SHFL Game Demo Day

Quote: Pacman

It was an excellent event. I want to thank all those who presented games and the SHFL employees who served as evaluators.

Thats it? Who won, who lost.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats it? Who won, who lost?

Look for an install near you. That'll tell ya.

Quote: Paigowdan

Look for an install near you. That'll tell ya.

An install of what?

Ok. I have a couple minutes to kill while waiting for my lunch...

First, thanks to Roger and all the SHFL people involved. It was a great opportunity.

Second, the format was a little different this year. No scoring. Since all the evaluators were SHFL people, they're gonna digest it, then have thier own meetings to discuss the games shown in the coming days.

That said, I DO feel better this year about my own demo, as well as the feedback during the Q & A afterwards.

I wish I could tell you more, but I'm pretty sure I'm under a confidentiality agreement that would prevent me from saying anything else.

Those darn confidentiality agreements :-), sounds like we won't be able to get much insight on the details.

It would be great if the participants would share their games here on the board.....you know, to get non-professional, peanut gallery type feedback.....but seriously, there are some folks here on the Forum that normally have valuable input.

I am glad to hear that Pacman thought it was a successful event, this is still one of the best opportunities out there for independents to get professional third party feedback on their games. I hope the events continue on at least an annual basis.

Paradigm, I flew back home to Kansas City after the show and right back to work this morning. I was one of the participants and will post the game I showed later tonight when I get home from work.

Quote: EvenBob

An install of what?

An install of your game. That's how you know you "won."

Roger sent me a PM saying I was free to talk about it.

Frankly, I felt better when I thought I couldn't talk. There was way too much drama and bullshit in the thread last year and I didn't want to fuel that fire. Whatever.

So I'll post at length in a couple days - when I can use a real keyboard and not my iPhone.

Thanks Roger and SHFL staff for the opportunity to display our new side bet. For those who may be interested, here are the rules of the new blackjack side bet we displayed at the SHFL show called "3 TO 1 Blackjack". It was just approved by the state of Nevada last Friday, July 19th. There's a second version called "7 TO 1 Blackjack" that will be debuting in Kansas City with (4) placements very soon. We are currently waiting on Missouri Gaming approval.
Although GLI ran a vulnerability analysis on both versions and concluded they had no concerns it was mentioned in the SHFL show Q & A session we might want to consider having a second look at that possibility. Of course any feedback on this subject is appreciated.


Simply said: THE PLAYER WINS THE SIDE BET WAGER IF THEIR INITIAL TWO CARDS ARE THE SAME COLOR and THE PLAYER WINS THE BLACKJACK HAND VERSUS THE DEALER.

3 TO 1 Blackjack


Game play begins with players placing a standard blackjack wager and the optional 3 to 1 side bet wager. Players that do not elect to place the side bet wager participate in traditional blackjack game play.

After all wagers are placed, the dealer distributes two cards to each player and two cards to the dealer in traditional blackjack fashion, where one dealer card is face-up and one dealer card is face-down. The dealer then checks if the player's two card hand is the same color. If they are not, the 3 to 1 side bet wager is lost. If these cards are the same color, the blackjack game continues following the rules as listed below:

* Blackjack pays 3:2
* Dealer hits soft 17
* Hands may be split three times to four hands
* Double down on any initial two-card hand allowed
* Double after split not allowed
* Re-splitting aces not allowed
* Split aces receive one card only
* No surrender
* Side bet amount up to the amount of the original blackjack wager
* 6-deck combined house edge is 4.96% (main wager and side bet)

If the player splits, the 3 to 1 side bet wager stays with the first hand. The player is not allowed to place any 3 to 1 additional wagers. The 3 to 1 Blackjack wager then wins or loses based on the outcome of the first hand. Also if the player double downs there is no additional 3 to 1 wager placed. If the player has a colored blackjack versus a dealer ace up the player has the option to take even money or decline even money to win 3 to 1 if the dealer does not have a blackjack.

After all player and dealer actions have been performed, the 3 to 1 side bet wager is resolved based on the player versus dealer outcome (same as the original blackjack wager is resolved). If the dealer wins by means of a natural blackjack, higher total or player bust, the side bet wager is lost. If the player wins by means of natural blackjack, higher total or dealer bust, the side bet wager wins and is paid 3 to 1. If the game results in a tie by means of player and dealer blackjack or same non-bust total, the wager is pushed.

The 3-card version is the same except the player's initial two cards and dealer upcard must be the same color AND the player wins their blackjack hand versus the dealer. The side bet pays 7 to 1. The 6-deck combined house edge is 5.81%. There is also a baccarat side bet version coming soon.

Quote: TnT23

Simply said: THE PLAYER WINS THE SIDE BET WAGER IF THEIR INITIAL TWO CARDS ARE THE SAME COLOR and THE PLAYER WINS THE BLACKJACK HAND VERSUS THE DEALER.

Have you done an analysis of the strategy impact of your game on the main blackjack strategy for various bet ratios? For example, if the player wagers $5 on the main bet and $5 on your bet, and they have 6,9 of the same color vs. dealer 7, the right play is to stand -- in contrast with basic strategy.

Yes, I do have the basic strategy chart available. If you'd prefer to PM me your email address I'd be happy to forward it you.

If I am thinking about this properly, you will have just under a 50% "qualification rate" on this side bet, meaning the player will have the possibility of winning the 3-1 payout on just under 50% of their initial two card BJ hands. Do I have that correct?

You are correct and dialed in on the very point I attempted to stress at the show. Theoretically if played every hand the player's side bet will be in action every other hand until the blackjack hand is resolved in contrast to other side bets with higher payouts that are quite capable of long dry streaks.

I second what DJ says. Thank you very much for a great demo day Roger.

Roger and all the SHFL people were very professional, respectful and open about discussing everything to do with my presentation.

For what it is worth, and so you understand where I am coming from : I did not even know this industry of game invention existed prior to two months ago.

My craps side bet literially was formulated the day before I signed up on 6/26. I really hustled my butt to get it figured out, patent search (THANKS Jon) and patent applied before the event. Anyway, you can see I am a rookie, still wet behind the ears, only the first card dealt of a poker hand - or what ever saying applies.

I had no idea of what happens at these events, what to bring, how to present, etc.

IT WAS SO MUCH FUN !!!

My wife taveled with me as support team, and was allowed to sit off to the side and she was impressed as well at how all the "competitors" were interacting, helping each other with setting up, etc.

I talked to the other 5 on hand competitors ( a few were mailed in ) and all were very informative about how this all works.

Some real NEAT games from my perspective. After all presentations the post demo discussion was very helpful. I liked the fact that SHFL had a couple people that had been dealers as evaluators.

OK - now for what everyone wants to hear. WHO WON

We all won !!!!

Seriously- I think everyone there knew this wasn't a true compitition, but it really was a great opportunity.

I have to share a bit about my side bet and toot my horn. It is a very simple bet. It will be getting one or two minor tweeks due to comments from the demo day and I would LOVE to get feedback from anyone on this site.

Thanks again to Roger, SHFL and my fellow presentors for a great experience.

PS - there are a lot of SHFL people that can do some wicked math in there head faster than I can on a calculator.

Quote: TnT23

Thanks Roger and SHFL staff for the opportunity to display our new side bet. For those who may be interested, here are the rules of the new blackjack side bet we displayed at the SHFL show called "3 TO 1 Blackjack". It was just approved by the state of Nevada last Friday, July 19th. There's a second version called "7 TO 1 Blackjack" that will be debuting in Kansas City with (4) placements very soon. We are currently waiting on Missouri Gaming approval.
Although GLI ran a vulnerability analysis on both versions and concluded they had no concerns it was mentioned in the SHFL show Q & A session we might want to consider having a second look at that possibility. Of course any feedback on this subject is appreciated.

GLI math is considered the absolute Gold Standard. This does NOT mean that they are always the best math providers (they're certainly very expensive), but that any report from them may be relied on, and that a "game operational house edge" report may essentially be used anywhere where you need the game approved by one of their reports. Tremendously useful.
However, for the best "R & D" developmental project math, Charles Mousseau (a superb gaming mathematician and a former [perhaps? - cough] advantage player) does MY Advantage-Play resistance reports, and does the project development math for a number of gaming companies. Charles is Very Reasonably priced and quick, and willing to tailor (within reason) some last minute adjustments. I work as the Manager of Table Games Development of Galaxy Gaming, and I tell you, Charles is THE Go-To guy for both development math, and Anti-AP defenses and analysis, for any new game to be considered for real casino operations.

As for being approved and getting installs, you are WAY IN FRONT of the game developers pack.
Granted, a Blackjack side bet is in a phenomenally competitive field, but also consider the number of BJ tables out and running in operation. Lots of competition, - but lots of "in's!"

Quote: TNT23

Simply said: THE PLAYER WINS THE SIDE BET WAGER IF THEIR INITIAL TWO CARDS ARE THE SAME COLOR and THE PLAYER WINS THE BLACKJACK HAND VERSUS THE DEALER.

3 TO 1 Blackjack


Game play begins with players placing a standard blackjack wager and the optional 3 to 1 side bet wager. Players that do not elect to place the side bet wager participate in traditional blackjack game play.

After all wagers are placed, the dealer distributes two cards to each player and two cards to the dealer in traditional blackjack fashion, where one dealer card is face-up and one dealer card is face-down. The dealer then checks if the player's two card hand is the same color. If they are not, the 3 to 1 side bet wager is lost. If these cards are the same color, the blackjack game continues following the rules as listed below:

* Blackjack pays 3:2
* Dealer hits soft 17
* Hands may be split three times to four hands
* Double down on any initial two-card hand allowed
* Double after split not allowed
* Re-splitting aces not allowed
* Split aces receive one card only
* No surrender
* Side bet amount up to the amount of the original blackjack wager
* 6-deck combined house edge is 4.96% (main wager and side bet)

Why specify limits and restrictions as to what base game of Blackjack it can run on?
1. By specifying what rules that the BASE GAME must have to run this side bet, you're now severely limiting the number of tables it CAN be put on. Some rules are very restrictive (such as no DAS), and can't be installed on any and all BJ games now. BJ side bets like 21+3 and Lucky ladies are not affected by base game restrictions - and so can be installed on any BJ game at all - a great boost to the game's salability!
2. These base-game rules also handcuff the casino as to tailoring the house edge of the base game. They now cannot offer DAS to their clients, their players, who may want them.
3. An AP report could have been down showing the effects of each BJ rule on your side bet, showing the house edge range of your side bet, allowing a casino operator no interference from stipulations against the base game.

Quote: TnT23

If the player splits, the 3 to 1 side bet wager stays with the first hand. The player is not allowed to place any 3 to 1 additional wagers. The 3 to 1 Blackjack wager then wins or loses based on the outcome of the first hand. Also if the player double downs there is no additional 3 to 1 wager placed. If the player has a colored blackjack versus a dealer ace up the player has the option to take even money or decline even money to win 3 to 1 if the dealer does not have a blackjack.

After all player and dealer actions have been performed, the 3 to 1 side bet wager is resolved based on the player versus dealer outcome (same as the original blackjack wager is resolved). If the dealer wins by means of a natural blackjack, higher total or player bust, the side bet wager is lost. If the player wins by means of natural blackjack, higher total or dealer bust, the side bet wager wins and is paid 3 to 1. If the game results in a tie by means of player and dealer blackjack or same non-bust total, the wager is pushed.

The 3-card version is the same except the player's initial two cards and dealer upcard must be the same color AND the player wins their blackjack hand versus the dealer. The side bet pays 7 to 1. The 6-deck combined house edge is 5.81%. There is also a baccarat side bet version coming soon.

Okay. Great - and clear - game description.

Some notes:
1. Sounds like an interesting side bet concept, and what it certainly has going for it is its simplicity, that it's simple: a good game design IS described in terms of "ease" and "elegance" - as opposed to being complex, messy, or awkward. 3 to 1 has that.
2. High hit frequency a plus.
3. Easy to sell - "A single color starting hand that wins gets 3:1 instead of even money!" The bet looks even better than the main Blackjack bet! Pitching this game to the players should be a cinch!
4. Easy to deal is a REAL plus - to sell a game you need the dealers to sell it for you, essentially.
5. The double wins will be delightful!
6. GREAT bet for dealer tips!!! Tim, you make damn sure you tell this to the dealers training on this game. They will sell the shit out of it to the players, help you immensely!

The negatives:
1. NEVER specify or restrict the rules of a BASE game in order to add a side bet to a game. A good side bet NEVER interferes or makes difficult the running of the base game.
2. It must have little or NO effect on the base game's strategy. Now, a player might not hit a 14 against a dealer's 9, because he KNOWS he has a shot to win BOTH when he wins, so hitting when he may bust presents a more costly loss. The strategy is changed because he's screwing up a 3:1 payout instead of an even-money main bet payout by busting. Now the player is three times as pissed if he hits and busts, as well as three times as pissed if the stands and loses, - and I tell you, this is how the casino player is going to think and look at the side bet at times.
3. Pay table is too simple. No big payouts. The basic 21+3 side bet payout is 9:1, but hey, that's a LARGE payout: white chips get red, red chips get green, - etc. But at 3:1 your max win is almost always "mere same color." Again hit frequency is very high, a saving grace.

Quote: TnT23

Thanks Roger and SHFL staff for the opportunity to display our new side bet. For those who may be interested, here are the rules of the new blackjack side bet we displayed at the SHFL show called "3 TO 1 Blackjack". It was just approved by the state of Nevada last Friday, July 19th. There's a second version called "7 TO 1 Blackjack" that will be debuting in Kansas City with (4) placements very soon. We are currently waiting on Missouri Gaming approval.
Although GLI ran a vulnerability analysis on both versions and concluded they had no concerns it was mentioned in the SHFL show Q & A session we might want to consider having a second look at that possibility. Of course any feedback on this subject is appreciated.


Simply said: THE PLAYER WINS THE SIDE BET WAGER IF THEIR INITIAL TWO CARDS ARE THE SAME COLOR and THE PLAYER WINS THE BLACKJACK HAND VERSUS THE DEALER.

3 TO 1 Blackjack


Game play begins with players placing a standard blackjack wager and the optional 3 to 1 side bet wager. Players that do not elect to place the side bet wager participate in traditional blackjack game play.

After all wagers are placed, the dealer distributes two cards to each player and two cards to the dealer in traditional blackjack fashion, where one dealer card is face-up and one dealer card is face-down. The dealer then checks if the player's two card hand is the same color. If they are not, the 3 to 1 side bet wager is lost. If these cards are the same color, the blackjack game continues following the rules as listed below:

* Blackjack pays 3:2
* Dealer hits soft 17
* Hands may be split three times to four hands
* Double down on any initial two-card hand allowed
* Double after split not allowed
* Re-splitting aces not allowed
* Split aces receive one card only
* No surrender
* Side bet amount up to the amount of the original blackjack wager
* 6-deck combined house edge is 4.96% (main wager and side bet)

If the player splits, the 3 to 1 side bet wager stays with the first hand. The player is not allowed to place any 3 to 1 additional wagers. The 3 to 1 Blackjack wager then wins or loses based on the outcome of the first hand. Also if the player double downs there is no additional 3 to 1 wager placed. If the player has a colored blackjack versus a dealer ace up the player has the option to take even money or decline even money to win 3 to 1 if the dealer does not have a blackjack.

After all player and dealer actions have been performed, the 3 to 1 side bet wager is resolved based on the player versus dealer outcome (same as the original blackjack wager is resolved). If the dealer wins by means of a natural blackjack, higher total or player bust, the side bet wager is lost. If the player wins by means of natural blackjack, higher total or dealer bust, the side bet wager wins and is paid 3 to 1. If the game results in a tie by means of player and dealer blackjack or same non-bust total, the wager is pushed.

The 3-card version is the same except the player's initial two cards and dealer upcard must be the same color AND the player wins their blackjack hand versus the dealer. The side bet pays 7 to 1. The 6-deck combined house edge is 5.81%. There is also a baccarat side bet version coming soon.

I can't see the USP for this but all the best with it

Quote: TnT23

The 3-card version is the same except the player's initial two cards and dealer upcard must be the same color AND the player wins their blackjack hand versus the dealer. The side bet pays 7 to 1. The 6-deck combined house edge is 5.81%.

Unfortunately, I don't think this will have any hope at the other side of your test state for the 3 card version. 21+3 is very strong in my hometown of St. Louis and is a much better bet to the player anyway. And looking at the 21+3 placements in KC on the web, I hope you are testing at Ameristar as it looks like the other 3 casinos have 21+3 strongholds. Missouri is a big 21+3 state, and I'm afraid your 3 card version of the side bet is way too similar. Even ploppies in Missouri will notice 7 to 1 is less than 9 to 1, and ignore that your bet activates on same color instead of same suit.

Quote: Paigowdan

Why specify limits and restrictions as to what base game of Blackjack it can run on?
1. By specifying what rules that the BASE GAME must have to run this side bet, you're now severely limiting the number of tables it CAN be put on. Some rules are very restrictive (such as no DAS), and can't be installed on any and all BJ games now. BJ side bets like 21+3 and Lucky ladies are not affected by base game restrictions - and so can be installed on any BJ game at all - a great boost to the game's salability!

I agree Why specify limits and restrictions as to what base game of Blackjack it can run on?
By specifying what rules that the BASE GAME must have to run this side bet, you're now severely limiting the number of tables it CAN be put on. Some rules are very restrictive (such as no DAS), and can't be installed on any and all BJ games now.

Quote: TnT23

Yes, I do have the basic strategy chart available. If you'd prefer to PM me your email address I'd be happy to forward it you.

In my opinion (I haven't done the analysis) your wager would be extremely vulnerable to advantage play with a simple red/black count.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'm 100% certain that if the bet made it into casinos, a CSM will be used.

More restrictions?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'm 100% certain that if the bet made it into casinos, a CSM will be used.

Which makes it even more unattractive, too many flaws with this sidebet, back to the drawing board methinks

Every game idea needs to be tweaked along the way, that is why SHFL events and the feedback given here are so valuable.

The key will be can the negatives of the game be fixed? I don't know the answer to that.

1) PaiGowDan has brought up some excellent points and as an industry professional, his input should be very heavily considered. I think his main point is how the side bet interacts with the main BJ bet both from a strategy changing impact (as MathEx also indicated) and if the side bet really requires the restrictions to the main BJ bet. What can be tweaked or done with the side bet to get around these issues?

2) Teliot has mentioned some AP vulnerability which evidently was also a point mentioned at the SHFL event.

3) Single Pay Event at 3-1 may not be sufficient but perhaps you combine this fix with what is done for 1) & 2) above.

The game is very simple and that is a big plus. Easy to explain, and easy to deal. Qualification rate after initial two cards is quite high and hit rate should be in the low to mid twenty percent range, those parts work very well.

So there is some work to be done to address some of these issues, but work arounds may be possible.

In my opinion side bets in BJ that are going to catch on going forward are going to have to be more engaging than simple resolution after the initial deal. 21+3, Royal Match, Lucky Ladies & Lucky Lucky provide the market with plenty of choices for the instant two card resolution type wagers.

Bets that add on to the initial two card resolution like House Money, Shortie, Lucky Stiff with moderate pay structures is where the future action of side bets is going to be for BJ, IMHO. 3 TO 1 BJ fits in to that model, it may just need some adjustment in concept to get there.

Quote: Paradigm

In my opinion side bets in BJ that are going to catch on going forward are going to have to be more engaging than simple resolution after the initial deal.
Bets that add on to the initial two card resolution with moderate pay structures is where the future action of side bets is going to be for BJ

Agree with this point, not an area I will be looking at but hopefully some genuine innovation would be great.

Eliot, if in fact the 2-card matching color qualifier is vulnerable to advantage play, would it be true to say that if the 2-card qualifier is (1 black card/1 red card) the deck could only become less advantageous to the player as the deck composition changes through game play?

Quote: TnT23

Eliot, if in fact the 2-card matching color qualifier is vulnerable to advantage play, would it be true to say that if the 2-card qualifier is (1 black card/1 red card) the deck could only become less advantageous to the player as the deck composition changes through game play?

Short answer 'No'.

At the start of a 6-deck shoe you have a 50/50 mix of red and black. If this same ratio is retained, with fewer cards, then this increases the chances of getting dealt 1 red and 1 black card.

For an extreme example, if you are left with 10 cards, 5 red and 5 black, then the chance of getting 1 red and 1 black is:-

1 x 5/9 = 55.555...%

4 cards would give 66.666...%

and 2 cards would give 100%.

Thanks Geoff.

Quote: TnT23

If in fact the 2-card matching color qualifier is vulnerable to advantage play, would it be true to say that if the 2-card qualifier is (1 black card/1 red card) the deck could only become less advantageous to the player as the deck composition changes through game play?

Hi TnT23,

Below is My Blackjack Side-bet (Contrast-Colour Bonus-Blackjack) base on different colour.
Player wins if his first two cards are the same colour and the dealer’s up card is a different colour ©2010.
Mathematical Analysis = Cindy Liu (House Edge for 6-Decks: 5.19%)
Comments are welcome

1. Each Player makes a blackjack-bet and an optional Bonus-bets Contrast-Colou Bonus.
2. Dealer deals two cards face up to each Player and one card to himself face up.
3. Dealer well take the losing Bonus bets and pay out the winning Bonus bets.
4. The game of normal blackjack is to continue as normal.

Contrast-Colour Bonus Pay-Table

Hand --- Example --- Pays
Contrast Trips:--- As As vs. Ah --- 50 to 1
Contrast Suited-Pair:--- As As vs. 8h --- 11 to 1
Contrast Pair:--- Ad Ah vs. 8c --- 9 to 1
Contrast:--- As 8c vs. 8h --- 2 to 1
Other:--- Lose

Thanks again to SHFL for giving me the opportunity to show our game and to all those who have offered constructive criticism. As a result I'm currently following up with GLI regarding a report without restrictions to the base game and will be re-visiting the AP concern with an outside source soon. This will be my final post regarding the game. For anyone interested in contacting me regarding the game here is my contact information:

Tim Eaton
teaton23@att.net
816-401-6274

Quote: TnT23

(Contact info)

Dude! Unless you have a strong desire for porn, time-shares, and penis cream, you should really obscure your contact info if you're going to post it in the public area of the forum:-)
Maybe:
Tim Eaton
teaton23@@t.net
8one6-4oh1-6twentyseven4

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Roger sent me a PM saying I was free to talk about it.

Frankly, I felt better when I thought I couldn't talk. There was way too much drama and bullshit in the thread last year and I didn't want to fuel that fire. Whatever.

So I'll post at length in a couple days - when I can use a real keyboard and not my iPhone.

OK. I'm finally at home, with some time to kill, using my laptop rather than my iPhone. I can type at ease. But pardon me if I repeat anything already mentioned.

The format was different than last year. As mentioned, there was no scoring at the conclusion, but a promise of follow-up with results, good or bad. After the demos, there was just feedback and Q&A. But based upon that, as well as the feedback the other games received, I'd say that my game "scored" a lot better than most of the others. Certainly better than it did last year. Of course, it had to. Last year my score was dead last, and I had a year to think about it, and refine the game as well as presentation.

There were six of us presenting games. The evaluators were broken into two groups. Two games were being shown, then the evaluators swapped positions, then they moved on to two more games. My game was the third or fourth game they saw. Although I wanted to see all the other games being shown, and I could have at least seen four of them, I only got a good look at two of them. The anxiety of the day, both before and after my presentation, prevented me from concentrating on other games. So I won't be commenting on them.

While the first two presentations were happening, I was turning my presentation over in my head, and got a burst of inspiration. Some people have said my game is a problem for people who don't know poker. My solution was going to be to have the people look at the history display on the table I was using, point to a pair and say, "See that? Anyone that can look at that and say 'Pair' knows enough about poker to get it." My problem was, for whatever reason, the display didn't have any interesting results, and it wasn't updating, so I couldn't even pre-load a good display on it.

Then I noticed that there were several decks of cards lying about. Inspiration struck. I found deck that included a joker, and set up four 3-card hands. I began my presentation flipping up three hands and saying, "My game is a side bet called Poker For Roulette. It doesn't affect the main Roulette game, and you don't need to know poker to play. If you know enough about poker to see that this is a pair, this is a straight and this is three of a kind, you know enough to play my game." Then I turned over the hand that contained a pair with the joker. "I've also added wild cards. The 0 and 00 are fully wild. So this is a three of a kind. You're making a bet that the next three spins will produce a result similar to these. If that happens, you win. And the beauty is, if the 0 or 00 appear, you're automatically a winner, you just don't know for how much until after the third spin."

I then took out a couple photos of history displays and showed some examples. I think the entire presentation took about 2 or 3 minutes. At that point, Roger, who was in the first group to see my game, said, "You know you've got 20 minutes..." I responded, "Yeah, but that covers the basics. Let's play and see if there are any questions."

That's the point where things got a lot different than last year. Last year, we never played the game. I spun the wheel and kept referencing the history display, talking about it, and explaining it. This year, we played.

I had table printing, roulette chips, betting circles, covers to protect unresolved bets, lammer markers to mark the results (useful for cases where the history display is malfunctioning or in jurisdictions where you can't reference the display to determine a winner). In short, I had everything required to play the game as if it were a field trial, or even an actual install. And we played.

The fact that my spins of the wheel didn't produce any winning results was irrelevant. After a couple non-wins, we started to fake the results, just to give people an idea of how it works, as well as the dealer's game procedures.

Another big change since last year is, last year it was based upon a 5 spin result. The primary negative feed back I got then is that 5 spins is too long to wait for resolution. This year, it was three spins.

---

Last year I was using an iTable Roulette table for my demo. I suspected the same for this year. (FYI: For those that don't know what an iTable is, picture a Roulette table where the center betting area is replaced by a screen showing a Roulette layout, and the perimeter has 8 RapidRoulette style user consoles mounted flush into the table.)

With a desire to make the game feel as much as possible as a regular felt table Roulette game, I supplied Roulette chips. I stopped at the Gambler's General Store. I have been stopping there every trip for the past couple years, so the gal behind the counter recognized me. I struck a deal to buy 200 chips from their used chip bin, for 10¢ each. I wanted real Roulette chips. Although the same size as standard casino cheques, they look different. The store has plenty of bins full of poker chips and cheques, but only one small bin with roulette chips, in a variety of colors. After digging for about 20 minutes, I came up with 3 stacks of 1 color, 2 of another, and 1 stack each of 5 other colors. Plus two racks for $1 each. $22 for chips that are gonna be used one time. It was a worthwhile investment, because the players didn't need any explanation. I also borrowed SHFL cheques from some of the other tables, to have ready to make a payout. I wanted everything to be as realistic as possible.

And it worked.

The players "got it."

Their questions were mostly about the edge and hit frequency, dealer mechanics, current installations. That sort of thing. Nothing to suggest that they were finding faults.

OK, one guy started to suggest that there is an advantage to betting after a 0 or 00 comes out. But before I had a chance to respond, someone else explained that the bet is for the next 3 spins, and the 0 didn't count for the new bet. He got it, and then the questioner also got it.

During the Q&A / feedback part of the day, Roger was asking his people what they thought. I felt that his line of questioning was directed towards trying to find faults with the game. Nothing wrong with that. If there are faults, identify them now. At one point, he asked one person in particular what she thought. She used to be a Roulette dealer. Her only issue was real estate. I.E. My bet uses space on the table. But she was quick to point out that the method I devised probably used the least amount of space possible.

There was a general consensus that an electronic version is the way to go. And I agree. But for a non-electronic version, this seemed good. And, since nobody would want to spend the money on an electronic version prior to a successful field trial, this is the only way to go.

---

After it was all over, I had a few minutes alone with Roger. He seems impressed with the changes I made both to the game and to the presentation. I got the feeling that his feelings were genuine. He was also impressed that, of all the people who attended last year, I was one of only two people that took him up on his offer for a private conversation with him.

---

All in all, I think it went well. Very well.

But I'd like to get that email from Roger to confirm....

" He was also impressed that, of all the people who attended last year, I was one of only two people that took him up on his offer for a private conversation with him. "

I for one passed up that opportunity, as I felt I had already wasted too much of his time with my game.

P.S. Hope to use that 15 minutes later this year. DON"T tell Roger !

DJ, sounds like it went well and I am sure you will get some good insight from Roger in a post show de-brief.

The electronic version and the manual tracking of wagers seems to be the sticking point that comes up with PFR. I think getting a e-table manufacturer to take the plunge with PFR is the best course of action......just not sure how to do that, but perhaps Roger can offer you some insight on that privately.

All the best!