Poker For Roulette - side bet

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I won't leave it to the casino to figure out. I expect it to be one of the math reports I'll get. But I also feel confident that it's going to confirm my position and not your claim.

Once again, I'm glad that you’re at least considering it. I didn’t see anything about it either on your web site, though.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Switch -
Thanks for backing me up on this.

Before you consider it a dead topic, I suggest that you think about it a bit more thoroughly.

I think Switch is correct in assuming that Poker-For-Roulette will increase Roulette play because of players wanting to try out hedging strategies to take advantage of it.

But I also think there IS an advantage, I think I can demonstrate. This is NOT the same as the true odds bet in craps enhancing the payout of the flat. I understand the true odds bet… trueoddsbet.com and trueplacebet.com are both MY websites.

DJ, this bet is really cool BECAUSE of its ability to affect subsequent play. It brings DECISION MAKING into the (otherwise mindless) game of Roulette just like blackjack and poker.

You just don’t find that in many casino games. A LOT of players prefer to only play games where their decisions CAN affect the outcome. Your bet now allows them to play Roulette, or at least try it out.

Quote: discflicker

But I also think there IS an advantage, I think I can demonstrate. This is NOT the same as the true odds bet in craps enhancing the payout of the flat. I understand the true odds bet… trueoddsbet.com and trueplacebet.com are both MY websites.

Neither of those sites are working at present. They redirect to something like :: http://69.133.85.205/downloads/SpikerSystems/e_Gamers/PlayerLoad

Quote: discflicker

Once again, I'm glad that you’re at least considering it. I didn’t see anything about it either on your web site, though.

I'm assuming you meant that you hadn't previously seen it. I gave you the link as well as quoted the entire section in my post on the prior page.

Quote: discflicker

Before you consider it a dead topic, I suggest that you think about it a bit more thoroughly.

You can be sure that although I don't agree with your arguments, I will certainly be asking whatever math guru I end up using if your claims have any merit.

Quote: discflicker

I think Switch is correct in assuming that Poker-For-Roulette will increase Roulette play because of players wanting to try out hedging strategies to take advantage of it.
...
DJ, this bet is really cool BECAUSE of its ability to affect subsequent play. It brings DECISION MAKING into the (otherwise mindless) game of Roulette just like blackjack and poker.

Frankly, I believe people playing the side bet may make regular bets to ENHANCE their potential payout, not hedge against it.

For example, suppose the last four spins were 0, 20, 00, 23. If any of those numbers hit next, you've hit a Wild Four Of A Kind with Wild Straight. On two of my paytables, it pays $75. Also, if the next spin is 19, 21, 22 or 24, you've hit a Wild Straight, which pays $35. Unless I'm missing the point, hedging would be a $2 bet on all other numbers, and $1 on 19, 21, 22 and 24. This would mean putting $64 out there to win either $75 if 0, 20, 00 or 23 hit for a net of $11; $35 plus $35 if 19, 21, 22 or 24 hit, for a net of $7; or $70 if any other number hits, for a net of $8.

Is that REALLY what you're suggesting I have to be worried about?

Frankly, I would think most players would throw a buck or two on those 8 numbers, to enhance their winnings if it hits.


In much the same way, I often hop the two missing points on come-outs after the 4 spot Fire Bet hits. (Sigh, I haven't yet had the opportunity to hop one number after a 5 spot Fire Bet hit...)

Quote: discflicker

I took a photo of the Sandia casino in New Mexico from the outside...

I asked them if I could take any photos inside. Then they told me that the entire casino and all the land (yes, including the mountain) can't be photographed because it's all sacred. Its a digital photo, though, so I figured the old ways don't apply.

There is a sacred mountain near me that is much more sensitive than that. You can't even point at it. If you do you get a flat tire!

I have seen it happen several times. Won't let any nubies with me point.

Quote: thecesspit

Neither of those sites are working at present. They redirect to something like :: http://69.133.85.205/downloads/SpikerSystems/e_Gamers/PlayerLoad

Yea, they just changed my IP, they do it about every 6 months. I wrote a cool program launch tool that overcomes it... it allows the player to not have to re-load the software every time the IP gets changed by doing a lookup, and so I only need to change the IP forward at the provider, which I just did.

Right now I'm just using these 2 sites for forwarding pointers, but the ARE my sites, and I DO understand these bets.


Thanks for the heads up.

Quote: kenarman

There is a sacred mountain near me that is much more sensitive than that. You can't even point at it. If you do you get a flat tire!

I have seen it happen several times. Won't let any nubies with me point.

I know!! At a disc golf tourney in Alb, and they told me that mountain IS God!!! My brother had a beautiful place in Placitas way up on the North side... I lived there for a while... I LOVED driving down the mountain every day, being able to see 3 separate mountain ranges at the same time, including El-Capitan!

Quote: discflicker

Yea, they just changed my IP, they do it about every 6 months. I wrote a cool program launch tool that overcomes it... it allows the player to not have to re-load the software every time the IP gets changed by doing a lookup, and so I only need to change the IP forward at the provider, which I just did.

Right now I'm just using these 2 sites for forwarding pointers, but the ARE my sites, and I DO understand these bets.


Thanks for the heads up.

Okay, I have no idea whats meant to be at those sites, and if it's meant to be human readable, but it certainly doesn't look that way in Chrome. Are they some sort of funky pointer for some software on your tool?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'm assuming you meant that you hadn't previously seen it. I gave you the link as well as quoted the entire section in my post on the prior page.

That was about the split jackpot, this is about players being able to take advantage of the situations presented in your PFR bet IN the game of Roulette, for example, hedging.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You can be sure that although I don't agree with your arguments, I will certainly be asking whatever math guru I end up using if your claims have any merit.

That good, DJ.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Frankly, I believe people playing the side bet may make regular bets to ENHANCE their potential payout, not hedge against it.

For example, suppose the last four spins were 0, 20, 00, 23. If any of those numbers hit next, you've hit a Wild Four Of A Kind with Wild Straight. On two of my paytables, it pays $75. Also, if the next spin is 19, 21, 22 or 24, you've hit a Wild Straight, which pays $35. Unless I'm missing the point, hedging would be a $2 bet on all other numbers, and $1 on 19, 21, 22 and 24. This would mean putting $64 out there to win either $75 if 0, 20, 00 or 23 hit for a net of $11; $35 plus $35 if 19, 21, 22 or 24 hit, for a net of $7; or $70 if any other number hits, for a net of $8.

Is that REALLY what you're suggesting I have to be worried about?

Frankly, I would think most players would throw a buck or two on those 8 numbers, to enhance their winnings if it hits.


In much the same way, I often hop the two missing points on come-outs after the 4 spot Fire Bet hits. (Sigh, I haven't yet had the opportunity to hop one number after a 5 spot Fire Bet hit...)

OF COURSE THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I think you get it now, so I will leave it to you or anyone else to come up with some more situations like it, and I think there are a LOT of 'em.

Here is one from me, and anyone else is welcome to add to it...

When 2 of a kind (or more) are in slots 3 and 4, for the next 2 rolls, the house edge on all Roulette bets HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. I think its something they might want to consider.

Thanks for your patients DJ, I think your starting to see I'm not completely full of shit.

Yea, right now they're used as forwarding pointers. I don't want to step on DJs thread but check out the links and stuff in crapless-dont.com.

Quote: discflicker

When 2 of a kind (or more) are in slots 3 and 4, for the next 2 rolls, the house edge on all Roulette bets HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. I think its something they might want to consider.

That is false. You're implying that the probabilities change from 1/38 to something else, which doesn't happen. Even if it did, by the pigeonhole principle, there is no probability distribution for the 38 possible outcomes which can eliminate the house edge on "all roulette bets". If the house edge on the inside numbers 1..36 were all 0%, then the house edge on the 0 and 00 bets would be 100%.

You're getting very close to believing in the betting systems mumbo-jumbo, where combining two or more -EV bets can magically turn your results into a +EV situation. That's a seductive line of reasoning for the greedy and gullible, but it's wrong.

MathEx

This is what I'm trying to explain, looks like maybe I didn’t do a good job of it. Now, I might be wrong on this one (I doubt it), but this is exactly what needs to be discussed, and why DJ is lucky to be a part of this forum (I think).

Look at it this way, the house has a Roulette wheel sitting there, doing whatever it's been doing for the past 50 years. Along comes DJ and sells them his side wager. When he sells it, he doesn’t say shit about how the side bet might affect the 50 year old mainstay. THIS is the question at hand.

Like I said before, this is not the same as thinking that by adding true odds onto a craps flat bet it increases the flat bet's payback. We all know that alone doesn't help the flat bet itself, but the overall game play is definitely enhanced... not so much from a pure mathematical stance, but it actually DOES cost the house something to process all bets, including true odds bets, and getting closer to an overall zero house edge is what that’s really all about.

For THIS question at hand, I think that does play into the considerations, however I believe with this particular bet, because of its introduction of decision making and it’s ability to affect subsequent play, that it goes BEYOND that and into actual player advantages in the Roulette game, enabled directly from the side bet.

And while you continue to harass me, MathEx, by pointing out STUPID arguments based upon you’re continuous misinterpretations of what I say, even when you know God-dammed well what I mean, I can take your own example to prove what I'm suggesting.

ALL RIGHT, it only eliminates the entire house edge on all of the NON-GREEN bets. SORRY!!! OK ??? ggrrrrr…

On average, every 38 rolls or so, and DO NOT TRY to mess with me on the details here, you know what I MEAN, the same spin repeats itself. Anyone playing DJs awesome Poker-For-Roulette side bet now has some leverage on the SUBSEQUENT Roulette table bets. For the next 3 spins, all of the NON-GREEN bets have zero house edge because if the green hits, it will pay, hopefully enough to cover the amounts lost, if not, less than zero, but YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

The thing is, this is INDEPENDENT of anything that was going on for the past 50 years, AND THUS, needs to be considered.

This is actually a poor example, showing a minimal gain from the side bet. By now, I’m sure that DJ and hopefully others have found more strategies to take advantage of this leverage.

MathEx, if you just want to argue with me for no reason, fine, but this is now at the expense of DJs project, and I’m really trying to help him out. If I am wrong about this, so be it, but please don’t use stupid tactics like this to argue with me, especially when you know (through the pigeon hole or however you wanted to downplay it) I’m right.

Dang! Sorry for the long post.

Quote: discflicker

And while you continue to harass me, MathEx, by pointing out STUPID arguments based upon you’re continuous misinterpretations of what I say, even when you know God-dammed well what I mean, I can take your own example to prove what I'm suggesting.

Actually, I have no idea what you mean in your above posts at all, or what your suggesting.

However, is your point this :

Player makes a single PFR bet.

Spin 1 is 25
Spin 2 is 27
Player now has 25/27 on their poker for roulette bet. Any Green number gives them a pair on the next three spins or any 25 or 27 as well. How does this make any bet on roulette +EV? Whats the current EV of the original PFR bet (it's got to be less than when placed)?

Or do you mean this situation :

Player makes a single PFR bet.

Spin 1 is 25
Spin 2 is 25

They've already hit a pair and their PFR bet is a push, meaning they are "free rolling" for any 25 or any wild on the next 3 spins. I don't see how adding a bet on the rest of the layout bar 25 and zero's is anything more than a hedge.

The PFR bet obviously now has an expected value greater than 1 BUT its half over... if had a strategy to always hedge my PFR bets when they hit a certain positive EV, all I'll be doing is lowering the total I'm paid out, with no change in the total rake by the house on the table bets and the PFR bet combined.

Unless someone can show me otherwise. In a simple clear step by step set of maths rather than a screed that is very hard to follow.

thecesspit

Thank you for criticizing what I say and not how I stutter (which I actually do).

The example you provide is showing a hedge advantage, something I claimed I thought was possible, although I believe there are also ways to actually make it a +EV.

The point is this:

Situations can arise with the side-bet that the player can THEN act upon, for example, a player can play only the side bet and wait for n - n (like 25 - 25) and ONLY THEN, make non-green bets on the Roulette table. This player is playing the Roulette game at free odds. This capability got introduced by the side-bet.

I didn’t see any discussions about such strategies on DJs web site and so I'm bringing it to his attention. That’s all there is to it.


Sorry about my long posts and rants...

Quote: discflicker

ALL RIGHT, it only eliminates the entire house edge on all of the NON-GREEN bets. SORRY!!! OK ??? ggrrrrr…

On average, every 38 rolls or so, and DO NOT TRY to mess with me on the details here, you know what I MEAN, the same spin repeats itself. Anyone playing DJs awesome Poker-For-Roulette side bet now has some leverage on the SUBSEQUENT Roulette table bets. For the next 3 spins, all of the NON-GREEN bets have zero house edge because if the green hits, it will pay, hopefully enough to cover the amounts lost, if not, less than zero, but YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

A hedge with a guaranteed win is not the same as no house edge. Your example is equivalent to saying that once you get past the come-out roll and establish a point number, you can hedge your don't bet with a place bet and guarantee a win. That's true, but both the don't bet and the place bets still have a house edge. After the come-out, the don't bet has a conditional +EV. Hedging with a place bet is simply making a -EV bet to drastically reduce variance.

But that's not what you said. You said that there is zero house edge, and that's false. The probability of hitting a 0 (green) or 12 (non-green) is 1/38 each, and the payout on both is 36 for 1. Neither the probability nor the payout of those bets changes whether the Poker-for-Roulette bet is made or not, or even whether it's present on the layout. Therefore, the house edge on both 0 and 12 is constant (at -2/38).

Adding another wager to roulette does not, under any circumstances, change the EV of the existing wagers. You can make whatever hedging combinations you want, but hedging does not change the house edge. Like any other form of bet combinations, it just changes the distribution of outcomes.

Quote: discflicker

Quote: DJTeddyBear

For example, suppose the last four spins were 0, 20, 00, 23. If any of those numbers hit next, you've hit a Wild Four Of A Kind with Wild Straight. On two of my paytables, it pays $75. Also, if the next spin is 19, 21, 22 or 24, you've hit a Wild Straight, which pays $35. Unless I'm missing the point, hedging would be a $2 bet on all other numbers, and $1 on 19, 21, 22 and 24. This would mean putting $64 out there to win either $75 if 0, 20, 00 or 23 hit for a net of $11; $35 plus $35 if 19, 21, 22 or 24 hit, for a net of $7; or $70 if any other number hits, for a net of $8.

Is that REALLY what you're suggesting I have to be worried about?

OF COURSE THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

It seems like you're saying I have to warn casinos that there are situations, like the one I described here, that allows a patron to add $64 to his $1 PFR bet, to turn a potential $75 win, into a guaranteed win between $8 and $11.

Am I right? THAT'S the danger I have to put into my description / website?

Quote: thecesspit

Spin 1 is 25
Spin 2 is 27
Player now has 25/27 on their poker for roulette bet. Any Green number gives them a pair on the next three spins or any 25 or 27 as well.

You are giving too much power to the wild 0 and 00. I NEVER had it enable an automatic pair. I originally had it work when the hand had a pair or better, or when it completed a straight or flush.

On November 17th, I changed that so it's only wild to complete a straight, four of a kind, or five of a kind.

If you have X, Y, 0, 0, you have a pair because of the 0 and 0. But you also have a huge draw, since another X, Y, 0 or a 00 enables the wilds and gives you quads. And, I guess DiscFlicker would say that you can now hedge to turn that potential big payout into a guaranteed small profit. Yawn.

MathEx

Thank you for that civil response.

In your craps game example, any hedging strategies that go on within it are already a part of that game… it’s already been established. Likewise, a Roulette table sitting there for years is already established, but then an external factor (the PRF bet) is introduced. Do we need to consider this? Does it have any impact on the established game? That’s what I’m trying to focus upon.

In an example I just described, a player sits on the PRF bet, not playing any Roulette until a consecutive tripple is spun. For the next 2 spins this player can NOW choose to make non-green Roulette bets with zero house advantage, true of false .. WAIT – don’t look at it literally, I’m driving at the point that an outside influence was introduced into the Roulette game. In this particular situation, unless the PFR side bet somehow compensates for this, isn’t the house now at a loss (or at least, less profitable than before)?

The independent booking of the 2 –EV bets is what makes this hedging work… it’s unique to DJs bet (and to the FireBet, but on a much more limited scale).

With the FireBet, I have yet to see a house allow me to book it without REQUIRENING line action on the first come-out roll. In Greektown Casino downtown, they allow players to book $1 props and hard ways bets but don’t allow a FireBet to be made without the line bet. Could they have recognized something here? Requiring a line bet prevents players from sitting on $1 FireBets and then cherry-picking what numbers to bet on what it starts hitting. It makes the booking of these 2 –EV bets non-independent from each other.

To prevent “cherry picking”, by requiring, say, an equivalent minimum bet on the Roulette table when a PFR side-bet is made would serve to eliminate cherry-picking, and it’s again something for DJ to consider.

As far being able to make +EV from the PFR bet, I still think there can be situations in this particular bet, and this all should be investigated.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yawn.

Try yawning in front of the customer who asks you to explain the exact impact of these exact scenarios you just described, regardless of how trivial you GUESS the impact will be. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared for such questions? If the house suspects any unaccounted possible losses, don't you think they will DEMAND to fully understand what those losses are, even if you yawn and say "oh, dont worry, it prolly wont be too much"? At that point, don't you think they will then ask you "what else dont you know about this bet youre trying to sell us?", to which you wll reply, "gee, I hadnt thought about it... I was kind of leaving that up to my distibutor".


good luck with your bet, DJ.

Quote: discflicker

To prevent “cherry picking”, by requiring, say, an equivalent minimum bet on the Roulette table when a PFR side-bet is made would serve to eliminate cherry-picking, and it’s again something for DJ to consider.

HOLY CRAP!!!

Is THAT your concern? Why the hell didn't you say so to begin with?!?!?


Have you ever read my Rules Page? Probably not. Considering you're starting to spout ideas about the rules, didn't it occur to you that you should have checked it first?

Quote: Rules page - Paragraph 4

Players must meet the table minimum in order to place a jackpot bet. There is no need to make additional bets to keep a previously placed unresolved jackpot bet active.

Quote: discflicker

In an example I just described, a player sits on the PRF bet, not playing any Roulette until a consecutive tripple is spun. For the next 2 spins this player can NOW choose to make non-green Roulette bets with zero house advantage, true of false .. WAIT – don’t look at it literally, I’m driving at the point that an outside influence was introduced into the Roulette game. In this particular situation, unless the PFR side bet somehow compensates for this, isn’t the house now at a loss (or at least, less profitable than before)?

No, not on a percentage basis. The PFR bet is not an outside influence. It is not an influence at all. The presence or absence of a PFR bet does not change the probability of winning any other roulette wager, nor the payouts thereon, and therefore does not change the house edge of any other roulette wager. The house edge on non-green Roulette bets is still -2/38.

The only reason the house would be less profitable is if the player's theo decreases as a result of not making other roulette wagers, instead only sitting there on the PFR bet until a hedge opportunity arose. That's not related to the PFR bet specifically, just the overall notion that certain propositions may drive more or less wagering action. If the PFR bet acts as an incentive to bet less, it will not perform and the casino will take it off. I doubt that would occur; it'd probably act as an incentive to bet more, especially in the hedge situations you brought up. It's like taking a collar in the stock market, or even-money in BJ. Not necessarily the best % return, but a guaranteed one nonetheless.

However, there is no circumstance in which adding the PFR, which has a house edge of 19% (I recall), can *decrease* the house edge of the other existing roulette bets. To repeat myself, the odds and payouts of the other bets don't change regardless of whether the PFR bet is there, so the house edge of those other bets doesn't change either.

Quote:

As far being able to make +EV from the PFR bet, I still think there can be situations in this particular bet, and this all should be investigated.

No, it can't, and no, it shouldn't. There is nothing about the PFR bet that is different than any other bet from an EV standpoint, and combining two roulette bets with -EVs -- any two bets -- doesn't ever make the combination +EV. If you have a counter-example, I'd love to see it.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You are giving too much power to the wild 0 and 00. I NEVER had it enable an automatic pair. I originally had it work when the hand had a pair or better, or when it completed a straight or flush.

On November 17th, I changed that so it's only wild to complete a straight, four of a kind, or five of a kind.

If you have X, Y, 0, 0, you have a pair because of the 0 and 0. But you also have a huge draw, since another X, Y, 0 or a 00 enables the wilds and gives you quads. And, I guess DiscFlicker would say that you can now hedge to turn that potential big payout into a guaranteed small profit. Yawn.

Ah, no worries, I missed that when flicking through the rules earlier when trying to decipher the issue being raised by discflicker. I had imagined that 0/00 was always a wild, but didn't peruse the rules in detail. I'd suggest that assumption I made, while my error, may be an issue to clean up. I know it's on the pay table page (I just re-read it). It's entirely possible I'm the only one ever to make that mistake. I'd wait to see if anyone else does before worrying about it, naturally.

Quote: discflicker

The independent booking of the 2 –EV bets is what makes this hedging work… it’s unique to DJs bet (and to the FireBet, but on a much more limited scale).

With the FireBet, I have yet to see a house allow me to book it without REQUIRENING line action on the first come-out roll. In Greektown Casino downtown, they allow players to book $1 props and hard ways bets but don’t allow a FireBet to be made without the line bet. Could they have recognized something here? Requiring a line bet prevents players from sitting on $1 FireBets and then cherry-picking what numbers to bet on what it starts hitting. It makes the booking of these 2 –EV bets non-independent from each other.

To prevent “cherry picking”, by requiring, say, an equivalent minimum bet on the Roulette table when a PFR side-bet is made would serve to eliminate cherry-picking, and it’s again something for DJ to consider.

As far being able to make +EV from the PFR bet, I still think there can be situations in this particular bet, and this all should be investigated.

I'd suggest you create this bet or a similar model example (maybe using the 3 Dice system you have) to see that you can't hedge multiple -EV bets into a positive overall. Or at least give a concrete set of bets that could do what you describe. I think your surmising a result that won't play out if you run the numbers.

This isn't an example of Parrondo's Paradox (which is rather odd as it relates the odds of winning to the size of the bank roll on one of the bets, not the case here as far as I can tell).

Or if it is, that's worth something to DJ.

DJ, my appologies, first off, before your reply I thought a wild could be applied to a pair. I also missed that matching bet requirement in the rules... without it the two bets are independent. Now I'm thinking about ways to just match the minimum to establish the first bet then sit on the PFR the next 2 or 3 spins, and optionally cherry pick then. I'll let you know if and when I can actually demonstrate any winning strategies.

Math and cess, thanks for your input.

Quote: discflicker

DJ, my appologies...

Don't worry about it. Although I think you're wrong, I enjoyed sparring with you, and also enjoyed the mental exersice it's given me.

---

Regarding the FireBet: I have NEVER been required to place a pass line bet before placing the FireBet. The casino that requires it is foolish, since there are many players like me who willingly place that high HA bet, but do not make pass line bets at all - or at least not unless they are shooting. Of course they allow it since we make plenty of place bets and some prop bets.

---

For what it's worth, I originally decided to put in the rule requiring a table minimum to play the side bet, not to thwart any hedge opportunities, but simple economics. There's limited seating. Just like side bets at any other game, they won't let you play the side bet if you're not playing the main game.

On the flip side, I considered that the PFR bet might be popular all by itself. As such, I envision having a kiosk where a patron can place the bet for a specific number of successive games, and return later to see the results. Kinda like a self-service keno or lottery machine. I wrote about it in the Casino Advice - Side Action section.

Mind you, I'm not spending two cents on developing that idea until after the PFR gets installed, proves successful, and makes me money.

But, if that day ever comes, I assume that you're gonna then say that a player could use the kiosk in much same the manner you're describing, to then cherry pick their moment to get into the game.

OK. I've been rattling it around.

The odds of a $35 or higher payout are only 1 in 1,529. I'll have to run the numbers to see the odds of having hand to draw to a $35 winner after only four spins.

For the sake of argument, let's say the odds of the $35 drawing hand are 1 in 500. For every $500 bet at the kiosk, you will by accident, win about $415. So you're really only risking $85. To get your one chance to hedge.

Hell, let's say the odds of having a $35 drawing hand after 4 spins is only 1 in 100. You bet $100 and win about $83, so you lose $17, to get your one chance to hedge.

In my example on the prior page, the hedge turned a potential $75 into a guaranteed $8-$11. At one hedge per hundred, that guaranteed $8-$11 cost $6-$9.

There are other hedge opportunities that guarantee bigger payoffs, but they will be more rare. How long will the person sit around waiting for them?

According to Ask The Wizard # 136, with 3 players, there is an average of 60 spins per hour. At one chance in 100, your opportunity comes along, more-or-less, every hour and a half. Even if there was only one player, at 112 spins per hour, it's still a long, slow wait for your opportunity.

How different is that kiosk from some of the stuff I've described? What you're considering doing is what I'm trying to get patented, and that is mapping the outcome of randomizations of disparate live games into other games, and make wagering available across all of them.

I'm repeating myself here, but you are crossing over into the future, all because of the "all bets down" signaling that synchs the manual act with the gaming computer.

I'm more than interested in these developments.

I'll assume for the moment that your idea will fit perfectly into my kiosk idea.

Moving forward with my kiosk idea is something I am not going to think about until my game gets installed, and starts making me money.

If all goes well, that might be in about five years.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'll assume for the moment that your idea will fit perfectly into my kiosk idea.

Moving forward with my kiosk idea is something I am not going to think about until my game gets installed, and starts making me money.

If all goes well, that might be in about five years.

DJ, I started writing a response to this, but it grew to the point of another thread hijack. So instead, I started a new thread to discuss the issues of electronic signaliing in live gaming. Please check it out, it really written for you.

Thanks!

Quote: thecesspit

Ah, no worries, I missed that when flicking through the rules earlier when trying to decipher the issue being raised by discflicker. I had imagined that 0/00 was always a wild, but didn't peruse the rules in detail. I'd suggest that assumption I made, while my error, may be an issue to clean up. I know it's on the pay table page (I just re-read it). It's entirely possible I'm the only one ever to make that mistake. I'd wait to see if anyone else does before worrying about it, naturally.

Actually, reference to the greens being wild only for straights and four- and five-of-a-kind is in several places: Twice on the Misc page, once each on the Math and Payouts page, and once each on the brochure and old versions page - both of which are linked from my Casino Advice page.

But with so many opportunities to see it, and you still missed it, suggests to me that, when the time comes, I'll put it on the table felt printing as well.

From my post on page 9:

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I ran three separate trials of 500 million spins. That was actually the easy part. It took a little more work to get analysis in Excel.

I'll probably publish my data and Excel document in a couple days, but here's a preview of my results...

A bunch of stuff:

A few days later, I edited that post (but not the chart), to include a comment that I discovered I had used an old pay table for the chart. The actual house edge is not about 19%, but about 16-17%.

I finally created a Simulations Page on my website to show the results of the three 500 million spin simulations. It has a lot more detail than the litlle chart in that post.

As a result of that analysis, and conversations I've had with Dan, as well as various posts I've read in various areas of WoV, I created 8 additional pay tables, with house edges ranging from 23% to 33%. Although mentioned on the website, none of these are detailed in any way.

I originally had the jackpot re-seed only when the 100% prize was awarded. I believed that the partial payouts would not affect the prize pool too severly, but would be enough to keep the pool from skyrocketting too much. Quite the opposite happened. The prize pool sometimes dipped to levels as low as $1! So I added a Top-Off function so that the pool re-loads anytime it dips below the seed point. As a result, the prizes were higher, but still never skyrocketted much beyond triple the seed amount.

Since every Wild Straight that uses three wilds is automatically also a Wild Four Of A Kind, I'm toying with eliminating the payline for the Wild Straights WITH Wild Four Of A Kind combo. This increases the house edge between 1/2% and 1%, depending on the difference between the wild combo payout and the wild straight payout.

I'm toying with the idea of creating separate paylines for each wild straight and wild quad, based upon the number of wilds used - similar to the way the wild five-of-a-kind has separate paylines. Doing so would require me to re-do my original math analysis, as well as to repeat the 500 million spin simulations, but, so be it.

I'm toying with making the Excel document and data public.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Since every Wild Straight that uses three wilds is automatically also a Wild Four Of A Kind, I'm toying with eliminating the payline for the Wild Straights WITH Wild Four Of A Kind combo. This increases the house edge between 1/2% and 1%, depending on the difference between the wild combo payout and the wild straight payout.

I'm toying with the idea of creating separate paylines for each wild straight and wild quad, based upon the number of wilds used - similar to the way the wild five-of-a-kind has separate paylines. Doing so would require me to re-do my original math analysis, as well as to repeat the 500 million spin simulations, but, so be it.

I redid my math analysis last night. No need to redo my 500 million spin simulations. The numbers don't support breaking out separate lines for the number of wilds in Quads and Straights the way it does for Five of a Kinds.

79,235,168 Combinations	1 Wild Green	2 Wild Greens	3 Wild Greens	4 Wild Greens
Four of a Kind	50,400	151,200	79,360	-
Straight	31,920	46,980	20,540	-
Five of a Kind	360	1,440	2,880	2,880

It took a while for me to wrap my head around those numbers. That there are more ways to make Quads with 3 wilds than 1 makes sense. But more straights with 1 wild rather than three? And considerably more of each with 2 wilds? It was the same type of thing that originally had me confused that there are the same number of Five of a Kinds with three wilds as with four wilds.

Similarly, the 20,540 Straights with 3 wilds, are also Wild Quads, but aren't significantly small enough to keep the combo payout line, so it's gone.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

As a result of that analysis, and conversations I've had with Dan, as well as various posts I've read in various areas of WoV, I created 8 additional pay tables, with house edges ranging from 23% to 33%. Although mentioned on the website, none of these are detailed in any way.

I originally had the jackpot re-seed only when the 100% prize was awarded. I believed that the partial payouts would not affect the prize pool too severly, but would be enough to keep the pool from skyrocketting too much. Quite the opposite happened. The prize pool sometimes dipped to levels as low as $1! So I added a Top-Off function so that the pool re-loads anytime it dips below the seed point. As a result, the prizes were higher, but still never skyrocketted much beyond triple the seed amount.

A couple of things:

1) 33% is way too tight. 25% is the maximum edge in NV anyway - it's illegal to go higher. New Jersey is only 17%.

2) In most cases, you won't have to worry about jackpot implementation, accrual rates, or whatever. Whatever system you hook into should have the ability to handle partial and total jackpot meter pays based on whatever award(s) trigger the payouts. It's just a question of taking some % of coin-in and putting it into the meter. How that gets distributed is tweakable by the system. This is basically what I was telling discflicker before -- you (the inventor) don't need to do the fine-tuning of the jackpot parameters. That's done in consultation between the vendor and the casino operator. It's almost always going to be different from property to property anyway, and operators are used to dialing in progressive games to suit their own targets (meter growth rate, hit %, etc.) That's been going on in slots for a long time.

I had already put in my website that casinos can change many elements of the bet, including individual payouts, partial jackpot splits, jackpot seed and the meter increment. I know I don't have to "worry" about it, but I feel it's important to have some pre-set paytables so I can answer questions, as well as to have a starting point from which a casino can tweak.

And, bottom line, I needed them when creating my simulations. That caused me to learn stuff too! For example, the need to top-off when the prize pool dips below the reseed point. It wasn't until I started playing with the data in Excel did I realize just how much the jackpot increment affects the edge, and how little the jackpot seed affects it. Now, it's like, DUH!

I was at the Sands this past weekend. I saw the sign in the poker room about the Bad Beat. Not only is a portion of the rake reserved to replenish it after it hits (this is well known), but a fraction was also skimmed off to return the casino's original investment in the jackpot. I assume the same thing happens in other progressive jackpots, including my bet. By playing in Excel with a $0 jackpot seed, I was able to see how that affects the edge. I'm gonna tweak my Excel document to better account for this, so I get a more accurate edge calculation.

Yeah, 33% is too tight. I didn't like what a gambler would think of the payouts I needed to achieve 33%. I didn't realize that 25% is the limit. I thought someone had mentioned in some thread that some progressives are as high as 50%! So I headed towards tighter.

But if 17% is the NJ limit, I'll create a few in the 10%-15% range. I like loose!

50% is for state lottery jackpots. Gaming progressives are just bolt-ons to a regular game. What I'd probably do is a few base game payout levels, maybe 12%, 15%, 17%, 20%, etc. and then put in whatever progressive rate you want. A 15% base game with a 3% progressive contribution is a 12% game, and how you split up the 3% (e.g. 2% to meter, 1% to reserve) is basically irrelevant to the overall payout. That just changes the average jackpots and seed funds.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

But if 17% is the NJ limit, I'll create a few in the 10%-15% range. I like loose!

I started to get carried away with creating a laundry list of differing paytables. I think I'll keep it simple and just provide the few paytables already on my website, and indicate that the paytables are customizable.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

By playing in Excel with a $0 jackpot seed, I was able to see how that affects the edge. I'm gonna tweak my Excel document to better account for this, so I get a more accurate edge calculation.

I ended up not doing that. I will at some point but not today.


One reason I didn't do it was because I got side-tracked with a realization.

Although I didn't play (the tables were too crowded), when I was at the Sands last week, I spent at least half an hour just watching Roulette.

Thinking back upon it, I thought to myself, "What is a 'Flush'?" Yeah, duh, all Red or black. But what about all Even or all Odd? What about all Low or all High? Assuming the zeros don't count as for the Flush, then the odds for those are exactly the same as the flush. Wouldn't experienced Roulette players want / expect these to be possible winners just like the Flush?

For that matter, wouldn't an experienced Roulette player also think that five hits all in the same Dozen or Column would also win?

A cool thing about these combinations is that several of them can appear in the same five spin result.

I'm still working out all the numbers, deciding if these bets should pay only if there is no poker hand, or only if it pays more than the poker hand held, or if it pays in addition to the poker hand.


The other reason I didn't work on repaying the progressive seed calculations is because of a telephone conversation I had with MathExtremist. He suggested I talk to a casino manager, just to get his response to the idea.

So while I was at the Sands last week, I spoke to a bunch of floor people about my idea, and handed out about 8 business cards. All seemed intrigued. I told them that I was nowhere near ready to sell it to a casino, but would love to present it to the Manager of Table Games, just to get some feedback. Some said they'd give him my card. One floorperson gave me that person's name.

I waited until Wednesday, figuring that if any of those people gave him my card, by Wednesday he might have gotten it, and maybe even had a chance to check out my website. So Wednesday I used the contact form on their website to repeat my request.

Friday afternoon he responded and said I should just give him a call when I was next in the Sands.

I responded the next day, thanking him, and asking when he's there, etc.

Although I haven't gotten a response yet, it looks like I'll be heading back to the Sands very soon! :)

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Thinking back upon it, I thought to myself, "What is a 'Flush'?" Yeah, duh, all Red or black. But what about all Even or all Odd? What about all Low or all High? Assuming the zeros don't count as for the Flush, then the odds for those are exactly the same as the flush. Wouldn't experienced Roulette players want / expect these to be possible winners just like the Flush?

For that matter, wouldn't an experienced Roulette player also think that five hits all in the same Dozen or Column would also win?

A cool thing about these combinations is that several of them can appear in the same five spin result.

Even a better idea. Experienced Roulette players may not be too keen about poker hands. Just from the many I do know.

But streaks or runs of roulette bets that they already know with the addition of poker hands...
Now you're talkin'!

I even passed the idea to my wife since she and her friends love roulette. They did not like the poker hand idea, since most do not even know about poker hands, but loved the even money and 2:1 streak (flush) idea!

Course, your now betting something you could have followed yourself by betting on the streak at the start, right? Which PFR was getting away from being a bet that was just a replication of a bet a punter COULD make on the table themselves.

Quote: thecesspit

Course, your now betting something you could have followed yourself by betting on the streak at the start, right? Which PFR was getting away from being a bet that was just a replication of a bet a punter COULD make on the table themselves.

A good point made.
DJ does not have to offer ALL the roulette type of flushes. Maybe 1 or 2 will do.

I personally know many roulette players and still do not see them embracing poker hands while playing roulette. Just my opinion.
Maybe after they see how the bets work and can win big. But they already have a 35 to 1 payout. Way better than any bet at Craps or BJ.

Quote: guido111

I even passed the idea to my wife since she and her friends love roulette. They did not like the poker hand idea, since most do not even know about poker hands

Really? Unless I missed it, this is the first time I'm seeing anything like what you're suggesting.

Do they not know about poker hands, or do they not know what beats what?

For this bet, they don't need to know what beats what. And they don't even need to recognize a Full House when they see one. But if they picked up five cards and saw three Jacks and two sevens, would they say "Hey, that's interesting."?

If they looked at a Roulette History Display and saw the same number hit three times, either in a row or with only one or two other numbers in between, would they comment on it?

That's all I need to generate their interest.

I fully understand that there are many people that don't play poker, or can't remember all the different ranks.

But as long as they can look at a history display, and see patterns which make them say "Hey, look at that...." then they should like this idea.



I will definately keep this in mind, and when the time comes to create hand-outs to explain the game to players, each hand rank will have a sample, using colored ovals that look like the ovals on the table.

Thanks.

Quote: guido111

I even passed the idea to my wife since she and her friends love roulette. They did not like the poker hand idea, since most do not even know about poker hands, but loved the even money and 2:1 streak (flush) idea!

I know you're suggesting that I scrap the poker hands and stick with just the streaks of 1:1 and 2:1 bets.

I COULD do that, except then there wouldn't be enough uniqueness or diversity. I mean, aside from getting around the table minimum, this doesn't create anything that a player couldn't do on their own.

My Hit It Again idea died for that same reason.

I think its a confusing and misleading name.
Try Jackpot Bet or something short and simple?

Quote: guido111

I personally know many roulette players and still do not see them embracing poker hands while playing roulette. Just my opinion.

Yeah, I don't think it has a chance of flying either.

Quote: FleaStiff

I think its a confusing and misleading name.
Try Jackpot Bet or something short and simple?

Although I'd be really stoked if they use it, I'm not married to the name.

Quote: FleaStiff

Quote: guido111

I personally know many roulette players and still do not see them embracing poker hands while playing roulette. Just my opinion.

Yeah, I don't think it has a chance of flying either.

"Embracing poker hands"? Not at all. Players do NOT need to know anything about poker strategy.

If a player can see five reds or blacks in a row and say "That's like a flush," or see two doubles within five spins and say "That's like two pair," then they have enough exposure to poker to understand the payouts of this bet.

If the distributor shares your concern, "One Pair" can easily be changed to "One Repeat", etc.



For what it's worth, about three weeks ago, I had an epiphany. If I'm making a winner out of five reds or blacks, why not five odds or even? Why not five high or low? How about five from one column or dozen?

That would add appeal to hard core Roulette players, and players who really are clueless about poker.

While I was thinking about it, it doesn't happen all the time, but it's possible to have two or more of those characteristics in the same five spins.

Timing is everything.

I've spent a lot of time in the last three weeks working on the math and simulations for this additional payout combination. I plan on updating the website tonight or tomorrow to add this to the math, payouts and simulations pages.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I've spent a lot of time in the last three weeks working on the math and simulations for this additional payout combination. I plan on updating the website tonight or tomorrow to add this to the math, payouts and simulations pages.

Well, it took a little longer to do the HIML than I thought. But I finally uploaded it.


The Math, Payouts and Simulations pages have been redone for these new paylines and new paytables.

The "random spins" on the Misc Page were changed a little to add a column winner for an otherwise losing result. Description of the winners were changed to reflect the new Roulette style items.

Heaven forbid I not take this opportunity to add another inbound link: Poker For Roulette

Let me know what you think - not only about the bet and the changes, but the website itself.

DJ, I agree with the comments about poker. I would recommend calling it a "Streak Bet" or "Fire Streak" or something like that (but better), or maybe something unrelated and undescriptive, like Dragon Bet for Pai Gow. I think that poker is intimidating to those who don't play it.

I have my own patent pending for a new game, I'd like to find out about your game distributor, if you don't mind. Can you contact me? ryan@7cardbonus.com
Having just read your thread, I should probably start one for mine.

Ok Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Like you web site, nothing fancy and very informative. I am not a roulette player
but I can not see a market for this. Just because you have figured out how to play poker with a roulette does not mean
anybody else will. Hope you will accept this as constructive criticism. Have no doubt this will in no way influence your dream, just giving my opinion. Gene Gioia figured out how to shuffle cards for an online poker room without a RNG, even had a cut option. Won numerous inventors awards . Open his own on-line poker room. Now gene and his investors are bankrupt.

I have a questions for others here, Are they any focus groups or marketing firms that evaluate potential games? Or is it
just try and get in a casino or floor space at G2E ??

Phosphorous -

You should probably edit your post and remove your email address before you start getting a lot of spam.

---

I do not have a distributor yet.

I'm progressing VERY slowly on this, so it doesn't bother me that I don't have a distributor.

The reality is, I haven't yet made any serious efforts to secure a distributor. But I'm going to be working on that soon.

---

Both of you have repeated something that surprises me, but that I've heard before in this thread: The term "Poker" in the name might be a problem.

I'm not married to the name. If the distributor wants to name it something else, that wouldn't bother me in the least.

Of course, I'll just repeat what I've said before: Players need NO poker skill for this.

I agree no poker skill is needed but anticipation is always a great factor in gambling. If the players don't
understand poker this will be a problem.
Last year at Blackhawk poker room a very attractive middle aged lady was playing live for the first time.
Whenever she had the Nuts she would proclaim " I have the balls" And we were all to much of gentlemen to correct
her.LOL

DJTeddyBear

Your game poker for roulette is a good and easy game/idea. I don't think the name Matters that much, as you say it can always be change to a different name.
you may even make it more easier, as some member may have suggested by just using three numbers.

I do think it is much difficult to get a distributor for this kind of games, because there is only a few company that could make progressive/jackpot games for live tables.
Saying that, you may try some of the electronic tables or online games distributors.

If you can get a full patent on this game, I am sure some of the distributors will definitely have a try with the game.

OK. I'm convinced. Whatever distributor I use will certainly be informed that the poker angle is optional and may be problematic.

What do I care if I call it a "Pair" or "Repeat", or a "Straight" or "In Sequence", etc.

---

Mr C G -

My patent wording supports ANY number of consecutive spins. But the math says that three spins doesn't provide enough diversity to make compelling payouts. four spins is kinda on the border, and six spins has way too much diversity. So, for now anyway, five is it.

DJTeddyBear

I agree with you, it does not matter if it is 3,4,5 or 6 spins, the game is easy enough to understand.
The most important thing is that the Math must support the game.

I had computer issues, so I haven't been on top of my email lately.

I ended up purchasing a new Mac this past week to replace my 6 year old Mac. It still works, but was showing it's age, and acting finicky after I dropped it onto a concrete floor last month. Note to self: Don't drop this one - at least not for 5 years or so.....


I was going thru my old email and noticed that the Wiz gave this thread a plug in his 4/8/11 email newsletter.

Thanks!

I just wanted to chime in and describe the interesting aspects of this entire thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this throughout the months, and find the numerous steps you have to take to get your invention into the market very interesting. I just want to add that I like your idea, and not being a roulette player I would def give it a go for a while to play a poker type side bet. Continued success and good luck DJTeddy