mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 1264
February 12th, 2019 at 4:49:27 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

The layout needs to mention the differing ante win / push circumstance.



You mean the “Must beat the dealer to win” rule?
.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 1264
February 12th, 2019 at 6:34:29 AM permalink
To try and clarify/distinguish the true ante/qualify rule, what does everyone think about swapping out "Dealer Qualifies with King High" and replacing it with "Dealer King High Activates Play Wager"?
.
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 1654
Thanks for this post from:
gordonm888mrsuit31MrCasinoGames
February 12th, 2019 at 9:43:26 AM permalink
Quote: mrsuit31

...swapping out "Dealer Qualifies with King High" and replacing it with "Dealer King High Activates Play Wager"?

I suspect most people playing a 3CP variant understand the concept that the Dealer qualifies. The important messages are that in this game the qualification level is King-high not Queen-high and any differences [that on needing to beat the dealer to get paid] on the Ante wager.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 1264
February 12th, 2019 at 12:42:10 PM permalink
Quote: charliepatrick

I suspect most people playing a 3CP variant understand the concept that the Dealer qualifies. The important messages are that in this game the qualification level is King-high not Queen-high and any differences [that on needing to beat the dealer to get paid] on the Ante wager.



Got it,

I'm just trying to find a good spot to place the "must beat the dealer" language...

Did you like the other revisions?
.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 1264
February 12th, 2019 at 12:57:24 PM permalink
I think I may actually contour the bottom of the ANTE circle with "MUST BEAT DEALER TO WIN" (like I do with the "MUST EQUAL ANTE" contouring the Play). Waht do you think?

That should check all the boxes and still not be overwhelmingly cluttered.
.
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 1428
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
February 12th, 2019 at 1:08:20 PM permalink
Quote: mrsuit31

I think I may actually contour the bottom of the ANTE circle with "MUST BEAT DEALER TO WIN" (like I do with the "MUST EQUAL ANTE" contouring the Play). Waht do you think?

That should check all the boxes and still not be overwhelmingly cluttered.


It will work.
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 1264
February 12th, 2019 at 1:21:44 PM permalink
Quote: MrCasinoGames

It will work.



That is what I am going to do....
.
gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 1759
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
February 12th, 2019 at 1:42:29 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

I 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.



The unique "fun factor" in this game is that people get good poker hands and beat the dealer frequently. That's fun! However, the reality of the forced side-bet and optional bonus bet is that whenever you don't get a straight or a flush you are hoping to push (best outcome!) or lose only one unit. That's kind of sobering.

Ex: an AAKK is a 'good news-bad news" situation because you have a good chance of beating the dealer but with all those Aces and Kings in your hand the probability that the dealer will qualify with a hand that you can beat is diminished and your most likely outcome is to lose one unit.

But, as with any new innovative game, there is a new calculus involved. The player just needs to become accustomed to that fact that getting a one pair hand is -EV.
Sometimes, people are just a bottomless mystery. And, after all, this is just a sh*tty little forum in the sun-less backwaters of the online world.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 1264
February 12th, 2019 at 1:52:45 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

The unique "fun factor" in this game is that people get good poker hands and beat the dealer frequently. That's fun! However, the reality of the forced side-bet and optional bonus bet is that whenever you don't get a straight or a flush you are hoping to push (best outcome!) or lose only one unit. That's kind of sobering.

Ex: an AAKK is a 'good news-bad news" situation because you have a good chance of beating the dealer but with all those Aces and Kings in your hand the probability that the dealer will qualify with a hand that you can beat is diminished and your most likely outcome is to lose one unit.

But, as with any new innovative game, there is a new calculus involved. The player just needs to become accustomed to that fact that getting a one pair hand is -EV.



My suggestion is the play less on the option Royal Family bonus for that reason. I usually play 1/2 my ante on the RF wager. In that case, with a no qualify winner on a high card or pair, the lose is .5 units. On a qualifier winner with a high card or pair the result is a .5 unit win.

You hit a flush or better 27.8% of the time. This includes winning, losing and ties.

You will win with a high card or pair, with the dealer qualifying, 15.2% of the time.

You will win with a high card or pair, with the dealer not qualifying, 25.4% of the time.
.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 5591
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
February 12th, 2019 at 2:14:24 PM permalink
Quote: mrsuit31

My suggestion is the play less on the option Royal Family bonus for that reason. I usually play 1/2 my ante on the RF wager. In that case, with a no qualify winner on a high card or pair, the lose is .5 units. On a qualifier winner with a high card or pair the result is a .5 unit win.

You hit a flush or better 27.8% of the time. This includes winning, losing and ties.

You will win with a high card or pair, with the dealer qualifying, 15.2% of the time.

You will win with a high card or pair, with the dealer not qualifying, 25.4% of the time.



The game is what it is! It is unique in that the player 'wins' far more often than he loses. Even though the house edge is similar to bad rules BJ, or Pai Gow, etc... It just feels better to have the 'edge' over the house. And the 'feeling' is what really matters to a casual player. Let me know when it gets installed in Niagara Falls and I'll be there for its opening. (US or Canada)

  • Jump to: