Q high or better and playing Jack high or less repeatedly trying to take advantage of a weak dealer, that should be picked up almost immediately by any supervisor. As a result, Axel shouldn't get to mad at you for that one :-), I have to think about these things when creating procedures.......
Quote: mrsuit31I'm leaning towards the pay tables in between spots 6/5, 3/4 and 1/2 and having "PLAYER GETS 4 CARDS" to the left of the logo arching, and "DEALER GETS ONLY 3" or "DEALER GETS 3 Cards" on the right. Any preference to which I should use for the second phrase? I am liking the "DEALER GETS ONLY 3"....
Dealer gets only 3 sounds good. For an industry with an extreme high failure rate, need to best play to the appeal of the game. Seems like a small detail, but could see it being helpful.
The paytables between will definitely help make it less busy. These two little changes will do wonders for people walking by. The less confusing they think it will be, the more they will give it a shot.
Quote: SM777Dealer gets only 3 sounds good. For an industry with an extreme high failure rate, need to best play to the appeal of the game. Seems like a small detail, but could see it being helpful.
The paytables between will definitely help make it less busy. These two little changes will do wonders for people walking by. The less confusing they think it will be, the more they will give it a shot.
I am definitely adding the language next to the logo on both side. I 100% agree that is the huge selling point for the game and should be front and center for all to see.
I really didn't like how the dueling tables looked after seeing the proof with that change. For this round, I am going to stick with a revised version with a few additional changes, but for the time being will leave each player having their own tables. It may be a little busy, but I personally like it that way (think the layout as a whole looks better). I'll be able to get some feedback from a decent sized group of real players with this layout soon, so will see what those folks say and pick it back up from there.
Appreciate the feedback so far as I am definitely adopting some of these changes you have all proposed!
Quote: SM777Dealer gets only 3 sounds good. For an industry with an extreme high failure rate, need to best play to the appeal of the game. Seems like a small detail, but could see it being helpful.
The paytables between will definitely help make it less busy. These two little changes will do wonders for people walking by. The less confusing they think it will be, the more they will give it a shot.
It's really a mandatory Pairs plus bet plus a bonus bet.
This game will be added as a variation to 3CP and 4CP and will attract ONLY those players. They will already know the rules to those games and would expect to make a pairs plus bet, ante and a play bet.the bonus game is the new variation but in many jurisdictions there exists the $1 progressive optional as bet. I wouldn't even display the bonus game payouts on the table but on a placard or on the game pole (whatever you call it). Then you can simply adjust the existing 3CP layout which puts the pairs plus results in line section and the game play in another.
If you have to put the bonus bet result in the felt then you I would put it in large print in the middle similar to the LIR pay table on the dollar bet.
I still enjoy the original "Money$uit" the most but can understand why casinos would prefer Classic and Fury.
My only criticism comes from my own preference... I felt "free-rolled" whenever I got a pair. Knowing the dealer doesn't qualify A LOT more often and knowing I insta lose the side bet, the best I can do is win $100 and the worst I can do is lose $300 (most of the time). If there is any mathematical way to make the side bet pay table "push" on a pair that would be lovely. Probably not, but just a personal preference =D.
Quote: RomesI played the demo and definitely think the game is fun and would do very well in the casino, especially if you VERY VERY VERY MUCH COMMUNICATE THE PLAYER GETS 4 CARDS AND DEALER ONLY GETS 3. Most people will not understand the side bet making up for that and I guarantee you'll get a small following that think they have an edge while they play.
My only criticism comes from my own preference... I felt "free-rolled" whenever I got a pair. Knowing the dealer doesn't qualify A LOT more often and knowing I insta lose the side bet, the best I can do is win $100 and the worst I can do is lose $300 (most of the time). If there is any mathematical way to make the side bet pay table "push" on a pair that would be lovely. Probably not, but just a personal preference =D.
Thank you Romes!
There is no way to push the pair unfortunately. The edge in the 4th card is to massive. Like B said above, it really is a forced pairs plus, which I don’t see getting to much pushback (that is just my hopeful opinion of course, but seems to be carrying through as of now).
I will post the new layout once I get to the office. The Player 4 card vs Dealer 3 is now front and center for all to see. I’ve also decluttered the player space a bit.
Quote: jackmagic777On that 500-1 on a $5 bet, will I get a W2G. If I bet $10 and win at 500-1, will there be 24% withholding for a US resident ?
Yes to question number 1 because it’s larger than 300-1, no to question number to because the win does not exceed $5000.
I see what you did there ;)
(I hope my answer is correct)
Effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, the withholding rate under Section 3402(q) applicable to winnings of $5,000 or more " Hope I am right. Did NOT see what you did
