Dueling for Dollars

Dueling for Dollars is pretty much Casino War, but you can bet on the Dealer, and it throws in a couple side bets. As I understand it, the game has a few placements in Washington state. Rules and analysis can be found in my new page on Dueling for Dollars.

Please click the link and let me know what you think. As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

The question for the poll is would you play Dueling for Dollars?

If it's on a shoe, I'll bring my baccarat card and play tie plus.

Quote: Wizard

Dueling for Dollars is pretty much Casino War... Please click the link and let me know what you think.

Ummm... I think Rule 10 and Rule 12 contradict one another.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Ummm... I think Rule 10 and Rule 12 contradict one another.

You're right, thanks.

This was at Charlestown, WV about a year or so ago. It was only open on the weekends for a few hours. It only lasted a few months and they took it out. Not sure why. I’ve seen a few other War games around and they seem to stick. I thought the idea of betting against your hand was something people would like. It adds a little more excitement.

Another Galaxy knock off. Sweet.....

Quote: SM777

Another Galaxy knock off. Sweet.....

Lol. Says the Flush Rush side. :)


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Lol. Says the Flush Rush side. :)


ZCore13

Although the concept of a flush game is the same as high card flush, the few Shflmaster failures on flush games were totally different ways to get there. That's like saying a poker game with community cards and a seven card hand is a knock off of three card poker, just because they're poker games.

This is literally Casino War, just like Cajun Stud is literally Mississippi Stud, and so on, with a random new side bet added. The base game is literally the exact same.

Sooner or later as Galaxy races to the bottom on pricing and continues to just knock off games, the table game industry will result to nothing being innovated on, because Galaxy will copy it, race to the bottom on pricing, and that will be that. Why spend the time to innovate in table games, create new concepts, when that's what is happening?

It's silly really. When nothing new in the table games space happens, don't wonder why.

Quote: SM777

Why spend the time to innovate in table games, create new concepts, when that's what is happening?

It's silly really. When nothing new in the table games space happens, don't wonder why.

That point is the elephant in the room when it comes to this business. The Bilski decision has said, in my layman's understanding, that casino games shouldn't be approved future patents because there is nothing physically new there. It is just a way of playing a game. I think it is only a matter of time before the courts, perhaps the Supreme Count, takes up the issue of invalidating most casino game patents. Perhaps nobody is fighting a copycat game too hard lest the courts be forced to make a final decision on the matter.

Even if the Supreme Court says casino games can't be patented, I think we'll still see new games. If the public wants something, the market will find a way to deliver it to them.

Quote: SM777

Although the concept of a flush game is the same as high card flush, the few Shflmaster failures on flush games were totally different ways to get there. That's like saying a poker game with community cards and a seven card hand is a knock off of three card poker, just because they're poker games.

This is literally Casino War, just like Cajun Stud is literally Mississippi Stud, and so on, with a random new side bet added. The base game is literally the exact same.

Sooner or later as Galaxy races to the bottom on pricing and continues to just knock off games, the table game industry will result to nothing being innovated on, because Galaxy will copy it, race to the bottom on pricing, and that will be that. Why spend the time to innovate in table games, create new concepts, when that's what is happening?

It's silly really. When nothing new in the table games space happens, don't wonder why.

I don't agree with that premise. I've seen and get pitched new game concepts constantly. Just because casinos are afraid to try new things and distributors are hesitant to take a shot on new games doesn't mean they are not being put out there.

High Card Flush had one placement when Galaxy bought it. They took a chance on a brand new concept. One of the members here has a really good game called 31 Classic that's just starting to get some traction.

The new games and concepts are out there. The BIG boys just have to give them a chance. Instead of trying to sell an old dinosaur like War (or equivalents) or Let it Ride, give a game inventor with a new look at things a shot.

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

I don't agree with that premise. I've seen and get pitched new game concepts constantly. Just because casinos are afraid to try new things and distributors are hesitant to take a shot on new games doesn't mean they are not being put out there.

High Card Flush had one placement when Galaxy bought it. They took a chance on a brand new concept. One of the members here has a really good game called 31 Classic that's just starting to get some traction.

The new games and concepts are out there. The BIG boys just have to give them a chance. Instead of trying to sell an old dinosaur like War (or equivalents) or Let it Ride, give a game inventor with a new look at things a shot.

ZCore13

Well said. Agree with all of that.

Galaxy did great with High Card.

Quote: Wizard

That point is the elephant in the room when it comes to this business. The Bilski decision has said, in my layman's understanding, that casino games shouldn't be approved future patents because there is nothing physically new there. It is just a way of playing a game. I think it is only a matter of time before the courts, perhaps the Supreme Count, takes up the issue of invalidating most casino game patents. Perhaps nobody is fighting a copycat game too hard lest the courts be forced to make a final decision on the matter.

Even if the Supreme Court says casino games can't be patented, I think we'll still see new games. If the public wants something, the market will find a way to deliver it to them.

Hopefully things change!

Quote: SM777

Although the concept of a flush game is the same as high card flush, the few Shflmaster failures on flush games were totally different ways to get there. That's like saying a poker game with community cards and a seven card hand is a knock off of three card poker, just because they're poker games.

This is literally Casino War, just like Cajun Stud is literally Mississippi Stud, and so on, with a random new side bet added. The base game is literally the exact same.

Sooner or later as Galaxy races to the bottom on pricing and continues to just knock off games, the table game industry will result to nothing being innovated on, because Galaxy will copy it, race to the bottom on pricing, and that will be that. Why spend the time to innovate in table games, create new concepts, when that's what is happening?

It's silly really. When nothing new in the table games space happens, don't wonder why.

Sorry to say, specific to your POV, SHFL is part of the problem. I brought them a game that tested poorly with beginning table players, but extremely well with experienced players, specifically poker players.

They passed on distribution because they did not want a "boutique" game that would start out slow and grow an audience. They only want a game they believe will get 200 + placements in the first year. (Direct quote, not a random number.)

So innovation only goes so far. It has to be new, distinctive, and appealing, but also familiar and simple enough that it will be immediately demanded from day 1 by a wide variety of players. Or SHFL won't use it. Galaxy and AGS are both more willing to grow a game.

SHFL has the financial resources to do this, and there was a time they did. That changed about 3 years ago. Entirely their right to conduct business, especially the new product lines, as they see fit. But you can't have it both ways.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Sorry to say, specific to your POV, SHFL is part of the problem. I brought them a game that tested poorly with beginning table players, but extremely well with experienced players, specifically poker players.

They passed on distribution because they did not want a "boutique" game that would start out slow and grow an audience. They only want a game they believe will get 200 + placements in the first year. (Direct quote, not a random number.)

So innovation only goes so far. It has to be new, distinctive, and appealing, but also familiar and simple enough that it will be immediately demanded from day 1 by a wide variety of players. Or SHFL won't use it. Galaxy and AGS are both more willing to grow a game.

SHFL has the financial resources to do this, and there was a time they did. That changed about 3 years ago. Entirely their right to conduct business, especially the new product lines, as they see fit. But you can't have it both ways.

But that falls in the lines of the size of the business of those companies listed and content they have. It doesn't make sense for SHFL to tell its team to stop selling Free Bet or UTH, or any other game with hundreds of placements to instead go out and sell something with no traction, and then split the revenue with the game inventor to boot. I know some of their games came from the outside, but the point still stands. Sell your own content with hundreds of placements, or bring in a new game, put your game with momentum on hold, and split revenue with someone.

Galaxy and AGS are much better suitors for something like that. Their content combined is a shell of what SHFL has, and they need new products to keep the library interesting. AGS can tell their team to stop pushing Mega Blackjack (whatever that even is, I pulled it off their site) and say go out and pitch this new game we just picked up. That makes business sense, as no one knows what Mega BJ is. No one would blink an eye if the sales rep stopped pitching Mega BJ for a new game.

Did you pitch this game to Galaxy and AGS? What was the result?

Quote: SM777

But that falls in the lines of the size of the business of those companies listed and content they have. It doesn't make sense for SHFL to tell its team to stop selling Free Bet or UTH, or any other game with hundreds of placements to instead go out and sell something with no traction, and then split the revenue with the game inventor to boot. I know some of their games came from the outside, but the point still stands. Sell your own content with hundreds of placements, or bring in a new game, put your game with momentum on hold, and split revenue with someone.

Galaxy and AGS are much better suitors for something like that. Their content combined is a shell of what SHFL has, and they need new products to keep the library interesting. AGS can tell their team to stop pushing Mega Blackjack (whatever that even is, I pulled it off their site) and say go out and pitch this new game we just picked up. That makes business sense, as no one knows what Mega BJ is. No one would blink an eye if the sales rep stopped pitching Mega BJ for a new game.

Did you pitch this game to Galaxy and AGS? What was the result?

I'm not arguing with the soundness of SHFL'S business plan. I'm talking about your previous post that mourned any future innovation or growth of new games. I found it a bit hypocritical.

I'm not willing to discuss any of your other questions in a public thread, sorry.

The casino floor is due for something new. I would say that Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em was the last big hit and that was some time ago. High Card Flush is still young and may get bigger. Still, I think the players are hungry for something new. That is a reason to try to grow a new game. The one who grows it has control of it.