MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
November 8th, 2010 at 2:55:18 PM permalink
Quote: SONBP2

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.



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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
November 8th, 2010 at 2:58:09 PM permalink
Quote: SONBP2

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.



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!
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
SONBP2
SONBP2
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 289
November 8th, 2010 at 3:06:55 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

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 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?

JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
November 8th, 2010 at 4:15:44 PM permalink
Quote: SONBP2

I 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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1192
  • Posts: 19918
November 8th, 2010 at 5:23:49 PM permalink
I 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."
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
SONBP2
SONBP2
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 289
November 8th, 2010 at 5:25:42 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I 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?
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1878
November 8th, 2010 at 5:52:43 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I 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
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 1349
November 8th, 2010 at 8:12:07 PM permalink
Live "Video" Poker

Live Draw Poker
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 1349
November 8th, 2010 at 8:17:22 PM permalink
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.
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com

  • Jump to: