How to design a new game

Dave (21R) over here PM'ed me with a thread idea on refining game ideas into showable items. I though it was a good topic to revisit. Anyway, here's his request, and my thoughts, for what it's worth:

From D.H.: -------------------------------------------------
Dan,

Had a thought for this forum that you could kick off (was going to include Roger but can't figure out how to send to multiple people). I know we've seen some of the elements of what a new game generally needs to have a chance.
Was thinking it would be good to have a focused thread talking about learnings of games that looked like they might go, but just didn't quite cut it for one reason or another. I think if you point to things that seemed to hold a game back, it might spur an idea out of someone for that next great game you are looking for. I know a fair amount of discussion happens when a game gets launched and sometimes there are follow up discussions if it gets pulled, but I think people can learn and problem solve if there is discussion about what didn't work - and to have it one place could be a tremendous resource.

For example, there was a discussion on how 3 card poker needed to be adjusted to achieve the correct hold. There was another hinting that perception was a challenge with Dealer Bluff. Mulligan Poker is a nice in progress case study. Even the discussion on how the UK differs helps people look at things differently. Perhaps someone get a great idea or sees a way to revive an old idea with an added element.

Hoping it would be an interesting thread and could be a way to create a work force of inventors. The goal would be when one these conversations kicks up we ask people to move the posts to this thread. Hopefully it could be positioned to be constructive rather than hitting on topics that get people riled up.

Just tossing it out there- I know you're busy. Thanks for the replies today.

Dave
-------------------------------------
Dave’s idea is good. Here it is. I will try to supply some guidelines and characteristics (all straightforward but often overlooked or not known.)

The way I see game inventing, treat it as a passion and as a serious pastime, until you make it (with the odds hugely stacked against you). First of all, not everyone daughter is Miss America, but she may be with a makeover, and secondly, even good game ideas die on the editing room floor or in "production hell." There are screenplays that would have made brilliant movies that never got to be, and the same especially applies game design.

The only way to have a hit is to have a 100% tremendous game that has removed as many errors and oversights as possible, because you’re competing against those who have mastered survival of the fittest: Basic Blackjack, craps, Pai Gow poker, Baccarat, and Three Card poker, and suppliers/distributors such as SHFL and Galaxy Gaming. The Big Boys. Even a fantastic game idea that has a few minor oversights and errors can cause it to fail.

The games on the floor have really been refined, and any new games that have staying power have an awesome “gimmick” or catch that becomes a standard. You learn by looking at both the winners and the losers.

Ultimate Texas Hold ‘em (huge winner) allows you to be both aggressive with the 4x raise and cautious by checking through the River –and both seemingly generous to the player no matter how good or bad your hand, with a seemingly invisible house edge mechanism. A lot of the juice in UTH is the raise, and being saved by the board. Blackjack switch lets to do the most enticing, criminal-like of AP moves – mucking cards between two blackjack hands. EZ Pai Gow and EZ Baccarat let you play exactly the same game with full pay winners, by keeping the house edge mechanism very discreet in game play. High Card Flush lets you play flush poker hands of any length, play, raise or fold. These are all good game catches that made it.

Other game ideas that seemed to have great catches fizzled: Deuces Wild had great payout tables on forming a five card hand with any deuce as a wild card – but felt “expensive” to the player having to bet so many raise-type units to stay in, and felt crushing, because often you ended up with a bust hand (read: Too low a hit frequency). In 2001, that game was in 50% of the Valley’s casinos, with its drawbacks becoming increasingly felt over time.

The best way to describe it is that we know a bad game when we see it, but that we aren’t sure a good-looking game is such a great game until it is tested on the floor in real casino play and stays. We try to get all the way there.

For a base game, it has to have:
- A known common mechanism: Poker, Blackjack, Pai Gow, etc., because people aren’t willing to learn new systems. (Three card Poker actually makes poker playing very easy). Two Cards High is a great little game that was too "alien" in concept and mixture.

- Fun to play via a great gimmick: the ability to raise from a strong position while the game is forgiving with a weak hand (UTH, Mississippi Stud); switching cards between Blackjack hands; doubling/splitting for Free; eliminating commissions, or adding jackpots to craps like the All Tall/All Small or Fire bet. What I mean by a great gimmick or variation is this: It cannot be a variation that doesn't demonstrably improve the game while taking back little or nothing.

- The main bet house edge should be about 1.5 to 2.5%, a tad lower for slightly harder strategy games like UTH and Switch/Freebet, so that the table’s “hold” hovers around in the mid-20’s percentagewise. And yes, the game inventor is responsible for providing and proving mathematics.

- Has to be uncountable, unfraudible. If there’s a hole in the game, people will rape it, feel fine about that, and just use it as an ATM machine. A mathematician should supply an additional AP protection report. We know that from this place, and from the casino floor, among others.

- Have a good win frequency.

- Have IP protection – the idea is 100% YOURS, and you can prove it. Do an exhaustive search, and when confident, hire a real lawyer who knows gaming law.

- NOT be expensive to play. One to three mandatory units is a limit. The number of total betting spots on the felt should be limited because of:
………Ease of learning the game;
………Ease of dealing the game, and easy for the casino to use;
………Reduction of player disputes: too many bets and too many paytables = “You paid me wrong! FLOOR!!”
………Game safety - Reduction of “past posting” opportunities;

- VERY well fleshed out, with dealing procedures, layout artwork, documentation (How to Play cards, game manual, etc.)
- Have one or more well-designed side bets (see below).

Now for some Side bets discussion: With all things being equal – and the base “main game and bet” being all in order, there are a lot of little game aspects that CAN be analyzed and reviewed for side bets. This is just in a “tidying up” or “fine tuning” sense, and having a tuned product.
- A positive side bet (“bonus bet”), and a bad-hand side bet (like Pai Gow insurance or a crap check) should be offered, but basically limited to that, or replace by another (and at least as creative) side bet. Leaving room - and a reason - for the player to make a progressive bet that will of course be added to the game.
- Design of the side bet, be it positive, negative, or novel in nature, should follow certain conventions that aren’t consciously noticed or really spelled out (I’ll do so here), to avoid making the game and its side bets feel “not right” to play. Basically, and even if you don’t believe me, it should conform fairly close to these guidelines
- Have a hit rate between one in five hands and one in 10 or so. Why? Because if it is frequent, it cannot pay out much as it is frequently hitting and becomes a non-special, non-rare event, - and if it is too rare, it seems as if it “never” hits. (Leave THAT for the progressive version.)
- Have normal ratio pay scale, like 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, and 50 to 1, - and not something like 3, 7, 11, 13, and 22 to 1, for example.
- Have a top limit of 500:1 even for extremely rare events. Don’t look at the 8,000:1 Fortune bet. THAT game has been out a while. Give a reason for a distributor or casino operator to say “no,” – and they will.
- Have about Five to Eight pay table line items.
- Have about a 7% house edge on a “five or so item” pay table that ranges to 3:1 through 50:1 plus.

I have seen a lot of games, including many from this forum, who went "all the way" with their finely polished designs, and are ready to install, once a distributor or operator signs up. But I've seen way more "Close but no Cigar" and "Not even close" games.

Know that it's going to take a lot of time and expense if you are serious.

Thanks Dan- Since you mentioned Deuces Wild, let's start with that. https://wizardofodds.com/games/deuces-wild/

"Deuces Wild had great payout tables on forming a five card hand with any deuce as a wild card – but felt “expensive” to the player having to bet so many raise-type units to stay in, and felt crushing, because often you ended up with a bust hand (read: Too low a hit frequency). In 2001, that game was in 50% of the Valley’s casinos, with its drawbacks becoming increasingly felt over time. "


My question is was there a way to overcome this issue? Or did any attempt to change it ruin the draw of the game?

Quote: 21Revolution

Thanks Dan- Since you mentioned Deuces Wild, let's start with that. https://wizardofodds.com/games/deuces-wild/

"Deuces Wild had great payout tables on forming a five card hand with any deuce as a wild card – but felt “expensive” to the player having to bet so many raise-type units to stay in, and felt crushing, because often you ended up with a bust hand (read: Too low a hit frequency). In 2001, that game was in 50% of the Valley’s casinos, with its drawbacks becoming increasingly felt over time. "
My question is was there a way to overcome this issue? Or did any attempt to change it ruin the draw of the game?

In 2001, it was call Wild Hold ’em Fold ’em Poker and was in 50% of the Valley’s casinos.
Now purchased and renamed by Galaxy Gaming Galaxy as Deuces Wild.

Quote:

Now purchased and renamed by Galaxy Gaming Galaxy as Deuces Wild.

A game with an edge this high is always destined to fail, players eventually realise it sucks their cash away and give it up. A sidebet might get away with such a high HE, not a full game.

The problem with the game was that it had both a low hit rate and a bad reputation after a while, and re-introducing it with new pay tables and allowing to check was impossible to overcome and accomplish.

Quote: Paigowdan

Know that it's going to take a lot of time and expense if you are serious.

The cost for just making it to the floor could total between $30,000 to $50,000, right? If a side bet could sell for $100 / month, we are talking a very low ROI. Yet, you'll have a lot of fun.

Yes, it is expensive to start,
But if you're making $100 per table, per month, and have a hundred installations, you have $10,000 a month income, - $120,000 a year.

Sure; but if U work with a distributor, 15-20% royalty, $ drops.

Quote: Paigowdan

- Have a top limit of 500:1 even for extremely rare events. Don’t look at the 8,000:1 Fortune bet. THAT game has been out a while. Give a reason for a distributor or casino operator to say “no,” – and they will.
- Have about Five to Eight pay table line items.
- Have about a 7% house edge on a “five or so item” pay table that ranges to 3:1 through 50:1 plus.

I would say keep it well down, 500 to 1 is way too high, either remove a bet that is so rare or pay much lower, I would not want to go above 100 to 1 for any bet, casino set their minimums around the maximum pay out so a high odds pay out is going to reduce the table minimum.

I would have no more than 4 pay lines, 5 if it is absolutely exceptional.

Keep bonus bets under 5%, preferably below 4%, 3 to 4% is acceptable otherwise players won't play it long.

Rule one. Make games for the players, not the casinos.

Great thread, but even having a great game and a big distributor, does not guarantee success. REALLY !

My use of the of the word " great" has two meaning. My first exposure to greatness was racking for Willie Mosconi as he gave an exhibition in 1957. I remember one of the spectators saying " He's not that great. All he shoots are duckers ( easy shots ) LOL

Great people always make what they do seem so easy. Even table game inventors. I mean, think about it. Why not take the commision
away from Baccarat, and make it EZ_BACCARAT ? Ever play 2 hands of blackjack and think, GEE Whiz, if only I could SWITCH those last 2 cards ? Ever wished you could play blackjack with HOUSE MONEY ? And wanting to make one last big bet at blackjack, but
could not bet all your money, because you might have to split or doubledown, or think you bankroll would not fluctuate so much if only
a double down or split was a FREE BET ?

Wish there were a game where if you had a good hand, you could LET IT RIDE ? Or if you were hot and the dealer cold, you could bet on your STREAK ? If 3 card poker is fun, why not CRAZY 4 POKER ? If you can get a second chance in golf, why not MULLIGAN POKER ? ?

Hindsight is always 20-20. It does not take a genius to invent a great table game. ( Dan Lubin is the proof of this theory ) But once you have the game itself, the journey has hardly begun. Even with a great game, the biggest distributor, placement in casino's , dealer training, public awareness, etc, it is still a fickle public that will decide your fate. and every market is different. If your game is not an instant sucess in the first market, there may not be a second.

SWITCH is a great game, but absolutely bombed in Colorado. Buffalo Bonus is a great success in that same market. On my last 3 visits to Blackhawk, twice mid-week and one weekend, Digital roulette and bubble dice games had customers and even players
doubling up on weekends. But I never once saw anyone playing Golden Baccarat. Saw a few non-asians looking at it, but never saw
a single player ? !

A certain forum member did not tell me not to disclose this, so I will. But will answer no questions about this. a $30,000-50,000
figure as mention in a prior post. For those of us without deep pockets, both Roger and Dan are a blessing. An inventor recently
approached a company that supplies digital gaming tables. They offered him a 50% share of revenues, but only if he paid $75,000
to them for develop the software.

I would appreciate any comments you might have about that offer ! Especially if you have $75,000 burning a hole in a trouser pocket of your Brioni Vanquish II suit.

Quote: Buzzard

Great thread, but even having a great game and a big distributor, does not guarantee success. REALLY !


I would appreciate any comments you might have about that offer ! Especially if you have $75,000 burning a hole in a trouser pocket of your Brioni Vanquish II suit.

Thats sounds quite a bit but then would need to know the amount of programming required, what format, etc. My computer programmer is charging around £15000 ($25000) for our game to be done in Flash. For $75,000 I could launch on 7 platforms!

Quote: Buzzard

A certain forum member did not tell me not to disclose this, so I will. But will answer no questions about this. a $30,000-50,000
figure as mention in a prior post. For those of us without deep pockets, both Roger and Dan are a blessing. An inventor recently
approached a company that supplies digital gaming tables. They offered him a 50% share of revenues, but only if he paid $75,000
to them for develop the software.

I would appreciate any comments you might have about that offer ! Especially if you have $75,000 burning a hole in a trouser pocket of your Brioni Vanquish II suit.

What if he brings his own software engineer? $75,000 is, in some markets, equivalent to an entire year of engineering time and there's no way coding a new game (let alone a side bet) on an existing e-table platform costs $75k in labor. Developing the platform is one thing, but just implementing content on it should be much quicker. It can cost up to 500k to do a slot game, but that requires new math, audio, art, and software. For a table game in this scenario, the math is already done, there's no unique audio or art (except maybe a logo, which should already be done) and the code should be able to repurpose many existing routines from other games.

Heck, I've got some time right now. If the deal is right, I'd do it for a much smaller amount up front and a share of his 50% backend.

And if I'm going to buy something labelled "Vanquish", it's going to be this:

Quote: McDemon

Thats sounds quite a bit but then would need to know the amount of programming required, what format, etc. My computer programmer is charging around £15000 ($25000) for our game to be done in Flash. For $75,000 I could launch on 7 platforms!

A software company at Belarus can do a great APP for $2,500.

Why would I buy an automobile that cost less then a week's worth of suits ?

Seriously, I find the offer very intriguing and and the same time confusing. This is a game for an existing platform. Was the offer a don't go away mad, just go away thing ? Or was it a serious assessment of the games potential, or lack there-of ? Or a way to add to the company bottom line, no matter what ?

Isn't 50% extreme ? As well as $75k from the inventor ?

Seems every answer leads to another question !

I interpret this offer to mean they want to stay out of the business of chasing potential game revenue. If the investment is on the inventor's shoulders then the only risk is the time trying to earn installs. Less reward for each install, but no up front risk. For companies willing to take on greater risk/reward, it may be a different offer. I would doubt it was a don't go away mad type of thing- I know the inventor and he doesn't get too worked up :)

That's exactly it -- this is probably the sort of offer that's on the table for anyone and it's meant to eliminate all financial risks (for the vendor) other than opportunity cost, shifting it all to the inventor. If you know you have a hit game in the making, and you have a performance guarantee from the vendor that they'll place a certain number per month at a certain price, then you can compute ROI on your $75k. But without that, you're handing over $75k that the vendor might just decide to use on something else and never build your game. What kind of assurances do you have that you won't end up with 50% of $0?

I think that's just it- neither distributor nor inventor has any assurances and only the market determines a game's worth. While we might know what doesn't have any chance, distributor's can determine the risk they are willing to take on. I think it is reasonable for each distributor to determine what they are good at and how much they are willing to invest in finding a good game.

In the spirit of this thread, it brings up a topic around the technology barrier. It sounded like Dealer Bluff is a good case study in that it's still showing signs of life, but there has been some resistance from the market in adopting the role of technology in administering the game. Do folks think that tables with added technology to administer the game still might become common. The intended business case- as I understand it- is you can speed up the game and eliminate dealer training and mistakes. Depending on implementation, you can even get rid of chips being traded back and forth.

I feel like that with the right atmosphere and these tables you could create an upscale feeling that might work quite well in markets. But, players need to be comfortable knowing that all that is happening is the cards are read as they come out.

Quote: Buzzard

Great thread, but even having a great game and a big distributor, does not guarantee success. REALLY !

My use of the of the word " great" has two meaning. My first exposure to greatness was racking for Willie Mosconi as he gave an exhibition in 1957. I remember one of the spectators saying " He's not that great. All he shoots are duckers ( easy shots ) LOL

Great people always make what they do seem so easy. Even table game inventors. I mean, think about it. Why not take the commision
away from Baccarat, and make it EZ_BACCARAT ? Ever play 2 hands of blackjack and think, GEE Whiz, if only I could SWITCH those last 2 cards ? Ever wished you could play blackjack with HOUSE MONEY ? And wanting to make one last big bet at blackjack, but
could not bet all your money, because you might have to split or doubledown, or think you bankroll would not fluctuate so much if only
a double down or split was a FREE BET ?

Wish there were a game where if you had a good hand, you could LET IT RIDE ? Or if you were hot and the dealer cold, you could bet on your STREAK ? If 3 card poker is fun, why not CRAZY 4 POKER ? If you can get a second chance in golf, why not MULLIGAN POKER ? ?

These are good examples, as they show that a great game idea is something truly simple and elegant. I review a lot of games that for some reason almost try to be overly complex; the real test is making is better through reduction, not addition.

Quote: Buzzard

Hindsight is always 20-20. It does not take a genius to invent a great table game. ( Dan Lubin is the proof of this theory )

For the moron that I am, some people feel that I must admit be pretty sharp to get into an exceedingly elite club. The number of people who have made a fine living from designing casino games is very small. The only thing that spoils it just a tad is the few jealous wannabes who have a penchant to take shots because of a personal infatuation. Buzzard, or shall I say Charles "no last name," is the leader of my fan club. His personal attention continues.

Quote: Buzzard

But once you have the game itself, the journey has hardly begun. Even with a great game, the biggest distributor, placement in casino's , dealer training, public awareness, etc, it is still a fickle public that will decide your fate. and every market is different.

Actually, if a game is very fine, the gambling public actually becomes extremely consistent in support of a game. Three Card Poker and Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, among others, have a very stable and reliable playing population.

Quote: Buzzard

If your game is not an instant success in the first market, there may not be a second.

I would say that popular games did not become that way from being instant hits. Getting a game out in wide distribution is a good bit of work, more comparable to pushing a boulder to gather momentum. Takes years, nothing is instant in getting a table game design to become a popular casino game.

Quote: Buzzard

SWITCH is a great game, but absolutely bombed in Colorado. Buffalo Bonus is a great success in that same market.

With any game, there are few markets that act "contrarian" to the game's general performance, where a particularly popular game fails to get a following, or a relatively unknown game catches on or gets a revival as a niche game in an area, to help it break out again.

Quote: 21Revolution

I think that's just it- neither distributor nor inventor has any assurances and only the market determines a game's worth. While we might know what doesn't have any chance, distributor's can determine the risk they are willing to take on. I think it is reasonable for each distributor to determine what they are good at and how much they are willing to invest in finding a good game.

A game with no installs that is green-lighted is a real gamble for the distributor, but a required one, if the game seems particularly promising. (This is actually a rough day time job at times, to Yeah-or-Nay casino games and game ideas.) What can be done to reduce risk is that a game can be brought out on the cheap (no marketing, and in a jurisdiction that doesn't require a lot of over formal math laboratory reporting, an expensive application process, or is a long process.)

Quote: 21R

In the spirit of this thread, it brings up a topic around the technology barrier. It sounded like Dealer Bluff is a good case study in that it's still showing signs of life, but there has been some resistance from the market in adopting the role of technology in administering the game. Do folks think that tables with added technology to administer the game still might become common. The intended business case- as I understand it- is you can speed up the game and eliminate dealer training and mistakes. Depending on implementation, you can even get rid of chips being traded back and forth.

There IS something to be said for people and table gambling in the "real chips, cards, and dealer" sense without machine decision making or item replacement at a table. Some styles of automated Craps and Roulette had made a few inroads but did not have exponential growth.

Quote: Paigowdan

A game with no installs that is green-lighted is a real gamble for the distributor, but a required one, if the game seems particularly promising. (This is actually a rough day time job at times, to Yeah-or-Nay casino games and game ideas.) What can be done to reduce risk is that a game can be brought out on the cheap (no marketing, and in a jurisdiction that doesn't require a lot of over formal math laboratory reporting, an expensive application process, or is a long process.)

Here again seems to be an advantage of working with a distributor. Finding the right places to try out a game is likely a learning process as well. What I think is evident from the various threads is each distributor works a little differently.

Roger mentioned that they will look at a game even if it will require shaping on their end- but it likely means they'll need a greater share of revenue. They do have internal resources to look at the math, but I assume that is only done when it is manageable work and the game appears to have a proper balance.

Dan has mentioned they prefer to have a game more polished, which likely means providing the math.

Others may want a substantial investment.

In the end, it is worth the conversation to see where it leads. Dan, would you agree that this approach won't require 30-50K? If no luck with a distributor and you are still determined, then the large investment is on your shoulders, correct?

One of the issues I think new game developers face, as I did, is the learning curve on where and on what to spend time and money. I can confidently say and I am sure others can as well, we are all way smarter on where to spend and where not to spend as you develop a new game idea now versus the first game idea you had.

There may be an opportunity for a seminar to be put on that is designed to educate individuals with game ideas or those interested in developing games. I can see all sorts of topics discussed including:

1) When to bring in the legal and math experts
2) Distribution - What you give up and what you gain in exchange
3) Jurisdictional Issues - what to expect in various jurisdictions and Tribal Licensing issues.
4) Creating a professional game image/layout/logo - when and how to engage graphic artists, etc.
5) Website development - When and how much do you really need
6) Trade Shows - If you go it alone, when is it time to spend money on exhibiting at a Show and which Show makes the most sense.
7) Contacting a Distributor - How to do it, what you should have ready prior to your meeting, what to expect, etc.
8) Getting third party players to try your game and getting honest feedback
9) How to listen to feedback both from player focus groups and industry professionals
and many others.............

There are probably a ton of other items that could be included. I think the problem is that the audience for this type of seminar is so small, but I sure wish there was some place to go to get input from various developers that had been through it before. I would have saved thousands of dollars and would have been willing to invest $500-$1000 for a one day seminar that discussed these issues and connected me with other more experience members of the industry.

Teliot's book on game development has a lot of good information in it, but getting the info live from those that have experienced the process from the developers side is worth a ton.

Again, likely the audience is too small for this to be a realistic idea, but its a thought.

Quote: Paigowdan

There IS something to be said for people and table gambling in the "real chips, cards, and dealer" sense without machine decision making or item replacement at a table. Some styles of automated Craps and Roulette had made a few inroads but did not have exponential growth.

I definitely agree with this. I'm constantly hearing players suspicions about the role of the automatic shuffler in their loses. I can only imagine how they'd howl at more automation intended to increase speed and reduce error. Not that I don't think there is a segment that would embrace it, lots and lots of people play slots and that's nothing but automation.

Just wanted to add I think this is a great idea for a thread and though I probably won't contribute much I'll be reading it very closely. I'd like to hear any thoughts people have on overcoming the difficulties imposed on patents due to Bilski.

Quote: 21Revolution

Here again seems to be an advantage of working with a distributor. Finding the right places to try out a game is likely a learning process as well. What I think is evident from the various threads is each distributor works a little differently.

Roger mentioned that they will look at a game even if it will require shaping on their end- but it likely means they'll need a greater share of revenue. They do have internal resources to look at the math, but I assume that is only done when it is manageable work and the game appears to have a proper balance.

We do, too, but within limits, so we do inquire or ask if the inventor if he had done at least some math, or has a pulse on it from notes playing his own game by himself. This is to primarily avoid a very rudderless and super-sketchy concept that would have a rough go on the IP protection side, be expensive to produce from scratch, and as opposed to something that was at least somewhat fleshed-out and relatively sound and presentable in concept.

One time at DEQ years ago, a guy showed up trying to pitch a Blackjack idea, and an exec there "Paul" said, fine, pitch it to me. The guy said that he had it written down on a Burger King Whopper box in the back of his van. Paul said "fine, what the hell," thinking it'll be interesting hearing this, and went to the parking area with him, where the guy opened the back of his van...and after about a hundred beer cans and six pizza boxes poured out of his van onto the walkway. The guy found the magic burger box, and said it was a Blackjack side bet that pays "like 3 to 1, man," if the player busts his own hand, or something similar to that. Paul noted, "Well, if the player just hits until he busts, he can always win - and pretty much retire...." The guy said, "You know, I didn't think about that...." I get a lot of this, also.

I mean, if the inventor had played at least an hour's worth of his game and tallied up 40 or 50 hands, (which is like the minimum I'd expect), and noticed that the dealer or the player had won 90% of the time for what should be an even money type game, he'd prep it a bit more, and shape it to his own design, where it could be "somewhat reasonably" be used as a sound model for some play demo on a gaming table, and some bare-bones minimal math and IP protection. Really, only then it is showable.

Even a GREAT game idea can be written on a sandwich wrapper, and I WOULD go with it. But really, at that point, if "the great idea" is a sentence long of an idea, 99.999% of the time it is the above "Guy with a van in DEQ's parking lot" scenario and a waste of time. Anyone who came up with a great game idea would at least take out a deck of cards, flesh it out at least a little bit, play the new game A LOT - and be able to answer some fundamental questions. I've seen daffy ideas (like a poker game with twelve community cards) that people have written dissertations on, but I've seen more bad ideas where the inventor did not do any effort himself.

I discreetly tell whomever calls if I think the idea pitched is good or not - by telling them what to look for when they play it, how to shape it at least a tad, - and to write up some bare-bones and simple dealing procedures, explanation of the patent process, and advice to deal 50 hands of the game, and write down the results of it. Half of the time game inventors who approach us have at least a provisional patent and an excel spreadsheet of the math (- about a $300 investment here if self-done.) I always say, if it a good idea - YOU have to document, flesh out the idea, and file a provisional patent JUST to protect yourself, and I'll tell you how to do it. A sealed self-address envelope is a very hard to prove and tenuous "IP basis" that we won't roll with. Once signed, the inventor is responsible for about $5,000 of patent expenses (to convert the provisional), and the inventor has the advantage of abandoning the idea for no expense if it is not going anywhere. Currently, we would NOT go with a a game inventor who wouldn't invest in himself with a solid patent and a fleshed-out concept. Our rules are a bit stricter than Roger's, in the sense of "If YOU won't invest a least a little in your own idea, - and we will tell you how to do it, too - then you're putting us all, everyone, in a bad position." SHFL has resources.

And 99% of the time asking for such basics as a one-page or one paragraph written dealing procedure after that it was sent to a patent lawyer gets THEM to see if their own game ideas are strong. It prevents me from saying, "You're idea's kind of poor, you would have seen this if you made some effort, so do come up with another idea or fix it - and one that's more fleshed out, and THEN get back to me, you know what to do" - (where they can get REALLY insulted),

- as opposed me just telling them to try two hours of kitchen-table and notepad work after they came up with a Flash-of-Genius idea, and to review a few pages on the USPTO.gov patent site. A little work gets them to say, "no, that wouldn't work" instead of me.

If anyone had a "flash of genius idea' that they though had some merit, they'd invest at least a little time and effort in their brain child. It avoids me spending my company's money when it would be that 'cocktail napkin sketches are gambling with company's time and money."

For that matter, a good illustration is pitching a screen play, have having two studios handle it differently; someone can walk into a Hollywood movie studio office and pitch a movie idea in Three Sentences written on a cocktail napkin :

Guy walks in and gives a game/movie idea pitch.
"The movie idea is called Nevsky Prospect. It's about a guy in Boston who gets really drunk after work and after being fired, and wakes up in a Leningrad subway train wearing a Soviet Army Uniform - and being arrested for desertion from the Soviet Red Army 40th Division; he is sent to war and survives it. He lives 20 years of hell in Russia through the fall of the Soviet Union. He then wakes up in a Boston Hospital after being in a coma for a month from a concussion, from being robbed and assaulted. That's the script idea."

So studio exec asks: "You got a script, and one that is registered on this?"
"No."
"You got an agent?"
"No. I just walked in off the street. The base idea came to me last night, and I went no further than these three sentences. I think it is a start...."
"Okay. Give me your name and address, as you'll get a flat 0.5% of profit IF we make the movie and it is released, else you'll get $500 is we end up passing on it. We'll work with you, but in reality, we'll hire the screen writers and directors and they'll do it all, but we'll take a little input here and there from you by phone, or email IF we have a question. This can be $500,000 if it makes $100 Million. And it's $500 dollars if we don't make the film. Here's my card, you can trust us."

And you know, you probably can trust the studio. I know you can trust the Las Vegas-based game distributors who distribute table games. But if SHFL takes the idea, they'll neither pay much to sign you up or in revenue sharing - IF you walk in with just a sketch and nothing else, and it gets out and becomes a popular game.

Now I'd say, as a movie guy: "Here's the address of the Screen Writer's Guild Script Registry. Go out and buy a copy of Final Draft 8 screenwriting word processor. Draw up a storyboard, Type it up, and send it to the registry so that it is both fleshed out and protected, and don't tell the idea to anyone until this is done. THEN contact us. You'll get 2% of profit, or four times as much, if we make the movie, plus $10,000 if we accept the script, and nothing if we pass on the script. And if the other guy takes the script, you'll make more, also, this way."

Quote: 21R

Dan has mentioned they prefer to have a game more polished, which likely means providing the math.

Yes, AND it can be a spreadsheet, and some knowledge of the hit frequencies, and a provisional patent.

Quote: 21R

In the end, it is worth the conversation to see where it leads. Dan, would you agree that this approach won't require 30-50K? If no luck with a distributor and you are still determined, then the large investment is on your shoulders, correct?

90% of the time it is in that range. This is because:
1. On a first game, the basic design and the patent work gets massaged to death. Usually, there are seemingly endless late-stage errors and corrections that are caught.
2. Also, often it's the second or later game that get's signed up. You work on one idea, believe in it, and go far with it ($$$), and a later game idea gets interest by a distributor, and takes off.

It takes a lot of experience to be efficient in game designs.

Dan, you described the executives of the distributors as "Angels" that welcome "inventors" with open arms. U may be the only one in that category. Executives with all the big 3 or 4 distributors are as hard to get hold of as the TGDs in casinos. They are always in the meeting; they don't return phone calls; most the time they only deal with people they know. But then there is nothing wrong with that; they are too many "Guys in the Van". Why should an executive take an inventor seriously if he / she doesn't even want to spend time (in math and dealing) and money? Like everything else, an inventor has to take his work serious first.

Quote: UCivan

Dan, you described the executives of the distributors as "Angels" that welcome "inventors" with open arms. U may be the only one in that category. Executives with all the big 3 or 4 distributors are as hard to get hold of as the TGDs in casinos. They are always in the meeting; they don't return phone calls; most the time they only deal with people they know.

We're not Angels, but we are reliable, and conduct business in good faith. I can assure you that today, Shufflemaster and Galaxy Gaming return phone calls and emails to game designers, (and I am talking about Roger Snow and myself being faithfully involved, as the respective product and game design review guys). Sales and Marketing guys are not deeply involved in game designs until the games are approved and signed, but they should be reliable in forwarding inventor contact info. TGDs are not focused on new games, aside from dealing with SHFL and GG reps. On the casino operator end, Game lease/purchase decisions are really corporate office type stuff, and local casino TGDs are less involved, aside from stand-alone privately owned Casinos.

I will say an independent "newbie" new game designer who gets an install at an independent casino (Golden Nugget is a known "direct inventor-friendly" casino) may have a tougher time, because ANY tiny error or game design "misalignment" in a 99% polished game could be the difference between success and failure. A tiny fix can yield a huge improvement, and you need veteran eyes to scour a game long before the first install.

I admit there may have been a time in the not-too-distant past where things - corporate culture, let us say - may have been rougher, maybe with the perception of arrogance, or a perception that distributors were either disregarding or trying to take advantage of the "small inventor guy," etc. Not at all the case here in Las Vegas today. In-house new game design efforts just cannot really cover it all, (if Geoff Hall and Webb are any indication, and they are.)

From what I have seen in the past six years, I would say any hubris or 'it all comes from inside us" attitude is totally gone from the game design agreement end of this business here in Las Vegas, and that there is a very good faith, very open and cooperative relationship building between the two elements, (submitting game designer and distributor), who never should have been viewed by any part as adversaries or "not worth the time." The very advanced amateur game design is possibly a budding professional (successful) game designer, a possible partner, and is needed. It's a lot tougher now to break in, but it isn't really the Olympics. Still, it is work.

Quote: UCivan

But then there is nothing wrong with that; they are too many "Guys in the Van". Why should an executive take an inventor seriously if he / she doesn't even want to spend time (in math and dealing) and money? Like everything else, an inventor has to take his work serious first.

Yes, and I tell them to go forward with more refinement and resubmit. Roger may take the faintest sketch and build it up, creative juices flowing and all that (look out!) - having a huge crew to bounce things off of.

Keep in mind that at smaller manufacturers, an in-house game design manager has to cover jurisdictional game compliance work, portfolio mining, math lab review and liaison work, and a lot of product document spec work and artwork input and review. We schedule the more serious designers to come in and pitch their games, and they cannot come in with notes on a sandwich wrapper expecting an appointment. There are a lot of advanced game designers mixed in the Van guys, and it is a bit of triage.

I still stand by my previous statement, somehow overlooked in Mister Lubin's response :

" For those of us without deep pockets, both Roger and Dan are a blessing. "

I have the Luck brothers emailed permission to post this without a link .

Posted May 26, 2013 by Kevin & filed under Events.

The New Table Games Showcase, sponsored by Grosvenor Casinos, proved to be a big success for us in May. The event was well-organized and the staff from the G Casino-Coventry were true professionals. As a result, we feel their contributions were a major factor in helping “Riverboat Roulette” to be received by the UK market in such positive manner. The leadership team at Grosvenor is to be commended because they do what others refuse to do. They actually put new games in front of the true judges — the players! Grosvenor’s Corporate Table Games Program Manager, Ian Shanahan, was appreciative of us making the journey “across the pond” and stated, “If a roulette variation is going to make it anywhere in the world, it will make it in the UK”. We couldn’t agree more!

“Riverboat Roulette” was well-received as both players and gaming executives alike had nothing but positive feedback about the game. Specifically, Dave Allen, the Gaming Service Manager at the G Casino-Coventry, stated, “This game is the most well thought out one we’ve seen over the years we’ve been holding the showcase because its design equally considers the player, the dealer, and the casino.” However, only a select few of the 18 games exhibited during the showcase will be chosen to have live field trials conducted in a number of casinos and clubs across the United Kingdom. Next month we will get the official feedback from Grosvenor’s leadership team and informed whether or not “Riverboat Roulette” made the cut. We look forward to seeing the final results of the evaluation and hope to bring “Riverboat Roulette” to numerous properties within the Grosvenor enterprise.

Buzz, U still need to meet the minimum pocket depth requirement. Let's quantify it here: say about $10,150 for IP, math and layout, at least.

Quote: Buzzard

“Riverboat Roulette” was well-received as both players and gaming executives alike had nothing but positive feedback about the game. Specifically, Dave Allen, the Gaming Service Manager at the G Casino-Coventry, stated, “This game is the most well thought out one we’ve seen over the years we’ve been holding the showcase because its design equally considers the player, the dealer, and the casino.” However, only a select few of the 18 games exhibited during the showcase will be chosen to have live field trials conducted in a number of casinos and clubs across the United Kingdom. Next month we will get the official feedback from Grosvenor’s leadership team and informed whether or not “Riverboat Roulette” made the cut. We look forward to seeing the final results of the evaluation and hope to bring “Riverboat Roulette” to numerous properties within the Grosvenor enterprise.

I wish the inventor well but realistically he has very little chance of finding success with this in the UK, they won't give it the exposure or in a club that will have sufficient players, perhaps a digital version but forget a table one.

Love the Brits, straight shooters. Is "Riverboat Roulette” placed anywhere in US?

Quote: UCivan

Buzz, U still need to meet the minimum pocket depth requirement. Let's quantify it here: say about $10,150 for IP, math and layout, at least.

Yes, spot on. The process can be started on the cheap, and move a good way down the road, but the NON-provisional patent filing, a good math report, some professional artwork, etc., will eventually cost about ten grand if NO mistakes, re-designs or mishaps occur.

If it is a serious "life-requiring" project or endeavor, you can get investors (I had), dip into a 401(k), or get it far enough along that it is green-lighted by a distributor as a sign-up, and take it from there.

More info on: Inventing a New Casino Table Game.

I've been writing code for a while with an eye toward producing a design tool/service. The best case would be allowing someone, who has a reasonable ability to think in a structured way, but little programming or math experience, to design their game with a GUI (BJ/poker-like table games at first), and then automatically produce a demo (HTML5/canvas) both to be used as a demo and to verify the design before automatically running the math, maybe locally or maybe as a web service.

Comments? Other than the obvious technical hurdles, and the design hurdles wrt interface, are there other obvious problems? More importantly, What would the demand look like? I figure there's a potential market with designers, AP's, and possibly the industry itself.

Quote: UCivan

Love the Brits, straight shooters. Is "Riverboat Roulette” placed anywhere in US?

Not to my knowledge. I met the Luck brothers at G2E in Vegas last year. Thanked them for their military services and even shilled at their booth for a while. They also were at Raving and went to the UK. If anybody deserves a hance to chase a dream, it's the Luck
brothers.

They have not been back to this forum in a while, but did take all the advice about dropping references to craps from all their
promotions. Craps and Roulette just don't mix ! As for Poker and Roulette, well, that has not yet been decided. Right, DJ ?

Can anyone comment on how it would work if you have a concept where a base idea is obviously covered by another patent, but you believe you have some slight alterations that could make it better. It seems patents attempt to write things so broadly that they may cover things they didn't even actually think about.

For a bad example,

Say someone patented an idea that you could play 2 hands and "switch" the cards. Now you are looking at it and realize that 3 hands would work better with a slight alteration. (Obviously not the case). Since the basic idea is already covered, how do you go about getting credit for your idea while allowing the original inventor to be a part? Any good examples of how this has worked. I think I saw something about Bad Beat Blackjack having a scenario like this?

I'll let a real IP attorney provide a more formal answer, but it is my understanding that if your device or system meets all the elements of a patent claim, it infringes even if it also does other things. So if someone has a patent on a game that has steps A, B, C and D, and you develop a game with steps A, Q, B, C, M, C, and D, then you would either need to take a license from them or face potential infringement claims. That doesn't necessarily stop you from getting a patent on your improvement -- that's what patents are for -- but if what you're improving is still covered by a valid patent then you need a license.

As a real-world example, Ernie Moody patented Triple Play video poker. Claim 1 of his patent reads:

Quote: US Pat. No. 5,823,873

1. A method of playing a card game comprising:
a) dealing a first hand of at least five cards all face up;
b) selecting none, one or more of the face up cards from the first hand as cards to be held;
c) duplicating the cards selected to be held from the first hand into a second hand;
d) duplicating the cards selected to be held from the first hand into a third hand;
e) discarding from the first hand the face up cards that were not selected to be held and replacing each of those cards with a face up card;
f) completing the second hand to have at least five cards by dealing additional face up cards;
g) completing the third hand to have at least five cards by dealing additional face up cards;
h) determining the poker hand ranking of the resulting cards of the first hand, the second hand and the third hand.

That claim specifies three hands. Silicon Gaming later developed Lucky Draw VP, a four-handed game, so when they were approached by Ernie Moody's company they had to take a license: all of the steps of that claim were met by the Lucky Draw game even though it also performed the duplicating, completing, and determining steps for a 4th hand.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'll let a real IP attorney provide a more formal answer, but it is my understanding that if your device or system meets all the elements of a patent claim, it infringes even if it also does other things. So if someone has a patent on a game that has steps A, B, C and D, and you develop a game with steps A, Q, B, C, M, C, and D, then you would either need to take a license from them or face potential infringement claims. That doesn't necessarily stop you from getting a patent on your improvement -- that's what patents are for -- but if what you're improving is still covered by a valid patent then you need a license.

As a real-world example, Ernie Moody patented Triple Play video poker. Claim 1 of his patent reads:

That claim specifies three hands. Silicon Gaming later developed Lucky Draw VP, a four-handed game, so when they were approached by Ernie Moody's company they had to take a license: all of the steps of that claim were met by the Lucky Draw game even though it also performed the duplicating, completing, and determining steps for a 4th hand.

Thanks- so what does it mean when you have to take a license? Are you handcuffed and need to hope they give you a fair deal? Would you go try to get a license before disclosing how you intend to use it?

Can I say hey, I have an idea that will need you license. Will you grant me that for 5% of any revenue I generate?

Quote: 21Revolution

Thanks- so what does it mean when you have to take a license? Are you handcuffed and need to hope they give you a fair deal? Would you go try to get a license before disclosing how you intend to use it?

Can I say hey, I have an idea that will need you license. Will you grant me that for 5% of any revenue I generate?

Let them sue you then do a deal.

Quote: 21Revolution

Thanks- so what does it mean when you have to take a license? Are you handcuffed and need to hope they give you a fair deal? Would you go try to get a license before disclosing how you intend to use it?

Can I say hey, I have an idea that will need you license. Will you grant me that for 5% of any revenue I generate?

I do't think 5% of revenue can get a license for a casino game.
Does any body have any Idea on this?

Quote: McDemon

Let them sue you then do a deal.

That's what I'd be hoping to avoid. I am thinking about Blackjack side bets. Obviously there are plenty of them out there. I would imagine that cases have been made one idea infringes on another. Perhaps nothing comes of it since a lot of them have very few installs.

But if someone came up with an idea and it took off, then do you want to be stuck trying to arrange a deal at that point? It seems like your hands would be tied. I am wondering if it ever works out where you make an agreement ahead of time that your idea may conflict, but you are adding unique IP and will pay, for example, 5-10% of revenue. I assume it would need to be clear your unique IP is what is generating the revenue?

Obviously it depends on the strength of their claims, if, as has been suggested, you may use their idea but have improved on it, let them sue you, they will settle in the end. Remember, you can not stop someone suing you, even if their claims are frivolous, you can't stop them. Mostly suing is about getting on the upper hand so the settlement is done on their terms, if you are worried about getting sued, get out of casino game development, to put it frankly.

Quote: Paigowdan

Now for some Side bets discussion: With all things being equal – and the base “main game and bet” being all in order, there are a lot of little game aspects that CAN be analyzed and reviewed for side bets. This is just in a “tidying up” or “fine tuning” sense, and having a tuned product.
- A positive side bet (“bonus bet”), and a bad-hand side bet (like Pai Gow insurance or a crap check) should be offered, but basically limited to that, or replace by another (and at least as creative) side bet. Leaving room - and a reason - for the player to make a progressive bet that will of course be added to the game.
- Design of the side bet, be it positive, negative, or novel in nature, should follow certain conventions that aren’t consciously noticed or really spelled out (I’ll do so here), to avoid making the game and its side bets feel “not right” to play. Basically, and even if you don’t believe me, it should conform fairly close to these guidelines
- Have a hit rate between one in five hands and one in 10 or so. Why? Because if it is frequent, it cannot pay out much as it is frequently hitting and becomes a non-special, non-rare event, - and if it is too rare, it seems as if it “never” hits. (Leave THAT for the progressive version.)
- Have normal ratio pay scale, like 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, and 50 to 1, - and not something like 3, 7, 11, 13, and 22 to 1, for example.
- Have a top limit of 500:1 even for extremely rare events. Don’t look at the 8,000:1 Fortune bet. THAT game has been out a while. Give a reason for a distributor or casino operator to say “no,” – and they will.
- Have about Five to Eight pay table line items.
- Have about a 7% house edge on a “five or so item” pay table that ranges to 3:1 through 50:1 plus.

Question on this- would it work if a side bet was set up like this:
Opportunity to bet it occurs 15% of time. So, it is never bet unless you are in position to make the bet. Similar to the occurrence of a double down opportunity.
Once bet, a win occurs about 33%. The bet provides 2 ways to win- a 1:1 payout event and independent 2:1 and 3:1 payout events, resulting in payouts from 1:1 to 4:1 when combined.
Edge of around 5%

Thoughts?

Selling point- easy administration adding interest to

Quote: 21Revolution

Thanks- so what does it mean when you have to take a license? Are you handcuffed and need to hope they give you a fair deal? Would you go try to get a license before disclosing how you intend to use it?

Can I say hey, I have an idea that will need you license. Will you grant me that for 5% of any revenue I generate?

I licensed a patent before I marketed 'Blackjack Switch'.

It would depend on how close your concept was to the claims in the patent. I would say that anything between 5%-25% would be fair in order to use their claims and/or patent.

You also get the advantage of having a patent to protect your game rather than patent pending.

Quote: 21Revolution

Question on this- would it work if a side bet was set up like this:
Opportunity to bet it occurs 15% of time. So, it is never bet unless you are in position to make the bet. Similar to the occurrence of a double down opportunity.
Once bet, a win occurs about 33%. The bet provides 2 ways to win- a 1:1 payout event and independent 2:1 and 3:1 payout events, resulting in payouts from 1:1 to 4:1 when combined.
Edge of around 5%

Thoughts?

Selling point- easy administration adding interest to

Dan made some great points regarding keeping the interest of both the player and the house, but I think there's another factor you need to consider: the dealer.

If the opportunity for your sidebet comes up 15% of the time that means I'm pushing back someones bet 85% of the time and explaining why they can't make the wager at this time. This slows down the game and aggravates the players. Yes, all of them. The one that I had to embarrass and the others that had to hear the explanation as to why the wager couldn't be placed for the 100th time tonight.

You also have the floor supervisor mad at me because sometimes I miss the fact that someone makes the bet when they shouldn't and I have to call him over... again, to help fix the problem. And of course the solution never makes everyone happy.

I'm not saying situational sidebets don't exist (just because I can't think of any doesn't mean much), but they certainly aren't common and that's why I think you should re-consider making the sidebet something that only can be made a small percentage of the time. Because that's anything but easy administration.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

Dan made some great points regarding keeping the interest of both the player and the house, but I think there's another factor you need to consider: the dealer.

If the opportunity for your sidebet comes up 15% of the time that means I'm pushing back someones bet 85% of the time and explaining why they can't make the wager at this time. This slows down the game and aggravates the players. Yes, all of them. The one that I had to embarrass and the others that had to hear the explanation as to why the wager couldn't be placed for the 100th time tonight.

You also have the floor supervisor mad at me because sometimes I miss the fact that someone makes the bet when they shouldn't and I have to call him over... again, to help fix the problem. And of course the solution never makes everyone happy.

I'm not saying situational sidebets don't exist (just because I can't think of any doesn't mean much), but they certainly aren't common and that's why I think you should re-consider making the sidebet something that only can be made a small percentage of the time. Because that's anything but easy administration.

Situation side bets that only occur 1 in 8 hands, unless significantly valuable as a bet, 5 to 1 or better are not worth bothering with. One thing I have found is rarely do any of the "new" games or sidebets coming out take into account the method of dealing, mainly due to the vast majority of inventors not having ever been dealers, its a big void and you can't just guess it. I referred yesterday to a side bet that is currently being trialed in the UK on Roulette, one of the major gripes from the croupiers was " it gets in the way when I am clearing the layout". Unless the side bet is compelling, I would avoid situation side bets as a general rule.

Quote: McDemon

One thing I have found is rarely do any of the "new" games or sidebets coming out take into account the method of dealing, mainly due to the vast majority of inventors not having ever been dealers, its a big void and you can't just guess it.

I'm puzzled as to how a game inventor could not have a "dealing issue" revealed in the course of testing their game. You must deal it, even if only casually, to play test it. And if working on a sidebet you'd do well to understand the procedures of the game before falling in love with your sidebet's mechanics.

Most (all?) dealing procedure is there for game protection, if an inventor isn't aware of game protection issues I highly doubt they're going to have a game that can be successfully installed.

This isn't to say that someone that wants to invent a game needs to become a dealer, but knowing how the game/sidebet impacts what a dealer has to do is something they should look in to. Even if you get installs if all the dealers hate the game they won't be "selling" it to the casino guests.

Which brings me to my point: I'm available as a dealing consultant for all prospective game inventors, PM me for my fee schedule. :)

In all seriousness though, I have a few game ideas of my own and the biggest hurdles I'm facing are how to resolve issues involving dealing/game protection. The math? Easy. The game concept? Absolutely intuitive. If you saw the game you'd instinctively know how to play and what conditions would result in a win, the only explanation would be the pay table.

I also firmly believe you need a game that appeals to the public and is attractive to casino management's bottom line, but the dealing aspect is the third leg of the tripod, so to speak.

Quote: McDemon

I referred yesterday to a side bet that is currently being trialed in the UK on Roulette, one of the major gripes from the croupiers was " it gets in the way when I am clearing the layout".

It's hard for me to imagine what a successful sidebet for roulette would look like. Roulette already has a bet for everyone whether you like high variance or low, there's a bet for you. The only thing that I think could be exploited is some kind of fire bet or progressive concept. But yeah, there's a flow to the order you deal with losing bets, there's not much worse in dealing roulette than sweeping a winning bet. Put some sidebet in my way where I end up getting in trouble with my floor supervisor and pissing off the players and I won't be pushing it. "That? Some new sucker bet, best to avoid it."

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

I'm puzzled as to how a game inventor could not have a "dealing issue" revealed in the course of testing their game. You must deal it, even if only casually, to play test it. And if working on a sidebet you'd do well to understand the procedures of the game before falling in love with your sidebet's mechanics.

Most (all?) dealing procedure is there for game protection, if an inventor isn't aware of game protection issues I highly doubt they're going to have a game that can be successfully installed.

This isn't to say that someone that wants to invent a game needs to become a dealer, but knowing how the game/sidebet impacts what a dealer has to do is something they should look in to. Even if you get installs if all the dealers hate the game they won't be "selling" it to the casino guests.

Which brings me to my point: I'm available as a dealing consultant for all prospective game inventors, PM me for my fee schedule. :)

In all seriousness though, I have a few game ideas of my own and the biggest hurdles I'm facing are how to resolve issues involving dealing/game protection. The math? Easy. The game concept? Absolutely intuitive. If you saw the game you'd instinctively know how to play and what conditions would result in a win, the only explanation would be the pay table.

I also firmly believe you need a game that appeals to the public and is attractive to casino management's bottom line, but the dealing aspect is the third leg of the tripod, so to speak.



It's hard for me to imagine what a successful sidebet for roulette would look like. Roulette already has a bet for everyone whether you like high variance or low, there's a bet for you. The only thing that I think could be exploited is some kind of fire bet or progressive concept. But yeah, there's a flow to the order you deal with losing bets, there's not much worse in dealing roulette than sweeping a winning bet. Put some sidebet in my way where I end up getting in trouble with my floor supervisor and pissing off the players and I won't be pushing it. "That? Some new sucker bet, best to avoid it."

Its an advantage for dealer come inventors. For instance, my current game trialing in the UK has sailed through the procedure surviving intact. No criticism of the procedure because I built the procedure from the ground up, very few inventors here could say the same. Also, I can fully test my products without needing a casino to grant me the space so the game is market tested prior to the casino seeing it. Howlers like the one mentioned above where the dealers hate the bet because it makes their life harder can be avoided, I would be seriously embarrassed if the dealers criticized the procedure.

Roulette is a difficult game to place a meaningful sidebet on, for the reasons you have mentioned, it already has a multitude of high and low variance bets. The other issue, overlooked by inventors is the profile of a Roulette player. Broadly speaking you can divide Roulette players into 3 or 4 categories, the sprinklers, the section players, the even money/outside bet players and finally, the favourite number players. Then within those 4 categories, you have many subcategories of players, some over lapping with other categories so you end up with many different types of play. Coming up with a side bet that appeals to a subsection is easy, making it work within the game is harder. Making money from it is hard because you subsection can make up such a small market that its dismissed as a waste of time.

For example. NX2, a roulette sidebet which appeared a couple of years ago. effectively a bet that was a mini neighbour bet of 3 rather than 5.
http://nx2roulette.co.uk/

The guys behind that were croupiers, but the side bet appeal was so narrow, it bombed, Neighbour players don't want to place colour bets, they want to throw a £25 chip and have the dealer do it, plus, amazingly, the 11 to 1 payout which is OK, mimics the least popular bet on Roulette, the Street. Needless to say the sidebet crashed and is now nowhere. And these guys were croupiers, just shows you, they didn't have a clue, and they were casino execs. The mind boggles.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

I'm not saying situational sidebets don't exist (just because I can't think of any doesn't mean much)....

Can't think of any? Holy cow. You overlooked the obvious: BJ Insurance.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Can't think of any? Holy cow. You overlooked the obvious: BJ Insurance.

Does anyone care if I replace insurance with my side bet? :) I suppose my side bet could live with this one...

Quote: 21Revolution

Does anyone care if I replace insurance with my side bet? :) I suppose my side bet could live with this one...

No it would be great. Insurance sucks as a bet so if you can improve it, go for it