One for the Money[sup]TM[/sup]
Quote: Buzzard
A 4th place prize is a 5 minute consultation with Dan Lubin
A 5th place prize is a 1 hour consultation with Dan Lubin
Burn.
Quote: BuzzardGotta go. Will be back later.
Gee Dan, will there be any invisible " HOUSE RULES " on this game like BJ.
No. Barbara defined the game very cleanly and thoroughly. And Buzz, I wasn't even remotely involved on the game's design; Barbara did it all herself, and with Daniel Dale doing a very fine job on the math analysis.
Quote: BuzzardConstructive criticism in not nit-picking. It's try to avoid a Shipwreck !
The game is of a very fine design, much better than casino war, in my opinion. Not saying that one-card war/poker is a big market, just saying.
There was a tiny bit of nit-picking, nay-saying, and dart-throwing.
Quote: BuzzardBefore Babs sets sail for Raving Table Games Conference and Galax's 1st prize, a $50,000 value
A 4th place prize is a 5 minute consultation with Dan Lubin
A 5th place prize is a 1 hour consultation with Dan Lubin
Burn is right.
If you make 4th place, I'll chew you out on your game faults for 5 minutes in my kind and gentle way.
If you make 5th place, I'll chew you out on your game faults for an hour in my kind and gentle way.
You try to get your game right, and consult with professional game designers BEFORE you hit Raving.
Barbara, to her credit, got it right by herself and Dan Dale. Very fine for them! - This alone is impressive.
I don't know if Barbara will show the game at Raving (it helps a lot, and is a good value - but is not necessary to get a game distributed).
A lot of games that make it never went through Raving, but again, I will say that Raving provides a LOT of great exposure.
I'm guessing around 300 hands per hour on this game when you include waiting for player bets, changing shoes (6 decks), players learning the game, etc. There is going to have to be a higher house edge side bet to make this work and have it take floor space from another carnival game.
ZCore13
you are absolutely spot-on correct about this, - but this may be addressable:
Quote: Zcore13I would have some concern on hold percentage for this game. "Carnival" games have to hold more than Blackjack, that's just the way it is. Blackjack is/can be a .50 - 1.50 percent HA, but mistakes in play are VERY common, creating a game that ends up holding mid to upper teens. Carnival games generally hold mid to upper twenties.
On this game, the 2.9% house edge would be quite large because of its speed of play. Because of its speed of play, a 2.9% house edge might be 40% hold, - too much. Pai Gow Poker or another poker carnival game can support a 2%-3% at 30 hands an hour, but at "Blackjack Speed" hands per hour, it may have to be less: 1% or so. This game can add and pay bonuses on a player being stuck with 2's or 3's that tie after a trade, brining the player's side edge up and providing for more player satisfaction. You can even call this feature "Trade Protection." Low hand ties after a trade pays a bonus.
This game does have a lot of inherent game tailoring to it, its pretty flexible.
Quote: Zcore13
I'm guessing around 300 hands per hour on this game when you include waiting for player bets, changing shoes (6 decks), players learning the game, etc. There is going to have to be a higher house edge side bet to make this work and have it take floor space from another carnival game.
300 an hour, that's a hand every 12 seconds, you must
have meant something else. Because of all the player
decisions, I'm guessing less than 1 a minute if you're
lucky, on a 5 player table.
I completely agree on the high HE side bet, I mentioned
it earlier. The player must have a chance to recoup losses
or he's going to be bored with all the dealer high cards and
not want to play again. I dealt 100 hands of this to myself
and the dealer does look incredibly lucky.
Quote: Paigowdan
On this game, the 2.9% house edge would be quite large because of its speed of play. Because of its speed of play, a 2.9% house edge might be 40% hold, - too much. Pai Gow Poker or another poker carnival game can support a 2%-3% at 30 hands an hour, but at "Blackjack Speed" hands per hour, it may have to be less: 1% or so. This game can add and pay bonuses on a player being stuck with 2's or 3's that tie after a trade, brining the player's side edge up and providing for more player satisfaction. You can even call this feature "Trade Protection." Low hand ties after a trade pays a bonus.
This game does have a lot of inherent game tailoring to it, its pretty flexible.
Triple Attack Blackjack was a game that held way too much. Not a bad game, but you can't just hammer and hammer people over and over again and expect them to keep playing.
Quote: EvenBob300 an hour, that's a hand every 12 seconds, you must
have meant something else. Because of all the player
decisions, I'm guessing less than 1 a minute if you're
lucky, on a 5 player table.
I completely agree on the high HE side bet, I mentioned
it earlier. The player must have a chance to recoup losses
or he's going to be bored with all the dealer high cards and
not want to play again. I dealt 100 hands of this to myself
and the dealer does look incredibly lucky.
300 hands per hour is a round per minute with 5 players playing. That is slow for Blackjack, but pretty good for a carnival game.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13I would have some concern on hold percentage for this game. "Carnival" games have to hold more than Blackjack, that's just the way it is. Blackjack is/can be a .50 - 1.50 percent HA, but mistakes in play are VERY common, creating a game that ends up holding mid to upper teens. Carnival games generally hold mid to upper twenties.
I'm guessing around 300 hands per hour on this game when you include waiting for player bets, changing shoes (6 decks), players learning the game, etc. There is going to have to be a higher house edge side bet to make this work and have it take floor space from another carnival game.
ZCore13
ZCore, Thanks for weighing in; I appreciate hearing from dealers and such (know where you work, not exactly what you do). Hold percentage can be adjusted to the casino's liking, with you considering the 6 deck shoe at 300hph, I'm assuming you're looking at 50-60 deals per hour x a number of players. That's about right for single-deck with an autoshuffler, but the 6 deck shoe will likely be above 100. The video I posted earlier in the thread to demonstrate the flow of the game shows a very slow pace for 3 players, with betting and card exchange, and still averages only 24 seconds/hand. The shoe is not countable to any useful degree down to 90% penetration, so it will last a while.
There are a number of sidebets that will work on the game. One that's proposed for the shoe is 9-9-9-9-9:1 on a 3 card straight or better. The pairs plus, with various paytables, works well on a single-deck game, though not on multideck. Any BJ sidebet that incorporates the dealer's upcard and the player's first 2 cards translates perfectly onto my game, with 1 player card + 2 dealer cards. So, between the low-odds win paytable being very versatile and the casino's choice of sidebets, they can decide for themselves both how fast to deal it and what HA they want, and fine tune the hold percentage to a degree that's not available to most games.
Quote: Zcore13
300 hands per hour is a round per minute with 5 players playing.
ZCore13
OK, I was thinking rounds, not hands. Do you
work for a casino? (lol)
Quote: Paigowdanspot on strategy, very good. It's an easy to apply strategy: low=trade, medium=stay, high=raise (essentially double).
For all the proposed changes, I think Barbara's base game is solid and worked out.
I can see a bonus on a surprise win on 2, or 2 and 3, but a house edge of 2.9% is not bad.
Thanks, Dan; I appreciate the kind words.
Quote: PaigowdanBuzz, (and c'mon guys....)
Do let me say that Barbara's game is one of the finer - and way more polished game submissions - that I have ever had personally demoed to me.
As for the Ace, being either low or high, is a very minor convention or practice issue, and is fixable right on the spot. Ace as high? sure, done.
And the strategy is very elegant and straightforward: trade on low 2-7, stay on mid 8-10, and raise on face or Ace. VERY clean and Easy strategy.
When you trade, you do not "buy a trade" and "pay out" for it, - the money stays in play to possibly win. Nice feature.
My opinion - for what it is worth - is that it is better than Casino War - which itself has some live casino installs. The trade feature makes it look like the "house is not greedy - " keep you money in play for yourself.
Instead of nit-picking, I feel we should give Barbara a hand - or an install.
I think that evaluating the game is very difficult unless you play it. On paper, nothing much. But then, so are;
you bet on numbers and/or a color and then watch a ball go around.
you bet on a spot or group of spots and then watch 2 cubes fall.
you bet an ante, get 3 cards, play or fold.
you bet on one of two hands, it either wins or loses.
*Yawn*
Right?
I appreciate (again) you inviting the demo, Dan, and really enjoyed our time there with all 3 of you.
I'll take an install, thanks. And I appreciate the nit-picking very much. The sharpest sword cuts the best. I think they're either being kind or they actually like it. Either way, it's worth looking at things with fresh and experienced eyes, and continuing to refine. You yourself were helpful in that.
Quote: PaigowdanNo. Barbara defined the game very cleanly and thoroughly. And Buzz, I wasn't even remotely involved on the game's design; Barbara did it all herself, and with Daniel Dale doing a very fine job on the math analysis.
Ok, let me roll some credits.
1. I had the game figured out down to a Christmas tree with full ornaments, lights, and tinsel. I read several thousand posts on this board while I was working out the game, with my family as willing crash test dummies.
2. I asked the Wizard about certain people who seemed to have expertise in certain areas. He recommended several of you, including Dan; I went there first. Dan was covered up with G2E concerns and was unable to spend any time with it prior to that. However, I watched the youtube interview the Wiz did with Dan more than once, and took notes. Their game plan was the outline for my business plan. I also purchased teliot's book, read it cover to cover, and followed that, not just because it verified almost point-by-point the video suggestions; excellent guidebook. And I read lots on here.
3. One of my picks was Paradigm, who was most patient with lengthy explanations and good collaborative ideas on game refinement over several weeks. He gets the credit for being the first, but obviously not the last, to insist on Aces high, btw. He got me a long way towards cleaning off the tinsel and the lights and finding a clean, green tree. I highly recommend his assistance and advice.
4. I also contracted with Charles Mousseau to do the math on the Wiz's recommendation, and Charles was very responsive and helpful when it came time to do the official math report and vulnerability analysis. I highly recommend him as well.
5. I got stuck on a math point in the game while trying to clean it up enough to pass the Paradigm sniff test, and asked for help in the inventor's corner. When that didn't work, I reached out to Crystal Math, and he was kind enough to answer the question. Then he blew my mind by creating a spreadsheet in 90 minutes to diagram what took me 80 hours to mess up. I talked him into continuing to work with me, and he is the miracle man; he created a calculator that let me fine-tune into viability, then another for sidebets, and checked and corrected all of my numbers in reports, brochures, and correspondence. ANYONE who needs a math guy who is amazingly skilled, easy to work with, and completely dependable should ask him first.
6. Rich Newman has been terrific as my IP legal guy, very easy-going, informative, non-intimidating. Again, a recommendation from me.
7. The Wiz, again, has been very supportive throughout. Notice all these guys are regular forum members. Without the resources the Wiz has provided, and the quality of talent he attracts here, I am nowhere with this. If the game goes, it will be because of the Wiz and this group. So however it turns out, it's been a wild adventure and great learning experience so far!
Quote: PaigowdanThe game is of a very fine design, much better than casino war, in my opinion. Not saying that one-card war/poker is a big market, just saying.
There was a tiny bit of nit-picking, nay-saying, and dart-throwing.
Burn is right.
If you make 4th place, I'll chew you out on your game faults for 5 minutes in my kind and gentle way.
If you make 5th place, I'll chew you out on your game faults for an hour in my kind and gentle way.
You try to get your game right, and consult with professional game designers BEFORE you hit Raving.
Barbara, to her credit, got it right by herself and Dan Dale. Very fine for them! - This alone is impressive.
I don't know if Barbara will show the game at Raving (it helps a lot, and is a good value - but is not necessary to get a game distributed).
A lot of games that make it never went through Raving, but again, I will say that Raving provides a LOT of great exposure.
I have no problem with nit-picking. I am a perfectionist when it comes to something going out of my house and into yours, and I'm happy to make choices that are better commercially than my personal preferences. I'm trying to sell it, not deal to my friends out of the basement rec room.
Again, Dan, thanks for the kind words and the encouragement.
Quote: BuzzardWill you be dealing at Raving or will you hire some eye-candy? Yes. I know this remark is sexist. And quite proud it is !
My vote is for Mandy, from the Wiz's thread on models.
I'll play if Mandy is the dealer..
Quote: BuzzardNot sure Mandy can handle the high Math involved in this game.
Well, if this thread has dwindled down to you two spouting off about the models, I will exit quietly and stand down on quick responses.
Quote: beachbumbabsWell, if this thread has dwindled down to you two spouting off about the models.
We're not really spouting off, it's a fair question.
Here's Mike's dealer for his game Mulligan Poker.
I thought this game had a decent chance, but Mike
announced on the radio show that SHFL signed
it back to him because it didn't do well in the casinos
it was in. Easy game to play and understand, the
public are hoopleheads, who knows what they want.
Why does the suspicious guy with the beard show
up at all the models tables.. Hmmm..
Quote: EvenBobSuspicious guy
I want to know who the suspicious man in orange is. Buzz, do you know that guy?
I preferred the blonde who was dealing BJ for SHFL. Personally trained by Roger. At first she forgot to hit a6, but then remembered Roger's instructions. After that she hit A6 9/8 Q/7 etc.
Quote: BuzzardHard to recognize him without that number plate across his chest.
Buzz, were you on break from doing community service along
the freeway? lol
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_butler/2350783541/
Quote: BuzzardMy Las Vegas vacation picture .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_butler/2350783541/
lol, I see you Buzz, you have on the orange outfit!
Seriously, though. Having the hottest dealer possible
has a big influence at these events, on both men and
women. Well, mostly men, but it does make a difference.
Quote: EvenBoblol, I see you Buzz, you have on the orange outfit!
Seriously, though. Having the hottest dealer possible
has a big influence at these events, on both men and
women. Well, mostly men, but it does make a difference.
I think it does at G2E. I think knowing the details of the game is MUCH more important at Raving. Your game is dead if the dealer can't sell its good points and answer questions.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13
I think it does at G2E. I think knowing the details of the game is MUCH more important at Raving. Your game is dead if the dealer can't sell its good points and answer questions.
So find a smart beautiful model, they are around
you know.
hot dealers.
Hell, if game too difficult to be dealt slowly after a few hours training for your eye candy. what the hell chance will it have in a casino ? DUH
Quote: EvenBob300 an hour, that's a hand every 12 seconds, you must
have meant something else. Because of all the player
decisions, I'm guessing less than 1 a minute if you're
lucky, on a 5 player table.
I completely agree on the high HE side bet, I mentioned
it earlier. The player must have a chance to recoup losses
or he's going to be bored with all the dealer high cards and
not want to play again. I dealt 100 hands of this to myself
and the dealer does look incredibly lucky.
In your second paragraph, you talk about a side bet. I agree; the game screams for a sidebet. We demo'ed it with a pairs plus for a standard paytable, and it plays and pays very well on that, because the strength of the base hand does not correspond directly with the frequency of a pairs plus win. In single deck, hit frequency is 42%win-7.5%tie-50.5%loss. With the pairs plus bet, the ties become partial pays, so there's 7.5% added hit frequency right there, and a loss can still pair the dealer's lower card, or form a straight/flush/SF hand that wins. Pairs plus has a hit frequency of 26.04%, so a large part of that can be added to the hit frequency of the base game; I'm estimating but do not have exact numbers to display, that the player's total hit frequency will be in excess of 60% using the PP sidebet. That HAS to lead to a lot of player satisfaction and long term retention.
and the dealer does look incredibly lucky."
HMMM, no I won't say it !
Quote: Buzzard" I dealt 100 hands of this to myself
and the dealer does look incredibly lucky."
HMMM, no I won't say it !
That the dealer looked incredibly handsome too? Go
ahead, I don't care.
Quote: BuzzardI was gonna say I never saw a game where the dealer and players were both losers.
Or both winners, for that matter. People want one
thing from a game, to walk away a winner sometimes.
That's fun for them, to know they can sometimes
win a session. If they play it twice, and lose their buy
in both times, they won't be back. I'm not convinced
that's possible with this game, the dealer just gets
too many high cards, the player is always fighting for
his life. Dealer streaks are inevitable, with a 66% chance
of getting a high card, and that's debilitating on a players
psyche.
Quote: BuzzardPerhaps a math guy can give odds for 5 or 10 in a row loss.
That's the thing about roulette. Most people who play it
are underfunded. They buy in for $100 and that's all
they want to throw at it. Making $10-$15 bets each
time, you don't last long. It's the players that have $1000
to play with, and make the same small bets, that often
walk away winners. Roulette flows, like the tide coming
in and going out. If you're there at the right time, you can
win, maybe. It's true for every game, but some are
much worse than others.
By and large I agree that you double A K Q J, stand 10 9 8, and swap lowest 7-2 {# note change of strategy if 6 pays 5/1: AKQJ / 10 9 6 / 875432 }.
It seems quite a easy game to understand and play, also has a few decision points. Personally there are some games, 6-card poker comes to mind, that only ever pay evens and have sidebets that offer better odds. Typically, as I don't play the sidebets, the game eventually proved boring - so it's nice to have a base game where you can win more than 1 to 1 sometimes.
Dealer's Result Win Tie Lose
13 A 25 14.792 899% 85.207 101% 14.792 899%
12 K 23 13.609 467% 71.597 633% 13.609 467% 14.792 899%
11 Q 21 12.426 036% 59.171 598% 12.426 036% 28.402 367%
10 J 19 11.242 604% 47.928 994% 11.242 604% 40.828 402%
9 10 17 10.059 172% 37.869 822% 10.059 172% 52.071 006%
8 9 15 8.875 740% 28.994 083% 8.875 740% 62.130 178%
7 8 13 7.692 308% 21.301 775% 7.692 308% 71.005 917%
6 7 11 6.508 876% 14.792 899% 6.508 876% 78.698 225%
5 6 9 5.325 444% 9.467 456% 5.325 444% 85.207 101%
4 5 7 4.142 012% 5.325 444% 4.142 012% 90.532 544%
3 4 5 2.958 580% 2.366 864% 2.958 580% 94.674 556%
2 3 3 1.775 148% 0.591 716% 1.775 148% 97.633 136%
1 2 1 0.591 716% 0.000 000% 0.591 716% 99.408 284%
Bonus - winning with 6 or less pays 5/1 instead of Evens
Stand Double Swap(/Double)
13 A 1 0.852 071 1.704 142 -0.483 386 1.704 142 Double
12 K 1 0.568 047 1.136 095 -0.483 386 1.136 095 Double
11 Q 1 0.307 692 0.615 385 -0.483 386 0.615 385 Double
10 J 1 0.071 006 0.142 012 -0.483 386 0.142 012 Double
9 10 1 -0.142 012 -0.284 024 -0.483 386 -0.142 012 Stand
8 9 1 -0.331 361 -0.662 722 -0.483 386 -0.331 361 Stand
7 8 1 -0.497 041 -0.994 083 -0.483 386 -0.483 386 Swap
6 7 1 -0.639 053 -1.278 107 -0.483 386 -0.483 386 Swap
5 6 1 -0.378 698 -1.514 793 -0.483 386 -0.378 698 Stand
4 5 1 -0.639 053 -1.278 107 -0.483 386 -0.483 386 Swap
3 4 1 -0.828 402 -1.656 805 -0.483 386 -0.483 386 Swap
2 3 1 -0.946 746 -1.893 491 -0.483 386 -0.483 386 Swap
1 2 1 -0.994 083 -1.988 166 -0.483 386 -0.483 386 Swap
-0.011 904
Swap Swap / Stand Swap / Double
13 A 1 1.704 142 2.556 213 2.556 213
12 K 1 1.136 095 1.704 142 1.704 142
11 Q 1 0.615 385 0.923 077 0.923 077
10 J 1 0.142 012 0.213 018 0.213 018
9 10 1 -0.284 024 -0.426 036 -0.284 024
8 9 1 -0.662 722 -0.994 083 -0.662 722
7 8 1 -0.994 083 -1.491 124 -0.994 083
6 7 1 -1.278 107 -1.917 160 -1.278 107
5 6 1 -1.230 769 -2.272 189 -1.230 769
4 5 1 -1.544 379 -1.917 160 -1.544 379
3 4 1 -1.775 148 -2.485 207 -1.775 148
2 3 1 -1.923 077 -2.840 237 -1.923 077
1 2 1 -1.988 166 -2.982 249 -1.988 166
-0.483 386
thanks very much for the rundown! With 6 deck, not infinite, the HE is 3.823, so your infinite deck number seems very much in line with that; the low-odds paytable is tuneable, and the one I posted is representative of odds similar to yours. Using a flat paytable is somewhat limiting but still improves viability, and graduated odds allows both much finer tuning and a really nice multipay win at the lowest levels (10x at the moment). One of the coolest things about the low-odds win is that it pays odds for all your bets, not just a sidebet pay on a single spot. We do expect to offer the game with at least one of several sidebets; there are many good ones based on 3 cards, and in at least one configuration we can offer 5 card odds on rare hands, or linked or unlinked jackpot progressives. We think it has a lot of potential for such a simple game, especially with people who like a really fast pace on their betting, but want some strategy and control over their exposure.
If you had controlled your exposure, we might still be married.
Yes I eventually got the same figure (-3.823105%) based on no bonus (down to -2.925% with one deck). Thus, as you say, there's scope for paying a bonus for winning with low hands to bring the HE down. It seems paying 5/1 (on the Ante only) for winning 5 is -0.428% HE which seems quite low, but easy to remember (however it goes +ve with 1 deck!).Quote: beachbumbabs...With 6 deck, not infinite, the HE is 3.823...
Quote: charliepatrickYes I eventually got the same figure (-3.823105%) based on no bonus (down to -2.925% with one deck). Thus, as you say, there's scope for paying a bonus for winning with low hands to bring the HE down. It seems paying 5/1 (on the Ante only) for winning 5 is -0.428% HE which seems quite low, but easy to remember (however it goes +ve with 1 deck!).
Exactly, charlie, thanks for the validation! We have several different paytables lined up for this that keep the game -ev, but can place it as tight as the casino wants it, pretty much. We're patenting and trademarking worldwide, so hopefully you'll see it in the UK soon.
In case you haven't seen the thread Coventry holds an evening for new games, so that's one way in - also being simple to understand I think it has a good chance of being given a trial. From my experience of Grosvenor they prefer to have the base game which has limited risk (i.e. not pay too much odds, say 5/1 max) and the sidebet can go anywhere - thus typically the game can have a £200 maximum and sidebets can be set accordingly (£5-£50). This is why I have suggested 5/1 as the largest odds.Quote: beachbumbabs...hopefully you'll see it in the UK soon.
On the sidebet - top odds of 25/1 or 33/1 probably allow for a £25 bet. Of course you can always market it as plays with your favourite "21+3" "Top3" existing bets!
Good luck with it.
face down for the player. Has somebody already asked
this? It would go much faster and be less confusing for
new players if they could see other players cards and
what they do, and be able to ask for help with theirs.
I know, the game is so simple a 3 year old will understand
it instantly, but there will be people who don't know what
to do with a face down card, and they can't ask because
discussing your hand is verboten. If you're using a multi
deck CSM, what difference does it make, up or down. You
can't gain an edge knowing what the person next to you has.
Might lead some wanna be counters to think they have an edge. LOL
ZCore13
Quote: BuzzardI think the math guys said that collusion was negligible, so why not face up ?
The dealer has to use whatever card is highest, he doesn't
care what the player has. If I have an 8 and see the guy
next to me has a 5, what possible difference could that make
to me. He has a decision to make independent of what card
I have. If I see four players all have aces, so what. In a 6
deck game there are 24 aces, plenty for everybody.
Quote: EvenBobThe dealer has to use whatever card is highest, he doesn't
care what the player has. If I have an 8 and see the guy
next to me has a 5, what possible difference could that make
to me. He has a decision to make independent of what card
I have. If I see four players all have aces, so what. In a 6
deck game there are 24 aces, plenty for everybody.
Collusion doesn't make much difference, even in single deck. In 6 or 8 deck, the effect is nil.
Quote: CrystalMathCollusion doesn't make much difference, even in single deck. In 6 or 8 deck, the effect is nil.
So why is it dealt face down then. You're just adding
an extra step of the player having to look at his card.
In the Shipwreck video, what's the point of giving a
player a dealer card, and then the dealer taking
one from the CSM. Just give the player the CSM card,
what difference can it make in a random game.
Quote: EvenBobSo why is it dealt face down then. You're just adding
an extra step of the player having to look at his card.
In the Shipwreck video, what's the point of giving a
player a dealer card, and then the dealer taking
one from the CSM. Just give the player the CSM card,
what difference can it make in a random game.
Illusion of control possibly. But if it slows the game down, I dunno how much that's worth.
It certainly could be a face up game and may well be one if/when it goes out on a floor.....I think that may be a positive change as suggested by EB.....not only for players that want help, but it gets every player at the table involved in the sweat of the draw of other players.....much like in BJ as everyone seems to watch and be rooting for other players as they hit to improve their hands against the dealer.
