Zappit Blackjack
Quote: SwitchAppreciate the kind words 777.
I'm not sure about the comments regarding any 'Prior Art' just because there have been instances where players treat a dealer 'bust' differently, although it's probably a moot point as I have been collecting royalties for 15 years now. There are a lot of concepts out there that are very close to existing ip and I guess it's distinguishing that 'fine line' that gets both complicated and costly to the inquisitive :-)
I just need to think of a similar 'Push 22 - type' concept so that I can continue with other games when that patent eventually expires.
I'm happy for your success, and your success does not change my opinion about the "push 22". I thought about asking a casino in my area to lease the Free Bet BJ. What commission will I get? :-)
Switch's Push-22 is a different tie or push mechanism than a "dealer bust equaling a player bust," or having the same weight. It doesn't. The push 22 mechanism specifically pushes players' hands that are remaining pat hands on a dealer 22 result, - and so do not equal any of their "also-busted" type hands. Very different game mechanisms are invoking very different types of push results here, and so this prior art does not apply. Any good game designer or patent attorney may see that.Quote: 777... The BJ game that I played with friends has the following rule: A dealer bust has the same weight as a player bust. And for this reason, my immediate conclusion is the “push 22” is a prior art with NOTHING new (I could use HTML code for emphasis words that deserve attention, but using CAP for emphasis is much quicker).
How is your armchair opinion about the patentability of the push 22 mechanism relevant or potent? Or your remembrance of some off-the-cuff push rule in some childhood card game equaling a bona-fide and presentable example of prior art? You may have an opinion, but like lots of opinions, it may be irrelevant or legally meaningless. For myself, I think the push-22 mechanism is about as robust, documented, and legally substantial as gaming patents can come. Considering how important, respected, and well-financed Scientific Games (and their legal department) are, their opinions and actions are the relevant ones. Scientific Games IS the deep-pocket entity in the gaming industry. Think it through.Quote: 777... And since you brought up Scientific Games -- Scientific Games’ involvement does NOT change my opinion about the patentability of the “push 22”. Perhaps the “push 22” has survived to this date because it has not been challenged by anyone???
I accept the statement that you didn't intend to attack or disrespect anyone. My intention is to make you aware that your comments about the validity of Switch's/Sci Games' IP are uninformed and that you should do some more reading before making a comment like:Quote: 777I’m not here to attack or bring anyone down. My purpose here is to learn, and to make contribution whenever possible. My comment to the “push 22” discussion may give you an impression of disrespect to Switch, and I assure you this is 100% NOT my intention. Although you don’t appreciate my “push 22” comment, I strongly believe that it benefits others.
Quote: 777....deep pocket entity/institution can SUCCESSFULLY challenge your claim of the “push at 22 and beyond”
In the world of game development, if you make statements like that on a public forum, expect some push back.
I am certain based on your writing that you are intelligent and likely have done great things in your work life that others are not up to speed in evaluating. How would you respond if someone came out and said your work was flawed or subject to attack that would make it less valuable? That is what you have done here in your comments about the legal vulnerability of the IP surrounding Push 22.
I am happy to meet you at the TG Conference next month and I am sure we will get along just fine. I apologize if my response to you came across with an "unpleasant tone". I am sure there are many on the Forum that have met me at various functions over the years that will vouch for the fact that I am reasonably pleasant in person. It is tough to always get "tone" correctly conveyed on Forum, I didn't meant to be unpleasant.Quote: 777How about let’s get together at the upcoming 2015 Table Game convention. Anyone?
A nice intro page to the game. Since there's so much uncertainty with the rules, I'm betting many others (just like myself) would like to know what those rule variations do to the house edge? Could there possibly be a small section for what Switch posted previously, and/or any other rule variations you could think of that would directly affect the Zappit blackjack game?Quote: WizardJust finished a first draft of my new Zappit page. Please have a look.
As always, I welcome comments, questions, suggestions, and especially corrections.
Quote: SwitchI've checked the math' and can give close values for different rule changes for 6 decks.
The original game was allowing a 'ZAP' on 15-17, 'Blackjacks' pay 3/2 and a 'Zapped' Blackjack = 'Blackjack'.
This gives a house edge of 0.71% (dealer hits S17).
If a 'Zapped' Blackjack = Instant Win 21 (and pays 1/1) then this adds 0.4% to the house edge.
If a 'Zapped' Blackjack counts as '21' then this adds 0.68% to the house edge.
If you can 'Zap' 18 as well then this subtracts 0.24% from the house edge (I've suggested to allow players to Zap 15+ rather than limit them to 15-18, as it appears to give more hands to 'Zap' even though you never 'Zap' 19 or 20).
So, the game shown at G2E, for US distribution, is:-
'Zap' 15-18 and a 'Zapped' Blackjack = 21.
This gives 0.71% + 0.68% - 0.24% = 1.15% (for 6 decks).
Other variations:-
8 decks +0.04%
Stand S17 -0.39%
ENHC -0.03% (provided a 'Zapped' Blackjack = Blackjack variation)
Quote: PaigowdanSwitch's Push-22 is a different tie or push mechanism than a "dealer bust equaling a player bust," or having the same weight. It doesn't. The push 22 mechanism specifically pushes players' hands that are remaining pat hands on a dealer 22 result, - and so do not equal any of their "also-busted" type hands. Very different game mechanisms are invoking very different types of push results here, and so this prior art does not apply. Any good game designer or patent attorney may see that.
How is your armchair opinion about the patentability of the push 22 mechanism relevant or potent? Or your remembrance of some off-the-cuff push rule in some childhood card game equaling a bona-fide and presentable example of prior art? You may have an opinion, but like lots of opinions, it may be irrelevant or legally meaningless. For myself, I think the push-22 mechanism is about as robust, documented, and legally substantial as gaming patents can come. Considering how important, respected, and well-financed Scientific Games (and their legal department) are, their opinions and actions are the relevant ones. Scientific Games IS the deep-pocket entity in the gaming industry. Think it through.
Because of XYZ entity is big and has substantial dough, then its patent (or anything it does) is ironclad, and therefore, cannot be challenged. This is a very flaw and weak logic.
The game that I played many moons ago where a player bust is the same as a banker bust REGARLESS of the bust points implies a “push 22” scenario. My opinion about the “push 22” is based on the player/banker bust logic of a childhood BJ game, and you can disagree with that. With that being said, you have a good point about the evidence must be substantiated. And if there is a legal challenge, I believe any entity large dough and determination can conduct thorough researches and dig up evidences of prior art regarding the “push 22” and will SUCCESSFULLY challenge the validity of the “push 22.”
Quote: ParadigmI accept the statement that you didn't intend to attack or disrespect anyone. My intention is to make you aware that your comments about the validity of Switch's/Sci Games' IP are uninformed and that you should do some more reading before making a comment like:
In the world of game development, if you make statements like that on a public forum, expect some push back.
I am certain based on your writing that you are intelligent and likely have done great things in your work life that others are not up to speed in evaluating. How would you respond if someone came out and said your work was flawed or subject to attack that would make it less valuable? That is what you have done here in your comments about the legal vulnerability of the IP surrounding Push 22.
I am happy to meet you at the TG Conference next month and I am sure we will get along just fine. I apologize if my response to you came across with an "unpleasant tone". I am sure there are many on the Forum that have met me at various functions over the years that will vouch for the fact that I am reasonably pleasant in person. It is tough to always get "tone" correctly conveyed on Forum, I didn't meant to be unpleasant.
Agree, no one like negative comments. However, IMO, you are too defensive, which is perfectly understandable and there is NOTHING WRONG about it. Your attitude is not a sign of weakness, it is an indication that you are a person with determination.
It is not my intent to discredit Switch’s invention. The intent is to present other viewpoints so that everyone can benefit. Perhaps, my "push 22" opinion does not benefit you, but I sincerely hope that it might benefit others.
Good luck to you, and I hope you will get a big break soon and become as famous as Switch, in which I just recently discovered thanks to your determination.
Quote: IbeatyouracesMy advice 777, stick to regular blackjack. These games are designed to fool the masses into thinking they're better than standard blackjack when in reality they aren't. Sure they may be "fun", but they are more costly in the grand scheme of things.
If you really really really want to give a serious advice, and the best advice you could give me and ALL others is this: STAY AWAY FROM CASINO GAMBLING.
Quote: RomesA nice intro page to the game. Since there's so much uncertainty with the rules, I'm betting many others (just like myself) would like to know what those rule variations do to the house edge? Could there possibly be a small section for what Switch posted previously, and/or any other rule variations you could think of that would directly affect the Zappit blackjack game?Quote: WizardJust finished a first draft of my new Zappit page. Please have a look.
As always, I welcome comments, questions, suggestions, and especially corrections.
I think that's a good suggestion Romes although, to narrow it down, I'm fairly sure that the US land-based version will be:-
Players can 'Zap' 15-18
A 'Zapped' Blackjack counts as '21'
'Blackjacks' pay 3/2
No 'Zap' allowed after splitting
No 'Zap' allowed before the dealer checks for 'Blackjack'
Quote: IbeatyouracesMy advice 777, stick to regular blackjack. These games are designed to fool the masses into thinking they're better than standard blackjack when in reality they aren't. Sure they may be "fun", but they are more costly in the grand scheme of things.
That simply is not true. There are plenty of regular 3/2 Blackjack games that have a higher house edge than Blackjack Switch (0.58%).
Free Bet may have a higher edge but the game is designed to be less volatile to players while providing a fun element. It won't suit everyone but I'm aiming to provide, fresh, interesting games rather than fooling them to lose more quickly. The fact that the strategy on Free Bet is easier than regular Blackjack (take all free splits and doubles) actually means that average players can actually play Free Bet at a similar, or even lower edge, than regular Blackjack due to making less playing errors.
Quote: RomesA nice intro page to the game. Since there's so much uncertainty with the rules, I'm betting many others (just like myself) would like to know what those rule variations do to the house edge? Could there possibly be a small section for what Switch posted previously, and/or any other rule variations you could think of that would directly affect the Zappit blackjack game?
Thank you for the kind words and checking out the page.
So far with just two known set of rules, I think I'll keep things simple and just address those. If the game catches on and we see lots of combinations of the various configurable rules then I will certainly do as you suggested.
Quote: 777
... ... ...
And my childhood memory is this: The BJ game that I played with friends has the following rule: A dealer bust has the same weight as a player bust. And for this reason, my immediate conclusion is the “push 22” is a prior art with NOTHING new (I could use HTML code for emphasis words that deserve attention, but using CAP for emphasis is much quicker).
... ... ...
Your childhood game resembles more closely to a game of mine called Neverbust Blackjack (although, that too is still different to your game).
You are here to learn and as some highly educated posters have already pointed out - treating a dealer bust and a player bust as equal is NOT THE SAME as a dealer, who busts with 22, not paying a player who has '21'.
You are entitled to think that they are similar, or the same, but it doesn't help readers new to the site to make bold claims about a published patent (i.e. patent office agreed it was patent-able) based on a childhood memory or playing a game with fellow children.
I'm not sure if they have it here in the US but we had a toy called an 'Etch-A-Sketch' which was a simple line-drawing tablet. My brothers and I would sit around and pretend that we could use it to watch TV on and take pictures and movies, when we were young. Does that give me the right to challenge Apple with their iPad?
Quote: 777
Because of XYZ entity is big and has substantial dough, then its patent (or anything it does) is ironclad, and therefore, cannot be challenged. This is a very flaw and weak logic.
No.
In fact, it is very strong and clear logic. If XYZ has:
1. a fully issued and valid patent,
2. Has commercialized the products based directly on the patent as a Practicing Entity (and a huge one at that);
3. has a ton of resources and legal expertise in this area, and
4. the period of challenge is legally past and over,
- then they are in the best possible position to defend a patent from some patent troll looking to Take a Shot.
Quote: 777The game that I played many moons ago where a player bust is the same as a banker bust REGARLESS of the bust points implies a “push 22” scenario. My opinion about the “push 22” is based on the player/banker bust logic of a childhood BJ game, and you can disagree with that. With that being said, you have a good point about the evidence must be substantiated. And if there is a legal challenge, I believe any entity large dough and determination can conduct thorough researches and dig up evidences of prior art regarding the “push 22” and will SUCCESSFULLY challenge the validity of the “push 22.”
No...again:
If the challenger has the best money and brains on the matter, they'd see that they clearly have a losing case, and would not throw good money after bad, unless they're morons. Especially if it is based on recollections and hearsay of some claimed "childhood game of MANY MOONS ago, your honor...that I have a remembrance of...that I played it myself, your honor, you can trust me, you know....." - without supporting patents and casino or other commercial use, documentation and history. This is a reality-check howler for triple-7.
If there were any case versus the successful and behemoth position of the push-22 mechanism - in both the market place and patent litigation area, it would have happened already, and during the (now elapsed) period and window to pull off a smash-and-grab of his very worthy invention in a court of law. Like you got a goddamn shot. This pretty clearly shows there is no evidence of prior art that any research revealed, or at this point in time, will ever reveal. Many moooons ago, of my childhood remembrances not withstanding....
Remember, Three Card Poker was based on the childhood and pub game of Brag, and its bona fide issued patent remained in force for its full 20 years, as no other casino or commercial such game with an issued patent was in place. With push-22, there is no such previous history of its existence prior to Switch's disclosure. His mechanism was novel, officially declared novel years ago by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and a full patent was issued, commemorating this.
That said, just because you played a form of blackjack that didn't give the dealer a positional advantage, doesn't invalidate the Push 22 patent. First of all, it is hardly the same thing. Second, as I understand the law, even if you incorporated the push 22 rule exactly in your home game, it is not legally pertinent if nobody at least published the rules of said game.
One caveat here would be that the player can find a standard blackjack game (e.g. 3:2) at their comfortable betting level where they want to play. You have to admit that if a player is going to play blackjack or Free Bet/Switch/Zappit and want to play at a $5 or $10 minimum table, they are mathematically better off playing one of the BJ variant games than the 6:5 Blackjack offered at the casino of their choice.Quote: IbeatyouracesThese games are designed to fool the masses into thinking they're better than standard blackjack when in reality they aren't.
I would argue the games are designed to be more entertaining for players, provide some variety in game play, change the volatility of regular blackjack, etc. But fooling the masses is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.........the masses play standard BJ at a 1.25% - 1.5% HE anyway based on the errors they make.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThese games are designed to fool the masses into thinking they're better than standard blackjack when in reality they aren't.
Well, in reality they may be better off with the new stuff, and in the opinion of the customers who flock to and select better games over time. Evolution is the never-ending process of improvement, and it can happen with casino games as with anything else. Real people judge real games over time, and the Darwin Test is an accurate judge.
If a player likes or prefers a Free Bet/Switch/Zappit game, then they are saying that they are better off playing these games, and are putting their money on the line to declare and substantiate that. For that matter, one can make the argument that they're "mathematically better off" going to a lower-priced or cheaper restaurant or cinema, but if they like and prefer the better food or movies, then they may argue they're better off in life getting what they want and pay for, and being better satisfied.
You are giving the public the better product when they ultimately select your product as the better product. There is a lot to game design, and features and game play mean a lot, even over a fraction of a decimal point on the house edge. One is not always "mathematically better off" by buying their family's food at the Dollar store in spite of the better price or house edge there; contrary to popular belief, house edge alone isn't the only determinant of a game's quality or value. If this were true then Faro would be the only card game in existence, when itself is no longer in existence. I believe that you cannot fool the masses or that they are always foolish, and that they do know what works for them. A good game is a game that works for the gambler and casino alike over time.
Quote: Wizard777, let me warn you that this forum has quite a few members who hold gaming patents. It is something we collectively know a thing or two about. As for me, I own a few patents, have a few others pending, and have had several rejected. Collectively I've spent a lot of money on these patents and have spent a lot of time with my patent lawyer discussing the merits and legality of each one. Others here can make similar claims. So, this is a a topic I can speak to as well as others who have already chimed in.
That said, just because you played a form of blackjack that didn't give the dealer a positional advantage, doesn't invalidate the Push 22 patent. First of all, it is hardly the same thing. Second, as I understand the law, even if you incorporated the push 22 rule exactly in your home game, it is not legally pertinent if nobody at least published the rules of said game.
Glad you said this, because I was going there if you hadn't already. I count at least 6 of us participating so far. I think the thread is so intertwined that it's not splittable, but I wish the discussion could be retained in the Game Inventor's Corner as well. And I would suggest that if patents and prior art are a topic of interest to 777, that he look up that sub-forum and read the many threads on and related to it, and get to know some of the folks most involved and experienced in it.
Switch, I think you have another winner here, though my personal preference of your work is FreeBet, followed closely by Switch. And it's my strong impression, as opposed to that of IBYA, that your games are beautifully structured to offer a good gaming experience with value and reasonable edges, not tourist traps. I wouldn't say that about many new games, but yours are exceptional.
Quote: Wizard777, let me warn you that this forum has quite a few members who hold gaming patents. It is something we collectively know a thing or two about. As for me, I own a few patents, have a few others pending, and have had several rejected. Collectively I've spent a lot of money on these patents and have spent a lot of time with my patent lawyer discussing the merits and legality of each one. Others here can make similar claims. So, this is a a topic I can speak to as well as others who have already chimed in.
That said, just because you played a form of blackjack that didn't give the dealer a positional advantage, doesn't invalidate the Push 22 patent. First of all, it is hardly the same thing. Second, as I understand the law, even if you incorporated the push 22 rule exactly in your home game, it is not legally pertinent if nobody at least published the rules of said game.
Thanks for your “warning” of the many inventors here. We can agree to disagree on this “push 22” issue. IMO, discussion like this is very healthy and informative even though we are so far apart in the understanding/applying of the prior art concept. Although there is no agreement among us, I want to say thank you to all for participating in this discussion in a civilize manner.
I wish everyone best of luck, and I hope someday I get to play more games invent by many inventors on this board.
Quote: DRichZappit Blackjack is on the Nevada Gaming Commission agenda today for approval to do a trial at the Venetian. Hopefully we will see it in the next month or two.
The game has been live at Palazzo for over three months and is no longer on field trial.
Quote: SM777The game has been live at Palazzo for over three months and is no longer on field trial.
I stand corrected, it is on the agenda for final approval because the field trial has ended.
Move the decimal to the right one ;-). In all honesty, I believe most people play blackjack with about a 3%-5% disadvantage. People always think their gut knows more than the math.Quote: Paradigm.........the masses play standard BJ at a 1.25% - 1.5% HE anyway based on the errors they make.
Glad to hear ZapIt is out and about. It does seem like a fun game, so I hope it goes out to the masses as an alternative to 6:5 as well =P.
I found this zap it game in a local casino yesterday.
6 decks, shoe game, HS17, DAS, no surrender, no resplitting A's, BJ pays 3:2 except after zapping, which then pays 1:1.
