One for the Money[sup]TM[/sup]

Quote: Paradigm

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.

Yeah, I agree, and it shouldn't be too vulnerable to strategy changes based on deck composition.

Gee, it must be Halloween. People are agreeing with Bob. Even more mysterious, Bob appears to be correct.

We are not in Kansas anymore.

Quote: Paradigm

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.

My thoughts exactly. When I deal the game to myself,
face down is a real PINA. There's no reason for it, and
seeing other peoples cards gives players the illusion
of getting some kind of edge, they get to see the decisions
others make. It would make it a more exciting game, a
community game where the players are all against the
dealer. Which they are anyway.

I very much appreciate the discussion on this point and everyone's input.

The face down dealing instructions were a default choice pre-math and vulnerability analysis; the face-up possibility has been a consideration since the beginning. It is possible that when the game is commercially marketed it will be dealt face-up, or that different configurations will use different choices on that.

It is also possible that, with the combination of the low-odds win paytable and the base game HE, there will be face-down deals in order to provide a very low HE and still deal at speed from a 6 or 8 deck shoe. Vulnerability analysis showed that, with maximum players and perfect knowledge of all player cards, the maximum vulnerability was .4 and required a spread too large to be capitalized on in a live scenario, and the 6 deck shoe could be dealt to 90% without significant AP edge; the 8 deck shoe was even less vulnerable. (CM; please correct any language I've used in this paraphrase that might misrepresent testing results.)

There is also an illusion of control and suspense factor (people often forget their hands after bet resolution in any game using face down cards) that may provide more excitement, especially concerning sidebet odds payouts, if cards are face down.

The game also would be less vulnerable to hand-switching cheats, either if the house allows multiple hand play, or two or more players are acting in collusion, if the cards are dealt face up.

These are all things being considered for marketing and protecting the game, and will be revisited during initial trials.

Quote: Buzzard

Even more mysterious, Bob appears to be correct.
We are not in Kansas anymore.

I have other good ideas for this game, but
I have to give them out a little at a time. I'm
correct more often than you think.

Quote: beachbumbabs

It is possible that when the game is commercially marketed it will be dealt face-up

Only if you want it to be successful. I played BJ for
decades and the appeal of the face up deal is it
makes for a lot of camaraderie at the table. Face
down, with rules of no discussion on hands, kills
camaraderie dead. There's no feeling of 'us against
the dealer', instead you feel it's you against the other
players. That's not true at all in this game, you need
discussion of people and hands, you need newbies to
be able to ask for help. I know this is the easiest
game to understand since the coin flip, but on a casino
floor you may think otherwise.

Quote: EvenBob

Only if you want it to be successful. I played BJ for
decades and the appeal of the face up deal is it
makes for a lot of camaraderie at the table. Face
down, with rules of no discussion on hands, kills
camaraderie dead. There's no feeling of 'us against
the dealer', instead you feel it's you against the other
players. That's not true at all in this game, you need
discussion of people and hands, you need newbies to
be able to ask for help. I know this is the easiest
game to understand since the coin flip, but on a casino
floor you may think otherwise.

As I mentioned in the post from which you excerpted, it is among the range of possibilities for the reasons you have raised and others; I would not be surprised if it happens that way. I would disagree with your evaluation of face down killing cameraderie; UTH has great amounts of it, and hands are face down there and in most casino-banked poker and carnival games. There is room for both.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I would disagree with your evaluation of face down killing cameraderie; .

Ever play single deck BJ where they deal face down
and you get to handle the cards? The chatter at the table
is far and away different than the face up BJ. Does
anybody even deal face down BJ anymore? You also
would have the rule in your game that no touching cards
is allowed.

Hey, just trying to help. I only recently heard Mike's game
didn't make it and it sounds like SHFL gave it a good shot.
I really thought it had a chance, easy to understand and
play. If that game didn't make it, I'll be astounded if this
game does. All you can so is try. Remember Ishtar and
Heavens Gate? They were predicted and expected to be
box office hits and were both disasters. Nobody knows
what the public really wants in any field, be it movies,
toys, or table games. You better have the best damned
product you can come up with going in, cause make overs
aren't usually in the deal.

Quote: EvenBob

Ever play single deck BJ where they deal face down
and you get to handle the cards? The chatter at the table
is far and away different than the face up BJ. Does
anybody even deal face down BJ anymore? You also
would have the rule in your game that no touching cards
is allowed.

Hey, just trying to help. I only recently heard Mike's game
didn't make it and it sounds like SHFL gave it a good shot.
I really thought it had a chance, easy to understand and
play. If that game didn't make it, I'll be astounded if this
game does. All you can so is try. Remember Ishtar and
Heavens Gate? They were predicted and expected to be
box office hits and were both disasters. Nobody knows
what the public really wants in any field, be it movies,
toys, or table games. You better have the best damned
product you can come up with going in, cause make overs
aren't usually in the deal.

EB,

I think I've said thank you several times and that I appreciate your critiques and continued involvement on the subject; please don't misunderstand my discussing your thoughts in an evaluating way for a defensive posture. It's all pie in the sky until there's real income, and though I've put together the best presentation for demos I can do while just learning the industry, there are 100 things that can go wrong between here and profitability. So far, so good, but I refuse to count chickens before they hatch. We're refining, testing, and updating rules, procedures, layouts, all the rest on a daily basis, and I think the product's the better for it.

I thought Heavens Gate was an excellent movie.
Still do. The public is very fickle, it's all a matter
of timing.

Quote: EvenBob

Ever play single deck BJ where they deal face down
and you get to handle the cards? The chatter at the table
is far and away different than the face up BJ. Does
anybody even deal face down BJ anymore? You also
would have the rule in your game that no touching cards
is allowed.

I dealt as a casino dealer, and played as a player huge amounts of pitch double deck (3:2) blackjack. Pitch games are all over Vegas.
You may touch the cards with one hand, never two, as a player who is playing a pitch (face-down) game.

Quote: EvenBob

Hey, just trying to help.

Of course. No one is accusing you of being a troll. Your input is often interesting.

Quote: EvenBob

I only recently heard Mike's game
didn't make it and it sounds like SHFL gave it a good shot.
I really thought it had a chance, easy to understand and
play. If that game didn't make it, I'll be astounded if this
game does. All you can so is try. Remember Ishtar and
Heavens Gate? They were predicted and expected to be
box office hits and were both disasters. Nobody knows
what the public really wants in any field, be it movies,
toys, or table games. You better have the best damned
product you can come up with going in, cause make overs
aren't usually in the deal.

1. SHFL gave Mike's game a fair shot, safe to assume, and it is a good idea, which is why they gave it a go.

2. Ishtar and Heaven's Gate as movies blew, just garbage. Heaven's Gate was the death knell for United Artists because UA had NO controls on Michael Cinimo after he did well with The Deer Hunter.

3. While new game introduction appears "hit and miss," Gaming companies [SHFL, Galaxy, DEQ] actually do have, and apply valid metrics to both in-house development projects as well as in evaluating external submissions. The vast majority, - the huge majority - of games submitted are dead in the water due to game play issues (un-dealable, un-protectable, bizarre non-standard decks or rules, alien gambling concepts, awkward, convoluted, "just not fun," bad concept, or offers nothing over existing games), or IP issues (game idea or mechanism already in existence by another owner or is public domain), bad math (bet win rates, bad hit rates, etc.) - so the few that DO seem decent generally ARE decent - as the few "salmon that jumped the waterfall." What you might not realize Bob is that there is a LOT of work behind the few high-jumping salmon that we see as the end result in live casino table play.

You only have to look at Geoff Hall and his Blackjack Switch and Freebet Blackjack, DEQ and EZ Pai Gow, EZ Baccarat, and their new games, Galaxy and High Card Flush, Player's Edge, Bonus Craps, and SHFL with Crazy Four Poker, Dragon Bonus Baccarat, etc. plus a gazillion side bets. The few new games launched each season by the majors are well-designed and well-prepared and well-selected.

4. It is a numbers game all-in-all, so some new games do make it, and some don't, - but this may be one out of hundreds considered with the finest shot to make it. The dogs are generally not released by the big three American/Canadian distributors, but die with either rejection notices or on the editing room's floor.

5. Some casinos try new games directly from game designers (Stations with Scossa dice, among others, and the Golden Nugget, well, it's the Statute of Liberty in this area.) There are some success stories of a five install game that refuses to die, but get action year after year after year with no need for mass distribution. Mike no longer reviews and posts to WOO's some one-install new game or side bet that gets a fleeting, flash-in-the-pan install and removal; a crib death does not get a New York Times obit.

Quote: Paigowdan

4. It is a numbers game all-in-all, so some new games do make it, and some don't,

I've whittled your long soapbox post down to the bare bones,
Dan. Indeed, some games make it and some don't. Most don't.

And Heavens Gate doesn't blow, as you so eloquently put it.
It has beautiful cinematography, good acting, and great scenery.
It was just the wrong movie at the wrong time.

Quote: EvenBob

I've whittled your long soapbox post down to the bare bones,
Dan. Indeed, some games make it and some don't. Most don't.

No. you said:

Quote: EvenBob

Nobody knows
what the public really wants in any field, be it movies,
toys, or table games.

I said "We have a damn good idea, and we have extensive procedures, evaluations, metrics to determine this."
We do not review or design the one hundred games we do each year to spend math lab and approval money on them all; we spend money on the 4% of the games that get to the finals, and we spend money on the two premium games from it to go live. If four years out we have four hit games from that time frame, we're golden. However, we also have new side bets and other more minor items aside from premium games that generate product lines and revenue. Each year we need a Star Wars or Forrest Gump or The Godfather level table game to get to the Three Card Poker status of a new game that really stayed.

We weed out 90+% initially, re-consider 10, and prepare four for approval, install two, with one making it each year on average. Last year was where HCF started to roll, and this year we believe another game will get going fine.

Hundreds of movies are distributed each years with countless movies being profitable.
By contrast, a good game needs to have essentially a ten-year life, and then gone forever from the floor.
Movies need six weeks of profitable release along side dozens of others released in the same season. Then they get Netflix, Cable, anniversary releases and the lot to "retread" revenue from them.

An interesting metric for Mike is to compare his very complete game repository to IMDB's very complete movie repository.
Slot game cycles are closer to film cycles than table games are.

Quote: EvenBob

And Heavens Gate doesn't blow, as you so eloquently put it.

Sure as hell did. It was a bomb for a reason, and by accident and not intention. Long, good story weakly presented, rambling, boring, universal considered wek, especially in light of the expenditure.
Your opinion of Heaven's gate is valid to you, and by that basis it is a valid opinion, fine. But it is an opinion.
It was NOT a success, nor was it anywhere near the quality needed to make it a success.
Now, The Deer Hunter was absolutely one of my all time favorites...............

It has beautiful cinematography, good acting, and great scenery.
It was just the wrong movie at the wrong time.

Quote: Paigowdan

I said "We have a damn good idea, and we have extensive procedures, evaluations, metrics to determine this. q]

Sure you do, Dan, sure you do. Then, just like everybody
else, you throw it all against the wall and see what sticks.

Just like a Hollywood studio, make a hundred movies and
hope a couple good ones pay for all the rest. You have no
idea what will be a hit in the games business. Nobody does.

Quote: EvenBob

Sure you do, Dan, sure you do. Then, just like everybody
else, you throw it all against the wall and see what sticks.

Bob, you're the post leader here with 12,564 posts.
When it comes to throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it sticks, that's your M.O.
We should call you "Hollywood Bob."

Quote: EvenBob

Just like a Hollywood studio, make a hundred movies and
hope a couple good ones pay for all the rest. You have no
idea what will be a hit in the games business. Nobody does.

No, We don't make and release a hundred games a year and "hope a couple good ones pay for the rest."
We discard 98 games, make only two or so with careful consideration and planning, and assume that one or both will become a hit.
If we have a fairly good idea as to what may be a hit in this business, we get to stay in business.
The cost of a rejection letter or discarded design specification of a game that had been reviewed - little.
The cost of a green-lighted game that had full math, marketing, patent, dealer training, and failed installs that bombed - huge.
We don't consider running cinder blocks up the flag pole because the "real estate" openings are too small to fail, and the demand for new games is small, as the games already out (Blackjack, Craps, Roulette, etc.) already work well enough.
The public's appetite for many different movie offerings is huge, so a great many movies can be tried and released, and are. Quite different.

Now, slot machine companies (IGT, Bally, WMS, Aristocrat) follow the film industry model more closely.

Does that mean my Vampire card game is dead on arrival ? SIGH

Quote: Paigowdan

Bob, you're the post leader here with 12,564 posts.
When it comes to throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it sticks, that's your M.O.

Burn.

Quote: Buzzard

Does that mean my Vampire card game is dead on arrival ? SIGH

Wait, wait, it's coming to me:

VAMPIRE POKER
1) The deck has new graphics where kings and queens are vampires, and jacks are vampire hunters.
2) Dealer and player get five cards each. If any non-jack card is next to a vampire, those cards are "bitten" and turn into vampires. But if a non-vampire card is between two vampires, it gets bitten twice and dies (is removed).
3) If a vampire hunter is next to a vampire, the vampire is killed (removed).
4) Whoever has the most vampires at the end of the hand wins;
4a) If there are an equal number of vampires, the hand with the most cards wins;
4b) If there are the same number of vampires and the same number of cards, the house wins. (<-- where the edge comes from)
5) If there are no vampires in either hand, it's straight stud poker. Ties are pushes.
6) The player can raise 1x after seeing their first card.

I'd guess the combination of 4b and 6 roughly balance out to a reasonable house edge, but I certainly haven't run the numbers.

Quote: MathExtremist

Wait, wait, it's coming to me:

VAMPIRE POKER
1) The deck has new graphics where kings and queens are vampires, and jacks are vampire hunters.
2) Dealer and player get five cards each. If any non-jack card is next to a vampire, those cards are "bitten" and turn into vampires. But if a non-vampire card is between two vampires, it gets bitten twice and dies (is removed).
3) If a vampire hunter is next to a vampire, the vampire is killed (removed).
4) Whoever has the most vampires at the end of the hand wins;
4a) If there are an equal number of vampires, the hand with the most cards wins;
4b) If there are the same number of vampires and the same number of cards, the house wins. (<-- where the edge comes from)
5) If there are no vampires in either hand, it's straight stud poker. Ties are pushes.
6) The player can raise 1x after seeing their first card.

I'd guess the combination of 4b and 6 roughly balance out to a reasonable house edge, but I certainly haven't run the numbers.

Well, by golly, I think you have something there, ME! ^ ^

Quote: beachbumbabs

Well, by golly, I think you have something there, ME! ^ ^

What's sick is probably the actual amount of time he probably spent making it up (not a lot I am guessing). I feel like number 5 is a rule that doesn't really flow with the rest of the game since you don't use poker rankings anywhere else. But if you let the house always win with no vampires, it probably makes the game not viable. No vampires will appear 15.7% of the time. I would consider just pushing for rule 5. And if pushing that much is too high, possibly make it a 7 card game (no vampires 6.5% of the time). That might screw over the house's edge though.

Otherwise, I think it's a simpler alternative to all the poker variants out there.

Is that the probability of no Q/K only or did you also factor in when a Q/K is dealt next to a J?

Quote: Paigowdan

the demand for new games is small,
.

It's almost nonexixtent. Like Roger says, nobody from a casino
has ever called him asking for a new game. Players are creatures
of habit, and superstitious and untrusting on top of it. I've had
single zero roulette dealers tell me they get so little action because
players think it's fishy that there's only one zero and the casino is
trying to put one over on them. Idiots on parade.

That's the mentality you're looking at with casino games, an uneducated
and low information driven public. They don't like new games, unless
they think they can win at them. Winning is fun, winning is entertainment.
Playing isn't fun, as the casinos want us to believe, playing and winning is
fun. I have yet to see anybody losing their ass that's having a great time.

Reminds me of the guy in the Vegas documentary we talked about a few
weeks ago. He won $10K right off the bat and was on cloud 9. 24 hours
later he was down $15K and was almost suicidal. The casino calls this being
'entertained'. Only if you're the Marquis de Sade..

Quote: tringlomane

What's sick is probably the actual amount of time he probably spent making it up (not a lot I am guessing). I feel like number 5 is a rule that doesn't really flow with the rest of the game since you don't use poker rankings anywhere else. But if you let the house always win with no vampires, it probably makes the game not viable. No vampires will appear 15.7% of the time. I would consider just pushing for rule 5. And if pushing that much is too high, possibly make it a 7 card game (no vampires 6.5% of the time). That might screw over the house's edge though.

Otherwise, I think it's a simpler alternative to all the poker variants out there.

Okay then, jack, queen and king are all vampires and the aces turn into wooden stakes (hunters). Then just get rid of rule 5 and make those pushes.

It was about five minutes. :)

Quote: wudged

Is that the probability of no Q/K only or did you also factor in when a Q/K is dealt next to a J?

no Q/K period. Next to the hunter removes the vampire card. (44/52)*(43/51)*.....*(34/42) = 15.7%

Quote: MathExtremist

Okay then, jack, queen and king are all vampires and the aces turn into wooden stakes (hunters). Then just get rid of rule 5 and make those pushes.

It was about five minutes. :)

Better! haha (40/52)*(39/51)*....*(30/42) = 5.36%

And great job for 5 minutes!

Quote: MathExtremist

Okay then, jack, queen and king are all vampires and the aces turn into wooden stakes (hunters). Then just get rid of rule 5 and make those pushes.

Now this game has promise, it's something players could
sink their teeth into (ha) and have fun and make money
at the same time. It begs for superstitions surrounding
it and that's what you want to encourage from the
hoopleheads..

Quote: Paigowdan

the games already out (Blackjack, Craps, Roulette, etc.) already work well enough.

Just bring back Faro and Chuck a Luck, they were very
popular casino carnival games for a long time. They'll
be brand new to modern players. You'll be considered
a genius, Dan. Fan-Tan, Barbu, you could bring them all
back.

Is there a garlic card?

I am forbidden by Roger to say anymore, but I and Béla Ferenc Dezső Blaskó have a DRACULA side bet provisional patent.

Quote: Buzzard

I am forbidden by Roger to say anymore, but I and Béla Ferenc Dezsõ Blaskó have a DRACULA side bet provisional patent.

Are you stepping out on me again whiff dat greazy Transylvanian, dahlink?

Bela Lagosi was quite the lady's man in his day.

During World War I, he served as an infantry lieutenant in the Austro-Hungarian Army from 1914 to 1916. There he rose to the rank of captain in the ski patrol and was awarded a medal for wounds he suffered while serving on the Russian front. His injuries led to
sciatic neuritis, and the constant pain led to his drug addiction. A tragic figure in real life and reel life !

just thinkin babs,

you said this game was basically a spin-off of screw your neighbor, how about to increase house edge slightly, that if player drew a card and it was a king that player couldn't use it they would be stuck with their first card. Also that would work for dealer's hand as well. Dealer would turn over their first card if it's a king that would be the card they play, if not they then would turn over their other card, if it's a king the dealer wouldn't be able to use it they would be stuck using their first card as their card. This would keep in line with the screw your neighbor game, where you can't take someone's king card. I just think it would make the game a lil more interesting while possibly raising the house edge slightly.

Quote: allinriverking

just thinkin babs,

you said this game was basically a spin-off of screw your neighbor, how about to increase house edge slightly, that if player drew a card and it was a king that player couldn't use it they would be stuck with their first card. Also that would work for dealer's hand as well. Dealer would turn over their first card if it's a king that would be the card they play, if not they then would turn over their other card, if it's a king the dealer wouldn't be able to use it they would be stuck using their first card as their card. This would keep in line with the screw your neighbor game, where you can't take someone's king card. I just think it would make the game a lil more interesting while possibly raising the house edge slightly.

I'm lovin' the way you're thinking, riverking. We have had several variations that did nutty things to spice things up, but we did not find this particular aspect of screw your neighbor portable from player-banked to house-banked game. It could work either way or in some combination of what you suggest as a fun variation. Commercially, we're probably going forward with the cleanest game possible and letting it work on the math, with a tight house edge and fast deal, because there are so many player-plus aspects to the game as designed (no dealer qualify threshold for full pay, no stopper cards, no force-out bets, bonus pay on low-odds win) that it should be very marketable. But if there's something to your variation that works mathematically and commercially, I will give you full credit. (That's 3 now, btw, in this thread that I think could deserve acknowledgement if they prove viable, and I am keeping track by author; I like very much that in some respects this is a forum-inspired game, not just mine/ours.)

" this is a forum-inspired game, not just mine/ours." Then I assume we will be receiving royalty checks as well ?

Quote: Buzzard

" this is a forum-inspired game, not just mine/ours." Then I assume we will be receiving royalty checks as well ?

It's bad karma to be counting chickens, so please just wish us the best of variance.

Quote: allinriverking

just thinkin babs,

you said this game was basically a spin-off of screw your neighbor, how about to increase house edge slightly, that if player drew a card and it was a king that player couldn't use it they would be stuck with their first card. Also that would work for dealer's hand as well. Dealer would turn over their first card if it's a king that would be the card they play, if not they then would turn over their other card, if it's a king the dealer wouldn't be able to use it they would be stuck using their first card as their card. This would keep in line with the screw your neighbor game, where you can't take someone's king card. I just think it would make the game a lil more interesting while possibly raising the house edge slightly.

This is a neat idea, but playing a friendly game at home, and having money at risk are two different things.
Playing with friends and a King shows up is, "Ha Ha unlucky, too bad for you, ha ha."

But having a King show up when I have $50 riding on it, is going to tick someone off, especially when that King is the second best card...........

Quote: RaleighCraps

This is a neat idea, but playing a friendly game at home, and having money at risk are two different things.
Playing with friends and a King shows up is, "Ha Ha unlucky, too bad for you, ha ha."

But having a King show up when I have $50 riding on it, is going to tick someone off, especially when that King is the second best card...........

Yeah, Raleigh, that's pretty much why that feature couldn't be ported; there were several elements that we lost because we needed a clean player vs. house dynamic. Part of de-trimming the Christmas tree I talked about before.

I think riverking's King reference was to the original game, and a feature we had tried to port, and ended up making Ace high. The King as the highest card had special attributes.

Quote: RaleighCraps

This is a neat idea, but playing a friendly game at home, and having money at risk are two different things.
Playing with friends and a King shows up is, "Ha Ha unlucky, too bad for you, ha ha."

But having a King show up when I have $50 riding on it, is going to tick someone off, especially when that King is the second best card...........

I've only played it for money, it sucks but it was part of the game, if it were to happen to the dealer as well on their hand, then it could be ha ha at the dealer...

You could even offer this option, if player pays to get a second card and it's a king, they are only allowed to play their first card, the king doesn't play. If that card beats both dealer's cards, then the player could receive some type of bonus payout. (King Coup Bonus) Your king may have been overthrown, but you still pulled it out and beat the dealer, now you're going to be rewarded greater.

Quote: allinriverking

I've only played it for money, it sucks but it was part of the game, if it were to happen to the dealer as well on their hand, then it could be ha ha at the dealer...

You could even offer this option, if player pays to get a second card and it's a king, they are only allowed to play their first card, the king doesn't play. If that card beats both dealer's cards, then the player could receive some type of bonus payout. (King Coup Bonus) Your king may have been overthrown, but you still pulled it out and beat the dealer, now you're going to be rewarded greater.

You're an evil and twisted game thinker. I like that about you. :)

" You're an evil and twisted game thinker. I like that about you. :) "

And yet in our parallel universe divorce proceeding, you accused me of being evil and twisted.

Quote: Buzzard

" You're an evil and twisted game thinker. I like that about you. :) "

And yet in our parallel universe divorce proceeding, you accused me of being evil and twisted.

I never said I didn't like that about you. I just wanted the judge's pity. And I got it.

Quote: tringlomane

...a 7 card game (no vampires 6.5% of the time)...

That idea has already been thought up and slightly modified for a game that's on trial, but sadly it doesn't use any vampire properties!

I'm guessing a consideration with any theme based game is if people don't like the theme they won't play the game, on the other hand if the hook works then the game's likely to be more successful. For instance XXPoker (Stockton) seems to be working better because they moved the table nearer where people played poker.