CHUCK -EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhDnnCrJ_iw&feature=relmfu

Anybody seen this game anywhere ?

I think it's another version of cee-lo. Someone at this year's gaming show had a cee-lo game too, claiming it was patented. And I did math on yet another version years ago. Someone should tell them that cee-lo is an old Asian game.

But no, I haven't seen cee-lo anywhere in a casino, in any incarnation. And using a dice cup at a house-banked table will *never* happen -- it's too easy to cheat with one.

http://www.raisecapital.com/tag/casino-table-game-developer-seeks-funding

You can get in for just $500,000 !


I offered SWITCH $56.34 for FREEBET. He turned me down, but only time will tell if he made the right decision.

Quote: Buzzard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhDnnCrJ_iw&feature=relmfu

Anybody seen this game anywhere ?

No, and it'll be unlikely. Sad video to watch, I know the hopes and dreams and MONEY that was sunk into it. $300,000+ of cash, probably emptied 401(k)'s and got second mortgages, etc. They had one install, and that install got pulled. I can see someone taking a shot on a really great design for $50K, but not a poor design for $300K. A bit like Bullet Ball.

The video of the Chuck 'em game starts at about 9:10 into the video.

The panel was spot on about how hard it is to get a game in. It's impossible except if:
1. It is a very good game with a strong and major distributor backing it.
2. It is an exceptional game, just a monster, and it was done in a self-distributed manner.

It's a huge longshot to develop a game for $20K or less, and three years out recoup that, plus pay your bills on a modest lifestyle. A handfull have done it, and a smaller group hit the big time.

Quote: Buzzard

http://

I offered SWITCH $56.34 for FREEBET. He turned me down, but only time will tell if he made the right decision.

If you could have gone to $60 I would have been tempted :-)

Quote: Paigowdan

They had one install...

Actually, they had THREE test installs. As indicated on the Raise Capital link, the game was tested in Fallsview, Casino Royale in St Martin, and on the gambling ship "Sea Escape".

Why they didn't mention the other installs is a mystery. I assume it's because the game didn't do as well at those other locations.

What I don't get is, why didn't the investors ask about the income stream? I've seen those same guys on Shark Tank. Return On Investment is a big concern of theirs. Unless they decided they were out and didn't care about the income.


But let's talk about the ROI for a second.

The inventors were asking for $500,000 for a 20% portion of the business.

A good table game can get $500 per month, per table installed. Assuming that's what they got, and there isn't a distributor involved taking a cut, this means the 20% would get the investors $100 per month per table.

That means the game would need 8,333 installs just for the investors to break even, in 5 years.


I suspect that if any of the investors were truly interested, the $ or % would be changed. Probably both. And the change would be a LOT. Like maybe $200K (or less) and 50% (or more)!

First, the owners of this game either don't understand the difference between house edge and hold, or were trying to deceive the Dragons. When they said the game held 25.7% one of the Dragons asked, "So it make 25.7% of all the thousands bet on the game?" The Salesman didn't correct him by explaining the 25.7% was probably the profit based on the drop. He also conveniently didn't answer a direct question about how much money the game held compared to blackjack, which is the key question. I've always maintained there is way too much emphasis put on the hold percentage. What should matter to the player is house edge, and what should matter to the casino is hold (net profit).

Second, I've had at least three different groups approach me to do the math on this game. I did it only the first time, to avoid conflicts of interest. Yes, there was indeed a group showing this game at the show last month, calling it C-LO. Not that I would invest in it, but I think there are other people out there claiming to high rights to the game. In case anyone is wondering, I do understand it is a popular gambling game in the black community on the east coast, played in home games.

Third, if they are looking to get the game on the Internet, I'm available to be PAID to either post an analysis and/or a demo game. I would charge much less than $300,000. If anyone knows those guys, please pass along that offer.

Fourth, I think the Dragons did their homework before that segment. They were entirely correct that the game takes too long to explain and the odds of making it in the new game business, especially going it alone, are very small. $300,000 for a 20% interest was just laughable. I think $3,000 would be too much.

Quote: Switch

If you could have gone to $60 I would have been tempted :-)

I wanted to invest, $60 would have been a gamble instead.

There was already a post about this.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/9812-has-anyone-seen-dragons-den-canada-season-6-episode-13-part-1-and-2/#post147187

Damn And i posted on that thread too. Just shows how forgettable the game is, I guess ?

I was just looking at my 1974 edition of Scarne's Complete Guide to Gambling and surprisingly, or not, he covers this game in there. He titles it "Four Five Six, or Three-Dice Game." Scarne correctly gets the house edge of the main bet as 2 38/81%.

Quote: Wizard

I was just looking at my 1974 edition of Scarne's Complete Guide to Gambling and surprisingly, or not, he covers this game in there. He titles it "Four Five Six, or Three-Dice Game." Scarne correctly gets the house edge of the main bet as 2 38/81%.

I find it incredible that they were able to get the correct house edge of games that cannot be solved directly.

FYI, my first introduction of Scarne was not in gambling but as a magician. He was a very famous magician.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

I find it incredible that they were able to get the correct house edge of games that cannot be solved directly.

What do you mean "cannot be solved directly?" Looking back over my records, I solved this for a client in 2006, nothing indirect about it.

Quote: MathExtremist

What do you mean "cannot be solved directly?" Looking back over my records, I solved this for a client in 2006, nothing indirect about it.

What is the house edge of blackjack? Can the house edge of games like this be "solved directly?"

Scarne was my hero, but OMG , did he screw up on Blackjack !

Quote: AceCrAAckers

What is the house edge of blackjack? Can the house edge of games like this be "solved directly?"

Yes, unless I don't understand what you mean by "solved directly". It's big enough to need software, but not so big to be computationally intractable (like chess is). You don't need to use Monte Carlo simulation to approximate the house edge of blackjack -- you can write iterative software to go through all possible combinations of hands, find the best strategy for each one, then add it up for the total.

Scarne was doing his work before the age of computers. I reads his books and I believe they were published in the 1950's. He was one of the first to list all games of chance and the odds.

ME, I know that you are skilled enough to solve many of the house edge on games of chance but do you think you could have done this without computers? I have seen serveral quotes for the house edge that differ slightly. Like I have said, this was done before the age of computer.

What is computationally intractable is not chess but go. There is no program that can beat the best go players but a progam has been coded that can beat a grand master.

I have never met Scarne but have met serveral magicians who were in his circle. Magicians and gamblers seem to go togather.