Double play Three-Card Poker

I am working on the new game concept of Double play Three Card Poker (Double Play-TCP).
The player gets 5 cards that form two hands of three cards via a player-only community card.
The dealer gets 3 cards, and plays independently against each of the player’s 3 cards.
I am going to covert “Double Play-TCP” into the Multi- Dealer format similar to UTH- MHVP
The concept is presented in to the single hand mode. The multi- dealer concept is coming soon.
The pilot demo for UTH- MHVP is here: http://www.playholdemvideopoker.com/
Works well at Chrome and Fire Fox.

Image 1


Image 2


Image 3

dude, have you got the patent yet? LOL

Patent Pending!
This game is a lot of fun to play!

then i wouldn't post it on the internet YET
protect yourself

"If an inventor has a patent pending for an invention and a company begins to use that invention without his permission, the inventor can proceed to get the patent issued and sue the company for patent infringement"

http://mlwise-law.com/articles/is-my-invention-protected-when-it-is-patent-pending

Yes, once a patent is filed, including a provisional patent, the inventor is protected. The whole point of the provisional patent is to allow the inventor to begin promoting his invention.

There is a game called Three Card Double Play that has a similar concept on a table felt.

Here are principal differences:
My game has 5 player cards, with a player-only community card, formatted in a way that allows you to play against multiple dealers hands with three cards only (not five).

You can play the "multiple dealers" pilot demo for UTH at
http://www.playholdemvideopoker.com/

You can find the thread for UTH -multi-dealer-concept :
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/24353-uth-multi-dealer-concept/

The real question isn't in the differences. Galaxy is already to market with a similar product. If there is a market for this product (I know of no installations of this product), is yours different enough to be perceived as better by players.

Galaxy is way ahead of you on the development and commercialization of this concept...wonder what their IP looks like? It likely isn't published yet, so only Galaxy knows what their application covers.

It is a good game concept, in fact a great and very bright game concept, - very "juicy" Game play. And I respect the OP for seeing it, and I don't know if he can be blocked for a pure "poker slots" version of the game, vis-à-vis a table game implementation. However, you cannot say the "player has five cards" if he is really using additional community cards that actually act as and form six cards. But not going to get into the legal stuff here. A good game idea is a good game idea, and it may be different enough for no big deal, fearing a bickering "jail house lawyering" scenario when things may be okay for both.

This was one of my priority development projects back in 2013/2014, and I absolutely loved the game concept; again, see the Rules of play at the link. Now, while not currently pushed (Galaxy has greater priorities on current installs), it is considered a sleeper to later blossom. Love the game and the game concept, really.

Again, I do not know, and might even doubt that there's any conflict or "cat fight" here at all.

I think things may be okay for both.
Galaxy’s 3-CPDP has a great potential value and looks attractive and balanced game concept to me. I like side bets set and really see it at casino floors as a floor-table game. Galaxy made a really nice game.
My concept is a kind of “slot” video poker floor game and online game as well.
Hope for a long peaceful existence for both concepts and even potential cooperation one day.
My linked In contact is at the bottom on INFO page of UTH-VP
I have to change the game title to avoid any legal TM issues.

Here is a link to the slide show for Casino Table game - Double Play Three Card Poker.
https://picasaweb.google.com/114296337882921330876/DoublePlayTCP?authkey=Gv1sRgCJuRhpeFirv8Kw&feat=directlink

It looks interesting enough. From a player's perspective, that's an awful lot of money on the table for the type of payouts expected. But the game looks decent.

This is a conceptual mock up slideshow
Payouts should be different from the classic Derek Webb’s TCP for sure!

Updated slideshow for DP-TCP
https://picasaweb.google.com/114296337882921330876/DoublePlayTCP?authkey=Gv1sRgCJuRhpeFirv8Kw#slideshow/6249704877888267042

Is it live anywhere?

Coming soon...
We are working on the pilot demo for single hand and multi-hand similar to this
http://www.playholdemvideopoker.com/

You will not get a patent. Unless you're using a device or a specialized deck of cards, you're wasting your money on attempting a patent for a "recipe" like a table game. It is unfortunate, but reality now a days.

Quote: Hittem

You will not get a patent. Unless you're using a device or a specialized deck of cards, you're wasting your money on attempting a patent for a "recipe" like a table game. It is unfortunate, but reality now a days.

Are you an attorney?
1. Some inventors had recently received table game felt patents (post Bilsky), including some inventors at this forum.
2. Most table games can get patented under an electronic version, which is currently considered by the industry as de facto ownership for the felt version.
3. What if games became re-allowed? Electronic versions would be grandfathered in, whereas those with no filings would have nothing.
4. It takes several years for a patent filing to go through the process of approval/denial, where it might not only be eventually approved, but where it shows due diligence that can provide protection.

I recommend that game inventors get real legal advice to see what can be done to protect game ideas, as opposed to carrying out absolutely no due diligence at all.

The only time you're "wasting money on a game" is when you've spent no effort or capital that may protect your investment in your game design effort, to the best of your efforts.

While an effort at ownership might not always guarantee ownership, I can say for sure that No effort at ownership guarantees no ownership.

Quote: Paigowdan

Are you an attorney?
1. Some inventors had recently received table game felt patents (post Bilsky), including some inventors at this forum.
2. Most table games can get patented under an electronic version, which is currently considered by the industry as de facto ownership for the felt version.
3. What if games became re-allowed? Electronic versions would be grandfathered in, whereas those with no filings would have nothing.
4. It takes several years for a patent filing to go through the process of approval/denial, where it might not only be eventually approved, but where it shows due diligence that can provide protection.

I recommend that game inventors get real legal advice to see what can be done to protect game ideas, as opposed to carrying out absolutely no due diligence at all.

The only time you're "wasting money on a game" is when you've spent no effort or capital that may protect your investment in your game design effort, to the best of your efforts.

While an effort at ownership might not always guarantee ownership, I can say for sure that No effort at ownership guarantees no ownership.

I can tell you unequivocally that a patent will not be granted for a felt game unless there is a device or specialized deck of cards. I don't know how to be much more clear than that.

Quote: Hittem

I can tell you unequivocally that a patent will not be granted for a felt game unless there is a device or specialized deck of cards. I don't know how to be much more clear than that.

While that's very clear, that's neither correct nor the issue.
1. There are instances of pure felt patents being issued recently. This depends on the disclosure and your examiner. While almost all get "bounced back" initially by the USPTO, some are later approved after further office action and effort.

2. An electronic clause added approves the patent, and as you say, so does adding a device or a specialized deck, etc. This means adding an electronic description, or a device or specialized deck to approve the patent gets your game disclosure approved with it - and where your full base or standard game is also described with these now required additions. Having a "superset" of your game disclosure approved may include having your base game description included with it if done right. Granted, this may appear as if you're using a bit of sophistry to get your base game slipped through with the entire disclosure kit, but adding these extra required conditions may allow an inclusion of your basic game description in the process. Your goal is to get a legally arguable description of your game submitted and later patented with a list of claims, even if it includes adding some extraneous parameters that you dislike or disagree with. It is not a good situation, but it is the one game designers have got, and it is better than no protection. It is better to adjust to the new rules than it is to throw in the towel, as otherwise you've got zero protection. Even an imperfect and modified patent sets up an obstacle to infringers, whereas no IP effort offers no protection. If you fold your hand on the IP issue, you're automatically out.

3. It takes years to go through the USPTO process, where a pending patent application can block an infringer on the chance that it may get approved, not on the chance that it might not. Business outfits don't like downside gambles, particularly ones where they may be branded IP thieves in front of their industry with paying out awards, so a pending patent affects the EV of an infringing business maneuver attempted.

4. Trademarks and copyrights also provide IP protection, so a game's expansion during a patent pending period can solidify a brand in the market, even if the patent for it later fails. The games 21+3 and Three Card poker are now patent-expired, but the clones of these games are struggling to make a dent on the real McCoy versions because of market momentum of the first to market.

While I said that a patent application doesn't guarantee patent approval, that is the assumption, and a patent's prospects for approval correlate to its efforts, especially in a tougher environment.

I also said that no effort at IP ownership guarantees no IP ownership, and this is true. This is the crux of the matter. The game designer is toast without IP ownership, and some effective things can be done in a legal paper trail sense; they should be done if you want any chance at all in receiving due royalties.

In this regard, all industry parties are in the same IP boat, and it is the party of no IP effort who is the outsider here. If you don't see a lawyer and don't seek IP protection, you've gotten what you paid for, which is nothing, and you're not in the game design game.

Dan, would you mind providing me with a patent number for a felt gaming patent? I would like to see the claim structure.

Quote: ahiromu

Dan, would you mind providing me with a patent number for a felt gaming patent? I would like to see the claim structure.

I had this patent example number from Rich Newman; I can re-obtain this. Also, Rich is a member of the forum, if he sees this he can chime in.
Some of the approved patents were plain felt game patents, and recent, from a big distributor.

I'll dig it up. You can also search USPTO.gov and come across a few, searching game distributor names with "Poker" or other game names in the search..

I will say this:
1) it can be done;
2) it can be done more easily with the added and distasteful requirements, playing the game the way the USPTO wants you to now play it, and
3) if you fold you hand instead of getting it done or trying, you're basically out of the game.

I'm an examiner in a completely unrelated art unit... And text searching in a field you don't know can be a pain. If I get bored I'll check it out on my own another time.

Quote: ahiromu

I'm an examiner in a completely unrelated art unit... And text searching in a field you don't know can be a pain. If I get bored I'll check it out on my own another time.

I'll try to track down and get some recent examples.

Paigowdan,
Thank You for the great analysis and review!
Here is update show

https://picasaweb.google.com/114296337882921330876/DPTCPProgress?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCMep2dulzrqWywE&feat=directlink

Underdevelopment test page mobile compatible responsive design
Works in landscape and portrait mode
http://playholdemvideopoker.com/alex/