New poker game idea
Poll
 | 5 votes (62.5%) | ||
| | 3 votes (37.5%) |
8 members have voted
Consider the general concept
1) The player makes a wager on at least one of several hands to beat the dealer.
2) The player's hands are different somehow, such as one has 4 cards and one has 5 cards. The player can make separate wagers on both. Maybe there's more than 2 betting options.
3) The dealer gets 6 cards.
4) Best 5-card hand wins. The 4-card hand is evaluated using standard poker hands, but can't form a straight or flush.
5) The winning hands are paid amounts proportional to their likelihood of winning. The payout for a 5-card hand beating a 6-card hand would be less than the 4-card hand beating the 6-card hand, etc.
Does this idea have any legs as a carnival game?
Or instead of (or in addition to) using different numbers of cards, use predetermined cards printed on the layout. For example:
1) The player makes a wager on at least one of several hands to beat the dealer.
2) In one hand, the player gets 4 cards plus an automatic 2 of clubs. In another hand, the player gets 4 cards plus an automatic king of clubs.
3) The dealer gets 4 cards plus an automatic ace of spades.
4) Best hand wins, paid at appropriate odds, etc.
You could even do a roulette-style layout with chips instead of value checks, and let players bet (at appropriate odds) on a 3-card poker layout that looks like this:
Player hand 1: 2c [] []
Player hand 2: 9h [] []
Player hand 3: Ks [] []
Player hand 4: [] [] []
Player hand 5: 5c 6h []
Player hand 6: 3s 4s []
Dealer: Ad [] []
where each "[]" is a spot to deal a card, and players can put their personal chips on any of hands 1-6. Whichever hand(s) beat the dealer's hand wins at an appropriate payout. I haven't done the numbers, and 3s 4s x might be a favorite over Ad x x, so that may need to change. But you get the point. This version might be too slow if the dealer has a bad hand and many player hands win, but on the other hand, roulette is slow too...
What do you think -- fun or boring? (Or both?)
Quote: MathExtremistbut on the other hand, roulette is slow too...
try telling that to our GM.
Quote: MathExtremistWhat do you think -- fun or boring? (Or both?)
I like the general idea, but from a procedural point of view it seems rather overcomplicated. I think thats a problem in trying to find something that hasnt been done yet in poker.
Quote: buzzpaffAnd why re-invent the wheel ?
I think the concept is good, but I did have to read it 3 times and I still dont totally have it down, I am sure the general 'rules' for creating a game are that it is easy to explain. Maybe you could simplify the rules, or explain it better? Poker is the way forward in my opinion.
For the record;
1) I am not saying Blackjack is not profitable
2) I am not saying Poker is the best game
3) I did not mention slots anywhere in this post (except this line)
4) I did not liken Rob to Jerry
5) I am not saying there are defined rules to creating a successful casino game, just guidelines
6) I did also miss the ' in the word don't on the first line
7) And I should probably say three rather 3
If you still wish to misconstrue my post please call me on 0800 - IDONTCARE
2) I am not saying Poker is the best game
You know you think hold'em is the best game.
Apple Tree: Are you hinting my apples aren't what they ought to be?
it looks like an interesting concept, but maybe expensive to play and hard to deal.
Pushpack from players (complexity, expense), pushback from dealers/surveillance (hard to train, hard to survey, game pace), being another poker variant, might be drawback.
Have you played this game with industry friends?
Hard pass and twist 'em are sharp: straightforward and fun.
Quote: buzzpathI believe all great breakthroughs are simple. At least that has been the breakthrough in casino games. Caribbean Poker and Let it Ride were novel but the winner is definetly simplicity itself 3 Card Poker.
Quote: PaigowdanBuzz path added an astute observation:[/
Thanks for the compliment. I might also add ceaker friendly. Have personally seen Let It Ride and Digital 21 trials at the Isle
destroyed by the dealers. Streak may have shared a similar fate id Stacey Perry of Mao gaming had not trained the dealers herself, Fairly sure Switch woukd have preferred to train dealers in Colorado himself, But he can not be everywhere at once.
Quote: buzzpaffQuote: PaigowdanBuzz path added an astute observation:[/
Fairly sure Switch woukd have preferred to train dealers in Colorado himself, But he can not be everywhere at once.
True, although I know the guy who did the training and he's so enthusiastic about the game which really helps. He's a nice guy too :-)
(Buzz, I still owe you a PM reply - I'll try and get it done today).
Quote: switchTrue, although I know the guy who did the training and he's so enthusiastic about the game which really helps. He's a nice guy too :-)
This is crucial.
So true!
You need a dealer-trainer that comes off as friendly, knowledable, and entheusiastic, without hitting a false note, every time.
The dealers have to sell the merits of the game, not just train on the procedure - because it's really the dealers who do a lot of the selling of a new game.
Quote: buzzpaffDan I feel compelled to add one word to the above post AMEN !!!
Seconded !!! :-)
I FINALLY had a chance to read your concept.
It's vague, hard to understand.
And that might be the reason there was not much to the original replies. Thanks go to Buzz for reviving the thread.
Dan's right. Play it with some friends. Figure it out, so you can better explain it.
Maybe THEN the feedback you get will be useful.
That said, is there something there? Certainly something that can be fleshed out into a game.
Will carnival players play it? Probably.
Hell, every time I'm ready to overestimate a carnival player's capacity to see that a game is not worth playing, I think of the games at that "other" casino that Clark Griswald played at during Vegas Vacation. I'm still shocked that one of the games offered there, Casino War, is a real game - and that people play it!
Quote: DJTeddyBearMathExtremist -
I FINALLY had a chance to read your concept.
It's vague, hard to understand.
And that might be the reason there was not much to the original replies. Thanks go to Buzz for reviving the thread.
Dan's right. Play it with some friends. Figure it out, so you can better explain it.
Maybe THEN the feedback you get will be useful.
That said, is there something there? Certainly something that can be fleshed out into a game.
Will carnival players play it? Probably.
I admit that this is just a concept rather than a fully-polished game proposition. The basic idea is simply that the player has several betting options (instead of just one) and those options have different chances to beat the dealer (and corresponding payout odds). It could be as simple as giving the player two bet spots, one on a 4 card hand and one on the same 4 cards plus one more card, vs. a dealer's 5-card hand. The 5-card hand would pay at even money (ties lose) and the 4-card hand would pay at 2-1. This all assumes the math works -- again, haven't done it yet. But the procedure would be simple:
1) Player makes two wagers
2) Four cards dealt to first wager
3) One card dealt to second wager.
4) Dealer's 5 cards revealed.
5) If player's 5 cards don't beat dealer's 5 cards, take both wagers.
6) If player's 5 cards beat dealer's 5 cards, pay 1-1 on 2nd bet
7) If players's 4 cards beat dealer's 5 cards, pay 2-1 on 1st bet; otherwise take 1st bet.
8) New hand...
If you were a carny game player, would you play that?
Quote: DJTeddyBearHell, every time I'm ready to overestimate a carnival player's capacity to see that a game is not worth playing, I think of the games at that "other" casino that Clark Griswald played at during Vegas Vacation. I'm still shocked that one of the games offered there, Casino War, is a real game - and that people play it!
I am TRULY shocked at some of the garbage people play, as well as the crappy strategies they use at legitimate games.
That "otherwise take 1st bet" might be a problem.Quote: MathExtremist5) If player's 5 cards don't beat dealer's 5 cards, take both wagers.
6) If player's 5 cards beat dealer's 5 cards, pay 1-1 on 2nd bet
7) If players's 4 cards beat dealer's 5 cards, pay 2-1 on 1st bet; otherwise take 1st bet.
Then again, maybe not.
I assume no four card straight, no four card flush - even if the hand has a five card straight or five card flush.
Therefore, as I see it with the rules stated, if the five card hand isn't better than the dealer's hand, then the four card hand wll always be a loser.
So with Rule 5, the dealer will win half the time, the player has a 2 unit loss.
The other half of the time:
Rule 6 will give the player a 1 unit win, and rule 7 will sometimes cause a 1 unit loss, for a net push.
Sometimes, Rule 6 cause a 2 unit win, on top of Rule 5's 1 unit for a 3 unit total win.
I guess the question is, how often will a player win with five cards and lose with four cards?
And to go one step further, maybe it will be better if the player gets all five cards, and can choose which card to leave out of the four card hand.
It is indeed interesting. Would a carny player play it? I have no doubt that they would.
If DOES give the player better odds. How much better is beyond my math capabilities. But the dealer will still have the advatage since he can make straights and flushes and full houses, where a four card hand can't.
And they will make or break your game. I will admit I have not looked at the Wiz's game lately but I seem to remember it did away with the only bet that paid more than 1-1. I will check it out later though.
I mean Brian Alspach Professor Emeritis of Mathematics has great poker site. His distribution of Aces is a masterpiece. But the formulas are lost in me.
Quote: DJTeddyBearActually, it doesn't give the player any choice. In any random group of five cards, there is only one obvious choice of the lowest kicker. The "exception" is a full house. Then there is indeed a choice of which of the two paired cards to ignore. But that's not really a choice either....
If DOES give the player better odds. How much better is beyond my math capabilities. But the dealer will still have the advatage since he can make straights and flushes and full houses, where a four card hand can't.
The appearance of choice is as important as the actual choice. I didn't think too hard about it though, so it may be the choice is always "obvious", which is less interesting as you state.
Quote: AyecarumbaHow about if the player's and dealer's "starting" five cards were randomly selected, with the player and dealer drawing up to two new cards. The dealer would have to qualify, and the player would have to pay to trade. Side bets for bonus hands. Player would post an Ante and two draw bets, then surrender a draw bet for each card exchanged.
Just speaking for myself I hate games where the dealer has to qualify. First I have to get a good hand ,then watch the dealer not qualify. Really sucks !!
Quote: buzzpaffMath Extremist Please don't take offense but what is mathematically obvious and/or challenging to you is lost on the masses.
Well, I'm not specifically going for a challenging game per se. I'm looking at designing a carnival game more than anything else -- something with the simplicity and attraction of a Casino War or a Big 6 wheel. I don't want a complicated strategy; in fact, I'd prefer no strategy at all if I can make the game engaging. The choice in Casino War doesn't really lead to a compelling strategy since the right play is to always raise.
Quote: MathExtremistYou could even do a roulette-style layout with chips instead of value checks, and let players bet (at appropriate odds) on a 3-card poker layout that looks like this:
Player hand 1: 2c [] []
Player hand 2: 9h [] []
Player hand 3: Ks [] []
Player hand 4: [] [] []
Player hand 5: 5c 6h []
Player hand 6: 3s 4s []
Dealer: Ad [] []
where each "[]" is a spot to deal a card, and players can put their personal chips on any of hands 1-6. Whichever hand(s) beat the dealer's hand wins at an appropriate payout.
Would the corresponding cards on the layout be removed from the deck? If so, it would adversely affect Player 4 unless the odds on that hand were appropriately strengthened.
Quote: AyecarumbaQuote: MathExtremistYou could even do a roulette-style layout with chips instead of value checks, and let players bet (at appropriate odds) on a 3-card poker layout that looks like this:
Player hand 1: 2c [] []
Player hand 2: 9h [] []
Player hand 3: Ks [] []
Player hand 4: [] [] []
Player hand 5: 5c 6h []
Player hand 6: 3s 4s []
Dealer: Ad [] []
where each "[]" is a spot to deal a card, and players can put their personal chips on any of hands 1-6. Whichever hand(s) beat the dealer's hand wins at an appropriate payout.
Would the corresponding cards on the layout be removed from the deck? If so, it would adversely affect Player 4 unless the odds on that hand were appropriately strengthened.
Yes, that's the goal. Each hand would have a different probability of beating the dealer's hand and a corresponding payout ratio. The player can play it safe, go for a long shot, or any combination.
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: AyecarumbaQuote: MathExtremistYou could even do a roulette-style layout with chips instead of value checks, and let players bet (at appropriate odds) on a 3-card poker layout that looks like this:
Player hand 1: 2c [] []
Player hand 2: 9h [] []
Player hand 3: Ks [] []
Player hand 4: [] [] []
Player hand 5: 5c 6h []
Player hand 6: 3s 4s []
Dealer: Ad [] []
where each "[]" is a spot to deal a card, and players can put their personal chips on any of hands 1-6. Whichever hand(s) beat the dealer's hand wins at an appropriate payout.
Would the corresponding cards on the layout be removed from the deck? If so, it would adversely affect Player 4 unless the odds on that hand were appropriately strengthened.
Yes, that's the goal. Each hand would have a different probability of beating the dealer's hand and a corresponding payout ratio. The player can play it safe, go for a long shot, or any combination.
How about Hold Em hands with the player could start with an As+ Ks, As+Qc, or As+Jh, but the dealer always starts with 2s, 2c? Would that be an even money race? The attraction of starting with "Big Slick" might be irresistable, and folks may not realize how often an ace high loses to a pair.
If you picked the Aces, you had to beat a fifth random hand as well as the four you could bet on against the Aces. If you picked the "Craacker" hands, you won if any of the four random hands beat the AA hand. Kind of a coin flip type decision. There were some bonus wagers with longer odds/higher payouts, I don't quite remember how they were all played.
It was a concept similar to MathExtremist poker variant, but you were able to be on four random hands at once without knowing what they are. I think the math worked out that Aces are slightly favored against four random hands but a slight dog to five random hands.
I played several hands at G2E, it was interesting, but I wondered if players would tire of the same proposition each hand. That seems odd to say because every game is the same proposition each hand. But knowing that the Aces were part of every hand, somehow not enough changed for me to keep it interesting. But then without real $$ on the table, I think it is difficult to judge any game.
Who would have thougth Casino War would work? I have talked to more people recently back from Vegas that have said it was a great game because they didn't have to think and could just have fun & drink! So a tourist game for sure, not sure it works as well in a locals market.
At times, I believe we over think the need for player's to think or play strategy in new games. Particularly carnival games. The real thinkers will play straight BJ, no side bets.....they don't play carni games.
I think one of the important needs in a new game is the ability of the player to intuitively understand that they are not making a mistake playing the game. They don't want to embarrass themselves. There is no way to embarass yourself playing Roulette or Baccarrat or Craps. You go with your gut and it is all just a gamble.
Quote: ParadigmThere was a game at G2E that was called Ace Craackers. Texas Hold'Em game. You could bet on pocket Aces as your starting hand or take all four other random hands to beat the Aces (You didn't see the random hands before you wagered on the Aces or the "Craacker Hands"). Even money pay off. ...
I played several hands at G2E, it was interesting, but I wondered if players would tire of the same proposition each hand. That seems odd to say because every game is the same proposition each hand. But knowing that the Aces were part of every hand, somehow not enough changed for me to keep it interesting. But then without real $$ on the table, I think it is difficult to judge any game.
Who would have thougth Casino War would work? I have talked to more people recently back from Vegas that have said it was a great game because they didn't have to think and could just have fun & drink! So a tourist game for sure, not sure it works as well in a locals market.
At times, I believe we over think the need for player's to think or play strategy in new games. Particularly carnival games. The real thinkers will play straight BJ, no side bets.....they don't play carni games.
I think one of the important needs in a new game is the ability of the player to intuitively understand that they are not making a mistake playing the game. They don't want to embarrass themselves. There is no way to embarass yourself playing Roulette or Baccarrat or Craps. You go with your gut and it is all just a gamble.
There are definitely ways to embarrass yourself playing craps, but that's a different topic. I remember the Ace CrAAckers game from G2E. The marketing needed work - in my opinion, new games should not be named with improperly spelled, oddly-capitalized words. I understand the spelling derivation with "AA", but I would have done things differently. More to the point, once you get past comprehending the main wagers (bet that at least one of four hands will beat pocket aces by the river, or bet that aces will hold up against five hands by the river), you're faced with two even-money wagers. It's sort of like being able to bet on player/banker or pass/don't. In my opinion, there are already enough poker games with even-money wagers.
Moreover, I am going for a carnival game. I'm specifically going for a non-strategy, just-inside-the-door carnival game, probably staffed by a break-in dealer who doesn't have to do anything complicated. The Big Six wheel is enduring, even though it has absolutely no strategy, because the players *aren't* forced to bet only even-money wagers. Same with roulette, which is mathematically an equivalent proposition to the Big Six wheel, but is not considered a "carnival game". I'd like to do something similar with poker hands: give players a non-strategy carnival game based on whether their chosen hand beats the dealer. The only choice is in which bets to make, but I don't want to make it so complicated that the players feel like they have to figure anything out. I want it to be simple - you can go for the long shot and win a high payout, or you can go for the safe play and win a lower payout. Or both.
we can look forward to a new addition to the world of carnival games ??
Quote: MathExtremistSo as not to hijack the other recent new-poker-game thread, I'm starting another.
Consider the general concept
1) The player makes a wager on at least one of several hands to beat the dealer.
2) The player's hands are different somehow, such as one has 4 cards and one has 5 cards. The player can make separate wagers on both. Maybe there's more than 2 betting options.
3) The dealer gets 6 cards.
4) Best 5-card hand wins. The 4-card hand is evaluated using standard poker hands, but can't form a straight or flush.
5) The winning hands are paid amounts proportional to their likelihood of winning. The payout for a 5-card hand beating a 6-card hand would be less than the 4-card hand beating the 6-card hand, etc.
Does this idea have any legs as a carnival game?
Or instead of (or in addition to) using different numbers of cards, use predetermined cards printed on the layout. For example:
1) The player makes a wager on at least one of several hands to beat the dealer.
2) In one hand, the player gets 4 cards plus an automatic 2 of clubs. In another hand, the player gets 4 cards plus an automatic king of clubs.
3) The dealer gets 4 cards plus an automatic ace of spades.
4) Best hand wins, paid at appropriate odds, etc.
You could even do a roulette-style layout with chips instead of value checks, and let players bet (at appropriate odds) on a 3-card poker layout that looks like this:
Player hand 1: 2c [] []
Player hand 2: 9h [] []
Player hand 3: Ks [] []
Player hand 4: [] [] []
Player hand 5: 5c 6h []
Player hand 6: 3s 4s []
Dealer: Ad [] []
where each "[]" is a spot to deal a card, and players can put their personal chips on any of hands 1-6. Whichever hand(s) beat the dealer's hand wins at an appropriate payout. I haven't done the numbers, and 3s 4s x might be a favorite over Ad x x, so that may need to change. But you get the point. This version might be too slow if the dealer has a bad hand and many player hands win, but on the other hand, roulette is slow too...
What do you think -- fun or boring? (Or both?)
My opinion, both games are easy and fun to play.
But roulette has a lot more plaers playing bets than at any poker table !
