Most popular table games in 2016?
Other states will be similar, leaning more towards the new games and less towards the classic ones. You will see a lot of Spanish 21 in California and Washington for some reason.
Quote: gordonm888Table games wax and wane over the years. Can I get the forum's sense of what the 6 or 7 most popular table games are in the U.S. in 2016. Which (major) games are in decline? I mean, obviously, blackjack is still #1, but beyond that, what are the next 5-7 most popular? If you can refer me to a Nevada Gaming Commission site, that would be great and welcome, but I am interested in the other 49 states as well.
Here is a link to the Nevada gaming commission reports. The one issue you will have with these reports is that they groups the non-standard table games together into one "other games and table" category. It does include a statewide, county by county, size by size (revenue) analysis.
Very briefly, the standard games are still performing as they always have and probably always will. High Card flush is starting to and has been spreading quickly and seemingly doing quite well. Criss cross poker has been spreading as well, but has not been doing fantastic at every facility it has been installed (for example, in AC the game is thriving at Borgata, yet had failed at resorts). Free bet Blackjack has spread and is doing well at most places. Otherwise TCP is still responsible for a large chunk of floor space.
These are just brief opinions from what I have seen, not backed by research, I have also been looking for those reports and have actually reached out to the nevada center for gaming research to see if they have such reports available.
http://www.mgc.dps.mo.gov/Casino_Gaming/rb_Fin_main.html
- Blackjack (including many sidebets)
- Craps
- Roulette
- 3-Card Poker
- Mississippi Stud*
- Let It Ride
- 4-Card Poker*
* Not called out separately in Nev Gaming report
Pai-Gow poker was once offered at this casino but has been dropped - as has Baccarrat and (long ago) Carribean Stud.
Three Card Poker
Pai Gow Poker
Ultimate Texas Holdem
Let it Ride
High Card Flush
Caribbean Stud
Ultimate Taxas Holdem and High Card Flush increasing. Three Card and Pai Gow staying about the same or very slight decrease. Let it Ride and Caribbean Stud decreasing.
ZCore13
Quote: gordonm888
* Not called out separately in Nev Gaming report
I am talking with certain folks that may or may not be able to produce the same type of report as the ones posted by the NGCB, while including the entire list of all live games per jurisdiction. I am not yet sure if all of this info is obtainable per jurisdiction, but I am in the process of gathering these reports if able....
Quote: Wulfgar1224I find this to be an interesting thread. Although, I am not as good as putting the numbers into context. What does a casino consider as a good hold rate? Of course, they want as much as possible. But, is 50% considered good? Is it unrealistic long term? Are they satisfied with 25% hold rates? At what point do they get worried about a game? Is it a 10% hold rate? I was curious about that as I know a lot of posters here are knowledgeable about that stuff.
It depends on the game type. For a game like mine, a hold in the mid 20% to low 30% would be ideal, low 30% being a little high. Other game types that only offer one to one payoffs and the like will hold lower for obvious reasons.
Too low of a hold will most likely not generate enough revenue unless the drop is astronomical and too high a hold will kill of the players and of course the table's win. I know that isn't very in depth, but I think may help answer the question. Many variables are involved when answering that question.
Quote: mrsuit31It depends on the game type. For a game like mine, a hold in the mid 20% to low 30% would be ideal, low 30% being a little high. Other game types that only offer one to one payoffs and the like will hold lower for obvious reasons.
A low of a hold will most likely not generate enough revenue unless the drop is astronomical and to high a hold will kill of the players and of course table win. I know that isn't very in depth, but I think may help answer the question.
It does and I appreciate the response. I can see the challenge for the casino is to have a good enough hold rate to make money. Yet, they don't want it too high or too low as it would hurt profit either due to a lack of revenue or players leaving the table too quickly. I can see it presents a tricky challenge for game inventors to get those numbers right.
Quote: Wulfgar1224I find this to be an interesting thread. Although, I am not as good as putting the numbers into context. What does a casino consider as a good hold rate? Of course, they want as much as possible. But, is 50% considered good? Is it unrealistic long term? Are they satisfied with 25% hold rates? At what point do they get worried about a game? Is it a 10% hold rate? I was curious about that as I know a lot of posters here are knowledgeable about that stuff.
50% is way too high, especially on a new/unknown game. If players buy in and get steamrolled, the game will never get any traction. No matter how "fun" a game is, if you can only play for 10 minutes, you won't be sitting back down anytime soon.
Mid to high 20's seems to be the best for specialty games.
Quote: ahiromuI really don't understand what people see in 3CP. I mean, you don't even get a second round of cards, are there really that many people that refuse to learn other games? That's the only reason I could see someone consistently playing it.
People are also creatures of habit. Im sure that is a large factor. Even if they are interested in learning new games, the instinct to sit down at their usual table is always the starting point.
Quote: ahiromuI really don't understand what people see in 3CP. I mean, you don't even get a second round of cards, are there really that many people that refuse to learn other games? That's the only reason I could see someone consistently playing it.
The side bets are what draw them in on that game.
Quote: ahiromuI really don't understand what people see in 3CP. I mean, you don't even get a second round of cards, are there really that many people that refuse to learn other games? That's the only reason I could see someone consistently playing it.
Three Card Poker has about 1,500 installs world-wide. Most casino operators consider it a staple game like craps, blackjack, or pai gow poker. It is now public domain, so other distributors (DEQ) are offering it. If a game designer had one-tenth the installs of three card poker, he'd be a lucky and unusual man indeed.
People find it a fun little game with an easy strategy, and a good way to pass time and play cards at a casino. Actually, a lot can be learned from that game in terms of game design, it was indeed done right.
My recollection is that it took several iterations to get 3CP right. The details of how that came to be might make a good story.Quote: PaigowdanPeople find it a fun little game with an easy strategy, and a good way to pass time and play cards at a casino. Actually, a lot can be learned from that game in terms of game design, it was indeed done right.
Know any gaming authors? :)
Quote: MathExtremistMy recollection is that it took several iterations to get 3CP right. The details of how that came to be might make a good story.
Know any gaming authors? :)
Yes.
The major issue was with the Pair Plus side bet using a loose pay table, where the game dumped on the casinos and spooked them a bit; uninstalls resulted.
The game was re-launched in Tunica with the standard 1-3-6-30-40 pay table, and it's been doing fine ever since, though it cost Derek Webb a few years. This is discussed in an awesome and excellent book [ahem...] on game design, to be released later this summer.
This Three Card poker snafu is a prime example as to why new games should have several house edge offerings for approvals, to adjust the game in the field if needed.
Here is my Alex's test application
The TM titles have been renamed
Underdevelopment test page mobile compatible responsive design
Works in landscape and portrait mode on the tablets or on the smart phones as well
http://playholdemvideopoker.com/alex/
Quote: PaigowdanYes.
The major issue was with the Pair Plus side bet using a loose pay table, where the game dumped on the casinos and spooked them a bit; uninstalls resulted.
The game was re-launched in Tunica with the standard 1-3-6-30-40 pay table, and it's been doing fine ever since, though it cost Derek Webb a few years. This is discussed in an awesome and excellent book [ahem...] on game design, to be released later this summer.
This Three Card poker snafu is a prime example as to why new games should have several house edge offerings for approvals, to adjust the game in the field if needed.
Does the book touch on how to invent table game stalwarts like Cajun Stud, Dueling For Dollars, Four Card Frenzy, Take It Or Leave It, etc? Or is that proprietary information left out?
Remember, if it is showable in a casino, it is fully discussable in a book in full detail.
No one has a patent on teaching game design skills..
It does, and there are even tips on how to name your games (and how not to).Quote: SM777Does the book touch on how to invent table game stalwarts like Cajun Stud, Dueling For Dollars, Four Card Frenzy, Take It Or Leave It, etc? Or is that proprietary information left out?
Probably the worst game name I've seen was at WGCE a bazillion years ago: someone was pitching a game called Euno. It stuck with me all this time for two reasons. One is that they had a trivial math error on their sell sheet and didn't believe me when I pointed it out, and the other is that they were just begging for a trademark lawsuit from Mattel...
Black Smith Games?Quote: SM777Does the book touch on how to invent table game stalwarts like Cajun Stud, Dueling For Dollars, Four Card Frenzy, Take It Or Leave It, etc? Or is that proprietary information left out?
Quote: SM777...
Does the book touch on how to invent table game stalwarts like Cajun Stud, Dueling For Dollars, Four Card Frenzy, Take It Or Leave It, etc? Or is that proprietary information left out?
SM777, you asked a pretty interesting question with your list of games, as your list of games are composed of Galaxy-specific games (only Galaxy, actually). While Galaxy's products are discussed, all of the games in it are discussed in deep detail, yet with a focus of the successful or worthy efforts by independent game designers, as it is a handbook for independent game designers, with many examples from Shuffle Master and DEQ as well as Galaxy. (AGS has only a couple of game discussed.)
The independent games analyzed are Hard Pass and Point Right Back (excellent and VERY novel craps prop bets by Olympian Gaming), Triolette/Poker-for-Roulette by Dave Miller], later signed by a distributor, Bust It Blackjack (Joe Centrone/Xcite Gaming), Wild 5 Poker by Almarlwin LLC, Blackjack Switch, Freebet Blackjack, Zappit and Burn-20 by Geoff Hall and later signed by the Shuffle Master Division of Scientific Games, EZ Pai Gow and EZ Baccarat distributed by DEQ, Lucky Stiff by Paradigm, Charlie-21 by Lubin-Jones LLC, and Double Blackjack by Almarlwin, LLC - all of which were independently designed to great success, with the reasons for their success given. A few "crash and burn" games are also touched upon as to why they failed (patent infringement, unfeasible game protection, etc.) Once excellent blackjack side bet that failed for lack of "resources" was praised. (Yes, the COST of getting a game out is clearly explained).
The distributor games Three Card Double Play, Heads Up Hold 'em, 21+3, the Prime bet, Texas Shootout, Commission-free Emperor's Challenge and Lucky Ladies by Galaxy Gaming were analyzed and praised over Cajun Stud, Dueling for Dollars, and Take it or Leave it as less modern game design types assigned as product tasks, and mentioned kindly also. Keep in mind that the company that makes the Lincoln MKZ also makes the Ford Fiesta Hatchback, and all have their market niches and reasons. It was also that I wasn't here to mention any one distributor's entire portfolio. My focus in the book was on innovation, not on stalwarts. I selected worthy examples for a comprehensive analysis - not comprehensive examples for an unworthy analysis. Having said this, I made my selections without apology but with the game designer in mind and at heart.
DJ Wild, Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, Texas Hold 'em Bonus, Dragon Bonus for Baccarat, Crazy 4 poker, Four Card poker and Three Card poker of the Shuffle Master division of Scientific Games are also analyzed and discussed in detail, and are heartily praised. Their Double Draw Poker was mentioned as difficult because of strategy issues as a one-off exception.
While design aspects are deeply analyzed and revealed in terms of "how-to get there," nothing proprietary was breached, as many (and as thorough) discussions of these games can be found on Mike Shackleford's sites, Eliot Jacobson's site, and Steve How's discountgambling.net also, but without the design eye approach and discussion. No game-design related information is left out, and it is comprehensive. What it is about is analysis (or sometimes autopsies) on games on why they work or fail on the casino floor. No "internally proprietary" game stuff was mentioned, produced by others or by myself but was unnecessary; if it didn't see the light of day on the public casino floor or at a trade show, the stuff on the cutting room floor didn't make the cut for us to learn from anyway.
However, there is:
1. No inter-personal or "political poop" of the industry discussed in terms of lawsuits, etc., even though business aspects (to include typical contract negotiations and terms) are indeed discussed. Technique in this business area is a game success requirement also, as the naïve may be fodder. But if it's not relevant or of the interest to the game designer's chances of success or well-being, it's excluded as unhelpful. One great account of an anonymous designer blowing a fine deal was discussed as a very interesting warning.
2. Many industry names were indeed mentioned (-- and vetted) - including a few from around here - when they displayed brilliance in game design or were worthy of success, to include prominent mathematicians and patent attorneys. A number of names were not mentioned; if you're a good game designer you were mentioned as worthy.
This is what the books touches upon.
Quote: SM777Quote: PaigowdanYes.
The major issue was with the Pair Plus side bet using a loose pay table, where the game dumped on the casinos and spooked them a bit; uninstalls resulted.
The game was re-launched in Tunica with the standard 1-3-6-30-40 pay table, and it's been doing fine ever since, though it cost Derek Webb a few years. This is discussed in an awesome and excellent book [ahem...] on game design, to be released later this summer.
This Three Card poker snafu is a prime example as to why new games should have several house edge offerings for approvals, to adjust the game in the field if needed.
Does the book touch on how to invent table game stalwarts like Cajun Stud, Dueling For Dollars, Four Card Frenzy, Take It Or Leave It, etc? Or is that proprietary information left out?
I'm taking this as sarcasm, since the games you mention seem to have very few if any installs.And Cajun Stud is just a total ripoff of Mississippi stud.
Quote: PaigowdanSM777, you asked a pretty interesting question with your list of games, as your list of games are composed of Galaxy-specific games (only Galaxy, actually). While Galaxy's products are discussed, all of the games in it are discussed in deep detail, yet with a focus of the successful or worthy efforts by independent game designers, as it is a handbook for independent game designers, with many examples from Shuffle Master and DEQ as well as Galaxy. (AGS has only a couple of game discussed.)
The independent games analyzed are Hard Pass and Point Right Back (excellent and VERY novel craps prop bets by Olympian Gaming), Triolette/Poker-for-Roulette by Dave Miller], later signed by a distributor, Bust It Blackjack (Joe Centrone/Xcite Gaming), Wild 5 Poker by Almarlwin LLC, Blackjack Switch, Freebet Blackjack, Zappit and Burn-20 by Geoff Hall and later signed by the Shuffle Master Division of Scientific Games, EZ Pai Gow and EZ Baccarat distributed by DEQ, Lucky Stiff by Paradigm, Charlie-21 by Lubin-Jones LLC, and Double Blackjack by Almarlwin, LLC - all of which were independently designed to great success, with the reasons for their success given. A few "crash and burn" games are also touched upon as to why they failed (patent infringement, unfeasible game protection, etc.) Once excellent blackjack side bet that failed for lack of "resources" was praised. (Yes, the COST of getting a game out is clearly explained).
The distributor games Three Card Double Play, Heads Up Hold 'em, 21+3, the Prime bet, Texas Shootout, Commission-free Emperor's Challenge and Lucky Ladies by Galaxy Gaming were analyzed and praised over Cajun Stud, Dueling for Dollars, and Take it or Leave it as less modern game design types assigned as product tasks, and mentioned kindly also. Keep in mind that the company that makes the Lincoln MKZ also makes the Ford Fiesta Hatchback, and all have their market niches and reasons. It was also that I wasn't here to mention any one distributor's entire portfolio. My focus in the book was on innovation, not on stalwarts. I selected worthy examples for a comprehensive analysis - not comprehensive examples for an unworthy analysis. Having said this, I made my selections without apology but with the game designer in mind and at heart.
DJ Wild, Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, Texas Hold 'em Bonus, Dragon Bonus for Baccarat, Crazy 4 poker, Four Card poker and Three Card poker of the Shuffle Master division of Scientific Games are also analyzed and discussed in detail, and are heartily praised. Their Double Draw Poker was mentioned as difficult because of strategy issues as a one-off exception.
While design aspects are deeply analyzed and revealed in terms of "how-to get there," nothing proprietary was breached, as many (and as thorough) discussions of these games can be found on Mike Shackleford's sites, Eliot Jacobson's site, and Steve How's discountgambling.net also, but without the design eye approach and discussion. No game-design related information is left out, and it is comprehensive. What it is about is analysis (or sometimes autopsies) on games on why they work or fail on the casino floor. No "internally proprietary" game stuff was mentioned, produced by others or by myself but was unnecessary; if it didn't see the light of day on the public casino floor or at a trade show, the stuff on the cutting room floor didn't make the cut for us to learn from anyway.
However, there is:
1. No inter-personal or "political poop" of the industry discussed in terms of lawsuits, etc., even though business aspects (to include typical contract negotiations and terms) are indeed discussed. Technique in this business area is a game success requirement also, as the naïve may be fodder. But if it's not relevant or of the interest to the game designer's chances of success or well-being, it's excluded as unhelpful. One great account of an anonymous designer blowing a fine deal was discussed as a very interesting warning.
2. Many industry names were indeed mentioned (-- and vetted) - including a few from around here - when they displayed brilliance in game design or were worthy of success, to include prominent mathematicians and patent attorneys. A number of names were not mentioned; if you're a good game designer you were mentioned as worthy.
This is what the books touches upon.
Looking forward to reading it.
Quote: HunterhillQuote: SM777Does the book touch on how to invent table game stalwarts like Cajun Stud, Dueling For Dollars, Four Card Frenzy, Take It Or Leave It, etc? Or is that proprietary information left out?
I'm taking this as sarcasm, since the games you mention seem to have very few if any installs.And Cajun Stud is just a total ripoff of Mississippi stud.
I'm giving SM777 the benefit of the doubt, and simply explained to him that these games were "assigned corporate tasks" to address market segments for games that came off-patent or available. They are generic versions, much like DEQ had issued Platinum Poker as a version of Three Card Poker when that game came off patent. When you're a corporate game designer, you do a mix of tasks: some are from-scratch and innovative (like Double Play), and some are to produce generic versions of off-patent or available games, which got very short mention in the book as such.
SM777 may have been taking a shot, but he wanted to know what the book touched upon and why, and requested an explanation. He got an explanation.
I missed that in the particular selection listed. I assume you personally were tasked to produce those games? Or were those done outside your tenure at Galaxy?Quote: PaigowdanSM777 may have been taking a shot, but he wanted to know what the book touched upon and why, and requested an explanation. He got an explanation.
For what it's worth, it's often a calculated risk to knock off a competitor's product especially if it's successful. I was at Silicon Gaming when we (that is, the executives) chose to knock off Triple Play in a four-handed version called Lucky Draw Poker. Of course, that was still under patent and Silicon was forced into a settlement:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/action-gaming-igt-and-silicon-gaming-resolve-dispute-74311782.html
The reason it's a calculated risk is that litigation is expensive. If you knock off a competitor's product and make $10k/month, but it would cost them $1.5M to sue you, they might choose not to. I've been on cases where fees exceeded $3M a side. In the case where a game has gone generic (off-patent), it's no different than when a drug goes generic. Other manufacturers can make it and then the market decides whose pills (or table games) they want to stock in their store.
Quote: MathExtremistI missed that in the particular selection listed. I assume you personally were tasked to produce those games?
This was the case here, they were specific "requested by the boss" game tasks.
Quote: MEFor what it's worth, it's often a calculated risk to knock off a competitor's product especially if it's successful. I was at Silicon Gaming when we (that is, the executives) chose to knock off Triple Play in a four-handed version called Lucky Draw Poker. Of course, that was still under patent and Silicon was forced into a settlement:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/action-gaming-igt-and-silicon-gaming-resolve-dispute-74311782.html
The reason it's a calculated risk is that litigation is expensive. If you knock off a competitor's product and make $10k/month, but it would cost them $1.5M to sue you, they might choose not to. I've been on cases where fees exceeded $3M a side. In the case where a game has gone generic (off-patent), it's no different than when a drug goes generic. Other manufacturers can make it and then the market decides whose pills (or table games) they want to stock in their store.
Quote: Paigowdan+1. Thanks.[/q
It's available for pre-order on Amazon for $39.99, which includes shipping.
Quote: PaigowdanIf you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Casino-Game-Design-Table-Game/dp/1935396722/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461118570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+essentials+of+casino+game+design
Do you make more money if we pre-order it now or do you make the same amount no matter what Amazon prices it at? If you make more, I'll pre-order. If you make a set amount no matter what the price is, I'll wait until it drops.
ZCore13
A nice start, but too many "responsive design" problems using iOS/Safari/Chrome/Opera on iPhone 6 Plus. Better on Win10/Chrome/Edge/Firefox, but still needs work there, too, when not full screen. I didn't get past the display problems to actually try the game much.Quote: VladAlex1Paigowdan
Here is my Alex's test application
The TM titles have been renamed
Underdevelopment test page mobile compatible responsive design
Works in landscape and portrait mode on the tablets or on the smart phones as well
http://playholdemvideopoker.com/alex/
Quote: Zcore13Do you make more money if we pre-order it now or do you make the same amount no matter what Amazon prices it at? If you make more, I'll pre-order. If you make a set amount no matter what the price is, I'll wait until it drops.
ZCore13
Zcore, it's a percentage. I'll PM you.
When's the book tour? I want a signed first edition!Quote: PaigowdanIf you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Casino-Game-Design-Table-Game/dp/1935396722/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461118570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+essentials+of+casino+game+design
Spanish speaking dealers and permitted use of the Spanish language increased activity at one casino but it was mainly 'casino bus' traffic of play Bingo in the Bus and play slots and BJ in the casino.
Spanish 21 (tens removed from the deck) seems common in South and Central America as well as in Mexico and in Los Angeles "card rooms".
Demographics ... a new generation and all that stuff seems to indicate people who gamble now did not actually learn craps in infancy the way New Yorkers used to. (In NJ, craps is learned in the womb). Many craps players now do not know how to play and lessons are often offered. Even slots are now more 'social'.. you play with someone and you play as teams or as a bank of slots. Its sort of the opposite of bowling which used to be teams of players and now is more solitary. Obviously "capturing" the younger generation and "steering" them to certain casinos is a marketing dream.
Quote: PaigowdanTriolette/Poker-for-Roulette by Dave Miller], later signed by a distributor.
I'm glad to Dave made the cut, congrats DJ!
Quote: Paigowdan......Lucky Stiff by Paradigm...
For clarification purposes, Lucky Stiff Blackjack is a Lucky & Paradigm joint project and my understanding is both are credited accordingly.
Joint project status in the book was properly credited. I mentioned just you in the post here, as Harry is the quiet one.
Quote: PaigowdanYes, you guys are both in the book, and as a happy partnership.
Joint project status in the book was properly credited. I mentioned just you in the post here, as Harry is the quiet one.
No worries PGD, that was really for the Forum's benefit....while Lucky is the quieter side of our partnership, he brings a ton of creativity to our game content.
Thanks, but I would have kicked his butt if it hadn't!Quote: mrsuit31Quote: PaigowdanTriolette/Poker-for-Roulette by Dave Miller], later signed by a distributor.
I'm glad to Dave made the cut, congrats DJ!
Sumptin' smells bad.
Gone to check myself, back later...
