New Game, Help with the Development Process

I have some questions regarding a new table game that I thought of.

As I understand it, if one were to invent craps today and want to show it to a vendor like SHFL, DEQ, Galaxy, etc all you'd need would be a layout, dice, and some chips. But in the case of my game idea there would be a lot more involved in actually demoing the game.

- Is it possible to "show" the game by describing it, or must an actual live demo take place?

On the same subject, it would be fairly easy to give a basic demonstration, but the full blown concept would probably cost me several thousand to develop into a true working demo, and some aspects of the development are probably over my head (i.e. I'd need to hire an expert to work out these fine details).

- Is it possible to show a basic version of the game and describe the more elaborate "bells & whistles"? For example, if you had a game with a progressive, you wouldn't need an actual blinking light that ties into a computer and raises the jackpot, right? You could just say, "and the progressive bet goes here..."

The basic premise of the game is very obvious, therefore I'm not sure how patentable it is at that level. Imagine if poker had been around for years and then suddenly someone said, "Hey, let's play for money!" the poker idea seems to be pretty much in the public domain, my idea is somewhat similar in that it's been around for a while but I've yet to find a casino game based on it.

- Can anyone give me some guidance on how to approach patenting something for gaming purposes that outside of the gaming would seem fairly ordinary?

Lastly,

- Can anyone describe for me, or is there another source, where I can learn about the game development life cycle. What order the steps need to be done in (idea, patent, math, present... idea, patent, present, math?)


I know answering some of these questions will be difficult without knowing the nature of the game, and I'm just busting to talk about it, because it has me very excited, but after some of the things I've read about making an idea public I'm reluctant to discuss the details without an NDA.

I would probably go with a live demo. If you can't put up a prototype it's the best proof that your game won't work.
If it releis on i.e. complex mechanics or is difficult to manufacture - how do you maintain it ? How do you deal a game you never have dealt ?
If you don't have funds for a prototype, who is funding your patent ?

Quote: MangoJ

I would probably go with a live demo. If you can't put up a prototype it's the best proof that your game won't work.
If it releis on i.e. complex mechanics or is difficult to manufacture - how do you maintain it ? How do you deal a game you never have dealt ?
If you don't have funds for a prototype, who is funding your patent ?

It's difficult to answer your questions without going into detail that I'm trying to avoid at this point.

Perhaps a fair comparison would be if you had an idea for a slot machine variant. It would be quite costly to make the demo just like it would appear in a casino, but running it on a laptop should get the basic point across.

Dealing the game would be pretty simple. So much so that I would imagine even someone without previous dealing experience could do so competently with perhaps 5 minutes of instruction and a basic understanding of the game.

I'm lucky in that getting the money for a patent shouldn't be that difficult IF I can prove the idea can be monetized. But that of course leads to a chicken and egg sort of situation because the game vendors don't want to see an idea until it's patented. I'm estimating approximately $10k in development costs (for a complete, ready to rock with all the bells and whistles, version) which for me is a substantial sum. Of course it can be done incrementally, but it will still probably take me a year or more to get it done, and I'll have no place to keep it (about the size of a craps table) in the meantime.

It is pretty much summed up here:

Contemporary_Casino_Table_Game_Design

I would read this book before posting anything else about your game or asking any additional questions.....this is you starting point

A prototype is not the complete game, its a proof of concept - it should contain everything your game relies on. You won't need fancy artwork and all blinky stuff. If your prototype can run on a laptop and is convincing enough that it could be run physically on the table (or whatever you envision), that should be enough.
If your potential investors want a patent first, then you should obviously get a patent beforehand. If you don't have funds for the patent .... well get some savings or find a loan.

Quote: Paradigm

It is pretty much summed up here

Thanks for the plug. I think these charts sum it up as well. For me, one of the keys is the overall decline in proprietary tables since 2007.


Proprietary tables in Nevada: 1990 to 2012




Traditional tables in Nevada: 1990 to 2012




Blackjack tables in Nevada: 1990 to 2012

Blackjack tables in Nevada: 1990 to 2012

Can I safely assume this includes 6/5, 3/2. Super Fun & Spanish 21 ?

Quote: buzzpaff

Can I safely assume this includes 6/5, 3/2. Super Fun & Spanish 21 ?

6/5 and 3/2 only. SF21 and SP21 are proprietary games (Tech Art & Masque Publishing).

With updated information including 2012, it is not encouraging to see the continued encroachment of slots on the table game numbers. It is consistent with what I am being told and observe from table game managers.

However, I will say there has been a recent turn in that I have heard several table game managers tell me of table game pit expansion plans to be completed over the 12 to 18 months....it used to always be a story of trying to hold on to tables, not adding tables!

There is also this video from the Wiz interviewing PaigowDan that is also full of good information and insights.

Wiz_Interviews_PaigowDan

Quote: Paradigm

It is pretty much summed up here:

Contemporary_Casino_Table_Game_Design

I would read this book before posting anything else about your game or asking any additional questions.....this is you starting point

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll definitely check it out. I'll also have a look at the PaigowDan interview.

Quote: Paradigm

There is also this video from the Wiz interviewing PaigowDan that is also full of good information and insights.

Wiz_Interviews_PaigowDan

This was an excellent interview.

I'm obviously not an expert, so my opinion here should be taken with an entire container of salt, but I was surprised that both Wiz and PaiGowDan consider a non-variant game an automatic death sentence. There is something to be said for side bets and variants of tried and true games simply because the base game is tried and true so you know you're basing it on something already popular, but gambling isn't a priori knowledge, either.

Simply put, there was a first Table for every popular casino game that we see today, and even in the cases where those games are variants or alterations of games that are either limited or no longer exist, there was still a first Table for the predecessor.

I would agree that any game should operate with the standard equipment (or something really close) that we see today, whether that be dice, cards or a wheel...a game based on the use of spaghetti sticks probably wouldn't get off the ground, but I don't think going with a variant is the only way to survive. We have recently seen superb Blackjack Variants such as Blackjack Switch and Free Bet Blackjack, but I would suggest that the market for, "Blackjack...but with different Rules," will eventually dry up.

The consensus of, at least this Forum, seems to be that Craps doesn't need any more bets, so forget about that. The consensus also seems to be that Roulette may or may not benefit (split) from some sort of multi-spin proposition, but none thus far presented have been deemed generally acceptable.

What are we left with? We're left with tinkering with Poker and Blackjack. I apologize to Dan and The Wiz for my disagreement, here, but like any market, eventually the market for these things will eventually be flooded...and not just with ideas, but with actually active games! How many ways can you play THE against a dealer or House before you reach the point of serious redundancy?

Eventually, I think they'll have little alternative but to try a completely new game, provided it is premised on the mechanical elements of previously successful games, dice, cards, wheel...etc I personally believe that eventually the market for variants will dry up and it's either going to be something completely new, or the Casinos simply being satisfied with what they have now. I suppose that the latter could happen.

I guess I should include that I agree with the mutual opinion that people are generally hesitant to try games with which they are unfamiliar and would rather stick to tried and true games. As Dan said, and I'm paraphrasing, almost every American has played poker at home. The Wiz and Dan are very right about this, but there was a first Roulette wheel at some point (and look at it now) and there was also a first 00 Roulette Wheel. It's immediately obvious that the latter is horrible for the player compared to the former, but now not only are Roulette Wheels standard expectations at casinos, 00 wheels are by far the norm!

How did it happen? What combination of elements led to the popularity of Roulette (or its predecessors) when people first sat down at the table? Does anyone know? There's an answer somewhere, and when someone figures it out, they may be able to create a successful new game.

Great interview with Wiz and Dan, but I want to clarify one point:

Shuffle Master will consider distributing a game, even if it's not fully flushed out in the inventor's mind.

The most notable example of this is "Dealer Bluff," which was developed from a concept brought in by Stacy Friedman (MathExtremist). The game has a cult following and is played at Thunder Valley Casino in California (two tables) and is coming next month to Wynn in Las Vegas.

More recently, the game "Raise it Up" debuted at Pala Casino in California. This started as a vague but intriguing idea pitched to me by Ofir Ventura, a prolific and respected game developer. By collaborating with SHFL, Ofir has his game in the field and so far--knock on wood--it's doing well.

It's important that prospective game inventors know this: If you have an idea, even if it's looser than Louie Anderson's pants on Matthew McConaughey, Shuffle Master will take a look.

--Roger

Pacman, would SHFL give the indie-inventor the courteous of letting them know if they believe the idea infringes on SHFL's patents?

In most cases, the disputes are determined by who has the better lawyers and / or a deeper pocket. Of course, undeclared settlement could always be reached.

Quote: Pacman

....from a concept brought in by Stacy Friedman (Paradigm).... Roger

Just for clarification, Stacy Friedman is "MathExtremist".

Michael Templeman is "Paradigm"......and I wish I was as talented as Stacy at the mathematics part of game development ;-).

Quote: Paradigm

Just for clarification, Stacy Friedman is "MathExtremist".

Michael Templeman is "Paradigm"......and I wish I was as talented as Stacy at the mathematics part of game development ;-).

My bad. Edit made.

Quote: Mission146

Eventually, I think they'll have little alternative but to try a completely new game, provided it is premised on the mechanical elements of previously successful games, dice, cards, wheel...etc I personally believe that eventually the market for variants will dry up and it's either going to be something completely new, or the Casinos simply being satisfied with what they have now. I suppose that the latter could happen.

Mission146, of course you know that I agree with your line of thinking......I have only personally worked on game concepts that are outside the BJ & Poker variant space in an attempt to change the "Paradigm"....get it :-).

Problem is that Dan, Roger, Wiz and many others are correct in that this is a very difficult path to go down. However, these days I think it is almost equally challenging to come up with a new BJ or Poker game that will pull players away from what is already on the floor.

I have heard DTG's tell me that they already have 4-5 ways to play poker on their floor.......do they really need a 6th & 7th way. BJ is a different conversation because traditional BJ doesn't perform nearly as well as the other tables in the pit. If Free Bet can drive better performance and draw players with the hook of free doubles and splits......that concept has legs.

If House Money can get players to participate in a side bet (like 21+3 does in the Gulf Coast and Mid West), it will be a game changer in the side bet BJ business because it will drive performance of the traditional BJ table. Side bet participation seems to be the big problem side bets face....players just aren't playing them enough to meaningfully change the performance metrics of the tables.....hence their ability to command significant monthly lease rates has declined over the years.

Driving performance of traditional BJ is a problem that needs to be fixed from an operator's perspective. Operators appear to be attempting to solve it with 6:5 or high limits on 3:2....that may just become the standard.

With a new game concept instead of getting "I don't need another way to play XYZ", you are looking at "I wonder if our players will play this new game?". Both situations are challenges, but if faced with chosing between the two, I would take the latter and hope that I can carve out a whole new niche.

" Eventually, I think they'll have little alternative but to try a completely new game, provided it is premised on the mechanical elements of previously successful games, dice, cards, wheel...etc I personally believe that eventually the market for variants will dry up and it's either going to be something completely new, or the Casinos simply being satisfied with what they have now. I suppose that the latter could happen."

I think as casino's become abundant, that tables games might be developed for the local market. At Focus group 1, I had no choice but to apologize to moneysuit31's inventor for my earlier appraisal of his game. It is based on the game 31 , which I have since found many people in certain areas play. Had I been one of those players, I would have been instantly drawn to it, before the Focus group.

P.S. He has a distributor and will be rolling out a new version later this month.

I only caught glimpses of ME's dominoes game, but I know many ethnic neighborhoods where domino's rules.

P.S. Despite Dan's appraisal of my attitude at FG1, it was only frustration, not envy. Not often I feel like the dumbest guy in the room. Then again, maybe I should more often.

Certain ethnic groups, cultures, neighborhoods, etc. are drawn to games for no real reason. Even John Unitas could not make Tenpins succeed it Baltimore. Think of that. The 60's ABC and Don Carter on Saturday. And Johnny U lost his shirt, because Baltimorons are addicted to duckpin bowling.

White guys favorite card game there is PITCH, Black guy's play TONK.

Don't dare to steal any thread where the " BENEVOLENT DICTATOR " has posted, but what local games are particular to where you live. ???

You can protect your idea for the cost of a notary stamp.

Put every detail about your idea on paper. Even stuff that you dont think is patentable, like industry standards, or common knowledge details, what ever makes your game what it is. Include pictures as needed, they dont need to be fancy just enough to fully detail the idea. Date each page and get the whole thing notarized. Not a patent, but at least something that can be used to defend the game as your own.

If you have any dated notes or documents it would be wise to get those notarized as well. The earlier date the better, if it ever comes to defending your idea you want to establish that you had the idea first. It adds some meat to any sort of NDA you get signed.

I work in the engineering field and this is often done to protect every scrap of intellectual property that comes out of an engineering group. 98% isnt anything patentable, but it is cheap insurance in case a jem of an idea slips through the cracks. Patents are time consuming and expensive, but establishing "prior art" is is cheap and relatively easy.


Im not a lawyer and dont portend to know anything.

Quote: allinriverking

Pacman, would SHFL give the indie-inventor the courteous of letting them know if they believe the idea infringes on SHFL's patents?

We would not provide legal opinions, but we might in a general sense advise about similar games that have patent protection.

Pardon the vagueness. It was intentional.

--Roger

" Date each page and get the whole thing notarized. Not a patent, but at least something that can be used to defend the game as your own. "

I respectfully think you are wrong. Seems the USA recently joined the rest of the world, and it's now first to file, no longer first to invent ?

Once again I was half right.

First to file and first to invent are legal concepts that define who has the right to the grant of a patent for an invention. The first-to-file system is used in all countries except for the United States, which will switch to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013 after the enactment of the America Invents Act.

Quote: buzzpaff

I only caught glimpses of ME's dominoes game, but I know many ethnic neighborhoods where domino's rules.

I, too, only caught glimpses of the other games at the Focus Group.

However, the day after, I met with Stacey at Caesars, played a little craps together, then went to a cafe to sit and chat.

While there, he drew a few dominos on a napkin and explained the game. I don't remember the details, but I thought it was intriguing enough to give it a thumbs up.

Quote: IdiotWheel

You can protect your idea for the cost of a notary stamp.

Put every detail about your idea on paper. Even stuff that you dont think is patentable, like industry standards, or common knowledge details, what ever makes your game what it is. Include pictures as needed, they dont need to be fancy just enough to fully detail the idea. Date each page and get the whole thing notarized. Not a patent, but at least something that can be used to defend the game as your own.

This sort of "protection" no longer works.

Get a provisional patent. It gives you better protection, allows you 1 year to file for a real patent, back-dates the real patent when you file, can be written in plain english, and only costs $120.

Teddy or anybody with a valid opinion : I have a question !

I was recently told by a distributor in the industry that I greatly respect, I could wrap 2 or 3 different games in a single
provisional patent, and pull out any one or more, were they successful enough to warrant a real patent ?

It does not seem right to me, but I was no about to argue with her. What do you think ?

I've heard the same thing, but it doesn't seem right to me either.

And considering the provisional costs only $120, I'd say to be safe and do them separately.

Hey Teddy every $120 counts for me. REALLY

Buzz, I agree with the distributor's assessment.

In fact I believe you can also put several game concepts into one Utility Patent (with the appropriate independent and dependent claims) and file together.

My experience, even with concepts within one game, is that the PTO will then request that you divide the individual concepts into separate patent filings down the road "request for divisional or application". I have had this happen as it relates to side bets versus the main game and for electronic versions vs. the live version of the same game.

This is clearly a atty question, but the mode of operation these days, post Bilski, is to delay as long as possible until the USPTO figures out that new live table games are really patentable material. Divisional requests are one more way to delay the process......but all reponses and delays to Office Actions cost money!

Well, one $120 won't kill me. Thanks. I would expect any distributor, even a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR, to be more receptive to
granting an audience, if I have spent not only time, but money , on my ideas.

Quote: buzzpaff

Once again I was half right.

First to file and first to invent are legal concepts that define who has the right to the grant of a patent for an invention. The first-to-file system is used in all countries except for the United States, which will switch to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013 after the enactment of the America Invents Act.

Wow I didnt know a provisional could be had for a mere 120 bucks, if so that is the way to go. I work on the corporate side and even a provisional patent has to pass through so many lawyers hands it probably ends up costing 50 times more.

And I did not know that the whole 'first to invent' concept is going away. Good to know! I imagine this is being done to limit the amount of litigation, unfortunately it will probably just give the patent scammers a stronger leg to stand on.

It cuts both ways. With today's technology it is becoming easier and easier to hack files and them make a backdated entry in your own digital system. At least the argument of who was first can be decided more easily. But the sharks will find another way to feed their bellies.

Quote: Paradigm

Driving performance of traditional BJ is a problem that needs to be fixed from an operator's perspective. Operators appear to be attempting to solve it with 6:5 or high limits on 3:2....that may just become the standard.

And so it goes.......Deadwood_Lower_BJ_Payouts

Quote: Paradigm

And so it goes.......Deadwood_Lower_BJ_Payouts

If only someone had an alternative to 6/6 Bj, something more palatable. But an inventor would have to be a fool to compete with 6/5 BJ. I mean there are no license fees on 6/5 BJ. A man would have to be really dumb to spend his time and money on inventing such a game. Really, really dumb.

P.S. Roger, will you have a few minutes at G2E to discuss my new Bj game that competes with 6/5 Bj ??

Quote: Paradigm

It is pretty much summed up here:

Contemporary_Casino_Table_Game_Design

I would read this book before posting anything else about your game or asking any additional questions.....this is you starting point

I just ordered the book from Amazon and can't wait for it to arrive. Thanks for the recommendation!

Quote: buzzpaff

Teddy or anybody with a valid opinion : I have a question !

I was recently told by a distributor in the industry that I greatly respect, I could wrap 2 or 3 different games in a single
provisional patent, and pull out any one or more, were they successful enough to warrant a real patent ?

It does not seem right to me, but I was no about to argue with her. What do you think ?

She may be wrong, quite wrong.
One of the elements that validates a patent is its ability to be "enabled." That is, the patent's ability to function as a blueprint or "recipe" that will allow the game to be successfully recreated or recontructed from the design specification. Trying to mix different games may make NONE of them enable-able.
The other element of a patent that really defines and protects a product is the section of Claims. The Claims section defines exactly what you claim to have invented, and it has to be very well thought out, to close off loopholes that copy cats may legal get around if poorly done. When you try to cover many distinct inventions in a single patent, is not only the ability to enable or demonstrate an invention is possibly lost, the claims may become unworkable and unenforceable, producing a useless patent for a lot of money. Be careful; doing this job wrong may cost you, and being cheap will be more costly in the end. This is opposed to being efficient in accurately describing your inventions, - usually best one case at a time.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: Paradigm

There is also this video from the Wiz interviewing PaigowDan that is also full of good information and insights.

Wiz_Interviews_PaigowDan

This was an excellent interview.

I'm obviously not an expert, so my opinion here should be taken with an entire container of salt, but I was surprised that both Wiz and PaiGowDan consider a non-variant game an automatic death sentence. There is something to be said for side bets and variants of tried and true games simply because the base game is tried and true so you know you're basing it on something already popular, but gambling isn't a priori knowledge, either.

Simply put, there was a first Table for every popular casino game that we see today, and even in the cases where those games are variants or alterations of games that are either limited or no longer exist, there was still a first Table for the predecessor.

Yes, there was a first for all existing games, but the current environment is that the "world" or "universe" for table games is generally much created, and if any new species were to enter, it would have to be more fit and alluring that the proven monsters we have now running around the gambling planet. You might be able to build a better Lion or Tiger or Bear for this jungle, but throw a Smurf into this mix, and he's getting his ass kicked for lunch, so to speak.
A similar thing happened when a certain gentleman decided to create a whole new human language that had none of the problems or idiosyncracies of existing languages; the language is Esperanto, and it is not considered a wise language to learn.

There is one brand new game that I thought was pretty good, and it was Two cards high, a very well designed new game that just died, as did a number of "excessively novel" games like Scossa Dice, Zero, Rupert Island's Draw, and the like.
You create a work in a language that people know, and they will converse in it. You create a work in the language of Esperanto, you'll have a tough time getting it out to be popular.

Quote: Mission146

I would agree that any game should operate with the standard equipment (or something really close) that we see today, whether that be dice, cards or a wheel...a game based on the use of spaghetti sticks probably wouldn't get off the ground, but I don't think going with a variant is the only way to survive. We have recently seen superb Blackjack Variants such as Blackjack Switch and Free Bet Blackjack, but I would suggest that the market for, "Blackjack...but with different Rules," will eventually dry up.

I agree; I feel that the market for a new hit blackjack type game has had it lifecycle, with Geoff Hall producing the last possible masterpieces for BJ before this door really closes, and I myself stick with Poker, Pai Gow, and Baccarat.

Quote: Mission146

The consensus of, at least this Forum, seems to be that Craps doesn't need any more bets, so forget about that. The consensus also seems to be that Roulette may or may not benefit (split) from some sort of multi-spin proposition, but none thus far presented have been deemed generally acceptable.

What are we left with? We're left with tinkering with Poker and Blackjack. I apologize to Dan and The Wiz for my disagreement, here, but like any market, eventually the market for these things will eventually be flooded...and not just with ideas, but with actually active games! How many ways can you play THE against a dealer or House before you reach the point of serious redundancy?

I agree here too; I believe that the future of proprietary games is closing, and that a time will come where it would be a foolish endeavor to try to improve upon what is out there. I do not believe table games is like cinema, where you CAN always produce something fresh or exciting given enough resources and creativity. Like Moore's law, I also believe we are approaching the wall of diminishing returns.

Quote: Mission146

Eventually, I think they'll have little alternative but to try a completely new game, provided it is premised on the mechanical elements of previously successful games, dice, cards, wheel...etc I personally believe that eventually the market for variants will dry up and it's either going to be something completely new, or the Casinos simply being satisfied with what they have now. I suppose that the latter could happen.

I disagree here. The day will come the majority of the population will be watching the best movies and reading the best novels of the existing repertoire, - the past, the existing, to a great deal, and where new releases will be harder to produce. Yes, there was a first comedy film, a first drama film, a first film noire, a first musical, etc., and now there are countless ones of each. If Cable TV and Cinemax, HBO, NetFlix, and Starz did not exist, new film producers and distributors would be earning a lot more.

Quote: Mission146

I guess I should include that I agree with the mutual opinion that people are generally hesitant to try games with which they are unfamiliar and would rather stick to tried and true games. As Dan said, and I'm paraphrasing, almost every American has played poker at home. The Wiz and Dan are very right about this, but there was a first Roulette wheel at some point (and look at it now) and there was also a first 00 Roulette Wheel. It's immediately obvious that the latter is horrible for the player compared to the former, but now not only are Roulette Wheels standard expectations at casinos, 00 wheels are by far the norm!

If we look at how intractable Baccarat, Roulette, Craps, Poker and its variants, and BJ are, I think we can see the "existing language" effect of gambling applying its power. Two-Cards High is a good game, but it is really novel, and can't break in, the way Esperanto had failed as a newly created language. And as for 00 Roulette, the less nice to players' version has something to do with suppliers and their workers getting paid what the market will bear.

Quote: Mission146

How did it happen? What combination of elements led to the popularity of Roulette (or its predecessors) when people first sat down at the table? Does anyone know? There's an answer somewhere, and when someone figures it out, they may be able to create a successful new game.

Or know why the door is eventually closing.....One hundred years from now, English, French, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese will still be spoken, if not rendered static and frozen in syntax and vocabulary. The same is happening to gaming. Even if there are an infinite number of people, there is a finite limit on the number of possible gambling games that can be offered.

Quote: Paigowdan

If we look at how intractable Baccarat, Roulette, Craps, Poker and its variants, and BJ are, I think we can see the "existing language" effect of gambling applying its power. Two-Cards High is a good game, but it is really novel, and can't break in, the way Esperanto had failed as a newly created language.

Not to be picky or potentially derailing here, while Esperanto failed as an attempt to become THE universal second language, it is certainly not a failure as A universal second language. Over one million people speak it to this day, and any major city outside the English-speaking world will have an Esperanto center. In other words, while it failed to become the next Three-Card Poker, it certainly has enough placements ;)

Quote: CRMousseau

... Over one million people speak it to this day, and any major city outside the English-speaking world will have an Esperanto center. In other words, while it failed to become the next Three-Card Poker, it certainly has enough placements ;)

Well, comparing the "English Speaking World" to the "Esperanto Speaking World" - in terms of placements - is like comparing Three Card Poker to Two-cards high. I think Esperanto as a universal language does NOT have enough placements. Nobody says when in a foreign land, "Thank GOD I know Esperanto! Everybody knows it!" They say instead, "You mean I gotta go to the 'Esperanto Shack' at the outskirts of town?" This validates the concept of using a known gambling basis (such as poker or Blackjack) for a new game, as opposed to using a totally new and alien basis for a new game design. If a new system does not work better than an entrenched system, the new system does not enter to displace the entrenched system.

IMHO, Two Cards High seemed to have a few things going against it:

1) Special deck of 40 cards, while this isn't exactly a "new device", it certainly isn't the deck of 52/53 cards everyone is used to playing.

2) Baccarat scoring system but it wasn't really a baccarat game in that pairs meant something and in fact were the desired hands, which is not a baccarat concept at all.

3) 30% of the time the player lost with no options to contniue the "journey of the hand", that is a lot of hands that are automatic losers. Imagine in PGP if 30% of the time you got dealt your hand and weren't allowed to set it due to a minimum requirement of at least a pair to play. This is like a reverse qualification hand on the player and any automatic loser with no entertainment in the "journey of the hand" is tough on the player experience. You can get away with a feature like this 1 out of 9 hands (think 2, 3 & 12 rolls for pass line), but if you go much higher than 15%, there better be some multi-unit pay offs on good hands to compensate.

4) There doesn't appear to be any large payout/high variance side bet to juice the game volatility. This is a must have in any new game today, players expect/want variance in a new game as there are plenty of tried and true games with even money payouts and low variance. SHFL is having huge success in putting progressives in on older game titles......players want more variance and the chance to win Session/Trip/Life changing amounts at the tables. That is how table games must compete with the slot area of the floor.

I don't think the BJ variant window is closed nearly as much as I believe that the poker variant window is closing. I say this because BJ is still a problem from a relative performance standpoint for operators. Operators would love to get a replacement that would improve hold performance. Increased volatility in the game for players has not been solved to date by the side bet options. Both House Money and Free Bet are the latest attempts to address the hold/volatility issue (and they appear to be good solutions)......there will be others that come along and may have a chance.

I believe the day will come that you will only be able to play BJ as we know it today for $25 or $50 minimums. If you want to play lower than that it will be electronic or a live version of 21 that carries a house edge of over 1% due to rule changes (i.e. even money Bj's, push on certain hands winners like push 22, etc.) The question remains what will that 1%+ BJ variant look like.

Poker has Omaha and Draw Poker as the remaining frontiers. Those may be opportunities. Omaha has the challenge of so many cards in play that collusion would seem to be an issue that would need to be addressed. With all the discussion of machines vs. table games, coming up with a live table game of draw poker that can compete with the myriad of Video Poker machines is going to be difficult!

If Dan is right and the languages of Poker, BJ & Baccarat are the only languages that will be accepted by players (and they may very well be), developing games in the future will be a fools game. As EvenBob has commented before....maybe we are already there.

I do think that dice is an area of opportunity as it seems to be an under utilized device on the floor. I tried Dice with Cards in Easy Over Under. The combination of those elements was not rejected by players during the trial. In fact that was one aspect of the game they enjoyed. It was different and novel, but simple to understand as they were familiar with both devices. There are other problems with EOU that doomed it to failure. First and foremost was the lack of a strategy and the secondary betting/payout decisions were more complicated for players than I imagined.

I think the lack of strategy doomed Scossa as well. It was simple enough, but there was nothing to do except put your money down and watch. Players have that non-strategic, put your money down and watch type of game in Roulette today. Like Dan said, if it isn't a better bear, lion, or Tiger, the game will get eaten by the animals already ruling the jungle.

If no new game language or device utilization is going to gain acceptance, all windows are closing quickly. While there is not a finite number of gambling games that can be offered, there is a finite number of BJ, Poker & Baccarat games that make sense to offer.

Some of the possible areas I still see as viable are:
1. Eight-card poker games Like Hong Kong Poker (Five card hand, with three cards on the board); better continuum or range of hands.
2. Full poker Pai Gow Poker that's still easy to play;
3. Blackjack that is less volitile, and > 15% hold for the house (so that it can be comfortably offered; there is a hard-to-count variant by S. Ko. that plays exactly the same as regular BJ with the same strategy);
4. True Craps Progressive jackpot (based on the number of rolls of a shooter);
5. Baccarat side bets or progressives that are truly Baccarat-related, and not an unrelated rare hand 'x' hitting or based on a hand's win spread amount.

Each one of the above is under development, and/or to be shown soon, and I think one or more on this list will 'make it' in terms of viable placements. Notice that this list is composed of evolutionary improvements of existing games.

Less volatile Blackjack? I think increased volatility in table games is what is desired, but that is just my opinion and you are closer to it than I.

Baccarat side bets better than Dragon Bonus as the Lion of that Jungle are going to be difficult. The problem is if it isn't based on the final outcome of the hands you have to deal with different number of cards in each hand....sometimes 4, sometimes 5 sometimes 6.....that is a hard bet to design unless you limit it to the final outcome or just the first four cards dealt. I am excited to see what "House Money" for Baccarat looks like....sounds like it will be based on first two cards of one or both hands & I imagine with the ability to cap the winnings as in HM for BJ.

There definitely is a desire for some increased volatility in bacc as well. I think this is why Mini-Bacc has not done as well as Big Table bacc. In Big Table you have Big Players that are getting their volatility fix by betting large sums. In mini-bacc, you are trying to get new players excited about winning $10 units in a game with low volatility and no strategy....that is a tough game to sell to the US gaming market....they would rather just grind away at BJ where at least they get to be involved in some decisions of the game.

Quote: Paigowdan

I agree; I feel that the market for a new hit blackjack type game has had it lifecycle, with Geoff Hall producing the last possible masterpieces for BJ before this door really closes, and I myself stick with Poker, Pai Gow, and Baccarat.

I also think it's difficult because Blackjack is a really tough game upon which to improve. The HE with optimum play can often be paper-thin, but most people don't play optimally, so I'd be curious to know the effective HE of the game. The premise of the game, to have the dealer bust or score more points, is also deceptively simple when one consider the manner in which one has to play to be at that bare minimum HE.

That's where you displayed genius with EZ Pai-Gow, essentially by taking a game that had a huge flaw in it and finding a way to get that flaw out of the game. I think that is the main difference with Blackjack, there are ways (as Geoff Hall discovered) to make the game more interesting to people, but it's a true variation as opposed to, "Fixing," something that many players perceive as wrong with the game. There's nothing to fix with Blackjack, as it's not broken.

Quote:

I disagree here. The day will come the majority of the population will be watching the best movies and reading the best novels of the existing repertoire, - the past, the existing, to a great deal, and where new releases will be harder to produce. Yes, there was a first comedy film, a first drama film, a first film noire, a first musical, etc., and now there are countless ones of each. If Cable TV and Cinemax, HBO, NetFlix, and Starz did not exist, new film producers and distributors would be earning a lot more.

I agree with this statement, and that was an excellent comparison. I think that we have already seen this to a great extent in music because it is simply not as profitable as it used to be. Therefore, many labels are hesitant to sign bands producing something other than a proven sound that will appeal to the masses. They also have a tendency not to gamble on any up-and-comers hoping to strike gold with a new sound.

Quote:

Or know why the door is eventually closing.....One hundred years from now, English, French, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese will still be spoken, if not rendered static and frozen in syntax and vocabulary. The same is happening to gaming. Even if there are an infinite number of people, there is a finite limit on the number of possible gambling games that can be offered.

That also seems very true. I still can't help but wonder if an individual or group will ever have such a good feel on the pulse of the player and what players want that they will be able to come up with a hit truly out of left field.

The growing market in BJ is 6.5 tables. Like it or not. Higher labor cost, competition for floor space, and the inevitable higher bet limits will only lead to more 6/5 BJ tables. To have a product to compete with 6/5 BJ is a Herculean task for any distributor.
Only a crazy inventor would go down that path. But then, I have never said I was sane. LOL

Buzz, I agree that 6:5 or some other take away from BJ as we know is inevitable.

However, by making 6:5 the norm, developer's can trim that payout back to even money and have less resistance. Instead of even money BJ's being a 1/3 haircut of the payout on reg. BJ, going from 6:5 to even money is only a 17% haircut on the payout. Still ridiculous to purists, but then again, their battle was lost once the game goes to 6:5.

With Even Money BJ's, you now have some room as a developer to give back some of that gained house edge to the players in the form of other rules they may like. Just as Switch uses Push 22 as his take away rule, the even money BJ rule allows some room to be creative for the players benefit.

Damn, I may have to cancel that psychiatrist visit after all. I intend to an irresistible side bet, that has a high hit rate and adds jackpot to the internal BJ game. That's after I recover from G2E. LOL

Quote: Paradigm

It is pretty much summed up here:

Contemporary_Casino_Table_Game_Design

I would read this book before posting anything else about your game or asking any additional questions.....this is you starting point

Thanks again for this recommendation. The book arrived from Amazon 2 days ago and I've been reading it on all my breaks at work. 15 minutes at a time is about all I can handle of the math at the beginning on the book. I've never been a math genius though I did already understand the basics of standard deviation, the math section should be required reading for anyone that posts here regularly.

Chapters 1, 2 & 5 to me are the most relevant, with 1 being the hardest read due to slowing down to absorb math examples. I would read 2, then skip to 5 and circle back for chapters 3 and 4 in that order.

I refer back to may copy a lot and it has lots of underlines and highlights. I tend to go back to chapters 2 & 5 the most to remind myself what to focus on and how to refine a game concept.