Poll

2 votes (8.33%)
1 vote (4.16%)
4 votes (16.66%)
2 votes (8.33%)
13 votes (54.16%)
3 votes (12.5%)
6 votes (25%)
6 votes (25%)
1 vote (4.16%)
2 votes (8.33%)

24 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 972
  • Posts: 16346
December 5th, 2016 at 8:34:53 AM permalink
I don't make a thread for every new game I see at the Cutting Edge show, but this one merits an exception.



After the election, I'm in no position to make predictions, but I think this game could be huge. At the show it generated a lot of energy and there was never a shortage of players. I found it very fun, social, and engaging.

A drawback is that there is a fixed bet size for the main wager and it does take 2-3 minutes between rounds. At low Antes, if I can call the primary wager that, it may not pull in much money per hour. At high Antes it could attract ringers who sit there all day and win almost every time, discouraging recreational players. Of course, you could argue that has somewhat happened with poker in general and it still is a fundamental part of any big casino. Even if it doesn't pull in its weight in revenue per square foot per hour, it generates an energy, which will be good for the whole floor. I'm sure the Derby game at the MGM doesn't pull in much per hour and is a big space hog, but it is still good business, I would argue, to keep it around.

I'm happy to say I won a couple bets on whether it would win/show for best game at the show. It did.

The question for the forum is what do you think will become of Gamblit Poker? Vote for all you agree with.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 4213
December 5th, 2016 at 8:51:50 AM permalink
I think this will be a great game for players and AP's alike. I had about 2 paragraphs written out, but if this game does take off I don't want to share a few strategy maneuvers that I already see (one that would help the example hand shown and another that is separate from what we see). So overall I'll just say this: I think this is a fun new version of poker that will get some hype initially no matter what, and whether it pulls its weight against poker or not will be determined later. All that I'll add to the rest is I can see a tremendous amount of skill being involved in this game too (which may not be too apparent at this point), which is why I like it.

p.s. I hate the name. Gamblit (I assume because gambling and the "lit" up buttons?)... Should be something more simple like Gambit Poker, or something that's at least not a combination of words.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 69
  • Posts: 1063
December 5th, 2016 at 9:24:56 AM permalink
Disclaimer- I had fun playing the game at the show. So it is definitely fun. But as far as a practicality opinion, see below.

1) The revenue issue was one of the big concerns, that you already expressed. On top of the lack of revenue generation, the game can not be cheap to lease (two digital displays, a card reading shoe, a custom table and I'm assuming regular maintenance/testing). Therefore, it will be a minimal profit issue with a capped win, IMO (this is why many poker rooms are slimming or disappearing quickly).

2) How does a game get started? The base game must be played with a minimum of two players, therefore the game can not get started with a single player. I recall some saying that they are banking on friends walking up to the table together to try it out. I don't see friends coming up to a table and simply draining 10% each hand. Additionally, at a small facility, that rarely ever has a table fill up, would this really be very exciting to win 1.8 to one odds on a win (assuming a table of 3)?

3) I foresee a number of hardware and player dispute issues. That will only be seen over time, if they do exist.

4) I see a bunch of collusion issues. Two or three players play together. Once one makes his hand, the remaining two simply act as blockers during the burn down. It is very easy to do, by figuring out what cards are hurtful to the team and only picking those, to guarantee a win. This will be the big issue with the regulators IMHO.

There are some others....

I just don't see how this is practical for live play. Again, I had a lot of fun playing, so I'm not saying anything negative about the game itself. I think this does great in convention type settings where you have a minimum of three people walking up to the table at the time.

Just my thoughts... When the time comes and it does hit floors, I feel a number of folks will have a lot of fun with #4.
Last edited by: mrsuit31 on Dec 5, 2016
.
TheoHuxtable
TheoHuxtable
Joined: Feb 24, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 60
December 5th, 2016 at 9:28:49 AM permalink
Its an interesting game that is definitely fun to play - I love the button smashing mechanic.

The current rake of 10% is pretty steep for an AP. At a full table of 6 players one would need to win slightly more than 1 in 4 hands to break even.

From the casino's perspective a full table could produce as much hourly revenue as a $1/$2 NLHE game. It's hard for me to picture people playing Gamblit Poker for 8+ hours which makes it unlikely to see this table full outside of peak hours.



Quote: Romes

p.s. I hate the name. Gamblit (I assume because gambling and the "lit" up buttons?)... Should be something more simple like Gambit Poker, or something that's at least not a combination of words.



They told me at the show the name was a work in progress and may change before its placed anywhere.
Views are my own...
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 4213
December 5th, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM permalink
Quote: TheoHuxtable

Its an interesting game that is definitely fun to play - I love the button smashing mechanic...

This I would think would raise another concern. The button idea is great, but as mrsuit pointed out people will surely complain they hit it first when they didn't, etc. Past that, my concern will be the drunks playing this game and literally pounding the button as hard as they can (possibly breaking it). How do they plan to stop this? Tell everyone that sits down "Hit the button normal not hard!" or something? What about people "in" to the game and are so excited they want to hit it fast and F = MA, so they end up hitting it hard? If I hit the button "hard" a few times will I get the tap? "No more gamblit poker for you, sir."
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
TheoHuxtable
TheoHuxtable
Joined: Feb 24, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 60
December 5th, 2016 at 9:58:20 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

This I would think would raise another concern. The button idea is great, but as mrsuit pointed out people will surely complain they hit it first when they didn't, etc. Past that, my concern will be the drunks playing this game and literally pounding the button as hard as they can (possibly breaking it). How do they plan to stop this? Tell everyone that sits down "Hit the button normal not hard!" or something? What about people "in" to the game and are so excited they want to hit it fast and F = MA, so they end up hitting it hard? If I hit the button "hard" a few times will I get the tap? "No more gamblit poker for you, sir."



The "bubble craps" games seem fairly sturdy and should give some precedent for how to handle chronic button smashers.

Quote: TheoHuxtable

The current rake of 10% is pretty steep for an AP. At a full table of 6 players one would need to win slightly more than 1 in 4 hands to break even.



Also - my math was way off. I should've said 1 in 5.4 hands to break even. This seems much more attainable for an AP.
Views are my own...
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 4213
December 5th, 2016 at 10:07:07 AM permalink
Another question I have is: How long after the card is dealt do players have to decide to take it? 3 seconds? No specific time and the dealer just is instructed to burn if it looks like no one wants it? I could see more disputes if there were some kind of onscreen timer and the screen went "red" after the time to take the card was up. What happens if a player verbally declares I want that but barely misses the button hit, etc?
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
TheoHuxtable
TheoHuxtable
Joined: Feb 24, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 60
December 5th, 2016 at 10:56:57 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

Another question I have is: How long after the card is dealt do players have to decide to take it? 3 seconds? No specific time and the dealer just is instructed to burn if it looks like no one wants it? I could see more disputes if there were some kind of onscreen timer and the screen went "red" after the time to take the card was up. What happens if a player verbally declares I want that but barely misses the button hit, etc?



It's about ~3 seconds before the dealer burns the card. If I recall, there's a clearly displayed timer on one of the monitors. Verbal declarations should be totally non-binding as the game moves so quickly it'd be near impossible to adjudicate.


Quote: mrsuit31

) I see a bunch of collusion issues. Two or three players play together. Once one makes his hand, the remaining two simply act as blockers during the burn down. It is very easy to do, by figuring out what cards are hurtful to the team and only picking those, to guarantee a win. This will be the big issue with the regulators IMHO.



Once a player has made a 3-card hand the game will lock out any remaining players with a 0% chance of winning given the remaining card pool. This mitigates most of the possibility of colluding players strategically spamming the big red button.
Views are my own...
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 9107
December 5th, 2016 at 10:58:59 AM permalink
Some random thoughts, some of which people already mentioned, but you want initial impressions.

Buttons not working will screw this game. Drinks will get spilled a lot at this table with competitive button smashing, people will pound and break them.

Collusion is huge. A team playing against others can claim a card they don't need in their lesser hand that would fill a non teamers hand. Maybe dealing the first card face down can combat some of this, as it would keep your competition from seeing what you're waiting for. Example from the video of person getting 3oak on the last card; someone else can grab that card, leaving the straight as the best hand.

There must be some rule known to the players about how many more cards will be dealt once someone completes their hand. Say 3 people teaming against 3 non-players. Once any of them gets a hand, the other two could just blind - grab cards, especially those known to be the last two. They would kill other people's chance of making a hand, ir at least greatly affect the calculated odds.

The whole game assumes honest intent and independent play. I don't think that can be assumed in any game played for money.

I think the game takes too long per round for the house to make any money. And the rake, while necessary is very high. Good for a party pit, not good for serious play. The sidebet seems countable.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 69
  • Posts: 1063
December 5th, 2016 at 11:36:03 AM permalink
Quote: TheoHuxtable

Once a player has made a 3-card hand the game will lock out any remaining players with a 0% chance of winning given the remaining card pool. This mitigates most of the possibility of colluding players strategically spamming the big red button.



If one or two of the team players are sitting with one card, there hand will always be able to get a trips or straight flush, not to mention the times when a straight or flush is the top hand and can be beat by a bigger straight/flush, which will most likely be a decent percentage of the time. While after that team member takes the blocking card, he will then often be removed by the "cant win rule", but then the other teammate/s will be there for another block/s. Imagine 4 players doing this at a table. The other 2 will have virtually no realistic chance at ever winning. Most of the time, the possible money cards will be a small number and two or three blocks will lock the game down.


Babs, I believe the deck is shuffled after every hand..... No countability issue. However, the lower the number of people at the table, the lower number of cards come out for the side wager (I believe the payouts change per the number of players, due to the decreasing number of cards that come out).
.

  • Jump to: