Grand Casino Mille Lacs Bad Beat

I am a table games dealer at a small midwestern casino, and our table games have a "Bad Beat." In Minnesota Indian run Casino's, players are required to place a 50 cent per hand rake in order to play thier hand. This is the revenue created for the house, and the money made off the racks is accumulated in a "player pool." Which needs to be lowered using various bonuses.

So here's my question. How does this reflect on the overall house advantantages of these games? The bonuses are as follows:

Trips of the month: $100 bonus for three of a kind in players hand on given month (A's --- Q's = Jan --- Dec). Applies for all of the games, 3 card poker is rolled up trips obviously, 4 card is three out of 5, Missisippi Stud can have no more than two card of that month land in the communtity, ie only two players can win, and Ultimate texas hold'em must have a pocket pair of that month.

The "Bad Beats" are as followed:
3 Card Poker:
Jack high straight or better beaten by dealer
4 Card Poker
Trip jacks or better beaten by dealer
Mississippi Stud
Broadway with 4 to a royal
UTH
Aces full of dueces or better beaten, players must use both hole cards, dealer only one.

All of the bad beats pay $1250 to "losing" hand, and a $1250 table share.

It's been a long time since I've taken a stat class, and I was never any good at it, so any help in figuring out the bottom lines of these games would be appreciated. I've been curious for years as to which of these games was best, and if the rake was a positive or negative proposition in our casino.
~Todd

Hey Todd,

Will you tell me that live gambling is beneficial or online gambling is beneficial??

Quote: warweev

I am a table games dealer at a small midwestern casino, and our table games have a "Bad Beat." In Minnesota Indian run Casino's, players are required to place a 50 cent per hand rake in order to play thier hand. This is the revenue created for the
house, and the money made off the racks is accumulated in a "player pool." Which needs to be lowered using various bonuses.

A couple questions I'm sure the math people will need to know first before answering...
1) Is the 50 cents ENTIRELY funded into the player pool, or does GC take out a couple cents before funding the rest? With the set promotion deals (non-progressive), it may not make a difference, but if GC makes 1 penny off the promotion then it's going to be a house edge.

2) Is the $1250 table share divided among all players at the table, or at all games? If you're playing by yourself, who gets the "table share"?

I'm going to take a stab that the bet is a HUGE disadvantage to the player. Considering that it is required to play the hand, it's kind of like the Oklahoma vig they take out prior to each hand. No promotions can save the game. I'm not a math person, but I can't see a scenario where that's a winning bet.

None of the .50 rake goes towards the player pool. The player pool is money gained or lost off the rack. The rake is what the casino makes off the game. The table share is divided among players playing on the table where the bad beat goes off. If two players are playing on 3 card and the bad beat goes off, then both players would get $1250, three players and the loser would get $1250, two other players receiving $625 a piece, and so forth.

Quote: warweev

None of the .50 rake goes towards the player pool. The player pool is money gained or lost off the rack. The rake is what the casino makes off the game. The table share is divided among players playing on the table where the bad beat goes off. If two players are playing on 3 card and the bad beat goes off, then both players would get $1250, three players and the loser would get $1250, two other players receiving $625 a piece, and so forth.

I've never understood the rake at some MN casinos. Why do the Grands and TI do it when Jackpot Junction and Prairie's Edge somehow get by without it? Canterbury used to rake their games (including BJ...yikes!) but stopped years ago. Is there a point after which the player pool is self-sustaining and the house can take part of the table drop? Can the house fund the player pool?

The commercial that is currently airing about the bad beat jackpot suggests that the loser gets a cut of the table share (a woman playing 3CP alone wins $2,500), but your math above seems to suggest that the loser gets $1,250 and the other players split the other $1,250.

Cantebury and Running Aces are State run Racino's, so I can see how they get away from paying rake. I don't understand how other Indian run casino's in MN can get away from the rake either... Yes, if you're playing alone you get the entire $2500. Thanks for mentioning that! Also, there's no doubt that with smaller betting, say $1 per spot the rake will kill you in the long run. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is where a "sweet spot" would be in the betting where you're not losing too much in the game, yet the rake isn't such a horrible percentage of the game where you get killed by it. Thanks for the responses guys!

Quote: warweev

Cantebury and Running Aces are State run Racino's

They're actually corporate-owned racinos. Canterbury is public (NASDAQ:CPHC), Running Aces is private.

Quote: warweev

So I can see how they get away from paying rake. I don't understand how other Indian run casino's in MN can get away from the rake either...

I think Canterbury "bought up" the player pool, and now splits the table drop between the pool and the house. FWIW, that's also Mystic Lake's plan if they ever spread games other than BJ. They view it as a significant advantage over the raked games at TI and Grand.

Maybe Prairie and Jackpot also self-fund the player promotion pool? Or maybe they're close enough to the rake-free casinos in SD that they just have to suck it up in order to compete?

Quote: warweev

Yes, if you're playing alone you get the entire $2500. Thanks for mentioning that!

What if I'm playing with 1 other person? Do we each get $1,250? Or does the loser get $1,875, and the other player $625?

Quote: warweev

Also, there's no doubt that with smaller betting, say $1 per spot the rake will kill you in the long run. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is where a "sweet spot" would be in the betting where you're not losing too much in the game, yet the rake isn't such a horrible percentage of the game where you get killed by it. Thanks for the responses guys!

I don't think that there is a sweet spot, because the game is always negative expectation. Both of the lines we're looking at slope downward. The $0.50 collection is a smaller % of the bet as bet increases, but the fixed payout bad-beat jackpot is also a smaller % of the bet as bet increases. Maybe I'm just missing something in the math there.

There are some cases where the collection definitely does create a better environment for the player. For example, Treasure Island spreads a Pai Gow Poker game with a $0.50/hand collection and no 5% commission. Compared to the usual rules, that's an improvement for anyone betting over $10/hand.