Dealer First Blackjack
Thought I would go ahead and post this game for feedback.
Dealer First Blackjack
“Before your turn, find out if the dealer will hit, stay, or show you a dealer bust!”
Here is the 10 second summary:
"Blackjack, but the dealer has to hit first. If the dealer busts after taking one hit- he shows. In that case, players complete their hand as they choose where staying with less than 17 is a push. If he hasn’t busted, the hand is played just like traditional Blackjack.”
To deal it, the dealer’s first 2 cards are face down. With 17-21, the dealer simply stays without revealing any cards (Blackjack can be revealed and hands resolved). If the dealer has less than 17, he takes a hit and shows the hit card. If he doesn’t bust, it is then the player’s turn just like traditional Blackjack.
If he does bust, the hand is revealed with a rule that players staying with less than 17 will push- and a player bust results in a loss. Players may double and split. So, if the player has a hard 12, there are 5 cards which will make 17-21, but 4 cards which will be a bust. This makes for an interesting double down which would be the right play. Other double hands are stress free, where players can’t lose, but need to make 17-21 for their double to win.
This game does require technology in order to direct the dealer how to proceed without the dealer knowing the value of his hand. It certainly could be played via online, ”slot”, or electronic table. I welcome your thoughts.
Thanks,
Dave
Just to let you know, my friend Derek Webb already has a game (Jack-Black) and a US-Patent 6,305,689.
I think you should have a look at it before going a head with you Dealer First Blackjack.
United States Patent 6,305,689
Webb October 23, 2001
Method and apparatus for playing a reverse blackjack card game
Abstract
A Blackjack derivative card game incorporates a reverse play methodology, wherein after dealing hands of cards to a player and to a dealer, the dealer's hand is resolved in accordance with predetermined game rules prior to resolving the player's hand.
If the dealer is still in the game after resolving the dealer's hand, the player's hand is then resolved in accordance with the rules.
With this methodology, disadvantages associated with conventional game play such as Blackjack can be eliminated.
For example, with the dealer hand exposed and resolved, the players are not required and do not perceive a requirement to understand a basic strategy. Rather, the goal is simply to beat the dealer's hand.
The impact of card counting can also be eliminated, and the speed of game play can be increased.
Inventors: Webb; Derek J. (Derby, GB)
Assignee: Prime Table Games LLC (Las Vegas, NV)
Family ID: 23239609
Appl. No.: 09/318,798
Filed: May 26, 1999
Quote: MrCasinoGamesA Blackjack derivative card game incorporates a reverse play methodology, wherein after dealing hands of cards to a player and to a dealer, the dealer's hand is resolved in accordance with predetermined game rules prior to resolving the player's hand.
If the dealer is still in the game after resolving the dealer's hand, the player's hand is then resolved in accordance with the rules.
With this methodology, disadvantages associated with conventional game play such as Blackjack can be eliminated.
For example, with the dealer hand exposed and resolved, the players are not required and do not perceive a requirement to understand a basic strategy. Rather, the goal is simply to beat the dealer's hand.
The impact of card counting can also be eliminated, and the speed of game play can be increased.
Since there are no decisions to make, the HE should be high?
Had to look for this, "Removal of these house advantages is recompensed by pushing player wagers when the dealer busts, rather than players winning, as is the case in conventional Blackjack. "
Quote: odiousgambitSince there are no decisions to make, the HE should be high?
Had to look for this, "Removal of these house advantages is recompensed by pushing player wagers when the dealer busts, rather than players winning, as is the case in conventional Blackjack. "
Yes, good callout- I did see and reference this patent. These are very different in that the dealer's hand is not necessarily resolved because only one hit is taken. Cards are only revealed immediately when he busts. And the player's hands definitely are not resolved with predetermined rules. The mystery and challenge of decision making is very much in play.
1. Creates a fun event where players can double their hand knowing if they make 17-21 it will win. Note this occurs on about 18% of hands where the dealer busts with 3 cards.
2. Creates a new strategy when he reveals a hit card, but has not yet busted. For example, if he hit a 10 without busting (now having 3 cards), chances are good he has already made a hand.
With cards 2-6, he might still bust, but it isn't as strong of a bust card as traditional Blackjack. Players will hit a few more hands like in this case.
Generally, players are able to make better hit/stand decisions. More often than traditional Blackjack, players will have the satisfaction of feeling they were able to steer the hand the right way, even when that doesn't result in a win.
Assuming there's no patent problems, getting the technology indicated in the original post will be a major roadblock to the game.
I think it's an interesting game concept, but you're gonna have a hard time getting past these obstacles.
I would be concerned with the number of possibilities at the start of the hand. You deal the cards and you have 4 outcomes
Dealer 21
Dealer 17-20 = good
Dealer 16+ hit = Good
Dealer 16+ hit = Bust
I don't know the number of people that care much about strategy. I do know a lot of newer games are giving tips to players on how to play. This is fine because the games still might have a 2-4% advantage. What you don't want to happen is people have no idea how to play it and create some 20% HE and get an extremely bad impression of the game. Dealer 21 is easy to understand. I'd be concerned that each of the other 3 have fairly different strategies and people aren't going to want to learn them.
In no way am I an expert. I'm simply a person that plays such games from time to time. Complexity is the killer for me in BJ variants.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe concept in the original post is different than Derek's parent. Whether the patent overlaps or not is for greater minds than mine.
Assuming there's no patent problems, getting the technology indicated in the original post will be a major roadblock to the game.
I think it's an interesting game concept, but you're gonna have a hard time getting past these obstacles.
100% agree - The technology is a barrier in that simple felt installations are not possible. However, felt based platforms from SHFL and Digideal do allow for this type of game. Ignoring felt, any online or slot based platform would also be able to deliver.
Part of the reason for posting this is it is possible for me to get this game out there. The challenge is that you can’t cheaply build the software just to do a “test”. It would require paying for that and then giving the game a chance to gain traction. I thought this is a good way to see if it is worth trying to attract that investment.
McDemon, if there are other aspects that you are seeing, please let me know. I am truly looking to find out if the game itself, technology aside, would be a fun way to play.
Quote: soulhunt79Not terrible. I'd have to see HE to see if I'd ever play it, but I've enjoyed similar games. These will never be a standard for me though due to the higher HE than regular BJ.
I would be concerned with the number of possibilities at the start of the hand. You deal the cards and you have 4 outcomes
Dealer 21
Dealer 17-20 = good
Dealer 16+ hit = Good
Dealer 16+ hit = Bust
I don't know the number of people that care much about strategy. I do know a lot of newer games are giving tips to players on how to play. This is fine because the games still might have a 2-4% advantage. What you don't want to happen is people have no idea how to play it and create some 20% HE and get an extremely bad impression of the game. Dealer 21 is easy to understand. I'd be concerned that each of the other 3 have fairly different strategies and people aren't going to want to learn them.
In no way am I an expert. I'm simply a person that plays such games from time to time. Complexity is the killer for me in BJ variants.
Good observation and good way of breaking the game down. The nice thing is that on 3 of these events, the strategy is very easy for the player.
21- Dealer revealing Blackjack is the same for all Blackjack games
17-20 Good. Pretty easy, player knows that they also should make 17-20 since the dealer did not hit. Players may even hit 17.
<17 + hit Good Similar strategy as traditional, choose whether to hit or stay and hope for dealer bust
<17 + hit Bust Pretty easy strategy- double if you think you can achieve 17-21 with one hit. Take the push if you will likely bust (13-16).
In the end dealer not busting is played just like traditional Blackjack. Players just know more about how strong his hand might be.
HE aside, the goal of this variation is to make the game a bit more fun and add variety to the game. Blackjack as it stands is a good game. I think the biggest objection to Blackjack has always been the dealer acts last. The hope would be that this seems to balance that objection while adding a new level of entertainment.
Great feedback- let me know if you still feel it is too complicated. I think anyone who has played Blackjack will quickly pick it up, but I could be wrong.
Quote: 21RevolutionMcDemon, if there are other aspects that you are seeing, please let me know. I am truly looking to find out if the game itself, technology aside, would be a fun way to play.
That's easy. Grab your blackjack-playing friends and deal the game to them. Look at the cards yourself, no technology. Play for half an hour and then ask them whether they'd rather play blackjack. If the answer is yes, move on to your next project.
ZCore13
Quote: 21Revolution
Part of the reason for posting this is it is possible for me to get this game out there. The challenge is that you can’t cheaply build the software just to do a “test”. It would require paying for that and then giving the game a chance to gain traction. I thought this is a good way to see if it is worth trying to attract that investment.
McDemon, if there are other aspects that you are seeing, please let me know. I am truly looking to find out if the game itself, technology aside, would be a fun way to play.
I hope I didn't come across too negative, I do have a bit of prejudice against BJ and its variations, BJ is a pretty shallow game and its variations.
I will do a proper assessment of the game and post my analysis. Off the top, as a developer, you want to avoid BIG time any game that requires third party solutions, particularly electronic solutions to make the game work. The key to development for the little guys is to keep your costs down as much as you can, so if changes need to be made (as they invariably do over testing and market research) you can carry on. The moment you need to go to someone else to make it work its invariably doomed. Casinos won't go near electronics that don't work if the electronics go down (look at all the spare shuffling machines kicking around casinos) so there HAS to be a manual solution.
Back soon with full analysis
Quote: McDemonI hope I didn't come across too negative, I do have a bit of prejudice against BJ and its variations, BJ is a pretty shallow game and its variations.
I will do a proper assessment of the game and post my analysis. Off the top, as a developer, you want to avoid BIG time any game that requires third party solutions, particularly electronic solutions to make the game work. The key to development for the little guys is to keep your costs down as much as you can, so if changes need to be made (as they invariably do over testing and market research) you can carry on. The moment you need to go to someone else to make it work its invariably doomed. Casinos won't go near electronics that don't work if the electronics go down (look at all the spare shuffling machines kicking around casinos) so there HAS to be a manual solution.
Back soon with full analysis
I appreciate that McDemon- I didn’t think the reply was too negative. I just wanted to find out if you were referring to anything other than the technology obstacle.
Learning the negative feedback is a main reason for posting out here. Somewhat in line with the thread I asked Dan to start on game design, I thought it might showcase some of the obstacles that need to be thought through with a new game.
Quote: Zcore13It seems like a pretty good concept to me. If I were looking at it, I'd consider it as a "Carnival Game" and one spot in my pit as compared to replacing regular Blackjack tables.
ZCore13
Thanks Zcore- I think that’s all a new game can hope for is a spot to start and try to prove itself.
Quote: 21Revolution
Dealer First Blackjack
“Before your turn, find out if the dealer will hit, stay, or show you a dealer bust!”
Here is the 10 second summary:
"Blackjack, but the dealer has to hit first. If the dealer busts after taking one hit- he shows. In that case, players complete their hand as they choose where staying with less than 17 is a push. If he hasn’t busted, the hand is played just like traditional Blackjack.”
To deal it, the dealer’s first 2 cards are face down. With 17-21, the dealer simply stays without revealing any cards (Blackjack can be revealed and hands resolved). If the dealer has less than 17, he takes a hit and shows the hit card. If he doesn’t bust, it is then the player’s turn just like traditional Blackjack.
If he does bust, the hand is revealed with a rule that players staying with less than 17 will push- and a player bust results in a loss. Players may double and split. So, if the player has a hard 12, there are 5 cards which will make 17-21, but 4 cards which will be a bust. This makes for an interesting double down which would be the right play. Other double hands are stress free, where players can’t lose, but need to make 17-21 for their double to win.
This game does require technology in order to direct the dealer how to proceed without the dealer knowing the value of his hand. It certainly could be played via online, ”slot”, or electronic table. I welcome your thoughts.
Thanks,
Dave
As promised
Area 1: As you know some form of card reader (baize) or alternative electronic solution to read the dealer's cards. I would abandon this method completely, the dealer will have to know the cards manually by some other solution.
Area 2: Gameplay. tiresome, can see this waning very quickly as a serious game. I have declared my low view of BJ but I can't see the USP here, it has a novelty that would probably fade very quickly, can't see players being happy with not getting paid when the dealer busts.. Same flaw as Blackjack Switch standing on 22 to create an artificial edge. Players will feel hard done by in my opinion.
Area 3: Offer. Other than a twist on the standard BJ, what does this offer over standard BJ with or without side bets? I can see a player playing half a dozen hands and then saying, "I'm off to play BJ"
Dave, focus on gameplay first, make a game for the players, lots of novelty and variations on that novelty.. steer clear of electronics in the first instance and NEVER mix random number generators, like dice and cards, Roulette and Dice. Personally, I would steer clear of BJ altogether..unless you have a wicked novel side bet!
Quote: McDemonAs promised
Area 1: As you know some form of card reader (baize) or alternative electronic solution to read the dealer's cards. I would abandon this method completely, the dealer will have to know the cards manually by some other solution.
Thanks again for doing an analysis. I'm going to give comments in an effort to keep a good discussion going. Hoping to hear others thoughts as well.
Wondering if anyone from SHFL or Digideal could comment on Area 1. Both have tables that can read cards, so wondering how they overcome that objection. To your point about handling for changes to software or card reading being too much for a small inventor to handle, I would agree. That is not the path I would take with this. And as noted above, felt isn't the only way folks will play cards.
Quote: McDemonArea 2: Gameplay. tiresome, can see this waning very quickly as a serious game. I have declared my low view of BJ but I can't see the USP here, it has a novelty that would probably fade very quickly, can't see players being happy with not getting paid when the dealer busts.. Same flaw as Blackjack Switch standing on 22 to create an artificial edge. Players will feel hard done by in my opinion.
Does USP mean upside- meaning can't see the benefit? You have hit on the key aspect of whether a game can make it, and that is how does it feel. In this case of pushing when staying with less than 17, does a player think "I'm sure glad I didn't have to hit?" Or do they think, "I should have won." Someone who plays a lot of Blackjack generally cringes when they are sitting with 14-16 and knows that if they bust it doesn't matter that the dealer busts. And on the flip side do they say sure that's a push, but I just won a double down on a hard 9 that I would have never doubled on?
Quote: McDemonArea 3: Offer. Other than a twist on the standard BJ, what does this offer over standard BJ with or without side bets? I can see a player playing half a dozen hands and then saying, "I'm off to play BJ"
For kicks, I'd like for you to tell me what standard BJ offers over this version. You have the point above that standard BJ pays all hands in play when the dealer busts (but keep in mind players generally only stay on bustable hands 5 of 13 hands. Otherwise players hit and often bust which is a loss. Or make a hand and still lose.) I will answer the question, but this is a good way to see where you are coming from.
Quote: McDemonDave, focus on gameplay first, make a game for the players, lots of novelty and variations on that novelty..
Would like to understand what it means to you to make a game for the players. This idea did evolve thinking about a player objection- that the dealer acts last. It found a way to create an interesting event- dealer reveals a bust before players take their turn, resulting in stress free can't lose double down. So, the idea certainly didn't start thinking how to please the casino, though we all know that requirement must be met. So, what approach are you thinking of when you say make a game for the players? Great discussion and do appreciate your willingness to engage in the topic!
Quote: 21RevolutionFor kicks, I'd like for you to tell me what standard BJ offers over this version.
Decades of familiarity and thousands of tables in the market. You're not starting from scratch, you're starting in a market where everyone already knows how to play blackjack. Don't try to convince us -- game developers -- try to convince blackjack players. Do a focus group, ask a casino manager, etc. Do your market research. Don't think for a second that just because you have something that's different means you have something that's better.
Well said. The worst part of this reality is that "something different" gets you a patent, but gets you no market (no money).Quote: MathExtremistDon't think for a second that just because you have something that's different means you have something that's better.
Quote: 21RevolutionI think the biggest objection to Blackjack has always been the dealer acts last
I don't know if I agree that this is the biggest objection to BJ. I think the major objections to BJ are more along the lines of:
1) Some idiot is always playing wrong at the table
2) Or the opposite, I am always getting yelled out for taking the dealer's/other players cards.....I don't want to embarrass myself by playing "incorrectly"
3) The Strategy is a grind and you only ever get a 1 to 1 payout, except for 1 in 21 hands when you get 3:2 on a Natural (hence the marketplace for side bets)
The players having to act first is where the house mechanism is built in, but I don't recall anyone every telling me "I don't play BJ because the dealer acts last"....Just have never heard that as a big negative to the game.
Quote: MathExtremistDecades of familiarity and thousands of tables in the market. You're not starting from scratch, you're starting in a market where everyone already knows how to play blackjack. Don't try to convince us -- game developers -- try to convince blackjack players. Do a focus group, ask a casino manager, etc. Do your market research. Don't think for a second that just because you have something that's different means you have something that's better.
Certainly true- familiarity is the reason we're told a new game should be based on an existing game, and hopefully make it better. Completely agree that different doesn't equal better.
I've posted this game for a few reasons even though I was told it can be harsh. One reason is to see what we all can learn from it. Is there information on what it takes to run a meaningful focus group- perhaps a good topic for another thread?
I'm not trying to convince developers, but I do value their opinions, probably more so than I would get out of my inexperienced attempt at a focus group. (I will say friends and cocktails does achieve good results.)
Another reason for posting is I think it's an interesting discussion for those that like to think about new game ideas. If it's not, people won't read. And how are we supposed to know if you are willing to sign up for coding the software in exchange for some revenue?! :)
I just thought it would be interesting to think about how one would "sell" traditional Blackjack versus a new game if the new game was the standard... I'm going to take that task to play devil's advocate to my own question.
Quote: 21Revolution
Does USP mean upside- meaning can't see the benefit? You have hit on the key aspect of whether a game can make it, and that is how does it feel. In this case of pushing when staying with less than 17, does a player think "I'm sure glad I didn't have to hit?" Or do they think, "I should have won." Someone who plays a lot of Blackjack generally cringes when they are sitting with 14-16 and knows that if they bust it doesn't matter that the dealer busts. And on the flip side do they say sure that's a push, but I just won a double down on a hard 9 that I would have never doubled on?
USP (unique selling point). One of the key points about BJ and one I avoid in games I am working on, is you want to avoid stand offs (pushes). The only circumstances where a standoff can possibly be justified is when you expected to lose but survived. In BJ, you don't generally expect to lose on 20 but all to often 20 ends up as a push and is deeply unsatisfying in terms of gameplay. Plus pushes are a waste of time, no one wins, you or the casino (ala Blackjack Switch - all bets push when dealer has 22).
Quote: 21Revolution
For kicks, I'd like for you to tell me what standard BJ offers over this version. You have the point above that standard BJ pays all hands in play when the dealer busts (but keep in mind players generally only stay on bustable hands 5 of 13 hands. Otherwise players hit and often bust which is a loss. Or make a hand and still lose.) I will answer the question, but this is a good way to see where you are coming from.
The answer is legacy, I am not saying standard BJ is any better, but as a game developer and occasional punter, yet another variation of BJ doesn't float my boat. For instance, Blackjack Switch, in my opinion, hasn't done as well as it may have done, because,
1) Edge is achieved by the dealer not paying out when he busts with 22 (punters feel cheated with a contrived edge)
2) Players getting confused and repeatedly asking "what did I have before I switched my bottom cards"?
3) It was competing against standard BJ which players are generally familiar with
4) Players have to place two bets to play
Whilst there are some interesting concepts and novelties in the version proposed, its going up against a game that has legacy (thats all mind) and I am not sure players are that keen to play essentially the same game albeit a slightly different way, but that's for the market to decide.
Quote: 21Revolution
Would like to understand what it means to you to make a game for the players. This idea did evolve thinking about a player objection- that the dealer acts last. It found a way to create an interesting event- dealer reveals a bust before players take their turn, resulting in stress free can't lose double down. So, the idea certainly didn't start thinking how to please the casino, though we all know that requirement must be met. So, what approach are you thinking of when you say make a game for the players? Great discussion and do appreciate your willingness to engage in the topic!
What I mean, and it isn't easy, is to make a bankers' game that has the following
1)easy to play
2)easy to train
3)fast
4)procedurally secure
5)variations in gameplay
6) feature rich (depth)
7) value for money (ie not minimum 3 or 4 bets - ideally a single bet only)
8)Preferably manual solution, avoid electronics if possible
9)No standoffs
10) fits on a BJ table
11)HE under 2% for main game
12)Sidebets HE under 5%
13) player interaction
14) uncountable or extremely difficult to count
Thats some (not all) of the boxes I think need ticking. Games like Roulette, Blackjack etc are only popular because that's all the casinos offer, not because they are good games, On this forum it is clear there are many inventors who in the years to come may come up with games that gradually shift these legacy games in favour of more interesting games. Casinos couldn't give a monkeys about which games they offer, or like, they will offer what the market wants. The difficulty for game developers is coming up with games that fit in with the casinos deeply conservative nature, and aversion to risk, remember, Casinos are not in the gambling business!!
Quote: McDemonGot some thing special Stacy?
I think so. Confirming with my IP attorney now that it's already covered by my existing Bad Beat Blackjack IP.
Quote: MathExtremist...Stay tuned...
They are trying to make me work at my day job, so it’s hard to keep pace. Good to see you are still reading! Once again thanks to McDemon for the contribution.
Interesting topic- the concept of what is an acceptable number of pushes in a game. McDemon has stated his distaste for a tie, anyone else have an opinion? I’ll note that he’s ripping a game that has had success in markets, so certainly that opinion isn’t the final word.
It is something I have thought about- in just about any variation of Blackjack there is a give and take. With Switch and Freebet, players seem to accept that trade-off. Why? Well, per McDemon’s list, it is because it adds to variation in play and is feature rich.
With the Dealer First concept, I do have flexibility to reconsider how I handle a dealer bust. I thought just having some sort of instant payout was a bit boring, but may take another look at it. Again, the tough part to discern is how it will “feel” to players. Would a reduced payout on bad hands and missing the chance to double a good hand be a less enjoyable experience. I thought so, but it’s just one opinion.
Love to hear people’s thoughts on push rules and McDemon’s views on the use of technology. Again, just trying to keep a constructive thread going.
"Push Aversion" may be a regional issue. Pai Gow Poker is a huge game in the US market with ties/pushes occurring frequently. From what I understand, PGP has made no headway in the UK (I think McD mentioned that in another thread). So maybe the aversion is a UK vs. a US phenomena.
If the game provides enough of an incentive to play, a Push rule as a pull back will work. I prefer Free Bet over BJ Switch, both employing the Push 22 rule. Free Bet is going to be big in my opinion, bigger than Switch. Principally because the "gimmick" in Free Bet is compelling enough for more players to absorb the Push 22 rule AND you don't have to play two hands to avail yourself of the "gimmick".
I actually believe the two bets vs. one bet is more of a killer for Switch in some markets vs. the Push 22 rule. It is OK on a $5 table, but when you get into properties where $10 or $15 is the lowest limit table to play, it is a much different proposition for the masses that stretch to play $10 BJ (and would prefer to play $5) to ask them to play a $20 per round game of Switch (or worse yet $30 per round at a $15 min table). They will just opt for regular BJ even if they like Switch over Reg. BJ.
Free Bet doesn't have the two hand requirement and with using the Casino's money to pay for your Splits & Doubles, it is almost the reverse effect for the player than Switch....they can play at a $10 table but get paid like they are betting $20 or more when the "Free Bets" come in to play once every 6-7 hands.
You don't want dealer error's in peeking and making an incorrect decision.....you don't want increased exposure to hole carding which will happen if the dealer has to know the exact hole card to determine their action. I guess there could be a Dealer Peek device designed that allows the Dealer to know their exact hole card without having to manually peek, but that doesn't get rid of the collusion issue.
Technology may be a tough hurdle for this game, but my opinion is that it is required for Dealer First BJ, Dealer Bluff or any game where the player is able to act after the dealer.
On the game itself, it's definitely not better than BJ, but the attention you're getting here is alone an indicator that there is something to the concept (even if as a gimmick). The rest is implementation.
Quote: P90FWIW, I like the house edge mechanic employed. Push on dealer bust only if the player has a stiff is a very intuitive outcome
I don't know if that's what was suggested before, but if you did that you'd completely change the underlying play strategy. Basic strategy has the player hitting stiff hands nearly 2/3 of the time. I don't think you want to encourage them to stand.
Quote: McDemonOne of the key points about BJ and one I avoid in games I am working on, is you want to avoid stand offs (pushes). The only circumstances where a standoff can possibly be justified is when you expected to lose but survived. In BJ, you don't generally expect to lose on 20 but all to often 20 ends up as a push and is deeply unsatisfying in terms of gameplay. Plus pushes are a waste of time, no one wins, you or the casino (ala Blackjack Switch - all bets push when dealer has 22).
I don't agree with this statement because the inventor has to introduce some compensating rule for the casino in order to offset the advantage given to the player by the favourable concept.
If a player pushes instead of winning then this, IMO, is far superior than a player losing when they have a push (losing ties for example). Other methods, or rules, can be introduced to try and maintain the house edge but these are often disliked by players too. 'Blackjack Switch' is a successful table game (in the US market) which uses a push-compensating rule. It's already been stated that there are other elements within that game (playing 2 hands, 'Blackjacks' pay 1/1) that players will dislike, yet there are a lot of players who enjoy the 'switch' and will trade the bad rules because they enjoy the 'switch' element so much.
The knack of designing a new game is to look at what players currently dislike about the regular game. Then see if a rule, or method, can be introduced to reduce or eliminate that negative part. The tricky part is then to try and devise a compensating rule such that players feel that they are getting a good deal overall. 'Free Bet' is still getting comments from players and experienced casino personnel that the game cannot possibly have a house edge - it looks like a better deal than the regular game. Creating this illusion is really difficult but if enough positive rules are added to the game then the more a player will expect to give up something on another area of the game.
Nevertheless, there will always be players that will stick to the traditional games regardless of what rules are on offer. I'm sure that I could develop a game whereby a player lost ties but received 3/1 on 'Blackjacks' and didn't lose the bet if they bust - a massive edge for the player BUT I'm sure that if that game was around then there would still be players that would not touch it because it isn't 'Blackjack'.
The idea of creating a game, particularly a Blackjack variant, isn't to take on the regular game itself. Instead you are looking for a small % of the players that will either prefer your version or at least are willing to play your game some of the time as a change to the regular game. If you can get 5% of the Blackjack players to prefer your concept then you have a winning game that will gain lots of installations.
Quote: SwitchI don't agree with this statement because the inventor has to introduce some compensating rule for the casino in order to offset the advantage given to the player by the favourable concept.
If a player pushes instead of winning then this, IMO, is far superior than a player losing when they have a push (losing ties for example). Other methods, or rules, can be introduced to try and maintain the house edge but these are often disliked by players too. 'Blackjack Switch' is a successful table game (in the US market) which uses a push-compensating rule. It's already been stated that there are other elements within that game (playing 2 hands, 'Blackjacks' pay 1/1) that players will dislike, yet there are a lot of players who enjoy the 'switch' and will trade the bad rules because they enjoy the 'switch' element so much.
The knack of designing a new game is to look at what players currently dislike about the regular game. Then see if a rule, or method, can be introduced to reduce or eliminate that negative part. The tricky part is then to try and devise a compensating rule such that players feel that they are getting a good deal overall. 'Free Bet' is still getting comments from players and experienced casino personnel that the game cannot possibly have a house edge - it looks like a better deal than the regular game. Creating this illusion is really difficult but if enough positive rules are added to the game then the more a player will expect to give up something on another area of the game.
Nevertheless, there will always be players that will stick to the traditional games regardless of what rules are on offer. I'm sure that I could develop a game whereby a player lost ties but received 3/1 on 'Blackjacks' and didn't lose the bet if they bust - a massive edge for the player BUT I'm sure that if that game was around then there would still be players that would not touch it because it isn't 'Blackjack'.
The idea of creating a game, particularly a Blackjack variant, isn't to take on the regular game itself. Instead you are looking for a small % of the players that will either prefer your version or at least are willing to play your game some of the time as a change to the regular game. If you can get 5% of the Blackjack players to prefer your concept then you have a winning game that will gain lots of installations.
I agree with Switch:
If a player pushes instead of winning then this, IMO, is far superior than a player losing when they have a push.
'Free Bet' is still getting comments from players and experienced casino personnel that the game cannot possibly have a house edge - it looks like a better deal than the regular game. Creating this illusion is really difficult.
Quote: Switch
The knack of designing a new game is to look at what players currently dislike about the regular game. Then see if a rule, or method, can be introduced to reduce or eliminate that negative part. The tricky part is then to try and devise a compensating rule such that players feel that they are getting a good deal overall. 'Free Bet' is still getting comments from players and experienced casino personnel that the game cannot possibly have a house edge - it looks like a better deal than the regular game. Creating this illusion is really difficult but if enough positive rules are added to the game then the more a player will expect to give up something on another area of the game.
At first I didn't see where McDemon was coming from on the distaste for a push- it is in reference to any Blackjack game. Getting a 20 which feels like it should win only to end up a tie or worse a loss, can be frustrating. Believe Math Extremist devised the answer for that with Bad Beat. Pushing with a nice hand would be the experience in all Blackjack games (and Blackjack has proven that a push is acceptable to players.) So, if looking from the standpoint of wanting to avoid as much as possible "taking away a win", I understand where McDemon is coming from and is a good thought when working on non-Blackjack games.
To Switch's point about creating an illusion of getting a good deal overall - that is clearly the harder task than figuring out what players might like to see changed in a game.
Paradigm makes a good point that the Dealer going first might not be a big objection to players. But, I do think players are well-aware it is why the house has an advantage. So, the goal of this concept was to create an illusion that the player now has a much better chance of winning by seeing what the dealer does first.
This is why I've had a hard time putting this concept to rest despite the need for technology. I like that when the compensating rule is in play (dealer showing he will bust), players also can see the emergence of risk free double downs, and recognize that the push on the stiff hand could have been a loss had they been playing traditional BJ. Since the base game has taught players to associate 14,15,16 with losing, a push in this particular instance might feel acceptable.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesI agree with Switch:
If a player pushes instead of winning then this, IMO, is far superior than a player losing when they have a push.
'Free Bet' is still getting comments from players and experienced casino personnel that the game cannot possibly have a house edge - it looks like a better deal than the regular game. Creating this illusion is really difficult.
Of course if the choice is losing over winning then a standoff is preferable, Der. The art my friends is to find an additional outcome, you seem stuck in the win/lose/standoff choice. There are a multiple array of different outcomes, come on, I though you guys were supposed to be inventors!!
Standoff suck and should be avoided at all costs, unless, as I have said before, they occur when you fully expected to lose. Example. I have 17, dealer has a 10 or Ace. I am not expecting to survive, if the dealer gets a 17, I am happy, because I expected to lose. In those circumstances, Standoffs are acceptable.
I didn't mean to disrespect Switch or his game and I can only speak about the game from a UK perspective. I am always going to be brutally honest and I might get some friction for it but I am going to stay that way.
Quote: Switch
The knack of designing a new game is to look at what players currently dislike about the regular game. Then see if a rule, or method, can be introduced to reduce or eliminate that negative part.
I would agree with this statement, to a point, creating a variation of a game can be successful, possibly, I am not convinced BJ variations in their substance can replace standard BJ. For BJ, IMO, creating sidebets may have more traction than variations of the game itself, reason being is the point you make about having to compensate to replace a negative feature, which invariably means creating artificial mechanisms to offset the replacement and re-balance the edge.
Clearly the US market is perhaps more sympathetic to new games than the UK. If you don't mind me asking how many installations of BJ Switch do you have in the US? I know there are a few clubs in the UK that have it, the Colony in Mayfair still has it.
I can't see my company making BJ variations, possibly sidebets maybe for the reasons above. It is a very crowded market but of course if you get the right product you do have a BJ market to hit so I can see why so many try to produce variations and side bets.
Quote: McDemon
... ... ... Standoff suck and should be avoided at all costs, unless, as I have said before, they occur when you fully expected to lose. Example. I have 17, dealer has a 10 or Ace. I am not expecting to survive, if the dealer gets a 17, I am happy, because I expected to lose. In those circumstances, Standoffs are acceptable. ... ... ...
This is why the 'Push 22' does not always frustrate the players. Your example above, with a player having 17 verses an Ace - if the dealer makes a '22' then the player feels like they have escaped as they were expecting to lose.
Quite often on the 'Switch' tables I have heard players who double down and receive a bad card, actually breathe a sigh of relief when the dealer makes a '22'.
Obviously there are frustrating occasions, with a hand of 20 or 21, particularly if doubled, but these represent a proportion of the overall pushes and the frustration is diluted with the numerous times that poor hands are also pushed.
Quote: McDemonI would agree with this statement, to a point, creating a variation of a game can be successful, possibly, I am not convinced BJ variations in their substance can replace standard BJ. For BJ, IMO, creating sidebets may have more traction than variations of the game itself, reason being is the point you make about having to compensate to replace a negative feature, which invariably means creating artificial mechanisms to offset the replacement and re-balance the edge.
Clearly the US market is perhaps more sympathetic to new games than the UK. If you don't mind me asking how many installations of BJ Switch do you have in the US? I know there are a few clubs in the UK that have it, the Colony in Mayfair still has it.
I can't see my company making BJ variations, possibly sidebets maybe for the reasons above. It is a very crowded market but of course if you get the right product you do have a BJ market to hit so I can see why so many try to produce variations and side bets.
There are a multitude of Blackjack side-bets now available and it is a very crowded market - it is an easier sell to the casino because they do not have to remove one of their games in order to put your game in.
I still prefer to focus on Blackjack variations and I'm not trying to replace the regular game - I'm after a % of the playing population that will prefer to play my variation rather than the traditional game.
I agree that there seems to be more resistance to new games in the UK. However, I now have 16 'Free Bet' installations in the UK with more likely to come from the Gala acquisition.
In the US, I don't have the exact number, but there are over 100 'Blackjack Switch' tables in the US and Canada.
Listen, I prefer BJ Switch to the standard version, no doubt, very low edge and tactical, If you could get rid of the stand on 22 element (I suspect you can't) it would be a total winner IMO.
Quote: 21Revolution
This is why I've had a hard time putting this concept to rest despite the need for technology. I like that when the compensating rule is in play (dealer showing he will bust), players also can see the emergence of risk free double downs, and recognize that the push on the stiff hand could have been a loss had they been playing traditional BJ. Since the base game has taught players to associate 14,15,16 with losing, a push in this particular instance might feel acceptable.
I can't see the concept of the dealer busting and not getting paid, even if they have a 14, 15, 16. One of the unwritten rules is this " Dealer busts, I get paid". Whilst I appreciate some games have a modest install, it isn't enough for me to have a reasonable success, it really isn't. Of course, having said that, I would take a modest success over no success but I think as inventors, we must aim higher. Roulette and BJ are old legacy games, Roulette wouldn't be accepted as a casino game if introduced now, BJ is only accepted because many players learn Pontoon when young so have an idea when they first go into a casino.
There clearly is a market for BJ sidebets, no doubt, as for variations on the theme, none have wanted me to get my wallet out, although BJ Switch is the best available.
Just to throw one out there for a thought, why no make the dealer stand on a lower value, say 15 or 16, stuffs the maths I am sure but that would turn the game upside down. What do you think?
Quote: MathExtremistI don't know if that's what was suggested before, but if you did that you'd completely change the underlying play strategy. Basic strategy has the player hitting stiff hands nearly 2/3 of the time. I don't think you want to encourage them to stand.
This actually encourages them to hit. If you have a 14 and stand, normally you win on dealer bust; with this mechanic you only push. Player bust being a loss regardless of anything. (Of course, in Dealer First, the gameplay is different to begin with.)
That's clearly a very large advantage for the house, more than push-22, but assuming you're designing to target HA anyway and have strong pro-player features - this might be about the only mechanism to get that HA budget that players can realistically swallow. The "ties lose" rule despite its lower HA gain is a lot more annoying, as players generally play to get these pretty 20-point hands and to get paid on them; push-losing to the very common dealer 20 is a frustration geyser.
Quote: McDemonRoulette and BJ are old legacy games, Roulette wouldn't be accepted as a casino game if introduced now, BJ is only accepted because many players learn Pontoon when young so have an idea when they first go into a casino.
But they are great games.
Blackjack combines fast pace, low frustration factor, significant player decisions, group wins, occasional bonus payoffs.
Roulette has you watch a mesmerizing colored wheel in seemingly perpetual motion.
Craps is a dice game with a massive social factor.
Can you seriously name a casino game (poker doesn't count) that is actually better than any of these three?
If these games had never existed - first of all, casinos would be considerably smaller enterprises, Vegas looking more like Reno. And if they turned these games down, they'd be doing themselves a big disservice.
Quote: McDemonreally they are pants, all three.
... demonstrating that UK English has vastly superior idioms for derision than US English.
But seriously, punto banco over craps?
Quote: MathExtremist... demonstrating that UK English has vastly superior idioms for derision than US English.
But seriously, punto banco over craps?
Furthermore, a slight change in wording can have a dramatic effect:-
"That casino game is bollocks" - means that the game is awful.
"That casino game is the dog's bollocks" - means that the game is great.
Don't ask me where the dog reference came from - just shows that we have some strange idioms as well :-)
Quote: MathExtremist... demonstrating that UK English has vastly superior idioms for derision than US English.
But seriously, punto banco over craps?
Hey I am taking it easy here, don't get me started, want to keep it polite.. I have some more flowery UK English, or should I say English but that must stay locked away.
Punto Banco is the most beautiful of bankers' games, believe me, I have dealt some of the best Punto games, 40+ bets per coup, made me a gold medal croupier.. poetry in motion when full on, Craps doesn't stand a chance..
Quote: McDemon
Listen, I prefer BJ Switch to the standard version, no doubt, very low edge and tactical, If you could get rid of the stand on 22 element (I suspect you can't) it would be a total winner IMO.
The only way you can offer the 'Switch' is to offset with a rule like 'Push 22'. If you eliminate that rule then players will enjoy a house edge over 6% so you would have to find other ways of clawing it back:-
You could take ties on some hand totals
You could introduce a mandatory sidebet with a high house edge
You could introduce an 'ante' or 'switch' payment
Whatever happens, you have to retain around 7% back so ther are no 'nice' ways to do this. Some players dislike the 'Push 22' but there are a lot of players that will accept it in return for the good part of the game.
You can try pushing on lower totals i.e. 14, 15 etc but these will come up a lot more than the 'Push 22' and you will need more occasions for the 'Push' to come up as pushing on 14 is not as strong as pushing on a 'bust' hand. So, the player is exposed to more pushed hands this way.
