Live "Video" Poker
Live "Video" Poker: A dealer deals from a regular deck, 5 cards, the player decides what cards to hold and the dealer deals accordingly. Obviously the player would have to be playing a considerable amount of money to get this kind of attention, but I am sure there are players out there that would be willing to play for that amount, I would guess a minimum of $500 per hand. I would also think you could have an automatic shuffler to help speed up the time between hands, similar to Let It Ride.
Has anyone heard of this happening or do you think this is a viable idea?
Thanks in advance for the comments.
Myself, I don't care what they do or how they do it. I'll never play against a live person unless she dealt the cards in her birthday suit.
That being the case, I'd be quite surprised to see a casino taking a concept that earns them a lot of money as a machine, and turning it into a table game.
Would they be willing to turn an otherwise closed table into this special purpose game to please a high roller who makes such a request? Possibly, but I kinda doubt it.
But now I'm curious to know how much effort and Gaming Commission red tape they'd have to go thru if they wanted to do it...
Quote: DJTeddyBearShuffleMaster's TableMaster systems are going in the other direction. I.E. They are taking casino table games and turning them into machines.
That being the case, I'd be quite surprised to see a casino taking a concept that earns them a lot of money as a machine, and turning it into a table game.
Would they be willing to turn an otherwise closed table into this special purpose game to please a high roller who makes such a request? Possibly, but I kinda doubt it.
But now I'm curious to know how much effort and Gaming Commission red tape they'd have to go thru if they wanted to do it...
You would think the red tape would be minimal compared to other concept games that are be introduced since the rules and payouts and other standards to the game have already been approved by the Gaming Commission. Getting this game into an actual casino could be pretty easy if 1.) you show the profit to be made (obviously), 2.) they have the client that they could actually market this game too, which you could study this fairly simply if you could get a few vip casino hosts to propose the idea to few of their high rollers and see how it was accepted by them.
Quote: SONBP2I would be surprised if that hasn't been tried some where before, but I am sure a player willing to play for enough money to entice the casino could get this set up.
Live "Video" Poker: A dealer deals from a regular deck, 5 cards, the player decides what cards to hold and the dealer deals accordingly. Obviously the player would have to be playing a considerable amount of money to get this kind of attention, but I am sure there are players out there that would be willing to play for that amount, I would guess a minimum of $500 per hand. I would also think you could have an automatic shuffler to help speed up the time between hands, similar to Let It Ride.
Has anyone heard of this happening or do you think this is a viable idea?
Thanks in advance for the comments.
The edge is too low for the paytable and it'd have to be single player (otherwise it's readily countable, especially by 3rd base). I think it's a non-starter. Maybe it would work in the case of a whale in a private salon, but it'd never be feasible on the main floor. You can't devote one dealer to just one player.
Quote: SONBP2Mr. Singer's evidence is compelling, but there are many of the belief that they are random.
No, Mr. Singer's "evidence" isn't anything of the sort. VP machines are random and they are required to be. In Nevada, see NGC reg 14.040 2(b)
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf
Anyone who tells you slots or VP machines aren't legally required to behave randomly is just a conspiracy theorist. As evidence of that assertion, consider the likely responses I'll get to this post in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that I have actually made slot and VP machines.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, Mr. Singer's "evidence" isn't anything of the sort. VP machines are random and they are required to be. In Nevada, see NGC reg 14.040 2(b)
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf
Anyone who tells you slots or VP machines aren't legally required to behave randomly is just a conspiracy theorist. As evidence of that assertion, consider the likely responses I'll get to this post in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that I have actually made slot and VP machines.
+1... Mr Singer's "evidence" is a selection of empirical observations that have no indication of the likelihood of those events occurring at random, elimination of confirmation bias and with little or no conclusions apart from "random, yeah right".
I'm not claiming that these events did not take place, and I'm not claiming that VP is or isn't random. I'm just saying a selection of odd events with no context no more proves the anti-random case than a series of lights in the sky proves that UFOs are alien space craft.
More over, the events that occur would suggest there is -player- bias in those machines. "Ready to pay out" machines seems unlikely to me in VP (it does occur in UK slot machines for a different reason). I think Mr Singer under estimates how much each machine can take on it's small percentage over time, and how much play those machines get.. especially added when player play less than perfect strategy (for which ever reason).
Quote: MathExtremistNo, Mr. Singer's "evidence" isn't anything of the sort. VP machines are random and they are required to be. In Nevada, see NGC reg 14.040 2(b)
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf
Anyone who tells you slots or VP machines aren't legally required to behave randomly is just a conspiracy theorist. As evidence of that assertion, consider the likely responses I'll get to this post in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that I have actually made slot and VP machines.
FYI: an argument can be compelling, but flawed and most importantly it doesn't even apply to the reason the thread was posted. Regardless of whether vp machines are random or not, a table version would be random.
I was trying to figure out if there was a way in which this game could be played by multiple players at one time, which would not limit the game to one high roller. I have seen vp games that tell you the best mathematical choice and maybe that could be instituted, that once you place your bet you are agreeing to hold the cards that are accordance with the "house strategy." The low house edge should not matter to the casino as evident by the fact they have table games like blackjack and craps that usually offer less than a 1% house edge. You could offer the Table VP game at 98% payback and I am sure that a few people could come up with a few optional side bets to increase the house edge.
Quote: SONBP2I will not dispute whether the machines are random or not and Mr. Singer's evidence is compelling, but there are many of the belief that they are random. If your belief is that the machines are not random then why wouldn't you want to play against a live person since the random shuffling of cards would make the game pretty fair in my opinion. Now obviously you aren't going to get full pay odds, but if you are of Mr. Singer's "camp" then full pay is not necessarily required anyways.
If Singer thought the machines were nonrandom, then he'd have to be insane to play them, unless he thought they were EXPLOITABLY nonrandom, in which case, he'd have to be insane to say anything about it. It's better not to make the mistake of trying to make sense out of anything Singer says.
Obviously, as you say, a live game like this would never be able to offer the payback percentages that machine VP does, if for no other reason than there could only be one player dealt to at a time. Rob Singer would wear his magic green propellor beanie and do his magic dance, but he would run smack into the house limit after about the sixth or seventh loss and double-up. But what you say is true--he believes that how much you get paid when you win doesn't matter (as long as you have the magic beanie, that is).
Quote: SONBP2I was trying to figure out if there was a way in which this game could be played by multiple players at one time, which would not limit the game to one high roller. I have seen vp games that tell you the best mathematical choice and maybe that could be instituted, that once you place your bet you are agreeing to hold the cards that are accordance with the "house strategy." The low house edge should not matter to the casino as evident by the fact they have table games like blackjack and craps that usually offer less than a 1% house edge. You could offer the Table VP game at 98% payback and I am sure that a few people could come up with a few optional side bets to increase the house edge.
Yeah, the problem there is that it'd basically devolve into non-strategy game, no choice involved. There aren't too many successful card games where the player just makes the bet and watches the hand play out. That's how slots work, obviously, and roulette/craps too -- but in roulette/craps there are many betting options whereas here there'd just be "the bet". I can't think of any current card games where the player has no choices to make, either in betting or in play strategy.
In fact, the closest thing there's been to a no-choice game was 3-5-7 poker, which is basically just a VP-like paytable on a stud hand. That's mostly what you're talking about once you remove the player strategy element. But I haven't seen that anywhere in a while.
Quote: SONBP2FYI: an argument can be compelling, but flawed and most importantly it doesn't even apply to the reason the thread was posted. Regardless of whether vp machines are random or not, a table version would be random.
I was trying to figure out if there was a way in which this game could be played by multiple players at one time, which would not limit the game to one high roller. I have seen vp games that tell you the best mathematical choice and maybe that could be instituted, that once you place your bet you are agreeing to hold the cards that are accordance with the "house strategy." The low house edge should not matter to the casino as evident by the fact they have table games like blackjack and craps that usually offer less than a 1% house edge. You could offer the Table VP game at 98% payback and I am sure that a few people could come up with a few optional side bets to increase the house edge.
One of the problems would be you'd need a fresh 52 card shuffle after every hand, as I'd -guess- a 6-deck shoe would be exploitable to some extent.
If the game was live and the only decision was bet sizing... well I guess Roulette is also popular enough!
Quote: thecesspitOne of the problems would be you'd need a fresh 52 card shuffle after every hand, as I'd -guess- a 6-deck shoe would be exploitable to some extent.
If you have played Let It Ride they have 2--52 decks that are used interchangeably and shuffled by a machine while the next hand is being played. It is a little slow, but Let It Ride tends to be pretty successful. The key to this game being marketable to a casino would be the side bet choices that have nice payouts with anywhere from 3%-10% house edges.
Suggested side bets?
Quote: SONBP2I will not dispute whether the machines are random or not and Mr. Singer's evidence is compelling, but there are many of the belief that they are random. If your belief is that the machines are not random then why wouldn't you want to play against a live person since the random shuffling of cards would make the game pretty fair in my opinion. Now obviously you aren't going to get full pay odds, but if you are of Mr. Singer's "camp" then full pay is not necessarily required anyways.
It doesn't have to do with pay tables or things like that. I guess I play vp so I don't have to bother with others like I do at the BJ tables. If that changed then I'd have to have a compelling reason to play live vp. Titties staring me in the eyes would do that.
Quote: WizardI once saw a guy at the Global Gaming Expo showing his poker variant, which was exactly a live form of video poker. However, he didn't know it. After he explained the rules and I played a few hands I said, "So this is just a live form of video poker?" His reply was, "I don't know the rules for video poker."
In your opinion, would a casino ever invest in this type of variant on the game?
Quote: WizardI once saw a guy at the Global Gaming Expo showing his poker variant, which was exactly a live form of video poker. However, he didn't know it. After he explained the rules and I played a few hands I said, "So this is just a live form of video poker?" His reply was, "I don't know the rules for video poker."
There is a Jacks or Better version approve in Washington State. The 40% player advantage probably ment that if it was ever on the floor it got pounded by ap's. The payouts are listed as "to 1" instead of "for 1". 800, 50, 25, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/docs/game_rules/jacks_or_better.pdf
Quote: MathExtremist
In fact, the closest thing there's been to a no-choice game was 3-5-7 poker, which is basically just a VP-like paytable on a stud hand. That's mostly what you're talking about once you remove the player strategy element. But I haven't seen that anywhere in a while.
HYBRID TRIPLE BET: (Based on 3 Blackjack side bets) Currently played Live in South Africa. Proving very successful.
