DEQ will release 5 new table games at G2E - News release

DEQ released This News Release about their showing of Five new games at G2E.

Of the five new games discussed in this news release, at least three were invented by WoV Board members: Me, Moneysuit31, and Stanley Ko.

The games new games are:
1. Suit 'Em up 31, which is the name of Brent's game, as distributed by DEQ. ("This is a fast-paced single-deck poker game with a bonus card.")
2. Pai Gow-8: Pai Gow 8™ is a commission free Pai Gow Poker with the advantage of making a three card poker hand in the low hand, (by Yours Truly.)
3. Buster Blackjack Progressive by Stanley Ko. News release states: "On the progressive jackpot front, DEQ is releasing Buster Blackjack™ Progressive, which is a promising enrichment to the already popular felt version. "
4. Double Ball Roulette:In the roulette segment of the market, DEQ is officially launching Double Ball Roulette™. This innovative enhancement to roulette mechanically operates with 2 roulette balls thereby increasing the winning possibilities of clients as well as generating increased action and excitement at the roulette table.
5. One Surprise release.

Mike can be proud that his gambling forum is also the game developers' headquarters of the Internet, and I would add unarguably so. Other game designers here are also releasing games with other distributors, such as DEQ and Galaxy.

Anyway, Chime in on your thoughts, and vote for one and all.

Are we invited to play and vote, ala Shufflemaster? Hopefully Roger will soon see DEQ in his rear view mirror as a real
competitor.

Yes, or vote now based on what you'd like to see or can see running as new tables games.
As for Roger, he's the type of man who looks to the road ahead, as well as checking for blind spots.
DEQ is more of a boutique game distributor, as is Galaxy in some ways, in comparison to a huge outfit like Shufflemaster. In a few years it might be viewed as an Apple vs. IBM thing. Never know...

I will wait until I can see the games live and hopefully play. Brent already knows the positive influence actually seeing his game played had on my opinion of it. If the new version is an improvement, he has a real WINNER !

Granted DEQ is much smaller than SHFL, but I see them as an up and coming company in the space. They are turning the corner on cash flow and will likely make giant leap forward to postive EPS in the next couple of quarters.

They installed 300+ tables over the last 12 months and have over 400+ EZ Baccarat Tables installed worldwide. Licensed in 56 jurisdications around the world and just starting to ramp up EZ PGP....60+ table installed and likely going to triple digits in installs shortly........any company with that kind of success with two games is definitely on the rise.

The key will be adding other successful titles and building off of a base of installed games that now cover your overhead. I am a believer.......and a shareholder!

" From a tiny acorn, the mighty oak grows " Always liked that saying !

Sounds good. I'm looking forward to trying all the games.


---


" Double Ball Roulette " ?

Is that the system that was discussed here a few months ago?

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/math/9986-double-ball-roulette/

Five new games... fine. Someone still has an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit though I fear innovation is misdirected in a casino.

Perhaps its a refusal to grasp demographics or something, I don't know. I just see all these crazy new games as wild attempts (almost a shot in the dark) to get some wild new fad going.

No one seems to realize that shearing the sheep at a six to five BJ table is wrong. They are committed to it and think that they can undo the damage by coming up with some cutesy new name and some cutesy new game.

Casinos want to scan your drivers license, mislead you with resort fees, annoy you with ever stingy comp system fiddling, ream you at 6:5 Blackjack but then turn you into some enthusiastic new game player? Innovation? Don't innovate at Table Games: Innovate at Check in, at Room Service, at Valet Parking, at marketing, at education, at keeping dealers happy and cheerful (rather than merely appearing to be happy and cheerful). Make the gambling experience fun and stop this New This New That frenzy.

Quote: FleaStiff

Five new games... fine. Someone still has an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit though I fear innovation is misdirected in a casino.

Perhaps its a refusal to grasp demographics or something, I don't know. I just see all these crazy new games as wild attempts (almost a shot in the dark) to get some wild new fad going.

New product design is all about valid innovation. Sometimes new games are just tossed out there without much thought; a lot of the smaller distributors do this to failure ("Jimbo's Awesome Table Games, Inc.") More recently, some of the new games by the standard distributors are very well thought out and planned, and will succeed.

Quote: Fleastiff

No one seems to realize that shearing the sheep at a six to five BJ table is wrong. They are committed to it and think that they can undo the damage by coming up with some cutesy new name and some cutesy new game.

6:5 BJ is for the gripes section, and the 6:5 "decision" never came from any game distributor offering games, as the 6:5 came directly from the casino operators looking to stem losses, and was implemented without any game distributor product. Basic Blackjack was an old and public domain game that was tweaked by the casinos, and not by the new game designers.

Quote: Fleastiff

Casinos want to scan your drivers license, mislead you with resort fees, annoy you with ever stingy comp system fiddling, ream you at 6:5 Blackjack but then turn you into some enthusiastic new game player? Innovation? Don't innovate at Table Games: Innovate at Check in, at Room Service, at Valet Parking, at marketing, at education, at keeping dealers happy and cheerful (rather than merely appearing to be happy and cheerful). Make the gambling experience fun and stop this New This New That frenzy.

You are living up to your handle name, here.
Valet Service, Check-In, Room Service, and comps adjustments and casino policies on them are not at all new game design or distrubutor issues, in fact, they are not table game issues at all; and Blackjack, whether 6:5 or 3:2, is in decline to some degree, as gamblers branch out into new games, which is the focus here.

Briefly,

Why do they not combine Let It Ride and Three-Card Poker into one table? You go in and you can make a bet on either/both. You get your three cards, that's your hand for both. Let it Ride or take it Back, Play or Don't Play, ok, first community card, Let It Ride or Take it Back, second community card, resolve LiR bets, one more card, two-card LiR community turns into Dealer's Three-Card Poker hand.

I just want to know, why not?

At Borgata they just combined 3 card poker with Flop Poker. I loved Pai Gow Mania when Ballys had it at the Wild Wild West, it combines 3 card with Pai Gow.

Mixing two separate games generally causes a lot of problems for the operation of the game. Granted, 21+3 works very well, but that is the exception that proves the rule. Usually, the game protection logistics and the speed of play ("hands per hour") are too negatively affected to be viable.

The synergy of mixing games generally gives an end result that is more like 1 + 1 = 0.5 or less, and not 1 + 1 = 2 or better.

All the places out in SoCal have the "3 card bonus bet" for let it ride. It is basically the pair plus bet and it is evaluated for your cards at the end of the hand.

" No one seems to realize that shearing the sheep at a six to five BJ table is wrong. "

Michael Corleone: [to FleaStiff] It's not personal, FleaStiff. It's strictly business.

Quote: Paradigm

and have over 400+ EZ Baccarat Tables installed worldwide. !

Yes, but Ceasars just pulled all EZ Bac tables from
all their properties, and they have what, 50 something
casinos? That has to be a huge blow to EZ Bac.

1. I'm not involved in EZ Baccarat, I'm involved in EZ Pai Gow, - and Pai Gow-8.

2. EZ Bac isn't a new game offering, and EZ Bac is doing fine at over 400+ installs.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. I'm not involved in EZ Baccarat, I'm involved in EZ Pai Gow, - and Pai Gow-8.

2. EZ Bac isn't a new game offering, and EZ Bac is doing fine at over 400+ installs.

But how many installs did it lose at Caesars properties?

Dan, can you answer my insurance question on House money ?

Quote: Paigowdan

Mixing two separate games generally causes a lot of problems for the operation of the game. Granted, 21+3 works very well, but that is the exception that proves the rule. Usually, the game protection logistics and the speed of play ("hands per hour") are too negatively affected to be viable.

The synergy of mixing games generally gives an end result that is more like 1 + 1 = 0.5 or less, and not 1 + 1 = 2 or better.

If I may briefly state my counter-position, on this one:

1.) Let It Ride is a dying game, it's known by many as, "Let it Die," a casino could theoretically pull its only Let It Ride table in favor of this table that offers both! If nothing else, 3CP is a popular enough game that it occasionally sees full tables, and when it does, this would be an alternative.

2.) 3CP only can be played there if that is what a whale or a good majority of the table wants.

3.) I think it just lends itself to natural hedging. Your base LiR bet is 2x your 3CP ante. If you pull 'em both back and lose, but win on the 3CP hand (with a qualifying dealer), then you're even overall on the play. You could also make your base bet on LiR the same as the ante for 3CP, if you lose LiR, Play Bet 3CP, and have a non-qualifying dealer, you're even. If the dealer qualifies and you win, you're a little ahead.

4.) Excitement. Imagine a three-card hand with a pair of Tens, you just won three LiR base bets (at a minimum) and are probable to win the 3CP. One hand, and the House loves you four (at least) and up to five times in terms of number of bets, and payouts...who knows?

5.) Hit Rate. You get dealt a Pair of Nines to start off in LiR, you know not to play it, but damn, what a good three-card hand! You don't play it, you pull two back, lose the bet. Still, it's a probable 3CP winner, even with a qualifying dealer, so you have all these hands where you win one, lose the other (vice-versa) and the HE is effected on neither game.

6.) At worst, it moves slightly more slowly than LiR by itself, and that's only if someone is playing both, because of the sixth card. You really make your first two decisions at the same time, and at which point, there is only one more decision to make.

I mainly like the increased Hit Rate (if playing both) and I think the natural hedge is good for the casino. If some passerby sees someone win on all five bets, that's an ass in a seat, I guarantee that much!!!

Quote: EvenBob

Yes, but Ceasars just pulled all EZ Bac tables from
all their properties, and they have what, 50 something
casinos? That has to be a huge blow to EZ Bac.

Bob, do you have rough date time frame on this. I saw that teliot had referenced that this happened subsequent to when he publish his article on beating the Dragon bet in October of 2011. Is that the event you are referring to?

Quote: EvenBob

But how many installs did it lose at Caesars properties?

First of all, I don't know, as I don't deal frequently with the Baccarat group at DEQ - and if I did know, I wouldn't release company specific information against the Baccarat group, my co-workers at DEQ. All I know that its install base is over 400 tables, - which is very strong for a proprietary table game.

No, its new, I read it yesterday. Dan
knows about it.

Quote: buzzpaff

Dan, can you answer my insurance question on House money ?

1. What insurance question did you ask me? I will attempt to answer it anyway, as they are separate bets....
2. On insurance for the House Money side bet, I would assume that the House money side bet wins or loses based on its player two-card hand paytable only. This is regardless of the dealer's hand having a Blackjack - or the option of taking insurance on a dealer's blackjack - which is a separate bet that is based only on the dealer's hand.

I would assume that the house money wins or loses on the player's first two cards - regardless of the dealer getting a blackjack or not - and that the insurance bet wins or loses on the dealer having a blackjack after showing an Ace - regardless of the player's two cards winning or losing on the house money bet.

In other words, if the dealer has a Blackjack, the House money bet does not lose, since it is not the main bet on the hand, and does not need or can have insurance. Roger answered the press on player's House Money win going onto the player's Blackjack when the dealer himself does not have a BJ, and it pays even money after the HM win.

Quote: EvenBob

No, its new, I read it yesterday. Dan
knows about it.

Show us a link to this.

Mission, this is an interesting proposition, but I am not sure what is in it for SHFL.

My guess is that they can't charge anymore for a TCP/LIR combo table than they can for the TCP table alone. So offering the games as a combo may hasten come casinos that currently pay for both games to slim down their SHFL table count by 1 to just a combo table.

I think this would also be problematic to deal as a combined game. Maybe PaiGowDan or NicksGaming can chime in.

They are both poker games but you have the LIR paytable and the PP paytable, one uses all five cards the other just the player's three cards. Then instead of adding the two community cards to the players cards you are now adding a 3rd community card to the mix, making a dealer 3CP hand out of that and comparing it to each of the players three cards....except if they folded and didn't make the play bet.

While I am over dramatizing the action on the table, there is a lot more going on in different combinations of cards, some against two paytables others head to head against the dealer.

Instead SHFL has taken that combo game concept and said let's just add PP Bonus to LIR and we get the same volatility adder of 3CP in with a low hit rate high volatility main bet of LIR. That is about all the combining you are going to get in two games that isn't going to drive your deal staff crazy.

There are some points to note on combining these games....

1. Both LIR and 3CP are now public domain games with expired patents. While you can combine these games into a new "proprietary" formula, so can others if using different twists or methods.

2. Adding a side bet from a different game to some base game is easier than fully combining the main game play of two different games. It is proven that the 3CP side bet works well with other games, as 21+3 has shown, - but that adding the 3CP base game to another base game is much weaker, as Pai Gow Mania is NOT a great success at all.

3. LIR is not a popular game, and adding it to a more popular game might not help the combo.

4. Complexity reduction is a good element to incorporate into a new game, and mixing base games add "combinatory" problems to a new game.

5. a good earlier thread to review on combining base games is the "Pojack" thread.

1.) I agree that some casinos would, "Trim the fat," so to speak, to one Table. However, I would speculate that some casinos would just replace LiR, and others would just add an extra Table. By the way, do you happen to know if 3CP costs more for a table than LiR? If so, then you would simply charge 3CP money for it, so if casinos replace the LiR with the combo, you're making money.

I can also say that I have personally seen full 3CP tables, in a slow casino, early a.m. hours, I have not seen LiR full in my life! If you do the combo, then you have a Table that can handle the 3CP spillover without sacrificing the LiR game, as a whole.

2.) I agree that we need the input of a dealer, here, but I personally think it would be simple to deal. The beauty of it is that the resolution of each game takes place at a different time, (i.e. after the second community card, after the third, "Community," card which completes the dealer's 3CP hand) so you're not going to have any mixing or mix-up of what bets are paying out or being taken where. The games would still operate seperately, they would just share two cards.

3.) To the next paragraph, only one paytable comes into play at a time, the player's hand is only compared to the dealer's hand at one point. The other beautiful thing is that both games (especially 3CP) are just so EASY to determine the resolution on that I think you still end up with something fairly simple to deal. The head-to-head doesn't enter into to it until the very end. 3CP is simple, you either play or do not play, the dealer qualifies or he doesn't, compare hands.

4.) I think it repopularizes LiR and doesn't hurt 3CP. Imagine all of those hands where a player might have a Pair-of-something low, and the dealer beats him with a bigger pair, you have a player thinking, "Crap, if I had just played the LiR bet, also, I wouldn't have lost that." Alternatively, they could even win, but see where betting both would have made them more money. Pair of Kings comes in low with a Seven, Dealer has Nine-Seven-Deuce, doesn't qualify, here's your 1:1 on the ante, would have had two pair on LiR had you been playing that too, sorry!

The dealer's job would basically be to try to push playing both games, by saying what would have happened on the other (in the event of a win) if the player is only playing one.

Mission146,

My advice, seeing your interest in this, is to develop the game as a good gaming exercise: write a spec, draft a simple provisional patent, and draw a sample layout and some dealing procedures. Doing this, you will see what a game design entails, and you might find it a pretty interesting and challenging project in a positive way.

Mission, be aware of possible side effects if you do.

1. Respect for Paigowdan.

2. When saying Roger Snow aloud, you head will bow.

Quote: Paigowdan

Mission146,

My advice, seeing your interest in this, is to develop the game as a good gaming exercise: write a spec, draft a simple provisional patent, and draw a sample layout and some dealing procedures. Doing this, you will see what a game design entails, and you might find it a pretty interesting and challenging project in a positive way.

I'll give that a try, thanks, Dan!

Anyway, what are your thoughts - and votes - of the games being offered ??

Quote: EvenBob

No, its new, I read it yesterday. Dan
knows about it.

So they pulled them all out late last year after teliot's article, added them all back and yesterday pulled them all out again?

But Dan knows about this which is why he is asking for the link......

Let's have that link then as you have the inside scoop on this one!

Quote: Paigowdan

Anyway, what are your thoughts - and votes - of the games being offered ??

Dan, I was going to wait to play them all at G2E before voting......

Quote: Paigowdan

Anyway, what are your thoughts - and votes - of the games being offered ??

With no knowledge of the games other than the brief description in the original post, it's hard to form an opinion.

I abstain.

I wasn't asking for detailed reviews, I was hoping for general opinions on the direction of such game areas:
1. Full Poker Pai Gow;
2. Two-ball roulette;
3. Straightforward poker game that suit-based
etc....

Something like "I would like to see something in that area," or "something in that area doesn't interest me..."

I made a grave error in evaluating Moneysuit 31 before seeing it live. And apologized to Brent at Focus group 1. I would prefer not to make that mistake again.

Quote: Paigowdan

I wasn't asking for detailed reviews, I was hoping for general opinions on the direction of such game areas:
1. Full Poker Pai Gow;
2. Two-ball roulette;
3. Straightforward poker game that suit-based

If by Full Poker Pai Gow, you mean 8 card pai gow, I guess my first question would be: Only 5 players and the dealer, correct? So 48 cards are in play, what does 5 players vs. 6 players do to a game from the operators side? Seems like one less betting station on the table may be a big downer here, but I might be missing something here or just be wrong!

I do like the 3CP hand option as it opens up the PP side bet as a potential on the game. The current Fortune, Emperor's and even EZ PGP side bets seem to all be the "dollar and a prayer", low hit rate/high payout kind of side bets. Having a PP type side bet in PGP would be a good thing.

Two ball roulette I am definitely going to have to experience to get a sense of what it does. It does seem gimicky upon first glance, but like Buzz said on M$31 and I experienced last year with Power BJ, until you play the games, you don't really have a feel for them and your first impressions can be very wrong. I didn't think Power BJ would work at all, but then played it with Switch....it was a much different experience and I like the game after really playing it. Of course I think his Free Bet is going to be the defacto leader of the Push 22 concepts and as a result I think Power BJ will get pushed aside by Free Bet (no pun intended).

I am looking forward to Mr. Suit's new version of MoneySuit Stud. I don't know all the details yet, but it will be fun to check it out at the show. Dan, I need to get a picture of you dealing that game at the Show to send to Brent.....will you be helping out in the DEQ booth at all this year? Two weeks and counting.

Quote: Paradigm

If by Full Poker Pai Gow, you mean 8 card pai gow, I guess my first question would be: Only 5 players and the dealer, correct? So 48 cards are in play, what does 5 players vs. 6 players do to a game from the operators side? Seems like one less betting station on the table may be a big downer here, but I might be missing something here or just be wrong!

Not an issue - Blackjack tables have standardized to five player spots for a reason, and five spots seem to be optimal for table games: less crowding, and less "dead hand time" actually, - as dealers get to the next round's action more quickly. Plus, pai Gow-8 is also commission-free with the Pai Gow Push mechanism, so there's no change making time losses.

Quote: Paradigm

I do like the 3CP hand option as it opens up the PP side bet as a potential on the game. The current Fortune, Emperor's and even EZ PGP side bets seem to all be the "dollar and a prayer", low hit rate/high payout kind of side bets. Having a PP type side bet in PGP would be a good thing.

We opted for a flush or better in the 8-card hand, which occurs very frequently with that many cards. Heavily examined, but putting a 3CP poker side bet for the three-card hand side would disrupt strategy, as in pai Gow you seek the best balanced hand as per pai Gow action, not the best 3CP top that may hurt the full basic hand.

Quote: Paradigm

Two ball roulette I am definitely going to have to experience to get a sense of what it does. It does seem gimicky upon first glance, but like Buzz said on M$31 and I experienced last year with Power BJ, until you play the games, you don't really have a feel for them and your first impressions can be very wrong. I didn't think Power BJ would work at all, but then played it with Switch....it was a much different experience and I like the game after really playing it. Of course I think his Free Bet is going to be the defacto leader of the Push 22 concepts and as a result I think Power BJ will get pushed aside by Free Bet (no pun intended).

The jury is out here on two-balls, we gotta see these balls in action.

Quote: Paradigm

I am looking forward to Mr. Suit's new version of MoneySuit Stud. I don't know all the details yet, but it will be fun to check it out at the show. Dan, I need to get a picture of you dealing that game at the Show to send to Brent.....will you be helping out in the DEQ booth at all this year? Two weeks and counting.

The new version of Brent's game is very strong. I probably won't be dealing other than the Pai Gow offerings, Steve Jones may deal it, though.

To the vote:

I voted for Suit 'Em Up 31, because as everyone here knows, I love Money$uit 31 and think the game is near-perfect. Still don't like the mandatory Family Bet, think it should be optional, but can see why it exists based on the original game.

Quote: Paigowdan

There are some points to note on combining these games....

1. Both LIR and 3CP are now public domain games with expired patents. While you can combine these games into a new "proprietary" formula, so can others if using different twists or methods.

Hi all, I don't really post much and just read on this forum a lot, good info mostly but I don't think the above is true, is it? I thought 3CP had a ways to go still?

Thx

Quote: Mission146

To the vote:

I voted for Suit 'Em Up 31, because as everyone here knows, I love Money$uit 31 and think the game is near-perfect. Still don't like the mandatory Family Bet, think it should be optional, but can see why it exists based on the original game.

I will not prejudge the new version till I see it, but I thought the original version had a special appeal. Not every game has to
morph into a poker game to succeed.

Quote: Spinner14

Hi all, I don't really post much and just read on this forum a lot, good info mostly but I don't think the above is true, is it? I thought 3CP had a ways to go still?

Thx

I am very curious about this myself. It seemed as though Caribbean Stud should be in the public domain by now but I don't know about 3 Card Poker. I would love to know:

1) Has 3CP entered public domain? (the simple question)
2) If a game like Caribbean Stud is in the public domain then why is it still a part of the ShuffleMaster catalog? Why wold someone pay licensing fees for a game in the public domain.

The patent on the game may have expired, but the trademark on the name lives a lot longer.

I.E. If it's public, anyone can offer the game, but they'd have to give it a new name.