pai gowpeek

" Now, you had a belief, and HE had a belief. Who is right, even by law?" The law believes I was not cheating. HE knows I was not cheating. HE was merely protecting the casino's bottom line. Gee , who thinks i was cheating. Why the ultimate voice of morality !
Dan Lubin

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

What the hell does counting cards have to do with Pai Gowpeek?

Very little, right about that. I was answering Buzzard. We transgressed.

Pai Gow peek was discussed earlier, and was answered as a very hard game to find, with probably no installs.
We then discussed the merits of Asia Poker and High-card blackjack, and the thread was good, better, with a good gambling discussion about their merits. Let's get back to that.....

Quote: Paigowdan

Very little.

But if it did, you would not be branded a cheater. You are allowed to limit the house edge, but NEVER turn it to your favor.

deleted

Quote: Buzzard

But if it did, you would not be branded a cheater. You are allowed to limit the house edge, but NEVER turn it to your favor.

Now we are back to GAMBLING, - house edge, players' favor...

Now Buzzard, you are correct, a casino does not willingly offer a game that does not have a house edge; this is known. And Blackjack has a safe house edge if counters are stopped, which is why they are flat-betted and backed off.

Also, High-hand Blackjack's house edge might be too high with a vig on the pot, and it increases the house edge on the underlying blackjack game, as it may cause hand-playing errors.

And while you think it won't happen, I can guarantee somebody will sit down with what he considers to be a adequate bankroll and
suddenly find himself out of a jackpot with lots of his money in it.

But probably casino greed with have the same chilling effect it has had on Switch. It's the weekend, all games in Colorado go from $5
to $10. Now players have to play $20 to try a new game. Ain't happening !

As for hand playing errors, which hand the BJ hand against the dealer or the BJ hand going for high hand ?

Quote: Buzzard

" Now, you had a belief, and HE had a belief. Who is right, even by law?" The law believes I was not cheating. HE knows I was not cheating. HE was merely protecting the casino's bottom line. Gee , who thinks i was cheating. Why the ultimate voice of morality !
Dan Lubin

I'll answer this one since I was mentioned by name. Buzzard (and I won't reveal his real name) - elects to use my real name.
HE (the pit boss) did indeed think bad of your card-counting actions, - cheating, if you will - in that scenario. You were not singled out and 86-ed because it was Tuesday and it was raining. A lot of players get flat-betted and 86-ed, and it is not because their actions were just peachy with the pit boss. And this isn't the voice of ultimate morality here, as I don't give a damn as to who does what, except on a game that I am dealing on as my work. As far as being the voice of ultimate morality, consider me the voice of reality, because I am telling us here what actually happens in real casinos - in the real world. You get backed off and 86-ed for play that violates house rules, and yes, these issues are known as ground rules in the casino, and by those who try to carry something out against the house rules.

Edit: Let me say that my position is clear and known on casino game play actions that violate casino house rules, that house rules should be followed, respected, and accepted by casino customers walking into a casino. Anyone taking personal shots at me or to flame me, to "issue-ize" my known position is a waste of time and an act of flaming.

Quote: Buzzard

And while you think it won't happen, I can guarantee somebody will sit down with what he considers to be a adequate bankroll and
suddenly find himself out of a jackpot with lots of his money in it.

The jackpots are seldom huge, as the pot bet is the table minimum; you cannot bet more or less than the standard table amount for each pot bet made. If the pot is huge because of many players, you're facing a pot that is actually a small fraction of your pot contribution, more so than in poker room poker, where many drop out before the flop, and many more after the flop. In high-hand blackjack, everyone makes the same pot bet, and for every round of play. There is no raising, and there is no checking on the pot contribution.

Quote: Buzzard

But probably casino greed with have the same chilling effect it has had on Switch. It's the weekend, all games in Colorado go from $5
to $10. Now players have to play $20 to try a new game. Ain't happening !

Casino houses set each table limit by game type. If there is a "best practices" game sheet for Switch, I am sure it can mention appropiate table limits and factors. I've seen $5 houses offer $2 Three Card Poker to account for the number of betting units.

" The jackpots are seldom huge, as the pot bet is the table minimum; you cannot bet more or less than the standard table amount for each pot bet made." Define huge. Highest payoff in standard BJ is 3 to 2. So %7.50 for playing betting $5 a hand.
So when the dealer rolls over some 20's with a 21 and a blackjack, plus factor in player ties, etc.

I am not a math Wiz but with 6 players X 6 , plus split money. Easily $200. Huge compared to $7.50 That's the effect the inventor wanted. Split top hand by splitting pairs not winning reinforces my belief.

wow never thought this would make it to a 6 page thread when i started it

What did you expect ? Evenbob is not here. Somebody had to take up the slack LOL

Quote: Buzzard

" The jackpots are seldom huge, as the pot bet is the table minimum; you cannot bet more or less than the standard table amount for each pot bet made." Define huge. Highest payoff in standard BJ is 3 to 2. So %7.50 for playing betting $5 a hand.
So when the dealer rolls over some 20's with a 21 and a blackjack, plus factor in player ties, etc.

It's large, but seldom huge. You have three players at a $5 table, you have a $15 pot that's usually won from the round of play. Currently there are BJ side bets that offer some juicy payouts also.
When you go to a full table, you now have a $30 pot that is more likely to roll over to the next round and become $60 with more players to tie each other. Analysis of the average pot size as well as outlying extremes would answer questions on this. The pots don't have to be huge; 5X your main bet on every round is plenty noticeable.

Quote: Buzzard

I am not a math Wiz but with 6 players X 6 , plus split money. Easily $200. Huge compared to $7.50 That's the effect the inventor wanted. Split top hand by splitting pairs not winning reinforces my belief.

There are big pots often enough, and yes, I would say that was exactly the type of game action and excitement that the inventor was trying to produce. I think he developed an exciting game that isn't fully debugged (like the vig on the pot), but overall, I think a lot of this game. I also think that House Money BJ also adds a bit of that "juice accelerant" to the game via a side bet, and that Freebet Blackjack adds it with every split or downdown opportunity on the main bet.

I'd be curious to see what Steve How (of discountgambling.net) has to say on the game, and what the optimal strategy would be. He'd probably include running count factors and their effect on the game.

Hopefully Switch will not have a sleepless night after reading my PM on an accelerated version of the game concept LOL

Quote: strictlyAP

wow never thought this would make it to a 6 page thread when i started it

You throw in discussions of Asia Poker, High-hand Blackjack, Games marketing, and the like, there's a lot of good side dishes, along with one poor one.

Quote: Buzzard

Hopefully Switch will not have a sleepless night after reading my PM on an accelerated version of the game concept LOL

Depends on your track record in games design.

Gee, most honest people being identified as cheaters, do not think defending their good name is a poor reason.

Quote: Buzzard

Gee, most honest people being identified as cheaters, do not think defending their good name is a poor reason.

That's because most honest people aren't identified as cheaters as they follow the rules, - keeping their good name good. And they're easy to find: they're the ones not 86-ed from a joint. Now let's be honest: if you ever get asked to leave a casino due to "unacceptable play," there is an issue.

Quote: Paigowdan

That's because most honest people aren't identified as cheaters as they follow the rules, - keeping their good name good. And they're easy to find: they're the ones not 86-ed from a joint. Now let's be honest: if you ever get asked to leave a casino due to "unacceptable play," there is an issue.

And the issue is that by counting, I can win. And that is unacceptable to the casino. No problem here except in your mind.
86 me anytime for any reason. Just do NOT call me a cheater.

Quote: Buzzard

And the issue is that by counting, I can win.

No, it's about how you win.

Quote: Buzzard

And that is unacceptable to the casino.

It may very well be indeed. Again, it's about how you win.

Quote: Buzzard

No problem here except in your mind.

Uh, no. My eyes and mind know exactly what is going whenever I see someone getting walked off a property, and whatever went on has nothing to do with me if I ain't the one getting walked off. Worked in a casino for years, I know what I see.

Quote: Buzzard

86 me anytime for any reason. Just do NOT call me a cheater.

Uh, nobody has to call you anything. You get backed off or walked out of a casino, nothing needs to be said; getting walked off speaks for itself. It isn't necessary to add insult to a self-inflicted wound. You see the shift manager walking someone out of a casino, nothing really needs to be said.

Can you guys continue this in another thread? Here's a good title "Argue with Paigowdan about stuff"

Quote: FinsRule

Can you guys continue this in another thread? Here's a good title "Argue with Paigowdan about stuff"

You're right. If Buzzard wants to take shots at me, he can PM me there, and I will certainly answer him there.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. Counting is not considered cheating by state law and law authorities.
2. Counting is considered cheating by the house rules and pit supervisors, - and this is proven by the flat-betting and 86-ing of players who get caught doing this.

"and this is proven"...... NOT AT ALL.... The only thing "proven" is that casinos know that counters have an edge on them, and that casinos have a right to ban someone that has an edge on them. ABSOLUTELY that does NOT correlate to "Counting is considered cheating"...
Dan.... you just can't use simple reasoning..... You just like saying that counters are cheaters and you NOT ONCE have offerred any evidence to support your claims. NOT ONCE.
Casinos dont like counters. Casinos can ban counters. Casinos can ban men in speedos. Counting is not cheating. Wearing a speedo is not cheating.

Quote: SOOPOO

"and this is proven"...... NOT AT ALL.... The only thing "proven" is that casinos know that counters have an edge on them, and that casinos have a right to ban someone that has an edge on them. ABSOLUTELY that does NOT correlate to "Counting is considered cheating"...

Look, let us put a "by WHOM" into this equation - from the point of the casino pit supervisors, and not Internetland discussion boards. I've worked full time in the casino pit for years, as well as designed successful table games that must thwart Advanage Play via game protection - to include addressing such issues via softer words such as "legal advantage play" vulnerabilities, "unacceptable play," etc. I know what's at stake, and what is really being considered here, and how it is viewed as. When reviewing a game as part of my game design and review work, the question and consideration is discussed as "Well, Dan, can this game be cheated or frauded?" - using very plain language, and without offense meant.

I can just as well use polite words such as "game protection," "malfeasance," "wrong doing," "unacceptable play," etc., - and what have you. But it is internally and honestly viewed as "game cheating" of sorts, - destroying the needed and rightful house edge when it has to be protected for business reasons, and without regards to politically correct "cushioning" of the words used, or with concern about how AP players feel about it, or have hurt feelings about it.

Look, let me say this: when it gets to the point where a gambling hall Blackjack dealer, surveillance, and a floor supervisor determine of all things, that your table game play is unacceptable - and you get backed off or even walked off, - especially when it's NOT an issue of wearing speedo's, or using F-bombs, or being drunk (all of which are also valid reasons for being 86-ed), honestly now, the thought is actually "a cheater was caught."

Clearly Not drunk, clearly not wearing speedo's, clearly not using F-bombs, but violating the known house rules of a live table game - and where it is just as legal to back you off or walk you off, as it is to card-count. So, you simply end up off the property, instead of in the joint.

So quoted here, and so as long as all parties acted legally, you still get thrown off the property for what was quietly viewed as cheating, essentially, but this is hard to see. Not speedo's, not boozing, not language. Both parties fully legal in actions, but only one won per incident. Cheating = unacceptable game play to illicitly grab more money. Granted, we may soften the action and its wording with a euphemism - a generally harmless word, to replace an offensive word, if mincing words are indeed required. 100% the same view and concept. Being PC.

Quote: SooPoo

Dan.... you just can't use simple reasoning..... You just like saying that counters are cheaters and you NOT ONCE have offerred any evidence to support your claims. NOT ONCE.

Yes, I have. If your table game play is deemed unacceptable by gambling hall dice dealers, floormen, blackjack dealers, and surveillance crews, the assumption is - to use a euphemism - "unacceptable play." The proof is being backed off or walked out from your "specialized game play methods" on a live game, we're talking here, really. Not alcohol or speedo's. If it happened because of illicit game play, it is not kindly looked upon by casino pit management. If you get backed off of a live table game, and walked off of a gambling hall, the reason being unacceptable play, there is an issue, no matter what the hell euphemism is used. I will say it may be considered to be "operating at a low level" when you're thrown out of a gambling hall for unacceptable play by - dice dealers, security guards, and pit bosses.

When I am asked on my game design: "is this game cheatable, Dan?" that comment includes all advantage play threats, especially counting, as my latest development is a Baccarat side bet where shoe penetration is more than seven decks from an eight deck shoe. I had a separate math report done to substantiate that the game design was uncountable here. Yeah, I did homework.

When I am on my pre-sheet meeting before dealing, the shift manager will say "look our for cheaters, guys, we're being hit," to include card counters, when talking among the dealing and floor supervision crews. So what.

Quote: SooPoo

Casinos dont like counters. Casinos can ban counters. Casinos can ban men in speedos. Counting is not cheating. Wearing a speedo is not cheating.

I think I see the problem here. First of all, there are many reasons to be expelled from a casino. Being expelled for public drunkeness is not cheating, - however, inappropriate or unacceptable table play on a live game to illicitly obtain additional monies is quietly considered cheating, but couched in euphemisms in some cases, because card-counting is a more common, a more socially acceptable, and a less serious offense, even nominally legal. Fine. But this view concerns any method used to obtain this advantage. I would also think that any card-counter or AP player wouldn't care what a casino suit thinks, especially when it is common for AP players to call casino suits "blood suckers," "money grubbing dirty-bags," "greedy bastards," and "the dark side," - which is how I routinely hear AP players describe casino executives and operators, - and I mean on a routine basis without batting an eye. I've never seen a casino exec do so much as bat an eye as such language or sentiments from AP players expressed towards them. Does it matter? No.

Secondly, I think there is a "lulling" among serious AP players, where there is a huge "us versus them" attitude, when in reality, you're actually playing against variance, and the result of the dice or cards as they fall; the dealer doesn't care how it comes out, or who wins or loses, it isn't his money, he's just an empire calling them as he sees them, and takes and pays the bets like an automitron. Most dealers are fine with seeing players win, having no love lost for neither players and their own casino bosses alike. In many cases, dealers are more found of the players than of ther own management, let me tell you. You just accurately enforce clean games, and the house edge takes care of the admission price for the action. No need for the casino to cheat, but for players, - and solid strategy isn't enough for some.

Thirdly, I spend a lot of time in a real casino pit, and see much more of the casino pit IRR - "in the real world," and the views in the casino pit diverge hugely between the real world casino pit, and the "Internetland" AP world, - an absolute canyon. Some boards are like an AP cocoon, and any view that a gaming businessman may have may seem way out there. For that matter, I feel the same way about a lot of the views here, but so what, no biggie. I would like to think that we are bridging a huge gulf, a very wide expanse.

Here is the issue, as I see it (god help me for getting into this...)

"Cheating" is a well-defined term. It means doing something outside the rules to gain an advantage. And, simply put, there is nothing in the rules of blackjack that says that players are not allowed to pay attention to the cards that have come previously, and size their bets accordingly. Therefore, it's not cheating.

The fact that some consider it cheating is irrelevant. There are some who consider check-raising in poker to be cheating. The opinions of those people don't change the rules of the game, nor does it change the definition of cheating.

Now, does the casino bar skillful players? Of course! The casino is there to make money. Why would they play if they don't have an edge? Sometimes I walk to a poker table, and recognize that all the players there are as good as or better than I am. So, I turn around and take my chips with me. I refuse to play against them, because I know I don't have an edge. They are not cheating; they are just skillful, and I'd rather take money from idiots than battle skillful players while the rake eats us all alive. Similarly, the casino would rather take money from idiots than play a break-even or losing game against a skilled player.

I have no issue with the casino picking and choosing who they are willing to play against (just like I do at the poker table) but I do have an issue with people trying to re-define the term "cheating". It's not against the rules, so it's not cheating. That's all there is to it. If some people consider it cheating, then those people are wrong.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

"Cheating" is a well-defined term. It means doing something outside the rules to gain an advantage. And, simply put, there is nothing in the rules of blackjack that says that players are not allowed to pay attention to the cards that have come previously, and size their bets accordingly. Therefore, it's not cheating.

The fact that some consider it cheating is irrelevant.

What if the casino spelled out the process for card counting and said it was a violation of the rules? "The player may not consistently bet more when the balance of cards in the shoe is more high cards/aces than a standard deck and he also may not consistently wong out when the balance of cards is mostly low cards..." I think that if they made that rule clear it would be cheating to violate that rule. Very difficult to enforce and I do not think the government should view it as cheating, but it would be cheating in a moral sense.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Here is the issue, as I see it (god help me for getting into this...)

"Cheating" is a well-defined term. It means doing something outside the rules to gain an advantage. And, simply put, there is nothing in the rules of blackjack that says that players are not allowed to pay attention to the cards that have come previously, and size their bets accordingly. Therefore, it's not cheating.

Now here's a problem or contention on: Card-counting IS indeed so well known as such a wrongful and unacceptable game play action, that a TON of Card-counting guides actually focus on and center around camoflaged play, methods of throwing off floor supervision - even using disguises. Now this is truly undeniable. I have read and can show a plethora of countermeasures and camoglage as a main stay of card-counting that this position is arguably falsifyable. There is SO MUCH counter-casino game protection "thwarting" and camoflage methodology and usage that it is truly impossible to claim that card-counting is truly within the house rules of play to carry out - especially when they throw you out and put you in the surveillance "watch" reports. This cannot be denied, and it can "arguably" give it a cheating taint to it, especially in the eyes of casino pit workers or "critters."

There is just too much evasion and lack of openness on this issue on the casino operator's part, because it is utterly distasteful for business operations.

Quote: Axiom

The fact that some consider it cheating is irrelevant. There are some who consider check-raising in poker to be cheating. The opinions of those people don't change the rules of the game, nor does it change the definition of cheating.

all true. It is irrelevant. But what counts is that is it doable or viable, and that answer is essentially no in this day and age.

Quote: Axiom

...I have no issue with the casino picking and choosing who they are willing to play against (just like I do at the poker table) but I do have an issue with people trying to re-define the term "cheating". It's not against the rules, so it's not cheating. That's all there is to it. If some people consider it cheating, then those people are wrong.

The nomenclature used should not be an issue considering how AP players refer to floormen, dealers, and surveillance. I mean, if being called "the dark side" or "money grubbing lackey" doesn't phase me, it shouldn't in the reverse.

I will start a new POLL and topic on what would happen IF........

Quote: Paigowdan

Now here's a problem or contention on: Card-counting IS indeed so well known as such a wrongful and unacceptable game play action, that a TON of Card-counting guides actually focus on and center around camoflaged play, methods of throwing off floor supervision - even using disguises. Now this is truly undeniable. I have read and can show a plethora of countermeasures and camoglage as a main stay of card-counting that this position is arguably falsifyable. There is SO MUCH counter-casino game protection "thwarting" and camoflage methodology and usage that it is truly impossible to claim that card-counting is truly within the house rules of play to carry out - especially when they throw you out and put you in the surveillance "watch" reports. This cannot be denied, and it can "arguably" give it a cheating taint to it, especially in the eyes of casino pit workers or "critters."

There is just too much evasion and lack of openness on this issue on the casino operator's part, because it is utterly distasteful for business operations.

None of this makes it cheating. If a good poker player pretends to be an idiot so that I mistakenly think that this winnings are due to good luck rather than good play, is that cheating? If I knew he was good, I probably wouldn't play against him. But, he hides this fact for as long as he can, and as a result, I lose more money to him.

It's often advantageous (in any game) for a skillful player to conceal the fact that he is skillful, so that people keep playing against him. This is not cheating. It's just part of the game.

Quote: Paigowdan

all true. It is irrelevant. But what counts is that is it doable or viable, and that answer is essentially no in this day and age.

You think that making a living counting cards is not doable or viable? That's just silly. A hard way to make an easy living, maybe, but definitely doable.

Quote: Paigowdan

The nomenclature used should not be an issue considering how AP players refer to floormen, dealers, and surveillance. I mean, if being called "the dark side" or "money grubbing lackey" doesn't phase me, it shouldn't in the reverse.

Those terms are clearly not meant to be taken literally. Are you implying that when you say that counting cards is cheating, you don't really think that it is literally cheating, but, instead, you're using the term in some figurative sense? Because, if you are, that's just confusing.

I get that you think that it's "wrong". And, that's fine. That's a matter of opinion, and you certainly have the right to your opinion. I'd expect that a lot of people would agree with you, and a lot of people would disagree. I disagree with you. But then, there are those who believe that it's wrong that casinos can and do bar skillful players. I disagree with them too -- I think that the casino has every right to play against losers and refuse to play against winners.

"Your table game play is unacceptable' (to the casino). I will TOTALLY accept that. ALL AP players are aware of that possibility, of being asked to stop playing. Being unacceptable does not make it cheating.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

None of this makes it cheating. If a good poker player pretends to be an idiot so that I mistakenly think that this winnings are due to good luck rather than good play, is that cheating? If I knew he was good, I probably wouldn't play against him. But, he hides this fact for as long as he can, and as a result, I lose more money to him.

In poker, deception to eliminate your tells are a valid part of that game, and totally a non-issue with house rules. Just as you would hide your hole cards, instead of flash them, you hide your skill cards. But using actual physical false disguises to cover known and further illicit game play - covering game play that IS against the house rules, says a lot. this is not about being discreet, it's about using an outright false identity - an open lie of sorts, to the point where your mother wouldn't recognize you, - and this a lot different than simple "non-broadcasting" of your skills set. A physical disguise is "false broadcast," or a lie of sorts.

Quote: Axiom

It's often advantageous (in any game) for a skillful player to conceal the fact that he is skillful, so that people keep playing against him. This is not cheating. It's just part of the game.

I never disagreed on this point, really, especially on player-on-player play. And not analyzing Blackjack hands on a BJ game to announce your skill is fine, too. Indeed, most yappy advice givers on BJ are closer to ploppies.

Quote: Axiom

You think that making a living counting cards is not doable or viable? That's just silly. A hard way to make an easy living, maybe, but definitely doable.

Yes, I think so. If the very "profesional" Nathaniel Tilton lasted only a few years, mostly composed of running around, avoiding identity capture over his false identities, studying the crap out of advanced BJ charts, dealing with stealing team partners and the like, then the average joe is doomed. Obtaining a long, lucrative, and rewarding career is not in those cards. Many ex-card counters are now working for the casino operators as game protection specialists, as a final destination. Others are just burnt out. The effort expended by some pro card counters - only to burn out - often equal the effort involved in getting a true professional career. I also see a negative transition in the viability of counting "as a viable career,' using the example of Tilton in another thread. 25 years earlier, he could have lasted 15 years, instead of about five, before becoming burnt out.

Quote: Axiom

Those terms are clearly not meant to be taken literally. Are you implying that when you say that counting cards is cheating, you don't really think that it is literally cheating, but, instead, you're using the term in some figurative sense? Because, if you are, that's just confusing.

My definition of cheating is using disallowed methods (and counting is a disallowed method), against the house rules (which it is, and is revealed as such in back-offs and walk-offs), to illicitly obtaining money, is cheating.

Quote: Axiom

That's a matter of opinion, and you certainly have the right to your opinion.

I have always felt free to openly discuss differing points of view, even points of view that may appear as absolutely polar, on the opposite side of the spectrum, as food for thought to an open mind. My views are alien here, but are sensible in other, non-gambling environments. My view on counting is above, and it makes sense to a lot of people.

Quote: Axiom

I'd expect that a lot of people would agree with you, and a lot of people would disagree.

It's a mixed bag, with different groups of people than from this board.

Quote: Axiom

I disagree with you.

I'm cool with that, there is nothing quite as false as looking for yes-men to agree and rubber stamp falsely agreeing views.

Quote: Axiom

But then, there are those who believe that it's wrong that casinos can and do bar skillful players.

I agree with you on that. Barring skillful "pure strategy" players who follow the game rules is totally wrong.

Quote: Axiom

I disagree with them too -- I think that the casino has every right to play against losers and refuse to play against winners.

I think the casino must pay all who legitimately win via pure strategy skill that is house-allowed; in such a scenario, if a pure skill player beats a strategy-based game, then there is an error in the game offered, in either procedure or house strategy - its math, if you will - if it is beatable by pure and approved play.

I don't know what to do here. Normally, this is the point at which I just block a thread. But, I actually care about the root subject. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure what level of hijack would rise to the level of punishment, but if THIS doesn't do it we might as well just remove the rule.

Quote: rdw4potus

I don't know what to do here. Normally, this is the point at which I just block a thread. But, I actually care about the root subject. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure what level of hijack would rise to the level of punishment, but if THIS doesn't do it we might as well just remove the rule.

I absolutely see your point. We got off track and into an interesting gambling-related discussion that at least a few found merit in, then less was lost. it is when we abandon interesting arguments and resort of personal name calling that a hijack is really bad. Some threads are a mix.
As for Pai Gow Peek, that game seems to have gone nowhere, both honestly and in all due respect, and its received its short shrift here. Few have heard of it or played it, little was said about it, though that game may have deseved to have had a better fate.

Conspiracy theory - Dan helps hijack a thread about a game that competes with his....

HMMMMMM.......