NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
• Posts: 417
October 6th, 2011 at 11:49:04 AM permalink
-----
heather
Joined: Jun 12, 2011
• Posts: 437
October 12th, 2011 at 6:03:09 AM permalink
I didn't see the post, but I did want to note some thoughts that I had about the idea of playing Hazard with a single die. Playing Hazard with a single die destroys the psychological trick that made the game appealing for hundreds of years (and continues to be a major part of the appeal of Sic bo). Using three dice while allowing single-number bets to pay out even money or better, bettors miscalculate by thinking that the odds of a single number hitting on any one of the three dice are 1/2 (1/6 with three chances to hit = 3/6 = 1/2). This is a mistake and the odds are always 1/6, but there being three dice has consistently confused people in this regard. So my thought would be that reducing the number of dice to one would remove this trick, as well as the potentially larger-than-normal payouts for hitting on two or three dice that attract a lot of Sic bo players today and were probably part of why Hazard was popular for as long as it was as well.
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
• Posts: 417
October 30th, 2011 at 8:33:13 AM permalink
Well, here's the theory: The object of the game is to establish and re-roll a Point (a '2', '3', '4', '5', or '6') before rolling a '1'. This is the "Pass" bet. The counter-proposition would be called the "Fade" bet. If the shooter rolls a '1' to start (called "Halfly Crap"), he gets another chance to roll a Point. If he rolls a Point, play continues as usual; if he rolls another '1' (called "Wholly Crap!"), the "Pass" and "Fade" bets both lose half. Needless to say, rolling a '1' before re-rolling the established Point loses the "Pass" bet and wins the "Fade" bet. The game is basically a 50-50, the only house edge of 1.39% emerging from the "double-aces" rule described above. One could work in a multi-roll equivalent of the "Chuck-A-Luck" bet, in which a specific number, '1' through '6', must be rolled at least once within the next three rolls, and the payout would be 1-, 2-, or 3-to-1 for one, two, or three appearances, respectively. The house edge might still be 7.87%. But you're right - much of the profit power of three-die Hazard and Sic-Bo lies in the "internal bleeding" effect of the mathematics of the Chuck-A-Luck wagers.

My main goal for developing this version of one-die Hazard was to improve on what I thought was defective about Die Rich - the need for imposing a limit on the number of rolls in order to develop a H.A. With Wholly Crap! there is no need for a limit on rolls allowed to resolve the "Pass"/"Fade" bets, since the profit margin is built in to the game structure.
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
• Posts: 5692
October 30th, 2011 at 10:34:23 AM permalink
Serpent,
Will you try to get this new game out, installed at a casino?
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 22912
October 30th, 2011 at 11:31:37 AM permalink
Sounds kind of like Die Rich.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
• Posts: 417
October 31st, 2011 at 1:40:04 AM permalink
It's one die, like Die Rich, but it doesn't suffer from needing a roll limit to produce a net profit margin. It also differs in not having a rather puzzling payout alternation on each roll, where even with Die Rich, a simpler way might have been to pay come-out wins at 2-to-1 and Point conversions on any roll at even money (HA = 3.1%). The only similarity to Coleman's game is the "Next Roll" bets at 4-to-1. There are High/Low/Odd/Even bets which win at 1-to-1 (except '1' and '6' which push or pay half). There are even Place- and Buy-To-Win and -Lose bets (9-to-10, and 19-to-21 COWO) for those who want to pursue the aesthetic of Craps as far as a one-die format will allow. The fact that so much variety and "action" remains available despite most players' expectation to the contrary is itself a strong distinguishing factor and high selling point. A "tub" table should suffice as a subtle gimmick which also serves a practical purpose.

Speaking of Die Rich, I'm curious about analyzing the HA on Coleman's "Shooter's Streak" bet, which appears to be a "rainbow" or multi-pay range or collective bet which wins for at least two wins in a row. You didn't mention anything about in your Die Rich analysis, probably because it wasn't part of the game at the time (the YouTube demo shows it, but that may be a much newer edition of the game) and I was wondering how I might go about figuring the global house edge on that bet, assuming it is mathematically viable? It pays as follows:

1st win = 0-to-1 (push)
2nd win = 1-to-1
3rd win = 3-to-1
4th win = 6-to-1
5th win = 10-to-1
6th win = 30-to-1
7th win = 60-to-1
8th win = 100-to-1
9th win = 300-to-1
10th win = 600-to-win
11th win and up = 1,000-to-1.

If you are interested, I would greatly appreciate your renowned and masterful input, Sir Wizard. RSVP. Thanks :)
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
• Posts: 417
October 31st, 2011 at 1:46:26 AM permalink
-----
NowTheSerpent
Joined: Sep 30, 2011
• Posts: 417
October 31st, 2011 at 1:47:10 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

Serpent,
Will you try to get this new game out, installed at a casino?

If there is evidence that it will interest anyone who buys new casino games. As long as those who played Die Rich and were disappointed think it's the same thing, there's not much hope for it. Maybe a tub-size dice table instead of a card table would sell it better. It's a wonder that two-die Craps ever evolved
as a street game instead of one-die Hazard, which would, for street betting, be perfectly fair.
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009