Poker For Roulette - side bet

Note added on 5/2/11
I had computer issues, so I haven't been on top of my email lately. Just today, I noticed that the Wiz gave this thread a plug in his 4/8/11 email newsletter. Thanks!

Note added on 8/15/12
Because of some revisions, most notably the addition of 3 and 4 spin versions, a new thread was created for the new 3, 4 and 5 spin versions.

As most of you know, Since my September visit to Las Vegas, I have been working on a new concept for a Roulette side bet.

Based on its name alone, I'm sure most of you can guess what it is.

For complete details, check out my website: www.Poker-For-Roulette.com

The very short version is that you are betting that the next five spins produce a result that resembles a poker hand.


Check it out. Let me know what you think!

---

It overcomes all of the pit-falls that killed my Hit It Again idea, while retaining the big payoff - although not quite as big as I had in the Hit It Again bet.

1 - It's unique. You can't make a standard Roulette bet and achieve the same results.

2 - It has lots of ways to win, so you'll win a lot more often than with my Hit It Again idea.

3 - The top prize is a lot lower, so it doesn't have the same aggregate payout problem.

4 - It has the 'whacky' / fun factor that gamblers will love.

---

In case you totally missed my other idea, here's the thread about it:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/2311-hit-it-again-roulette-progressive-side-bet/

The 'wild greens' are a plus. It takes a bad outcome on regular roulette, a green, and perhaps helps a player win the side bet. So as the dealer is sweeping away almost all of the bets your side bet at least is 'working'.

Interesting concept.

I will say this seems a lot more "fun" than the repeat numbers.

I like the idea of an optional progressive. Mainly because I just don't think the progressive is needed here. The simple option that I can turn $1 into $10000 with 5 in a row means I can bet on the massive long shot.

There seems to be a lot of payouts, have you considered the 'standard' poker payouts of:-
Pair
2 Pair
3 of a Kind
Full House
Straight
Flush
4 of a Kind
Straight Flush
5 of a Kind

rather than combining pairs with a flush etc ? Just have highest win only is paid.

The above has 9 payouts which can be quite overwhelming to manage especially with bets on every spin.

"Keeping it simple" was one of my primary desires with my Hit It Again idea. It was simple to the point where it could be implemented manually. Of course, it's simplicity was part of it's failure.

During my meeting with the game distributor, they told me, in no uncertain terms, that using an electronic system to track the bets, would not be prohibitive. In fact, I got the feeling that they would prefer it.

Also, as is pointed out on the Misc page, it is recommended to place the bet on every spin rather than waiting for one bet to resolve before making the next bet. Having multiple bets active at one time is a logistical nightmare if not done electronically.

Once I resigned myself to requiring an electronic device, 'overwhelming' became less of a problem. Besides, having all those different ways to win just adds to the novelty and fun for the player.

What hands win would actually be a decision to be made by the distributor and/or casino. My patent does not specify the types of 'hands' that pay off, or what the pay offs will be. The patent just covers the multi-spin combination result thing.

---

For what it's worth, I came up with the idea of making the greens wild because they can't be used for a straight or flush, so seeing one pretty much kills that hand. So make then wild!

Also note that a Straight Flush is impossible. For that reason, I included a Kangaroo Flush.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Also note that a Straight Flush is impossible. For that reason, I included a Kangaroo Flush.

What is a kangaroo flush?

Quote: Nareed

What is a kangaroo flush?

I plan on explaining a Kangaroo Flush on my website, when I next update it.


A Kangaroo Straight is usually 2-4-6-8-10, although other similarly gapped straights are also sometimes called Kangaroos.

Note that these are not real hands. They are LOSING hands, but, sooner or later, every poker player will have heard the term, used by someone in a vain attempt to win the hand, or at least get a laugh.


That being the case, since a Straight Flush is not possible, a Kangaroo Flush is five consecutive numbers of the same color, for example, 6-8-10-11-13. These are all black. Although 10 and 11 are not gapped, the hand includes ALL the blacks in the sequence while hopping over the reds.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

That being the case, since a Straight Flush is not possible, a Kangaroo Flush is five consecutive numbers of the same color, for example, 6-8-10-11-13. These are all black. Although 10 and 11 are not gapped, the hand includes ALL the blacks in the sequence while hopping over the reds.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

Dave,
Reviewed your site - looks sharp!
Roulette is in great need of a good progressive, it's wide open. Somebody's gotta pick it up!
Real interesting!

Dave,
A couple of concerns:
1. If trips or better are up and won, then the next bet is guaranteed to be a winner of at least one pair; a four of a kind guarantees trips or better, etc. A flush would have almost a 50% of repeating for > even money. Do you have a "No Bet Block" rule or action for this, when the next spin will be a winner, or a higher probability of a win versus the payout table (player advantage?) The idea of a "No New Bet window" is needed to prevent advantage play, and is easily implemented. The big winning hand is needed to "evaporate out completely," lest people jump in for smaller sure winners that are residual to it.

2. Do you have both single and double Zero version/math?

To hit that repeating flush I had to get on 4 bets ago. The bet starts from the spin its placed on... not for the last four spins plus the next one.

So, there isn't a "active block" you buy into, - you buy into the unseen block coming up, starting with your new bet, going into the next five spins - overlapping for continuous betting...okay. I did a D'oh.
Still, for continuous betting:
1. If there is four to a flush, or four to an outside straight, then your series of bets' odds change to advantage play, prompting or forcing you to bet continuously, as you may get a six or seven in a row flush for the overlapping bets to also hit. Now that will generate excitement.
2. if you hit a full house, then you had already hit one pair, and two pairs/trips going in on the preceeding bets, then the full house, and then two pairs/trips, and one pair coming out. Many big hands come with a winning streak of smaller wins going into and out of that big win. That's exciting. If you luck out and bet into a 5 of a kind, you've got additional wins going in and out if you had bet continuously.

Edit:
I wrote the following in response to Dan's post on the bottom of the previous page. It's only now, 6 hours later (and 3 hours after a good phone call from Dan), that I discovered the two posts above. Seems like you figured it out...

Quote: Paigowdan

..."No Bet Block" rule...

You've misunderstood the concept.

My Hit It Again concept was a bet that the next spin will match the current spin. That might have encouraged the occasional bettor that only likes specific numbers.

Your question makes it seem you are thinking that the bet is placed on the four prior spins, plus the one next spin. That's not it at all.

With this, a bet is placed on the NEXT five spins. Your question sounds like the guy who sees 8 reds and bets on black. There is no advantage to jumping in after seeing anything in particular.

Discourage betting? Just the opposite. I ENCOURAGE betting at all times, even while bets remain unresolved. That's covered here: http://www.davemillergaming.com/pfr/misc.html

---

I have not yet done the single zero math.

For a variety of reasons, I think it might be desireable to NOT offer it for single zero - particularly if green is wild. By taking away half of the wild cards, there would be a lot less wild winners, therefore, the payouts should be higher. That may cause people to prefer playing it at a single zero table, wich would cost the casino half their edge on the basic game. But again, this would be a decision for the distributor. I WILL get the single zero math done regardless.

Quote: Nareed

Quote: DJTeddyBear

a Kangaroo Flush is ...

Thanks. I didn't know that.

I just want to repeat myself, because I'm not 100% sure you got it.

The phrases 'Kangaroo' and 'Kangaroo Straight' are used only jokingly, and by jerks trying to steal money from a novice.

These are not real poker hands, but nearly every poker player knows what they mean.

I could have called my bet a "Hopping Straight Flush", but then, sooner or later, some poker player would suggest calling it a "Kangaroo..."

FYI: It's not a local thing. It's mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_poker_hand. From the middle of the 'types' section:

Quote:

Skip straight: Also called alternate straight, Dutch straight, skipper, or kangaroo straight. Cards are in consecutive order, skipping every second rank. (Example 3-5-7-9-J).

Alright, here's my two cents.

I would use the "wild" version as standard - since this is the most interesting of the two varieties. I would remove the caveat that the wild is only wild if the hand is a winner without it...its confusing and counter intuitive. I know you will have to adjust your numbers, but I think its worth it.

I would also remove the kangaroo flush as it is not intuitive (I would not be able to determine if I was a winner without looking around at the felt.)

I also don't like the idea of wild hands paying less than non-wild hands (why root for a wild if it pays less?), with the exception of maybe the wild five of a kind (sort of like a wild royal flush and a natural royal flush in a deuces wild vp game.)

I don't know how I feel about the bet taking 5 turns to resolve, though. That's a long time at a roulette table. On a busy table, that could be upwards of 5 minutes from the time I put down my dollar to the time the bet is finally resolved.

Otherwise, I like the bet - I think it has potential and would certainly make roulette a more interesting table game.

Sorry, I have an extra cent to add...

I would make the payouts for combination wins (like "one pair with flush") pay either the top hand only, or the sum of both prizes (like a "match the dealer" bet in bj/sp21).

For example, you have one pair paying 2 for 1 and a flush paying 4 for 1. So I would make the "one pair with flush" pay either 4 for 1 or 6 for 1.

This is much easier to understand and explain to a player, and doesn't require a paytable two pages long for the dealer and players to figure out.

My initial thoughts were it's a lot of work and lot of pay tables. My second thought is I don't really play roulette much, but I might have a try at this for variation. But there needs to be less winning hands (flush, pairs, trips make sense). The Kangaroos will take far too much effort to read and deal with... unless this is electronic, then I can see this work fine and could be a good giggle.

As you get no traction from the last number hit, there's no advantage play possible, as far as I can tell. The thing that could kill it is that pay outs will be streaky... as someone else said, if you hit a pair in the 5 bet window, this could pay out on future (but already laid) bets. Those streaks may not be what the house wants.

Have you considered 3 card "hands" instead (trips, pairs, straights? a non-wild straight would be relatively rare).

Quote: thecesspit

My initial thoughts were it's a lot of work and lot of pay tables. My second thought is I don't really play roulette much, but I might have a try at this for variation. But there needs to be less winning hands (flush, pairs, trips make sense). The Kangaroos will take far too much effort to read and deal with... unless this is electronic, then I can see this work fine and could be a good giggle.

As you get no traction from the last number hit, there's no advantage play possible, as far as I can tell. The thing that could kill it is that pay outs will be streaky... as someone else said, if you hit a pair in the 5 bet window, this could pay out on future (but already laid) bets. Those streaks may not be what the house wants.

Have you considered 3 card "hands" instead (trips, pairs, straights? a non-wild straight would be relatively rare).

I think there are some 'cosmic brain signals' flying around :-) as I had formed, in my mind, what I thought was a possible version and it included 3-card hands rather than 5 cards.

Too many payouts will confuse players so, personally, I would not mix pairs with flushes etc. The Kangaroo flush is rarer than 5-of-a-kind and is quite complicated to track for a player.

My thoughts are to have 3-card (number) outcomes and keep the paytable to :-

Pair
Flush
Straight
3 Of A kind

I wouldn't have a 'wild' zero as 0,4,0 would pay a 'pair' and 2,0,1 would pay a 'straight'. You could have zero as a 'wild' color for flushes but that would lower the payout. Personally, players tend not to like zero coming in so why not keep it that way.

4 payouts, easy for players to follow with decent payouts which aren't astronomically high to appear.

Quote: cardshark

Sorry, I have an extra cent to add...

Jeez, that THREE cents! LOL


Most of your points are really up to the distributor, but I will certainly consider them when I make my recommendations.


The wild has to be limited. It sounds like you're suggesting that as soon as you see a wild card, you can assume a winner of at least a wild pair. Yeah, I felt that way too, except doing that meant that nearly 50% of all 5 spin hands would win. The only way it would work is if some winners would push rather than win. Since this is a five spin thing, the token drops, or the dealer scoops the bet after the first spin. So a 'push' would actually be a refund. THAT'S lame.

I understand your concerns about the Kangaroo. I'm not married to it. I only suggest it. It would be the first thing I get rid of if I had to get rid of anything.

Wilds HAVE to pay less than non-wilds. This ain't like VP or Pai Gow where they use a 53 card deck. This actually ain't like ANY poker. Think of it more like using five separate 38 card decks. Every deck has two wilds. This means the chance of seeing a wild is HUGE. Therefore, for example, a natural pair that upgrades to wild trips should pay more than the pair but less than natural trips.

5 spins to resolve? This isn't aimed at the type of player that stops by for one spin. The target gambler are the ones sitting there for extended periods. Note that the rules require regular bets when this bet is made. It does NOT require regular bets for the remaining 4 spins, but a gambler sitting there WILL be betting, and more likely than not, placing this bet every time, even when unresolved bets are still active.

Since this is going to require electronics to track multiple concurrent unresolved bets, the electronics can easily see a winning combination, and display player positions and dollar amounts when a win needs to be paid. No laundry list of combinations needs to be memorized or even consulted. Hell, the electronics might even hold credits internally to free the dealer from the responsibility of paying.


Thanks for the praise and comments.

Keep 'em coming!

Quote: thecesspit

Have you considered 3 card "hands" instead (trips, pairs, straights? a non-wild straight would be relatively rare).

Yes. Although I haven't mentioned it on the website yet, my patent does cover doing that.

Personally, although I'm not really a roulette player either, I despise Three Card Poker. Plus I kinda like all the whacky combinations.

But, again, these are decisions that the distributor will make.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Check it out. Let me know what you think!

Mixing poker with roulette.
I do not like it.

I'm not a roulette layer but my wife and her friends are.
We visit Europe every other year and Roulette is KING in Europe.

http://www.ildado.com/roulette_table_layout.html
shows many of the side bets that are popular there.

Roulette players over there, well Roulette is like a religion.
They bet and track sectors, neighbors and all sorts of streaks and such.

I say a side bet in Roulette should stay true to Roulette, not mixing in Poker, many players are turned off by poker, but love and gamble at Roulette.

Maybe a different version of your Hit it Again, but use more numbers.
Maybe smaller sectors for repeating winners and a jackpot.

Good Luck to you.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I just want to repeat myself, because I'm not 100% sure you got it.

The phrases 'Kangaroo' and 'Kangaroo Straight' are used only jokingly, and by jerks trying to steal money from a novice.

These are not real poker hands, but nearly every poker player knows what they mean.

I got they're not real poker hands, but you may include them as such in your side bet.

Back when I played poker with friends, there was this guy who simply didn't get the game. Once I advised him to hold on to A, K, off suit in 5-card draw because he could then get a "Royal Straight." I was joking. I did not anticipate he'd keep an ace king off suit and throw away trips because he wanted the "Royal Straight." I console myself we played for microscopic stakes (around $5 per player per session at today's exchange rate, we had one cent chips!), so he never lost much, but I may have ruined any chance he had of liking the game.

but I digress.....

Quote: guido111

Mixing poker with roulette.
I do not like it.

Mixing games is very popular here: Pai Gow mania (three card poker + Pai Gow poker) 21+3 (Blackjack + three card poker), and many others.
So, we like this kind of stuff here.
What is important is that the distributor and the American playing public like the game. Monte Carlo is not on the Radar in the gaming industry here, as the U.S., Macau, Latin America and Canada really count.

Besides, this side bet does not interfere with playing the fundamental or pure game; just don't play it.

It's gotten interest so far....

Quote: guido111

Good Luck to you.

I think this may do very well for him, it's a remarkable mix.

Quote: guido111

Mixing poker with roulette.
I do not like it.

I say a side bet in Roulette should stay true to Roulette, not mixing in Poker, many players are turned off by poker, but love and gamble at Roulette.

Maybe a different version of your Hit it Again, but use more numbers.

Actually, when I had a meeting with a game distributor about Hit It Again, they basically said what you said: A different version with more numbers.

That's what I did with this new bet.

When I thought about how to add a few more numbers, I came up with patterns that could be described using poker terms.

That's where the poker part ends. Looking for patterns - and those patters happen to be able to be thought of in poker terms. No poker decisions. It's almost like playing a video poker slot machine, but taking away the option to hold and draw. It's like video STUD poker. Put up a bet, spin, and see if you won.

Quote: guido111

http://www.ildado.com/roulette_table_layout.html
shows many of the side bets that are popular there.

Some of those layouts are interesting.

My bet does not require any alteration to the layout. In fact, it will work even if the table has one of those alternate layouts.

FYI: The neighbors/sections oval track is actually seen in the original of the stock photo I use.

I cropped it out...

Just keeping everyone up-to-date.


A few days ago, I informed the game distributor that I came up with a new concept.

The reply I got was:

Quote:

Nice to hear from you. We appreciate you presenting another game to us...I am very intrigued and we will look at it this week and get back to you. Thank you again Dave.

I didn't expect much more than an acknowledgement that they got my email. I know they're busy preparing for the G2E show next week.



Also, I've updated the Payout page to include a section with a suggested Progressive payout.

Another update.

G2E is still going on (I wish I was there...) so I haven't talked to my distributor yet.



I've been thinking about the comments here while designing literature.

I was trying to keep the literature simple, but that's actually when it became obvious that the many ways to win became unwieldy. I was constructing a chart with types of hands, and four columns: Natural, flush, wild, wild with flush. It got out of control, and also made it obvious that the payouts just didn't make sense in some cases.



Here's a summary of my changes:

I got rid of the Kangaroo straight, because, well, I came to my senses.

I changed the wild rule so 0 and 00 are only wild for completing straights, and four of a kind and five of a kind. Plus, I got rid of the extra charts when 0/00 are not wild.

I added one combination that I hope makes sense. If you have two to a straight with three wilds, that can be considered a straight or four of a kind. This has it's own payline.

I got rid of wild flushes because there were too many of them. It added a layer of payouts that didn't really need to be added.

In my head, it makes sense to make them wild for straights, because the alternative is to have unhappy players lose with 0,1,2,3,4. If I make 0 work for a low straight, what about 00? Then it just snowballed in my head to make them wild for any straight.

I keep the 0/00 wild for five of a kind, primarily because it gives me four additinal ways to make five of a kind, and in reasanable quantities, so that a progressive jackpot can have several different fractional winners.

I keep the 0/00 wild for four of a kind, kinda as a what the heck kind of thing.



One more BIG addition: I created a second paytable. The new paytable pays pairs 1 credit. Note that this bet is similar to the Let It Ride and Carribean Stud side bet in that the token is raked before the bet is resolved. Therefore paying 1 credit is a push.

Quite frankly, I don't like it. One pair occurs about 20% of the time, while the other bets combined occur about 5%. This significantly reduces the number of times a player actually wins. On the flip side, it means there's an extra $16 million to be divided among the other winning combinations. As a result, the payments of the other combinations seem a lot more equitable.



To reflect these changes, I have updated the Poker For Roulette betting, math and payouts pages. If you're interested, I archived the old pages.

Although I didn't link it on my Poker For Roulette website yet, I created an 8.5x5.5 brochure. This sample has it laid out with front & back on a single 11x8.5 page. It lists payouts based on the paytable that pays pairs 2:1.
Poker For Roulette brochure

I also created a business card. The back is blank, but I'm thinking about putting my "Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood?" signature line on the back.
Poker For Roulette business card

All comments about these two items, as well as the idea and website, are welcome.

Thanks.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Although I didn't link it on my Poker For Roulette website yet, I created an 8.5x5.5 brochure. This sample has it laid out with front & back on a single 11x8.5 page. It lists payouts based on the paytable that pays pairs 2:1.
Poker For Roulette brochure

I also created a business card. The back is blank, but I'm thinking about putting my "Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood?" signature line on the back.
Poker For Roulette business card

All comments about these two items, as well as the idea and website, are welcome.

Thanks.

On your business card, I think the 'TM' should be placed at the top right of 'Poker-for-roulette' i.e. P-F-R™ I also wonder whether it would look creative, or tacky, if you ghosted a roulette wheel, or segment, in the background of the card.

Regarding the brochure, in my opinion there are too many payouts and it creates a lot of information for the reader to digest - most successful games are simple to comprehend at first glance. Again, just my personal view, but I prefer the version that does not include 'wild zeros', mainly to keep the overall concept as simple as possible.

Thanks for the comments.


I felt that a roulette wheel in the background seemed too busy. Putting one in the foreground seemed "typical". It's kinda like all the poker magazine ads that always show a royal flush.

I may move the TM mark.


Too many payouts? As I mentioned in the prior post, I was designing the brochure, with the original wilds that were almost completely wild, and the number of combinations got out of hand.

So I decided to make zeros wild only for quads and five of a kind. Then I started to think about straights. Isn't 0,1,2,3,4 a straight? I could see people then complain that 00,1,2,3,4 should also be a straight. So I said "Screw it" and make zeros wild for straights.

The only problem with this is, two numbers that are consecutive or have tree or less gaps, along with three wilds, will make a straight as well as quads.

Bottom line, it's up to the game distributor to decide. I just provide the concept, patent, and math.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Bottom line, it's up to the game distributor to decide. I just provide the concept, patent, and math.

I'd go much farther; take it as far as you can from the operator's viewpoint. Ask them "do you like this version or that version". Think about dealer procedure, game protection, etc. You're selling a product to a business operator through a distributor -- the product is ultimately geared toward the operator, not the distributor. Learn the operator's business, what works and what doesn't. It sounds like simple, obvious advice, but I can't tell you how many new games I've seen at G2E shows -- including this year -- where the inventor had put absolutely zero thought into any of these aspects. I can tell you from first-hand conversations with table games operators that if you know your stuff, you'll be able to call them back even if they don't ultimately like your initial product. On the other hand, if you're clueless about how their business works they'll know -- and you won't get very far.

M.E. has made a valid point here. If you approach a distributor or casino operator with a 'rough idea' of how the concepts and payouts work, along with numerous alternatives, then the game becomes fuzzy. You also lose some control over how the game is played.

Imagine that 3CP had just been invented and the inventor stated "You can have 2's wild or even 2's and 3's wild and you can have red straights and black straights and red or black pairs and also a natural straight will pay more than a wild straight which will pay more than using 2 wilds for a straight. Anyway, all 36 payouts are listed and the house edge is ..."

I realise that this is a gross exaggeration of your game but, to some novices, explaining your game would be similar (to them) as explaining the game above. Keep it simple seems to have worked for pretty much all of the successful new games out there. Once your game/concept gets established and players get familiar with it then you can add more 'exciting' payouts or combine it with a progressive.

Tighten up the concept to allow the playing process to be explained easily. Same with the payouts. Once a distributor has got a clear understanding of the game then you can add that additional payouts, or 'wilds' could be created, along with the extra work it involves.

In my opinion, any more than 8 payouts becomes cumbersome and ideally 5 or 6 payouts makes it easier to explain the overall concept.

I agree that 0,1,2,3,4 is a straight and also 00,1,2,3,4 could be considered as a straight. I don't agree that it necessarily leads to having to place 'wilds' within the game.

Just my opinion, nothing personal :-)

M.E. -

I do get what you're saying. Whenever I say that something will be up to the distributor, I say it because I assume that, no matter how much research I do, a distributor will know more about casino operations and what casinos want. I'll make my recommendations, but ultimately leave the decision to them - or to offer the same choices to the casino.

When I met with a distributor about Hit It Again, I was told that if electronics are involved that they will handle it. That's fine by me since I know nothing about designing such a thing. All I can do is recommend what I believe to be an intuitive operator interface.

I have come up with two paytables, and detailed the advantages of each, as well as pay structures with and without a progressive. But it's up to them, or the casino, to choose (or to ask for an alternate).

For the record, on my Hit It Again idea, I DID have complete dealer and floorperson instructions. But part of that was because I intentionally designed a bet that could be manually operated.

This new bet is more complex, and requires electronics to track the bets. Those same electronics will tell the dealer who to pay and how much.

So, from an operations/procedures standpoint, it is simpler than Hit It Again.


Even so, I DO plan on writing up procedures. I've just been lazy about getting that part done. Thanks for giving me a kick in the pants.

Quote: Switch

In my opinion, any more than 8 payouts becomes cumbersome and ideally 5 or 6 payouts makes it easier to explain the overall concept.

Are you thinking about a side bet in 3CP or Let It Ride, where the dealer sometimes has to consult the table printing for the payout?

My idea will have the electronics tell the dealer (and players) what the result was, who to pay, and how much.

Does that make it less cumbersome?

---

I did think about reducing the number of payouts - but I wanted to do it so there was more money to spread around. If I got rid of the pair, the number of winners would drop from about 25% to 5%. That's just to infrequent a payment to be exciting (which was one of the problems with my Hit It Again bet).

Wild straight and wild quads, is less than 1/2% of all combinations - not enough to be significant. And infrequent enough that any delay caused when player wants clarification wouldn't be significant either.


If I get rid of payouts to make it simpler, I'd be more likely to get rid of the flush. Or at least the flush combinations.

---

For the record, I realize that when it goes to a limited field trial, that there will be no option for a progressive. If killing the wilds gets it to trial sooner, out they go!

I think it looks good (the brochure and the game). The main idea is cleanly presented in the big bubble on the front, and the pay table is included on the reverse side.

Wild cards zeros are not a bad idea - they're common and standard in poker, increase the frequency of hits rewarding players, and are a part of the game, - as you have got to use the zeros as an exception action for both games. Nice meld. I think it's spot-on.

I think Poker-For-Roulette is about as well developed as can be, and is pretty much ready-to-show or ship, - if some distributor says yes. It should work with any roulette tally board or automation, but some programming will be required.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

M.E. -

I do get what you're saying. Whenever I say that something will be up to the distributor, I say it because I assume that, no matter how much research I do, a distributor will know more about casino operations and what casinos want. I'll make my recommendations, but ultimately leave the decision to them - or to offer the same choices to the casino.

Why make that assumption? Don't rely on someone else to be the expert on your game for you. It's your product - you need to be the ultimate authority on it.

I met with a Vegas operator last week about my domino game. He said he had an improvement to the game, but when I found out what it was, I was able to talk through why it wouldn't work. It wasn't a bad idea - it was taken from another game he had seen where the same concept worked well - but when that idea was applied to my game it broke a few things. During that conversation, I learned what he *really* wanted out of the game, and now I can make a few minor tweaks and give him the product he wants. Now there's a very real chance I could get a trial, and even if I don't, it's likely to be a better game anyway. Point is, if you rely on your distributor to handle that whole process for you, you have much less (or maybe zero) feedback in the design cycle. The worst thing you can say about your game when an operator asks "what would happen if you changed X" is "I don't know". (That's different than saying "I'll have to run the numbers and get back to you.")

G2E always brings out the guys with a wish and a dream and six grand to spend on a booth. When you start asking them salient questions about how their game works under edge cases or non-standard situations, they almost never have the answers. I saw the "Casino Dominoes Match" game at G2E and the dealer was explaining how it was a very strategic game. I played a hand or two and then said that it seemed that the player's choice, when they had one, was irrelevant to the final outcome. She said "there's a situation where it does matter" but then she couldn't tell me what it was. Contrast that with a polished, successful company like ShuffleMaster or Galaxy or DEQ - when you ask them how their games work, they have the answers.

Here's a simpler way to look at it: if you can't train a junior dealer to teach your game to novice players, you're not ready to pitch it.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

If I get rid of payouts to make it simpler, I'd be more likely to get rid of the flush. Or at least the flush combinations.

About a minute after posting this, I left the house to do stuff with the wife. I thought of a revision a minute later. Sigh....

The flush combinations add lines to the pay table, but do not add winning combinations. Also, they actually caused me some emotional / math grief. A Full House or Quads will be flushed nearly half the time. Trips and Two Pair are flushed nearly a third of the time. Are either of those scenarios rare enough to deserve a higher payment? No, but I was forcing the issue.

On the flip side, I DO think that two numbers with three wilds that make a straight as well as quads is unique enough to get it's own payline - but I'll allow myself to get talked out of that when the time comes.

Quote: Paigowdan

Wild cards zeros are not a bad idea - they're common and standard in poker, increase the frequency of hits rewarding players, and are a part of the game, - as you have got to use the zeros as an exception action for both games. Nice meld. I think it's spot-on.

Thanks for the kind words, as well as confirmation that it makes sense to have the wild zeroes.


OK. I'm convinced that wilds stay, but flush combinations gotta go.

I'll revise my brochure and website in a day or two.

Quote: MathExtremist

Why make that assumption? Don't rely on someone else to be the expert on your game for you. It's your product - you need to be the ultimate authority on it.

I'm not assuming or relying on the distributor to be the expert on my game. I AM assuming / relying on them to know more than me about the inner workings and desires of the casino industry.

Quote: MathExtremist

I met with a Vegas operator last week about my domino game. He said .... when I learned what he *really* wanted ....

I already had a situation like that. When meeting with the distributor about Hit It Again, we almost locked horns about the fact that all players get the full payment amount, that it was NOT a shared prize. (Discussion about that is in the second paragraph of the Exposure section of the H-I-A Casino Advice page.) He didn't want to hear how the math supports my view. He mentioned that if two players at a Caribbean Stud both get Royals in the same hand, the first player gets the full progressive, and the second player gets the re-seed value. I argued that it wasn't the same thing, since in that case, the players are betting on individual outcomes. In my game, all players bet on the same outcome. If the jackpot is won by a single player one time, and by all 8 players the next time, yeah, the total payout is way different, but, over the long run, the casino's profit will be the same. They finally gave me the REAL reason for the objection: Aggregate payouts. They are there not so much to protect the casino's bottom line, but to limit how much the casino pays out at any one time.

That the top payout in Poker For Roulette is so much lower than in Hit It Again, and that it has a lower progressive increment, goes a long way to alleviating the aggregate problem.

For the record, it is my understanding that there are RapidRoulette installations in Asia with over 200 terminals running off a single wheel. It's easy to see why a casino would want an aggregate payout limit in such a situation, even though the math would show that it doesn't matter.

Quote: MathExtremist

G2E always brings out the guys with a wish and a dream and six grand to spend on a booth. When you start asking them salient questions about how their game works under edge cases or non-standard situations, they almost never have the answers. I saw the "Casino Dominoes Match" game at G2E and the dealer was explaining how it was a very strategic game. I played a hand or two and then said that it seemed that the player's choice, when they had one, was irrelevant to the final outcome. She said "there's a situation where it does matter" but then she couldn't tell me what it was. Contrast that with a polished, successful company like ShuffleMaster or Galaxy or DEQ - when you ask them how their games work, they have the answers.

Here's a simpler way to look at it: if you can't train a junior dealer to teach your game to novice players, you're not ready to pitch it.

Let me know if this is a good response:

Like all side bets, there are no player decisions. You place the bet, then wait to see if it won.

The way it works is kinda like a Video Poker machine. But one that is playing stud poker, and picking one card from each of five decks that have 38 non-standard cards.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

OK. I'm convinced that wilds stay, but flush combinations gotta go.

I'll revise my brochure and website in a day or two.

Is it a day or two yet?

I've revised the Math, Payouts and Misc pages on the Poker For Roulette website, to reflect these changes.

I've updated my PFR Brochure as well.

And, for those that are curious, I've archived the old versions of the pages and brochure.


Edit: For some reason, if you click the link to the brochure, thge tab says that it's a broken link, but the brochure DOES load a minute later....

I finally put up a page on the Casino Advice link. Previously it had "Page under construction."

This page includes dealer and floorperson procedures.

I changed the History page. It has much of the same info, just presented in a better, sequential, format.

From the second post on this page:

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Whenever I say that something will be up to the distributor, I say it because I assume that, no matter how much research I do, a distributor will know more about casino operations and what casinos want.

Of course, I will continue to do more research, in an attempt to find out what casinos want, and have it already prepared when asked for it.

Toward that end, I have come up with two additional pay tables.

Here's why I did it:

When I had a meeting with a distributor about Hit It Again, they seemed very concerned that the top prize was too high - particularly when we started to discuss whether or not there should be an aggregate cap.

Recently, either in a WoV thread, or linked from a thread, was the comment about a casino that got in trouble because it couldn't pay two $25,000 Keno prizes in the same day.

THAT really helped me to realize why the distributors were hung up on the size of my top prize. Maybe not so much that they argued with the math, but that a casino might get in trouble by not having the cash on hand to pay it.

So I created two new pay tables. They differ from the first two in that Two Pair and Three Of A Kind pay slightly more, while the various Five Of A Kind and Wild Five Of A Kind combinations pay slightly less. The other combinations haven't changed. The resulting house advantage changes, but only slightly.

So the pay tables page now shows four tables, side by side, along with a brief explanation of the key differences.

Here's a link to the Poker For Roulette website.

Here's a link to the archive of older web pages.

I've tweaked the wording on some of the pages.

In particular, I changed the History page on the Poker For Roulette site. I reference the history of Hit It Again as part of how I came up with the Poker bet, so I needed to have the history there up-to-date. As a result, I totally changed the History page on my Hit It Again website. That page now contains a fairly accurate account of the creation and demise of the Hit It Again concept.


Partly because I've been revising and improving my website, and in particular the pay tables, I haven't been trying too hard to get any game distributors attention. But now I think I've gone about as far as I can go with modifications, and it's time to get a distributor involved. Of course, holiday season and all, I'm not sure how far I'll get. But I'm going to start making calls and emails today.


As always, I appreciate any comments about the concept as well as web site.

Thanks.

While I was at the Sands this past weekend, I took a picture of an interesting history display, and added it to the two other displays on my Misc page.




When doing that, I realized that a Wild Four of a Kind, often contains a Three of a Kind - and that I had it paying LESS than a Three of a Kind, and in fact, the same or less than Two Pair!

I then tweaked the payouts and updated the Payout page as well.

And, I archived the prior version in my Old Version section.

As I mentioned in another thread, my wife wants me to play some Roulette, and to keep this side bet in mind as I play.

I keep asking her "Why?" but she doesn't give me a concrete answer.

Although I came up with this side bet idea, I'm not really that much of a Roulette player. I've played enough to know all the various terms for the various combination bets and such, and the payouts for those bets. The only thing that still confuses me is the different ways even money bets are handled when the spin results in 0 or 00. But, considering that the rules are casino, or jurisdiction specific, I don't think it's such a bad thing that I don't know those rules.

When I play, I prefer to play Rapid Roulette because it's faster, and cheaper.

But with limited time in the casino, I'd rather play the games that I enjoy more. Specifically, Craps and Poker.

My feeling is that whatever my wife thinks I'll learn, I can just as easily learn by checking out the Roulette displays as I make my bathroom trips. That's when I took the third picture above. Note that I know my bet wont pay off the big winners often. Heck, many times I've seen a display that shows no winning combinations at all. I think I got very lucky when I saw that display and took picture!


That said, do you think I should play Roulette, specifically with my side bet in mind? And if so, what do you think I'll gain?

I was seeing where the confusion came up as for the payouts and ect. and while Ive basicly been scanning the threads instead of really reading it;

but; has it been considered doing this bet in 'blocks'- like every 6th outcome is open for this bet (sort of like the on/off tag for crapps)- that way you can hold all payouts for until the 'hand' is finished and not worry about the constant action/cover of the chips on this bet. It would also provide a more attractive non-system tracked effect. adding tracking systems costs money and additional issues whereas blocking it out just puts it on the croupie. I dont see what the big deal is with 3 of a kind including two of a kind so long as you wait for the entire hand to unfold and pay the highest match.

another idea- if you made the bet continuous each hand is you could add the information to the already displayed history numbers window- you could put a little colored dash next to the number to corespond to the players chipcolor to show which number is is first on the bonus bet.

8
4
-3
13
12
12
20

I get the various points you're talking about, but there are several reasons they I've gone the other way.


1 - When I said "Wild Four of a Kind often contains a Three of a Kind" where I was going was, Wild Quads occur far more often than Natural Quads, therefore shouldn't pay as much. Except I had them paying less than Trips. That was simply an error on my part when creating the Paytables, rather than a 'problem'.

2 - Playing the bet in "blocks" is bad for several reasons:

A - When I originally created the Hit It Again bet, my big concern was that it be simple to operate without special electronics. When I presented it to the game distributor, they said electronics are not as big of an issue as I was thinking. Additionally, my idea of not allowing a player to come in "mid-stream" is, essentially, preventing a player from making a high house edge sucker bet. You never want to prevent that.

B - As I pointed out on the Poker For Roulette - Misc info page, betting once every 5 spins you could miss many additional winners.

C - I think you're over-thinking the electronics issues. On the Betting page, I describe, and have illustrated, a simple player bet tracking system.

D - It's funny you compare it to craps. On some levels, I compare this idea to the FireBet. I totally get how you have to bet the FireBet before the shooter's first point, but do not understand why a later better can't get in, if the first roll was not a point.


But thanks for the comments!

Some posts by discflicker have been split off to a separate thread: discflicker program.

So, DJ, You don't want to provide that piece of code for me or for your customers?

Do you want me to go ahead and create the framework for wagers like that?

Or, do you not want me to try to create an automated demo of your wager at all?

Thanks.

I just want to play the game... it really looks like fun!

BTW, I'm not trying to hijack your thread, this is a real bussiness proposal for you. Sorry about the long verbage.

Quote: Wizard

Some posts by discflicker have been split off to a separate thread: discflicker program.

diskflicker -

The Wizard has graciously split off your ideas and inquiries to a separate thread.

You'll find my reply there.

Please confine your posts in this thread to comments about my idea. Use the other thread for comments about your idea.

Anyone reading this post..

This bet will be fun fun fun to play.

It will play kind of like the FireBet in craps, right along with the game, but Roulette is BORING so this bet is gonna be a big hit !!!

Thanks.

I often said of the FireBet: It's about time somebody figured out how to put a jackpot on a craps table. I've attempted to do the same thing for a Roulette table.

Note that I disagree with your assessment that Roulette is boring. YOU may find it boring. Those that play it do not. I know people that think Craps is boring. It's all a matter of perspective.

I respectfully disagree with your disagrement, SIR, and I'm willing to place some good plastic on a wager to prove it!

I will bet you one premium disc golf disc that if we start a poll, you will lose... the pool will read something like this:

A) You believe that Live Craps is more boring than live Roulette.

b) You beleive that live Roulette is more boring than live Craps.


AND I will take that bet at INFINATE odds... if I win, you pay nothing, but if you win, I will pay good plastic.