Hong Kong Poker released - YOUR input, poker players?

Okay guys, I need input from Poker-room poker players, and from Casino Pai Gow/Hold ‘em/Three card players on this one.

Hong Kong Poker is an eight-card poker room game: FIVE hole cards with one flop, one turn, and one river card. It was also released with a parallel casino version that was fully done by yours truly.

You get some really rich hands in your up-front five card hand, and if you don’t, you can really make some rich hands by the time you’re eight cards out after a “blitzkrieg” showdown on the board. Fold at your own risk, as a community board of only three cards can really light up a five-card hand better than a five-card board can do with a two-card hole-card hand.
The poker room version is this:
1. Get five hold cards and evaluate. Your average hand: AQxxx. Fold, check, bet or raise.
2. Flop card is presented, you now have six cards: Fold, check, bet or raise. Your average hand: 55xxx
3. Turn is presented, you now have seven cards: Fold, check, bet or raise. Your average hand is 77xxx to a three of a kind, and you really look at how many players are still in.
4. River is presented, you now have eight cards: Your average hand is 9922x to a straight: Fold, check, bet or raise.
5. Expect to see a lot more people staying in.

Going from Five cards to eight your average hand often flies up throw the roof no matter what you start with, as only a three card board really sets fire to many final hands when holding and starting with five hole cards. On a full table be scared holding short of two pair or a flush, but heads up be confident with high pair, but expect a lot more surprises. And the game is fast even though you travel farther up to higher hand levels to an eight card finale very quickly. It’s a slam-bam showdown on the board after you start with five hole cards, where wider swings can happen for you or for them.

Even if you gamble, it is hard to describe the play and the juice of this game. It never gets as crazy and as heavily bogged down as in Omaha, (and some Omaha hands are like a tar pit) - but you’re never really out of the running or “dead early on” like in Hold ‘em. (“Shit! I know I’m dead, I fold…good thing I have the newspaper to read ‘til the next hand…” - and this is at a poker room gambling table!) You FEEL that you have so much control knowing so many cards so early on, yet the results can have wider “latitude,”- as its short board can really swing the hand out from under you or outright land you the hand.

Personally, I hate when Texas Hold ‘em starts with a full table and quickly becomes a two-man show down - with the rest of us reading the paper. The problem with Texas Hold ‘em is that gambling isn’t fun if you KNOW you’re out of the running from the hole cards or flop, or just pure espionage and deception if you have the nuts. Just too many early deaths…
Gary Willis, a retired oil industry accountant from Jasper, Texas who came up with this poker room game (and who REALLY KNOWS poker room poker, and is a serious semi-pro poker player), came to me via our mutual patent attorney, who was Phil Kantor at the time.

Gary, who only really knows poker room and home playing poker, asked me to design the casino version, based on the success of EZ Pai Gow Poker and my years in the casino pit. My first reaction was not to say “no” – it never is. You can be surprised of the good game ideas written on a cocktail napkin, but rarely. My first reaction is “I need to see it - to make a call. If it’s good, I’d be happy to work with you.” Gary’s reaction was “very fine, sir, please take a look and get back to me…” I did so.

My call was:
1. (Silently…)“Shit!” This game is just fucking brilliant! Damn! I wish I had thought of the original version of it…[I say this upon seeing about one out of one hundred games shown to me….]. I answered “Mr. Willis, I am interested, give me two weeks, and I will have an initial design for the casino version, and we’ll take it from there… (after a “gentleman’s agreement via a handshake with a guy from Texas…)
2. I took the job. I thought: If I can make the element of risk low enough, the game will be faster to deal, have a LOW threshold on its dealer-qualifier mechanism, and pose a low element of risk to the house, and still be a fantastic poker game to play…with less dealer mistakes, more hands-per-hour, a really fine casino house-banked version will come to be….
3. I thought about this game(“I shall do this by having FEWER call-check-or-raise options on the game, reducing betting spots AND reducing the dealer’s minimum qualifying hand…and making the game a faster game for the casino with fewer opportunities for dealer errors and fewer playing errors – and simpler for the caisno to implement, and easier for the players to play?” Yup!)
4. I worked out the math (In Excel, algebraically) and the dealing procedures, and produced a basic “Product Description Guide” for the game.

The casino-banked game version had to be VERY quick and easy, just a little more demanding than three card poker, and EASIER than Pai Gow Poker – if it is to have a shot to succeed in a modern casino. Basically, I made it ONLY TWO UNITS for the game, with ONE optional bonus bet on a great hand, and ONE bet on a bad head, - again, where the requirement HAD TO BE only TWO units. (ANTE and PLAY). This is to keep it “cheap and easy to play. (This is one of the faults of “Money Market” from shuffle master, a fine game, but expensive to play, as it requires FIVE units to play the game, or else it forces you to fold with four units in action…)


To make it simple, the casino version is this:
1. Player bets ONE unit on an ANTE bet, - and get five hold cards. Player can bet an optional “Bonus bet” on an Ace-high straight or better, and/or bet on the “bad hand bet” where you can end up with no poker hand at all – if all high card singletons. Player bets are $5 to $500 on the main bets, and $1 to $25 on the side bets.
2. Player receives his five-card hand. Player can bet one more unit to PLAY his hand, or fold at that one unit loss. If you stay in, then You are in until the end of the round at these two units only, - as you can check the raise bet with no requirement to raise to stay in the game!
3. Dealer show the FLOP card – which is one card. RAISE one unit, or just check, as you are still in at two units total. You do not have to fold to stay in, you can just check. Player actions are done.
4. The Turn card and the River card are shown.
5. DEALER EVALUATION: If dealer has a pair of deuces (2’s) or better in his final hand considering his eight-card hand with the board, then the dealer qualifies, and he pays ALL players full pay on all bets where the player hand is better: ANTE, PLAY and RAISE always win even money. If dealer has a better hand of 2’s or better, then dealer takes all players’ ANTE, PLAY and RAISE bets. If dealer had an Ace-high Pai Gow (or high card hand only) or less, then all main bets push or tie as the dealer did not qualify.
6. Bonus bets (the high card “strong hand” bonus bet) and “Bad hand insurance bet” are always active, and always get paid or lose.

Basic Strategy for the casino version game is below:

Lubin Strategy:
1. After betting the ANTE bet, you get five hole cards. Make the PLAY bet if you have a jack-high hand, or if you have four to a straight or flush. Fold a ten-high or lower if you have no straight or flush draw.
2. After seeing the flop card, RAISE if you have a pair of jacks or better, or four to a flush or to an outside straight if also holding a pair.

Mousseau Strategy (WHO DID THE FINAL MATH!):
1. After betting the ANTE bet, you get five hole cards. Never fold a hand; ALWAYS make the PLAY bet.
2. Raise on a pair of tens or better.

Here's my frank thoughts. Overall, it's a solid game - a little boring, but I hope that the bonus pay tables are enough to spice up the game.

(1) There is already many hold-em type games out there: ultimate holdem, texas hold-em bonus, WPT 3x, etc. Carnival games that seem to do well (Caribbean, Four Card, Let it Ride) have multiple units for risk and they are doing well. Your game seems to be very simple with not much in the way of multipliers and I am not sure that would be appealing as a carnival game as the most you can win on the base bet is three units. This can be counteracted by a decent bonus bet (with a healthy house advantage of course). However, PGD, you're in the casino all of the time, and you know the market trends of the other "poker" games in the casino and whether there would be the market space for your game.

(2) With 5-6 player spots and the dealer spot, 25-30 cards will be out there on the table. The information in the other hands may be used by the players to figure out what cards are left. For example, if one person is holding 3 to a flush and the flop is a helper, information in the other hands would be helpful to figure out what the odds are of filling the flush / straight / low pair with the number of cards left. This could lead to collusion that might lower the overall HE similar to setting your hands in Pai Gow based on other hands or making a decision to fold or stay in Carribean stud based on other hands. Just saying!

(3) I like the fact that you get five cards and are able to make a much better judgement based on what's in your hand. It will lead to lower variances for the player than the other carnival games. I like the fact that it's heads on with the dealer, and that the house earns its advantage on its bad hands (which are declared a push). Of course the main complaint will be "I have this hand, and the dealer didn't qualify!". But I think that given 8 cards, the qualification rate would be very high, like 92.9%. The other complaint will be the bad beats. With eight cards, the players will expect to win with things like 2 pair and 3 of a kind or a straight, but the odds of getting better hands than are much higher with 8 cards. There's a better than 27% percentage change, for example, of a 3 of a kind or better. Those who are used to texas holdem will not be used to these higher hands.

(4) I think that dealers and players alike will enjoy the variety of the game and the fact that final hands are bound to be a bit higher based on 8 cards. Players like big hands. Dealers will enjoy the break from monotony that the seven card games are based on. According to durangobill.com, the odds of getting trips are 5.1%, straights are like 8.9%, flushes are 6.8%, full houses are 6.1%, and anything better is 0.4%.

Good luck to you Dan!

Quote: Paigowdan

I made it ONLY TWO UNITS for the game, with ONE optional bonus bet on a great hand, and ONE bet on a bad head, - again, where the requirment HAD TO BE only TWO units. (ANTE and PLAY). This is to keep it “cheap and easy to play.

I like games that are“cheap and easy to play.

Boymimbo, thank you for a beefy and thoughtful reply!

Quote: boymimbo

Here's my frank thoughts. Overall, it's a solid game - a little boring, but I hope that the bonus pay tables are enough to spice up the game.

(1) There is already many hold-em type games out there: ultimate holdem, texas hold-em bonus, WPT 3x, etc. Carnival games that seem to do well (Caribbean, Four Card, Let it Ride) have multiple units for risk and they are doing well.

Acutally, no - things have REALLY really changed!!...games like Let It Ride and Carribean Stud have been totally smoked out as "too expensive" and their game tables totals are near extinction precisely because they are both TOO expensive for players to play, and too risky for casino operators. What was needed was a "more flat" game, going in the opposite direction of Shufflemaster's "Money Market" poker game - which I actually like as a high-unit, high-volitility game.

Quote: boymimbo

Your game seems to be very simple with not much in the way of multipliers and I am not sure that would be appealing as a carnival game as the most you can win on the base bet is three units.

Blackjack - the most popular game - is an even money game, - the most you can win on blackjack's base unit bet is 1.5 units with a Blackjack at 3:2, and on Pai Gow Poker's base unit bet is ALWAYS 1.0 units - or just even money! And BOTH are HUGELY popular...I just HAD to take a look at that....on dice (craps) the basic bets are pass line, come bets, and place bets, also all virtually even money...on Video Poker, jacks or better, the typical win on a high pair is even money...I had to start thinking that IF I were to ADD an increased payout, then it WOULD BE through a raise bet to double the payout after player evaluation of ther hand. In looking at high-payout side bets on Blackjack and Pai Gow poker and on dice - the most "action-oriented" bets getting action are indeed the basically "flat bets" - but with an option to raise OR check! If raise options where the cash cow,, then "Texas Hold 'em Bonus" was the game to 'take-off' but had not, really. I had to look at that strongly. I see Basic Blackjack, Pai Gow Poker, and Pass Line craps getting the heavy action, and had to account for a huge factor in that. I Looked at Shufflemaster's "money market" game - where you can HUGELY press your bet on hand position fairly early on, and just saw getting creamed on forced raises and bad beats killing you, - as much as I like that game and its options. I mean - Look at how well an even-money game like Baccarat is doing?? When push comes to shove with a gambler's money on the line, an even-money strategy bet with an opportunity to raise here and there beats the shit our of a risky bet demanding a hefty "per-bet" investent of three of more units of action without any "check" option, - which I think is the mistake of "Money Market" poker. THAT requires a $50+ a hand player - or will fry lesser players at that table. Roger Snow thinks too richly now...

Quote: boymimbo

This can be counteracted by a decent bonus bet (with a healthy house advantage of course). However, PGD, you're in the casino all of the time, and you know the market trends of the other "poker" games in the casino and whether there would be the market space for your game.

Boymimbo, if you had ANY idea how hard it is to gauge a hit casino game, you have been the President of Decca Records Fourty Years ago, and had owned the catalogue of the Beetles, the Rolling Stones, and the Who, and had been burried next to Winston Churchill with an OBE while still alive with fourty years left to go at it...when I SAW Hong Kong Poker as a simple, elegant game with a small, - TINY - two unit investment - a rarity in casino poker games, I figured it was a screamer if given a small option to raise to win a double bet "good money" win with much less "getting creamed" risk. I mean, LOOK at the success of Three-card Poker: also a two-unit game with both an option to fold or to raise, even - and with ONE decent side bet. A hallmark in every casino game designer's handbook in terms of elegance, easy of play, ease of dealong and to manage - and inexpense of player to play, overall. It has 1,500 installs (One Thousandd Five Hundred) installs, and is considered "slightly imperfect" from perfection in every casino game designer's handbook, yet remains THE top role model to emulate!

Quote: boymimbo

(2) With 5-6 player spots and the dealer spot, 25-30 cards will be out there on the table. The information in the other hands may be used by the players to figure out what cards are left. For example, if one person is holding 3 to a flush and the flop is a helper, information in the other hands would be helpful to figure out what the odds are of filling the flush / straight / low pair with the number of cards left. This could lead to collusion that might lower the overall HE similar to setting your hands in Pai Gow based on other hands or making a decision to fold or stay in Carribean stud based on other hands. Just saying!

Not at ALL a concern: such shared information among players is generally weak to hole carders sharing info with fellow players - UNLESS the entire table is playing face up, AND all players are using online supercomputers and discussing the exposed hands right at the table to calculate all of this in front of the dealer and surveillance...you would need to see a majority of hands.
This is a ridiculous scenario. At which point surveillance and the dealer and the pit boss would say: "No action, no play, all hands are dead" just as they would say on Ultimate texas hold 'em, Three card poker, Pai Gow Poker, Carribean Stud, Let It Ride, and ESPECIALLY Texas Hold 'em Bonus where you could also do this and when all players are playing with open hands or sharing info. If the dealer of floorman see this, - just as it is with ALL Casino Poker based games -

Dealer points his hands to the offending players, then waves his arms over the playing table and calls out "NO ACTION ON HANDS DEALT - MISDEAL - PLAYER COLLUSION IN EFFECT - CALL SURVEILLANCE - NO ACTION ON HANDS DEALT!" A "player collusion misdeal" can happen on ANY live game in the casino house as determined by the dealer, or floorman, or surveillance on ANY game offered by the casino. It's been this way for countless years since other poker-based gamed had been offered by cainos. No Different here... As a matter of fact, it's been this way since any casino cheaters have been probvably spotted on surveillance recordings in the casin pit...

Quote: boymimbo

(3) I like the fact that you get five cards and are able to make a much better judgement based on what's in your hand. It will lead to lower variances for the player than the other carnival games.

Yes it will. It is a GREAT casino design of a game that is fairer to players - and more exciting to players.

Quote: boymimbo

I like the fact that it's heads on with the dealer, and that the house earns its advantage on its bad hands (which are declared a push). Of course the main complaint will be "I have this hand, and the dealer didn't qualify!".

That happens so rarely it is a moot point. Indeed, when a player pushes on a very rare non-qualifier, the dealer could easily say: "Would you have felt better if I had dealt myself a full house house - and TOOK your LOSING money??!!" Quiote often, a player with a losing hand gets a "SAVING PUSH" whenever the dealer doesn't qualify, and would be better off he he were speaking in "low tones..." - thankful for not being a LOSER on that hand, ahem...

Quote: boymimbo

But I think that given 8 cards, the qualification rate would be very high, like 92.9%.

Yes it IS indeed - almost all hands are in action - as is expected for a bona-fide casino game...better casino games that have fewer NON-qualifying hands benefit the PLAYER...

Quote: boymimbo

The other complaint will be the bad beats. With eight cards, the players will expect to win with things like 2 pair and 3 of a kind or a straight, but the odds of getting better hands than are much higher with 8 cards. There's a better than 27% percentage change, for example, of a 3 of a kind or better. Those who are used to texas holdem will not be used to these higher hands.

Those who are receiving the better hands are recieving them much more often, in keeping the very same pace as the dealer himself, and are ALSO getting paid on the bonus.

Quote: boymimbo

(4) I think that dealers and players alike will enjoy the variety of the game and the fact that final hands are bound to be a bit higher based on 8 cards. Players like big hands. Dealers will enjoy the break from monotony that the seven card games are based on. According to durangobill.com, the odds of getting trips are 5.1%, straights are like 8.9%, flushes are 6.8%, full houses are 6.1%, and anything better is 0.4%.

The whole direction of poker - both poker room and casino - is gravitating to eight-card hands, both for richer hands, and for more balanced play.I am on it.

Quote: boymimbo

Good luck to you Dan!

God bless you also!

I'm both a poker player and a table games player, and this game shows no interest to me. While the concept is kind of cool with so many cards and so many possibilities, I think the rate of dealer/player errors is simply too high. How often does a deal miss a flush or straight because the player split the hand into two pairs. With eight cards, three being community, it just feels like there is too much risk of "missing a hand."

Beyond that, I like carnival poker games where I feel like there might be some strategy. I know I'm in the minority (a very small minority I would add), but the strategy is too simple for me. While I used to enjoy TCP, it's no longer the game it was. I'm sure there's a market for this game somewhere, but I think it would be too complicated for the drunk sots, and too simple for the poker room player.

Dealer error should never be a factor in walking into - or not walking into - a casino.
Neither should player error.
If it were - there'd be fewer players than dealers could support for their livelihood.

I think eight-card-based poker is the wave of future poker.
Better hands, more rewarding hands, more "multi-ways" to set a hand...
I think it's time has indeed come.
I'm betting some on this direction, little concerned about "old school thinking"

Does anyone play it in Hong Kong? Is it legal to gamble in Hong Kong? May be a casino could serve Hong Kong chao-mein in the poker room where Hong Kong poker is played.

Quote: Paigowdan

You do not have to fold to stay in, you can just check.

I assume this is a typo?

Quote: Paigowdan

... the catalogue of the Beetles, the Rolling Stones, and the Who....

The Beetles? ROFLOL, PGD!

Quote: NowTheSerpent

The Beetles? ROFLOL, PGD!

Fine. excuse me, a typo... the Beatles.
Happy now?
Jack your dick off until you're blue in the face, NowTheSerpernt.
Edit: Sorry. Didn't mean to be rude again.

My my the forum's getting hostile these days. What's everyone doing for thanksgiving?

Quote: Paigowdan

The poker room version is this:
1. Get five hole cards and evaluate.

3. Turn is presented, you now have seven cards: Fold, check, bet or raise. Your average hand is 77xxx to a three of a kind, and you really look at how many players are still in.

5. Expect to see a lot more people staying in.

Going from Five cards to eight your average hand often flies up throw the roof no matter what you start with...

Dan, I play poker for a living and I have 2 comments. The first being that with the live game you'd have to limit the table to 9 players or you'll run out of cards to burn and turn. I assumed you had noticed this but just in case...

The second point is regarding your exuberance about how big the hands get and how many players stay in the hand. I don't play low stakes/limit poker for exactly that reason and most players with any experience feel the same. When you have too many players hitting or chasing too many big hands (or simply chasing for the sake of not folding) it becomes what we call "Bingo". When you're at the river with 7-way action it's not talent, skill or knowing how to read your opponent that got you there if everyone else is just waiting to see the river just in case they make the nuts.

I don't see it happening in a live poker room as any poker player worth his salt would probably watch the game with bemusement and avoid it like the plague. Poker has become refined to a point where what works, works and what doesn't work isn't played. That's not to say that whole generation of newbies wouldn't love your game but I certainly wouldn't play it.

Best of luck and take my opinion with a grain of salt... as I'm sure you've already done.

Quote: Paigowdan

Dealer error should never be a factor in walking into - or not walking into - a casino.
Neither should player error.
If it were - there'd be fewer players than dealers could support for their livelihood.

I think eight-card-based poker is the wave of future poker.
Better hands, more rewarding hands, more "multi-ways" to set a hand...
I think it's time has indeed come.
I'm betting some on this direction, little concerned about "old school thinking"

I've waited a bit to see your responses to other players concerns that they bring up before making a comment on what I assume was a reply to my comments.

You work very hard and had a big success with EZ Pai Gow. Congratulations. I would like to remind you that Edison had a ton of inventions that never made it on the big stage. I think my comments actually have some validity. If a game is prone to dealer errors, a casino is less likely to allow it on the floor as it's not good for public relations.

I think you're putting way too much stock in the "few bets needed" comment as well. I'm not sure the jury has spoken for this... Mississippi Stud is getting a TON of adds in Midwest Casinos, and the minimum to the end is 4 bets. Realistically, you could have 7-9 bets without having a made had. And yet, it's hard to find seats on those tables. There's a marginal strategy to the game that makes it a bit fun, although it can be frustrating.

To me, the most telling thing so far is that out of 12 votes thus far, 2 of them would say they WOULD play. Now I imagine that there are readers who are biased against you and don't like your tone you take with them (rightfully so), who are voting against you. I did vote no, but that had nothing to do with you; it had to do with my lack of interest in the game.

Another thing I enjoyed was your lack of concern for collusion on the game. For somebody who has been adamant about game protection, this seems to be a very naive response. Yes, a supervisor could come over and declare a hand dead... 1) They aren't going to do it to Asians who are playing it and speaking in their own tongue. I've seen them do this on Pai Gow, and they walk out of the casino. 2) This assumes you have a supervisor watching the game at all times or dealers who care all the time. Neither is the case. HAVING 40 CARDS OUT ABSOLUTELY GIVES PLAYERS AN EDGE. Heck, you could have an edge if you know ten cards are out... if someone has a pat flush in my suit, there's no way I make a raise, even with a pair of tens.

But you'll be sure to have some rude comments. You'll probably swear and say I'm wrong... and maybe I am. But you know what, I'm a player giving an opinion, and hopefully you'll take the comments with a simple thank you and maybe rethink this whole thing.

Quote: Tiltpoul

Another thing I enjoyed was your lack of concern for collusion on the game. For somebody who has been adamant about game protection, this seems to be a very naive response. Yes, a supervisor could come over and declare a hand dead... 1) They aren't going to do it to Asians who are playing it and speaking in their own tongue. I've seen them do this on Pai Gow, and they walk out of the casino. 2) This assumes you have a supervisor watching the game at all times or dealers who care all the time. Neither is the case. HAVING 40 CARDS OUT ABSOLUTELY GIVES PLAYERS AN EDGE. Heck, you could have an edge if you know ten cards are out... if someone has a pat flush in my suit, there's no way I make a raise, even with a pair of tens.

I kind of agree with this comment. A game called Hong Kong poker will attract asians. I've sat around enough Pai Gow tables to know that for example, players know where the Aces are. This would compel someone to adjust their 2 pair rule accordingly (with all Aces played, you might be compelled to play higher pairs together with a KQ or Ax)

With Hong Kong, if you have a high pair of Jacks for example (which calls for a raise), and the player knows that two other jacks are out with the players, he might be compelled to not raise the hand. This collusion (especailly in Mandarin) will give the players an edge.

I've not raised hands in Caribbean on a low pair based on the dealer's up card and the question "does anyone have a matching card" be answered through a couple of glances. After all, if the dealer is showing an Ace up and there are six players on the table and none are aces, there is a greater than 50% probability that the dealer has another Ace. Your best strategy with that knowledge is to fold low pairs.

Quote: RoyalBJ

Does anyone play it in Hong Kong? Is it legal to gamble in Hong Kong? May be a casino could serve Hong Kong chao-mein in the poker room where Hong Kong poker is played.

I am pretty sure it's just a name and had nothing to do with Hong Kong, cause I never seen anything that even remotely resemble it here.

Quote: Tiltpoul

I think you're putting way too much stock in the "few bets needed" comment as well. I'm not sure the jury has spoken for this... Mississippi Stud is getting a TON of adds in Midwest Casinos, and the minimum to the end is 4 bets. Realistically, you could have 7-9 bets without having a made had. And yet, it's hard to find seats on those tables. There's a marginal strategy to the game that makes it a bit fun, although it can be frustrating.

A couple of crowded tables doesn't mean all that much; one hundred or 500 tables does. In all due repect for Mississippi Stud, that game's market penetration is weak. If that game's got a shot, so does this game. And yes, a straightforward strategy is a great help.

Quote: Tiltpoul

To me, the most telling thing so far is that out of 12 votes thus far, 2 of them would say they WOULD play. Now I imagine that there are readers who are biased against you and don't like your tone you take with them (rightfully so), who are voting against you. I did vote no, but that had nothing to do with you; it had to do with my lack of interest in the game.

A lot of the problem is that it is a "yet another" new game; that is almost a command to roll the eyes.

Quote: Tiltpoul

Another thing I enjoyed was your lack of concern for collusion on the game. For somebody who has been adamant about game protection, this seems to be a very naive response. Yes, a supervisor could come over and declare a hand dead... 1) They aren't going to do it to Asians who are playing it and speaking in their own tongue. I've seen them do this on Pai Gow, and they walk out of the casino. 2) This assumes you have a supervisor watching the game at all times or dealers who care all the time. Neither is the case. HAVING 40 CARDS OUT ABSOLUTELY GIVES PLAYERS AN EDGE. Heck, you could have an edge if you know ten cards are out... if someone has a pat flush in my suit, there's no way I make a raise, even with a pair of tens.

It's the same situation with Texas Hold 'em Bonus or Ulitimate texas Hold 'em: collusion is a threat to any table game. For Asians speaking their own tongue, there are a ton of Asian Casino workers in casinos as well as players, and casinos are tuned to collusion threats on all games, with gabbering in a native toungue to avoid casino game protection as a tipoff to the casinos. The expression "you're done for the night fellas and barred from the casino" is just as effective in any language, and has been used in Chinese as well as English.
In this regard, the online version is safe; secondly, to see all fourty cards you'd already have a full table, where the single raise unit is the limit for additional winnings, unlike other poker games.
Third, you wouldn't know they key cards in many cases from the upcoming flop versus the dealer's hand if all hands were played face up. It would pretty much take that - plus a full table - to approach a stab at this game or in other poker games also.

Quote: Tiltpoul

But you'll be sure to have some rude comments.

A given in this business, true...it has had it effect on me; in some ways I am typical in this business in the sense that you meet bluntness with bluntness.

Quote: Tiltpoul

You'll probably swear and say I'm wrong... and maybe I am. But you know what, I'm a player giving an opinion, and hopefully you'll take the comments with a simple thank you and maybe rethink this whole thing.

I do thank you for your participation, really, and your comments are not "wrong," perfectly valid input that I appreciate!
As with any game, only time will tell.

Quote: andysif

I am pretty sure it's just a name and had nothing to do with Hong Kong, cause I never seen anything that even remotely resemble it here.

Everyone involved loved the name. It is catchy, and that's all it is, a name.

Quote: TheNightfly

Quote: Paigowdan

The poker room version is this:
1. Get five hole cards and evaluate.

3. Turn is presented, you now have seven cards: Fold, check, bet or raise. Your average hand is 77xxx to a three of a kind, and you really look at how many players are still in.

5. Expect to see a lot more people staying in.

Going from Five cards to eight your average hand often flies up throw the roof no matter what you start with...

Dan, I play poker for a living and I have 2 comments. The first being that with the live game you'd have to limit the table to 9 players or you'll run out of cards to burn and turn. I assumed you had noticed this but just in case...

The second point is regarding your exuberance about how big the hands get and how many players stay in the hand. I don't play low stakes/limit poker for exactly that reason and most players with any experience feel the same. When you have too many players hitting or chasing too many big hands (or simply chasing for the sake of not folding) it becomes what we call "Bingo". When you're at the river with 7-way action it's not talent, skill or knowing how to read your opponent that got you there if everyone else is just waiting to see the river just in case they make the nuts.

I don't see it happening in a live poker room as any poker player worth his salt would probably watch the game with bemusement and avoid it like the plague. Poker has become refined to a point where what works, works and what doesn't work isn't played. That's not to say that whole generation of newbies wouldn't love your game but I certainly wouldn't play it.

Best of luck and take my opinion with a grain of salt... as I'm sure you've already done.

Dan, since you asked I will give you my two cents on this. Having played more hands of poker than I can count NightFly makes the most compelling argument. Poker is not about playing the most number of hands nor is it being in action till the very end. The bottom line is $$$$. I have found myself bored many a nights when I played poker only to come out ahead.

As a poker player the progression of poker has been draw.... stud.....holdem. Anyone over 50 learned poker playing stud and anyone under 30 learned poker playing holdem. There is just enough element of luck that bad player can win on any given night and there is just enough element of skill that good players can take advantage and be a winning player. Each of the games evolved such that it allows for certain strength to come out. HKP reduces the element of skill and increased the element of luck.

My opinion as a poker player is that Hong Kong poker will not work. You could make a game where everyone is dealt three cards with a two card flop, two card turn and one card river. You could make a game where all players are dealt four cards and play with three card flop, turn, and river. You can play where all players are dealt five cards and dealt three card flop and only one river no turn etc... There are myriads of combinations or variations of pokers. You could have double flops. Holdem draw where you discard one card and get another card etc....

What poker player will dislike about Hong Kong Poker.
1. I do not want to be in every hand and have everyone one in every hand. If that is the way the game is design, skill level is negated.
2. Premium hands should be rare so having everyone with premium hands means that people will lose with premium hands. Good poker players will get sick of this.
3. What is this game offering that other poker game does not offer? Opportunity to play more hands. This is the very thing that caused mediocre players to lose because they cannot be patient.

Suggestion, try this out on a poker room with actual poker player and see if they will play this game. I for one am not interested. These players must play for real money to get a true gage.

Quote: Tiltpoul

To me, the most telling thing so far is that out of 12 votes thus far, 2 of them would say they WOULD play.

I picked "Looks good - might play it..." I can't speak for the rest, but what I mean is if I see it, or if it's at a casino I can get to easily, I'll try it. if I like it well enough, I'll play it regularly.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Quote: TheNightfly

Quote: Paigowdan

The poker room version is this:
1. Get five hole cards and evaluate.

3. Turn is presented, you now have seven cards: Fold, check, bet or raise. Your average hand is 77xxx to a three of a kind, and you really look at how many players are still in.

5. Expect to see a lot more people staying in.

Going from Five cards to eight your average hand often flies up throw the roof no matter what you start with...

Dan, I play poker for a living and I have 2 comments. The first being that with the live game you'd have to limit the table to 9 players or you'll run out of cards to burn and turn. I assumed you had noticed this but just in case...

The second point is regarding your exuberance about how big the hands get and how many players stay in the hand. I don't play low stakes/limit poker for exactly that reason and most players with any experience feel the same. When you have too many players hitting or chasing too many big hands (or simply chasing for the sake of not folding) it becomes what we call "Bingo". When you're at the river with 7-way action it's not talent, skill or knowing how to read your opponent that got you there if everyone else is just waiting to see the river just in case they make the nuts.

I don't see it happening in a live poker room as any poker player worth his salt would probably watch the game with bemusement and avoid it like the plague. Poker has become refined to a point where what works, works and what doesn't work isn't played. That's not to say that whole generation of newbies wouldn't love your game but I certainly wouldn't play it.

Best of luck and take my opinion with a grain of salt... as I'm sure you've already done.

Dan, since you asked I will give you my two cents on this. Having played more hands of poker than I can count NightFly makes the most compelling argument. Poker is not about playing the most number of hands nor is it being in action till the very end. The bottom line is $$$$. I have found myself bored many a nights when I played poker only to come out ahead.

As a poker player the progression of poker has been draw.... stud.....holdem. Anyone over 50 learned poker playing stud and anyone under 30 learned poker playing holdem. There is just enough element of luck that bad player can win on any given night and there is just enough element of skill that good players can take advantage and be a winning player. Each of the games evolved such that it allows for certain strength to come out. HKP reduces the element of skill and increased the element of luck.

My opinion as a poker player is that Hong Kong poker will not work. You could make a game where everyone is dealt three cards with a two card flop, two card turn and one card river. You could make a game where all players are dealt four cards and play with three card flop, turn, and river. You can play where all players are dealt five cards and dealt three card flop and only one river no turn etc... There are myriads of combinations or variations of pokers. You could have double flops. Holdem draw where you discard one card and get another card etc....

What poker player will dislike about Hong Kong Poker.
1. I do not want to be in every hand and have everyone one in every hand. If that is the way the game is design, skill level is negated.
2. Premium hands should be rare so having everyone with premium hands means that people will lose with premium hands. Good poker players will get sick of this.
3. What is this game offering that other poker game does not offer? Opportunity to play more hands. This is the very thing that caused mediocre players to lose because they cannot be patient.

Suggestion, try this out on a poker room with actual poker player and see if they will play this game. I for one am not interested. These players must play for real money to get a true gage.

Good points.
But..many poker players want different things. Some players want more frequent action, others wish to be selective as all hell - which is harder in this game, true. Still, there are premium hands, but they are at higher levels. A lot of casino pit type players like the game. In poker room play, it was a mixed bag, but more positive than negative.
Add: I will say that card room and casino operators want the players to be in the action as much as possible - as a player waiting for the next hand is "dead real estate" to the operator's eyes.

Ultimately, there is only one way to find out, and that is to run it up the flagpole.

Quote: Paigowdan

It's the same situation with Texas Hold 'em Bonus or Ulitimate texas Hold 'em: collusion is a threat to any table game. For Asians speaking their own tongue, there are a ton of Asian Casino workers in casinos as well as players, and casinos are tuned to collusion threats on all games, with gabbering in a native toungue to avoid casino game protection as a tipoff to the casinos.

It's a bit different in that you are working with 5 cards instead of 2. If you are attracting poker players (which is your audience), they will realize quite keenly the value of collusion. Still, if you make sure that the game if prone to that and make sure that the pit is aware of that, you'll do fine.

I think this game sounds like a lot of fun. I haven't played texas hold'em in years because I no longer find it fun. This game definitely sounds more exciting and I do like the prospect of having more cards hidden.

I've been rattling this around since the thread started. Here's my input.


I play low stakes Hold 'Em as well as Pai Gow Poker.

Most of my comments are going to be about the poker room version. TheNightFly sums up a good many of my thoughts right here:

Quote: TheNightfly

Dan, I play poker for a living and I have 2 comments. The first being that with the live game you'd have to limit the table to 9 players or you'll run out of cards to burn and turn. I assumed you had noticed this but just in case...

The second point is regarding your exuberance about how big the hands get and how many players stay in the hand. I don't play low stakes/limit poker for exactly that reason and most players with any experience feel the same. When you have too many players hitting or chasing too many big hands (or simply chasing for the sake of not folding) it becomes what we call "Bingo". When you're at the river with 7-way action it's not talent, skill or knowing how to read your opponent that got you there if everyone else is just waiting to see the river just in case they make the nuts.

I don't see it happening in a live poker room as any poker player worth his salt would probably watch the game with bemusement and avoid it like the plague. Poker has become refined to a point where what works, works and what doesn't work isn't played. That's not to say that whole generation of newbies wouldn't love your game but I certainly wouldn't play it.

Best of luck and take my opinion with a grain of salt... as I'm sure you've already done.

I too assumed that Dan would know about the 9 player limit. That's not a problem. Several poker room games are limited to 9 players. Some, notably 7 card stud, limits it to 8 players.

For the record, unless the shuffler was the type to spit out 5 cards at a time, the deal would be too slow.

The players that play at higher stakes and at other games are more serious poker players. It is doubtful that they'd play anything that resembles a carnival game seen on the regular floor. Putting a shuffler that spits out 5 cards would be like putting up a sign "carnival game".

Most of the players in a poker room play the lowest stakes, and only Hold 'Em. The reason is simple: It's the only game you see on TV. And it's usually the only game played in poker leagues. Therefore, it's the only game where a novice can have any exposure prior to entering the poker room.

Quote: Paigowdan

...(“Shit! I know I’m dead, I fold…good thing I have the newspaper to read ‘til the next hand…”

Personally, I hate when Texas Hold ‘em starts with a full table and quickly becomes a two-man show down - with the rest of us reading the paper.

You used that newspaper analogy twice in your first post. That seems to be to be the response of a non-player or casual observer.

Although I haven't played a lot in Vegas, and never at a locals casino, I've played a lot in AC, CT, PA. The number of times I've seen a player with any sort of reading material or other visual distraction is so low, that the player doing so actually stands out like a sore thumb.

There is plenty of information to be gained by watching hands after folding.

This year for the first time, the WSOP final table was on TV live (15 minute delay) without showing the hole-cards until the hand was over. I felt it was far more fascinating to watch and guess, than other broadcasts where you knew at each step who was ahead, what draw cards the underdog needed, and who was drawing dead. Then again, I'm a poker player.

One of the great things about Hold 'Em is that you CAN make assumptions about a player's hand based upon the board. There is a certainty of Hold 'Em that changes once the board pairs or gets the cards suited. Until then, the best a player could have is a set, or maybe a straight. Once you make those assumptions, you can decide if the turn or river helped him.

In your game, anyone could have anything, and it's impossible to figure it out - except by reading tells, which is not an exact science.

Lastly, as the pros often state, it's not about the cards. You have to play the player. You have to be able to evaluate every situation, to decide if a bluff may work, or if the other player is bluffing, or if the other player has a marginal hand, or if you do. Etc. In a game where everyone stays in to the end, then it's just a matter of throwing your money in the pot and seeing who won.




Regarding the table game version.

The various flavors of Texas Hold 'Em table games exist only because Hold 'Em is on TV. While players may realize it's not the same, they also realize it's similar.

On the other hand, there are plenty of table games that exist only because they seemed appealing, and people gave them a shot.

I really have no idea if your table game is good or not. With the exception of Pai Gow, I don't play carnival games. (Is Pai Gow a carnival game?) The primary reason I like it is because of the relatively high number of hands that push.


On a somewhat unrelated note, when I played EZ Pai Gow, the one time the dealer got that queen high hand, I did not think about how I would have won at a regular table. My reaction was more of a "It's another push. Whatever." But the lack of farting around with quarters was genious. I left feeling I hadn't lost as much as I could have, since I wasn't paying the 5% on every win.

EZ Pai Gow IS genious. But it's also almost scaringly obvious.

Congratulations on the success you had with it, but before you think that that success makes your opinion of HK Poker valid, I think you should take a few shifts as a dealer in the poker room. Check out what the players are really doing once they are out of the hand. Do a little of it yourself. Try to put people on specific hands, and see how often you've guessed right.

It will give you a better insight of what a poker room player is thinking.


I think HK Poker is an interesting idea. But I also think you should drop the idea of placing it in the poker room.

Poker room version: seems to have too little info available. The poker games that survive long term reveal enough information to give skilled players an edge, but retain a luck factor such that the worse players win some of the time. This keeps the skilled players at the table and the bad players willing to risk their money. For example you don't see 5 card draw or 5 card stud poker played in casinos because the former reveals too little information (too much luck) and the latter reveals too much. Your game sounds similar to Omaha without the requirement to use exactly two hole cards. This greatly reduces the opportunity for the skilled player to read hands.

Casino version: I like the lower amount of money at risk per hand but it sounds almost as boring as 3 card poker. It does address the issue I have with Ultimate Texas Holdem which is that at a "$5" table I end up risking $50 to play a hand to the end. Unfortunately it also sounds a lot less fun than UTH.

I used to play a lot of poker, but moved on. Mostly as I was barely grinding out a couple of dollars an hour on line.

Having higher overall hands doesn't really matter much. Hands are relative within the game, so if 2 pair is a rarity, people will play it as such. If a flush is common, then it gets played less.

I agree with other posters, as a poker game having too much action with not enough information won't be too interesting. It feels a bit like draw poker (initial hand is important) without the reads of the card exchange. Poker is interesting for me (as a bit of a fish) when lots of hands make the showdown, but only 2-3 people are in there.

I have little interest in this as table game, except that I understood it quicker than a lot of other games, so there's a chance I'd play it purely because "I know the dude who invented it online".

Quote: AceCrAAckers

The progression of poker has been: draw, stud, hold-'em. Each of the games evolved such that it allows for certain strength to come out. Hong Kong Poker reduces the element of skill and increases the element of luck.

What poker players will dislike about Hong Kong Poker:

1. I do not want to be in every hand and have everyone in every hand. If that is the way the game is designed, skill level is negated.

2. Premium hands should be rare so having everyone with premium hands means that people will lose with premium hands. Good poker players will get sick of this.

3. What is this game offering that other poker games do not offer? Opportunity to play more hands. This is the very thing that caused mediocre players to lose because they cannot be patient.

Suggestion: try this out on a poker room with actual poker players and see if they will play this game. These players must play for real money to get a true gauge.

Hong Kong Poker can still be a big hit on the floor with casual poker players and those who like gambling against the House period, even if it won't be the next big thing in poker rooms or on TV. The key to success on the floor is not same as the key in poker rooms. The best way get players spending at tables is simple rules and betting structure and a fast pace, which HK seems to offer.

Huh. I didn't realize that HK poker was entirely new to the poker room and the tables. I can't comment on the poker room version (I don't play in poker rooms -- I can't bluff worth shit) but i agree with Now's analysis that the rules are fairly simple.

Hey, PGD, how about a nice bad beat bonus progessive to go with it! It costs a buck to play. If you get 4 of a kind or better and the dealer beats you, you get the jackpot. Set the payback to say $.80 of each buck played and seed it with $10,000. The odds of a single player getting a bad beat is something on the order of 123,640 to 1 (it would be impossible for players to have the same 4 of a K as there are only 3 cards on the draw) so you could see the jackpot easily hit $90,000 before someone won it. It'd be an exciting progressive. You could even set it up so to pay $100 for a 4K, $500 for a SF and $5,000 for a Royal (draws down the progressive).

Some REALLY good points being made...lemme comment...
1. The "dead real estate" or "reading the paper" issue while waiting for the next hand: I am more of a pit player and worker than a poker room player, and have been playing a lot less in poker room action, true - but my view or focus on "idle players" stems more from casino experience than lack of card room experience. Let me explain. Having more of a casino view than a player's view of casino games, I do NOT think, when seeing an idle player, "okay, he's waiting for the next better hand, " I'm thinking, "damn, too many idle players! - WE'RE LOSING MONEY with this! We've GOT to get them to play more, get them committing themselves to more money in action!" Our old poker room had few busy tables, with many players playing one out of ten hands. It closed, and that was a sad day, a Bad Thing. Same thing in the pit: our "Deuces Wild" table game was consistently dead while other tables were busy, and is getting pulled. Few things are scarier for a game designer than to see his table not getting much action, including too much "heads up" play and people folding before the flop on poker room products. There was a strong goal in keeping people in at least through the flop on poker room products, if only to keep rake revenue up. When a game designer tries to sell a game, giving good or great answers to questions about "rake revenue" are VERY important. The poker room design and version was my partner Gary (Willis') baby, and believe me, we did discuss this. The goal was to hit the "sweet spot" by providing enough early info (and Hong Kong Poker does do this), but not so much that players will more often than not say "I do need to spend to see the flop." With Hong Kong Poker, and with another poker room game we have, players say, "I'll bet to see the flop, and then I'll take it from there." There is no 7-2 offsuit really to speak of in this game, and I feel that is a very good thing.

I feel that a lot of the concerns or criticisms of Hong Kong Poker is because the view of this game is shaded by a Hold 'em mind set. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but just that that is, well, "just is." So to have a game where it is the flop that tells you to stay or fold, is better than using the hole cards only to inform you of all this - and before the flop.

2. Casino version versus card room version: I agree with you all that the casino version is a better fit than the poker room version, if only because we are not battling an entrenched Hold 'em mind set here. You do not see table game players sitting out nine of ten hands, unless a wife is sitting with her husband on an otherwise dead game at 3AM. But seriously, the casino version plays VERY well, and most of the interest is in the casino version, not the poker room version.
The casino version was basically my area, and so Some design considerations are discussed below:
- I wanted to have the game inexpensive to play. I felt that there were too many games with too many required bets (versus checking), just slowing down the game AND making it too expensive to play. I had the casino version be only two units (ANTE and Play) with an optional raise right after the flop card, or its optional raise, at which point both the Turn card and River card are displayed.
- It works great with the shufflemaster type card dispenser set to packets of 5 cards. One "flop packet" is burn a card, show the flop card, then burn a card, and show the Turn and River.
- There are five spot and six spot versions, so there are enough unknown cards to thwart collusion to some degree.
- There's a bonus bet, and a high-card hand bet.
And I would love a progressive, but progressives are seldom added to brand-new games right off the bat, for a multitude of reasons, primarily reducing expense on getting a new game out. BoyMimbo mentioned a bad beat bet, and that is a consideration.

Keep in mind that the house takes the same rake on a $40 pot whether there are 2 people in the hand or 6. Those players who don't see a flop for 10 hands in a row aren't disappointed that they're not in the action, they simply know to get their money in at the right moment. The house isn't losing any money on them and if someone thinks that is the case then that person simply is out to lunch. Poker is a game of skill and by reducing the skill element you are basically asking poker players to sit in a poker room and play a carnival game. I'm not entrenched in any kind of old school hold 'em mind set but I do know that poker players, real poker players, are not looking for action on every hand; they're looking for their 1 or 2 pots per hour to cover the rake and make their nut. I think your game has as much chance as any other game of being successful on the floor with the right elements but I don't believe that anyone who has played poker will look at 5 hole cards as any kind of improvement to the game or benefit to them.

I do concur with the bad beat idea for the table game - it adds more spice and carny game players always like the idea of that big hit, just like on Fortune PGP.

No; if there are more players staying in for longer per hand, the pots and their rakes are consistently larger. This is a simple economic fact of poker room games. Many poker rooms have gone bust from too little action and too much heads up play on 2-4 games.
We have taken in dealers from closed poker rooms into our pit, to deal Blackjack, Roulette, dice, and carnival games so that they can pay their mrtgages and car payments.
Fiesta Henderson closed it poker room, as casino management felt that it was not in the business to subsidize senior centers and public libraries, as have a lot of other places.

I am not saying that players should be in the action every hand every time. What I am saying is that there can be more players playing more hands and staying in longer. Hong Poker Poker is not a carny game, though it may seem like that. It's a game where there is skill and information processing, but it occurs later in the hand.

Gamblers at a table are supposedly there for action and participation, and the fact of the matter is that from an operational POV, playing one out of ten hands and folding hands for free is a bad deal for the card room or casino, although from the players' POV it is a great deal, just fantastic, too good to be true. And changing this will cause pushback, that I know.

Hong Kong Poker plays great as a casino table game, and also plays quite well as a card room game, but you are generally folding after the flop, and are often punished if you fold too early.

If the rake is too high, games fold. There is only so much money per hour you can take of the table before games die out. Personally, I think the casinos already take too much out of the pot in the 3/6 games I used to play. It might be such that they have to take that much to run the game (so be it), but that drain is another reason I don't play any more. If I can't beat the rake, I'm the fish.

So yeah, 4 guys maybe sitting doing nothing on a hand. You might be getting them for as much as you can already though. The pot might have reached the rake max already, so who cares? If buddy in seat 1 is happy, he'll play longer. Skin him too quick, he's never coming back.

You can do the sums relatively easily to work out the rake per hour on a table, and compare to the average buy in, and see how many fresh buy ins per hour you need... which gives you an idea of how quickly the house is draining the pool of cash in the game. Again, that might be a required amount for the game to actually run, but if the prices is too high, people might not want to pay it.

Quote: thecesspit

If the rake is too high, games fold. There is only so much money per hour you can take of the table before games die out. Personally, I think the casinos already take too much out of the pot in the 3/6 games I used to play.

We are trying to strike that balance - with reduced rakes for the newer games. Much more play, but much less rake percentage, - as a better balance.

I am a poker player. I have put many sessions of over 80+ hrs in a week. If you are trying to get poker player to play a poker game where they are dealt five cards and sit for hours and play this game, it isn't going to happen. Omaha isn't played very much. Pineapples isn't played much. Stud is dying and NL holdem rules.

Who is your target audience? Casual players or poker players? Have you done a field test with real poker players and have them risk their own money?

Don't want to bust your bubble but in home games with small stakes all these crazy games have been tried, even yours with 5 cards dealt. They aren't spread in a poker room for a reason.

If you want to make a poker game work, ignore the casino and focus only on the players! Second focus on the players! Third focus on the players! This is my opinion but this will not work in a poker room.

First of all, I think it would make a fine pit game.

---

It seems like you're ready to throw in the towel on the poker room version, but I'd like to point out a few things.

Once again, The NightFly has beaten me to the punch, and given some of my own thoughts rather nicely.

Quote: TheNightfly

Keep in mind that the house takes the same rake on a $40 pot whether there are 2 people in the hand or 6. Those players who don't see a flop for 10 hands in a row aren't disappointed that they're not in the action, they simply know to get their money in at the right moment. The house isn't losing any money on them and if someone thinks that is the case then that person simply is out to lunch. Poker is a game of skill and by reducing the skill element you are basically asking poker players to sit in a poker room and play a carnival game. I'm not entrenched in any kind of old school hold 'em mind set but I do know that poker players, real poker players, are not looking for action on every hand; they're looking for their 1 or 2 pots per hour to cover the rake and make their nut. I think your game has as much chance as any other game of being successful on the floor with the right elements but I don't believe that anyone who has played poker will look at 5 hole cards as any kind of improvement to the game or benefit to them.

Quite frankly, talk to a poker room manager. Get inside his head.

I'm willing to bet that what any poker room manager looks for / needs is:

- Tables that have games running. The reason is obvious.

- Maximum rake. This is done with tables that are full or near full. Not because it gets more people in the action, but because it increases the likelihood that at least a couple players will have decent enough hands that they will force the action to the point of a maximum rake.

- Hands per hour. Sure, sometimes a player will "go to the tank" and think forever when it is their turn to act, but that happens. And it's part of the game. And it can add to the excitement of the game not just for those still in the hand, but for those that already folded.

The funny thing is, these are the same things a poker player looks for in a poker room.

Ask yourself why most poker rooms allow eating at the table, but you can't do that on the main floor. If you can't figure out the reason, ask the poker manager.


Note: There is no need for any particular player to ever play a hand. As long as the other players think that eventually he'll play, giving them a shot at his money, it's OK.

We can all really be a nice bunch when we're not talking about cheating, eh. Good luck on your game, PGD. You might have a winner here that will let you retire another couple of years earlier.

Regarding pit poker games, by increasing the randomness, or number of different ways that players can make hands, it can actually reduce the action on the table.

I played a lot of Pot Limit Omaha High and occasionally we would play 'Dealer's Choice'. There was a game called 'Cincinnati' (I think), which consisted of a 4-card Omaha game except that you could use 1, 2, 3 or 4 of your cards along with the 5-card flop. The problem was that players were scared to bet as they did not know what they were up against. For example, on a board of 2, 7, 9 in the regular game you knew what the best hands were. For 'Cincinnati', the best possible hand was someone holding 10, J, Q, K (suited with the 9) to make a straight flush - so it was difficult to have the 'nuts' in that game.

The good players will likely handle the new concept far better - the question is who is this game trying to attract? I could see adrenalin junkies enjoying this game and pushing the pots with good players waiting patiently for a solid 5-card starting hand. However, in the long run, I can see the 'action' players being hurt more in this game and the action being reduced on a table full of reasonably solid players.

However, for a table game concept, I believe it has more merit. The 5-card starting hand, similar to Caribbean Stud, along with the added cards, could be quite appealing to some players. There are a lot of "Deal player cards, deal flop, settle wagers" - style games. This is a slightly new format and the added cards could increase the interest - the downside being the reduced betting action that players get on a good hand.

In re-reading my post, it occurs to me that this statement can easily be misunderstood.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

- Maximum rake. This is done with tables that are full or near full. Not because it gets more people in the action, but because it increases the likelihood that at least a couple players will have decent enough hands that they will force the action to the point of a maximum rake.

...

The funny thing is, these are the same things a poker player looks for in a poker room.

What I meant was, not necessarily a high rake, but pots that are big enough to achieve the maximum rake posted.

Players, of course, want lower max rakes, along with pots that are even bigger than the size needed to achieve the max rake.

Geoff,
good point - what makes for a strong casino table game doesn't always help as a card room game. I do not think it hurts in this case, I think time will favor it.
I'm begining to think that eight-card poker games have a ton of merit, in a good zone, whereas with nine it just falls down.
As far as who it could attract? - maybe those seeking a different, if not better version of Omaha. If you can see Omaha, you can see this working, too, perhaps better in some ways.

I looked at the amount of betting action for the casino version, and felt that two raise opportunities were too much, especially going into the River with the dealer playing blind, seeing 7 out of 8 cards. EOR flies through the roof, and the qualifying hand would be too high.
For this game, - whether or not the card room version is seen as hot stuff - the casino version plays beautifully. The player has a strong sense of his hand - but not an absolute beat - at the point of the flop, and CAN check, and catch a break or not.

I would love for some members to try this game in a setting in a "dealer's choice" fashion and give some feedback. I, as TOO close to this game, might not fairly assess it.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

In re-reading my post, it occurs to me that this statement can easily be misunderstood.
What I meant was, not necessarily a high rake, but pots that are big enough to achieve the maximum rake posted.

Players, of course, want lower max rakes, along with pots that are even bigger than the size needed to achieve the max rake.

Games such as this would have MORE participation, bigger pots, AND much lower and fairer rake rates on the pots.

I have just one comment on the poker room version, have you considered using an ante structure (where everybody pays) as opposed to a SB/BB one? Reason is that the top-heavy nature of your game necessitates better podds. In hold'em the betting begins with players knowing only two out of seven cards. A lot is still to come so loose players can enter the pot with hands like 7-8o, thinking about implied odds when they hit. With HK the majority of your cards are known up front; with only one card per street to draw to. My point is that because players are receiving less information (on the flop) for the amount they invest, they will either have to tighten up or require better returns to enter the pot.

My guess is that the dust will settle quickly and players who know what they're doing will adjust starting hands to reflect the higher average. A rough example would be to only enter with high pair or better, four card straight or flush draws, and maybe 4 to 5 high singletons. Pair or trip hands will raise to keep out draws, killing the action and making the participation rate no better or worse than hold'em. Giving better ROI pre-flop will entice more players to stay in as you wanted.

Quote: Paigowdan

I would love for some members to try this game in a setting in a "dealer's choice" fashion and give some feedback. I, as TOO close to this game, might not fairly assess it.

Why not just go directly to poker players?

Go to a poker room, get a vacant table, use the casino's cards and tourney chips or bring your own, and set up a game. Ask guys that are on the wait list for a regular game to try it. Have them play for a bit until a seat opens for them.

Would something like that be allowed? If so, do it. I'm sure the comments will be very useful.

On a different day, do the same thing, but play it like the casino version.

Dan,

Just stumbled on this thread......been busy the last couple of days. My comments only apply to the pit game as it has been too long since I have been in a live poker room. Here are my comments:

1) I agree somewhat with your analysis of games getting too expensive. I think Miss. Stud and Texas Hold'em Bonus suffer from this. It was the exact comment I made to Mike when trying Money Market at G2E but the fact is that there is some market for multi unit games as MS and Bonus aren't dead. I do however think the ability to check a bad hand is the reason that UTH is working better than Bonus....you can get to the showdown with the dealer for one extra unit albeit three in total.

2) I do think that Ultimate Three Card was a good game at Shufflemaster's booth and it introduced additional units via the blind to start but also offered the ability to jack up your bet on good hands. This was a nice improvement to a old concept and should revitalize the game a bit. I think one of the real downsides to TCP is you can get a great hand and then only win one unit on the Ante unless you play the Pair Plus. Players want to risk more units on great hands and get paid for the risk.....again I think this is why UTH is so successful.

2) I think LIR & CSP are dying for lots of reasons not just because of the number of units to play. Let's face it in LIR you can essentially bet one unit per hand by taking back two of the three initial wagers prior to the 5th card being dealt. Rather LIR has been around for a long time and has too low a hit rate, something like 22%, which means you lose 4 hands before getting a winner...that is too long even though the payout potential is large. LIR feels more like a slot game but with infrequent low payouts but the potential for a much larger payout than what was expected at the time from a table game.

CSP's house edge above 5% did it in and the fact that you had to risk 2 additional units to frequently only get paid on the lower one unit Ante when the dealer doesn't qualify. The opposite in UTH is the reason I think it works well, when the dealer doesn't qualify you still get paid 4 units on your pair of tens in the hole when you raised the max and the dealer didn't qualify.

3) I think the key to determining if HK Poker (or any game) will work is to decide what it offers that sets it apart from other offerings. We can agree that it isn't too expensive to play. You can win three units on the main game when dealt a good starting hand subsequently making the play & raise wagers, I think that makes it more than an even money game like BJ or Bacc becasue you can increase your wager and therefore win 3 units on one good hand. That is a plus. But what else is there that sets HK apart from TCP, UTH, Texas Hold'em Bonus, Crazy Four, PGP, etc? That is the challenge for you to sell.

4) Before you answer, I agree with some others that simply offering higher hand values in aggregate to players as a result of 8 cards vs 7 isn't a real differentiator. It will spark some interest at first, but you get the same type of increase in hand value in Omaha vs Hold'em and that hasn't had the effect of Omaha surpassing Hold'em as the most popular game there. I don't think higher hands in and of themselves aren't good enough to influence success.

5) All that being said, I learned an important lesson in game evaluation, at least applicable to me. I looked and played at a game at the G2E and said to myself "no....this doesn't work". Then I play it live in a casino and said "this really does work". Not sure how to explain that phenomena, but it happened to me with Switch's Power BJ. I saw it and played it at G2E and said "Nothing really here" and then played it at Fitz's earlier this month and said "this is a great game". The lesson that may only apply to me is that I need to sit down and play this game before I can judge it accurately. Initially I would say I may try HKP as an alternate if UTH is kicking my butt, but let me play it a bit over the Thanksgiving and get back to you.

Paradigm,
Great input.
Firstly, it is very true that "trialing" games with play money at G2E doesn't give you the real juice, and hence, the real feel of the game. Nothing prepares a game designer - or compares to the experience - of seeing the game perform with real gamblers using real money in a real casino.
It is very, very hard to gauge a game's merit prior to this. But HK Poker has some very thoughtful work put into it.

Some things about HK Poker, a la "Selling points":
1. The three unit limit, and the two unit minimum for full hand action are good things, great things really. While a three unit win feels great, a bad beat on two units is not as bone-crushing or as session-killing as a bad beat with 4 or 5 units out.

2. The win ratio is basically 50-50; it's NOT like Deuces Wild (table version) or LIR where 4 out of 5 hands are a folding loss or a plain loss. Short sessions where you get "smoked right at the buy-in" are completely avoided for the most part - Yet it doesn't feel like Pai Gow poker either, with a gazillion pushes. The dealer's non-qualifier is a rare high-card hand, even including the EOR for the raise option after the flop, and allowing for a player check, instead of a forcing a third-unit raise bet.

3. It wasn't designed to be a "Bang up the winning hand to the sky" like a pit version of a no-limit game, - which UTH and Money Market do well. But that design can make those games expensive, and make those games have "neck-high" dealer qualifier hands, along with the fact that getting a few bad beats make the session a session-killer, a real hole to dig out under from.

4. I know that the that the allure is not in the "number of big hands," - but in the balance of the assorted hand types, which is a great merit of 8-card poker, and this is different. So it is NOT in offering higher hand values, it is in offering a different, and more balanced competition of the hand types in play. With 7 cards, and especially 6 cards as in Mini Pai Gow, the typical 5 card poker hand is either a one-pair hand or a high card hand. (Indeed, Mini-Pai Gow was "The Battle of high-card hands" personified, and made it as boring as all hell to play and deal.) With 8 cards, the majority of hands are two pairs or better, with a lot of flushes, straights, full houses, trips, etc, in GOOD balance and presence and in competition, and not as relatively freak hands. This adds to strategy (and also adds to hand setting options and choices in Full Poker 8-card Pai Gow version, too.) I ALSO feel that higher hands values in and of themselves are not good enough to influence success, - but I do feel that interesting, complex and competitive hand type offerings in better balance battling it out will make for a much more intersting game.

The non-qualifier that happens (what was it, 7%) rarely will be a buzzkill to the person who has the 4 of a kind. On the other hand, that's what the side bet is for I am thinking. But that non-qualifying hand is the ONLY was to achieve a HA on the game.

Yet all of the carnival games are like that, aren't they. Carribean Stud requires an AK to qualify, Three Card requires a Q. Four card has no qualification as the dealer gets six cards. Texas Hold-em bonus only pays the ante if you have a flush or better.

Thinking about this, I don't think it's fair that the player doesn't get paid at all when the dealer doesn't qualify.

Hey, Dan, another thought. You said that non qualifying would push on all bets. What would you need to push the qualifying hand up to to pay the Ante bet only when the dealer doesn't qualify? After all, if the mathematical strategy is to always PLAY, what's the point of having the Ante Bet at all? If you push the non-qualifying hand up but only pay the ante, the math of the game would change substantially but I also think you would have alot more players "playing" when they shouldn't.

Boymimbo,
The qualifier works well at 7% - as it does allow a raise. If I had the game with a straight off PLAY bet and no raise option, I would have had a King-only qualifier at 2.5% of the time (or push one out of 40 hands), but with no option to fold and no option to raise the game play would be too limited. Having the option each to fold a bad hand and raise a good hand was the minimum spec for a poker-based game. To pay the ANTE a qualifying hand of a pair of 6's or so would have been needed, and that makes the number of "dead" non-qualifying hands very common. Using a "full push" mechanism instead of an ANTE Pay, the frequency of the non-qualifier is greatly reduced to a fraction as often: far more hands become "live" hands. Everything is a trade-off in seeking a balance.

But looking at the frequency to qualify, the level of the hand has to take into the account the length of the hand. In three card, a queen-high or better to qualify (so a jack or less doesn't qualify) represents a whopping 30% of the time where the hands are dead. AK in Carribean Stud is very frequent also.

I like the option to fold in Hong Kong Poker; some (not many) starting hands are clearly bad. There is also the ANTE bet in Texas Hold 'em Bonus, where very few hands should also be folded. One can argue that in these games folding a hand is like folding a Bingo card, but not quite.

But come to think of it, having only a PLAY and a check-or-Raise option for a one unit game minimum game and a two-unit max play is not a bad idea either.

By the 8 card poker probabilities that I look at, the probability of having 5s or less is about 16.69% while 6s or less is about 19.07% and the players get a one unit win if they play.

Really, if someone is playing for three hours, they'll see, what 120 hands. At 7% (Ace high) perhaps 9 hands will not qualify. At 19%, 23 hands will not qualify. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's still much less than 3 card and far less than Caribbean (where the fold rate is about 50%). Texas Hold em Bonus is a bit different where the Ante is only paid when you get the flush or better (this is the HA). This works well in Texas Bonus as the bonus bet in Hold-em is substantially different than getting a flush or better in the 7 card hand. In your game, the idea of paying the Ante only when you have a say, Flush or better would conflict with your bonus bet.

Your math analysis for HK shows that basic stratagy using your pay is to play all hands. If this game makes it to the floor the Wizard will analyze it and probably come up with the same answer.

I guess I like the idea that you get something if the dealer doesn't qualify (even if the qualification rate is very high). Caribbean and three card offer that. If I had to play Caribbean where the qualifying hand was a Jack high but I didn't get paid (at all) on a good hand I would probably not play the game. The same I think would be true in 3 card (but at least they have Pairs Plus to combat that).

I like the two unit action of the pit version, and would try it. How about adding a progressive for the "Super Royal Flush" (9 - A)? Payoffs for other big hands (RF, SF, 4OAK) could come out of the progressive (ala CSP). Chasing these huge progressives attracts casual players, as they tend to view these games more like video poker.

Good point, but progressive aren't usually attached to brand new games yet - they will, though...