Raving 2013

Here are some photos from the Raving Table Game Conference. The show seemed a lot bigger this year. I didn't have time to see all the games. These photos are about 75% of them.

Click on any image for a larger version.


3 to 1 Blackjack. Blackjack side bet that pays 3 to 1 if the player's first two cards are the same color and the blackjack wager wins.


21 War Blackjack. War side bet based on player's and dealer's first card. Player may then let winnings ride on blackjack wager.


Alphabet Card Roulette. Same as Alphabet Roulette, but with cards.


Bacc Jack. Hybrid of baccarat and blackjack. Blackjack method of play but with baccarat scoring.


Cash Crib -- Cribbage-based game.


Double Ball Roulette. Roulette with two balls. The debut at the Tropicana has been delayed over more testing.


Draw 21. This is a player against player version of blackjack. Highest hand wins everything.


Guts. Poker-based game.


Let's Play. Blackjack side bet, based usually on player's first two cards.


Lucky Lay Down. This game involves just counting points. Player can win high or low.


Mulligan 21. Blackjack where player can take a free mulligan on an unwanted face card. Lovely dealer!


One for the Money. This game needs no introduction.


Hops and Props. Craps with only the single-roll proposition bets.


Three Dice Celo. Game involving three dice. There were two separate groups with this game at the show. Who is that handsome guy shooting?

Clicking the top image takes me to the image directory.

At first glance mulligan 21 looks like a pretty big house edge, yuk! but i like the dealer.

Interesting.

I can't see a true craps player going for either of the last two games, unless their casino doesn't offer the real deal(like California), but that would put the last game out since they can't use dice anyways.

Angela needs a manicure, yes I did notice her hands...lol

Good luck to those here that have games there.

Thanks for posting.

They should have called Hops and Props, "Sucka Craps," instead. Am I missing something, or is that really just what it says on the tin? How is that even patentable?

Quote: Mission146

They should have called Hops and Props, "Sucka Craps," instead. Am I missing something, or is that really just what it says on the tin? How is that even patentable?

They added an "any doubles" bet, that pays 4 to 1. Perhaps they would argue that addition makes it different from craps.

Some photos of OTFM:


Another handsome gentleman.

Hi Wizard,

What were your top 5?

Best of luck OFTM!

Quote: Wizard

They added an "any doubles" bet, that pays 4 to 1. Perhaps they would argue that addition makes it different from craps.

Oh, good. Any 7 with different numbers. I've thought of better games on the toilet, and I suck at thinking of games.

Hey. Wizard. You look kinda rough in that pix. Hopefully just bad lighting and not any lingering health issues ?

Quote: Buzzard

Hey. Wizard. You look kinda rough in that pix. Hopefully just bad lighting and not any lingering health issues ?

Someone needs to take those posted pics and draw a line between the Wizard's eyes and the dealer's chest like they used to in the cartoons.

Also Wizard is Mulligan 21 a reworked version of your Mulligan 3CP? Just given the name and dealer, wondered if you had any connection with it and by extension if you would see any money from its success.

deleted

Well, here I am in the thriving metropolis of Clifton, all 6.6 square miles. So all I can do is look at the pictures. Was gonna rate the games, but can not find all the rules. Plus Babs still has that revolver somewhere.
So I decided to rate the displays.

3 to 1 Blackjack : Nice lighted signage. Cards say Galaxy Gaming ? Chips say Feel The Rush ? Feeltherush.com is Galaxy website.
Beautiful Asian Dealer ... Galaxy Gaming ...... Dan Lubin ( you connect the dots )

21 War Blackjack : Colorful table layout Nice recessed drink holders. Banner Signage

Alphabet Card Roulette : Looks like brochure instead of rack cards Not a drink holder in sight

Baac Jack : April has glitter on her nails, sharing booth with hubby. Hands laid out nicely. Hope nobody spills that coffee on the felt.

Cash Crib : Hubby Gordon needs to watch coffee cup too. LOL Good luck to the happy couple.

Double Ball Roulette : All nice and shiny, signage tracks both balls, oh the trends one can now follow !

DRAW 21 : Girl next door look dealer, she is a rental per her badge. Nice apron, 7 drink holders, table full of bottled water.
Rack cards available. BONUS points for red labels DRAW 21 on water bottles. WOW !

GUTS : No idea what happened here , no signage or a banner even, no rack cards. Sign on table looks like made with dot-matrix
printer. No disrespect meant, but a sad showing. The game has to be better than the d.splay. SIGH

LETS PLAY : remember that crazy uncle of yours. Well, here are two of them. Hershey bars, Twix, and peanut butter cups on the
table. Like cards and chocolate mix. Dealer has Pabst Blue ribbon shirt and looks like long neck bottle on table.

LUCKY LAY DOWN : Name on felt but not on signage ? Does not appear to have rack cards ? Bare bones approach

MULLIGAN 21 : Stacks of chips inviting players to sit down. Signage, rack cards, closeup appears Lucky has fresh manicure and a
John Edwards $1,250 hair cut.

ONE FOR THE MONEY : Whoa, no drink holders, coffee cup on felt, All else first class, but still ?

PROPS AND HOPS : paper sign, no banner or rack cards, coffee , 2 drinks, and beer bottle on table. Who has been into the hops?

THREE_DICE_CELO : Even hiring a movie star to throw the dice won't help. Paint chipping on the rail and felt has a "faded" look.

The Let's Play guys look like 2 retired mob guys that were given one last hit to wack Matthew Lesko. When they got to his house, he wasn't there so they raided his closet.

Also going back to Mulligan 21, there seems to be some subliminal messages going on. They keep using the word "bust" and then you look at the dealer and yeah.....

Quote: Perdition

The Let's Play guys look like 2 retired mob guys that were given one last hit to wack Matthew Lesko. When they got to his house, he wasn't there so they raided his closet.

This is the all-time funniest post on this board. Absolutely hysterical. Bravo.

Quote: Buzzard

Hey. Wizard. You look kinda rough in that pix. Hopefully just bad lighting and not any lingering health issues ?

Bad lighting. The Wizard is a good-looking guy. On other hand, beachbumbabs looks great dealing OFTM!

Who's the guy on the left?

Quote: Mission146

I've thought of better games on the toilet, and I suck at thinking of games.

Yes, but you're good at thinking of good jokes!

Quote: Buzzard

Hey. Wizard. You look kinda rough in that pix. Hopefully just bad lighting and not any lingering health issues ?

I'm fine, but that was was definitely not the most flattering picture of me ever taken. I didn't know it was taken until just now. Profile pictures always emphasize my huge nose, the lighting definitely didn't hit me right, and I'm overdue for a haircut and dye.

Quote: Perdition

Someone needs to take those posted pics and draw a line between the Wizard's eyes and the dealer's chest like they used to in the cartoons.

I'd like to think I'm too much of a gentlemen to be caught doing that too blatantly.

Quote:

Also Wizard is Mulligan 21 a reworked version of your Mulligan 3CP? Just given the name and dealer, wondered if you had any connection with it and by extension if you would see any money from its success.

No. They apply the "mulligan" aspect much differently. I have no stake in the game and wish the inventors success.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

He's got that look of "You've got to be kidding me!"

I would have thought that many times that evening. However, not at One for the Money. I do recall that the dealer was ignoring me (as women are apt to do) so maybe that was me waiting for her to invite me to play.

Quote: Perdition

The Let's Play guys look like 2 retired mob guys that were given one last hit to wack Matthew Lesko. When they got to his house, he wasn't there so they raided his closet.

That was good!

Quote: teddys

Bad lighting. The Wizard is a good-looking guy. On other hand, beachbumbabs looks great dealing OFTM!

teddys; thank you, but that's not me; that is a lovely professional model/dealer or dealer/model lady hired to promote the game.

Babs, I noticed on the layout, after I wretched my eyes away from the dealer :), that the layout you had on there went with the ACES high option? I know you said it didn't matter one way or the other.

Who decided to go with this option?

Quote: Tomspur

that the layout you had on there went with the ACES high option?
Who decided to go with this option?

Having an ace be the low card confuses the heck
out of people. They'll be told it's low, know it's
low, and still get excited when they get an ace.
It's in our DNA that ace is always the best card
in the deck to get.

Quote: EvenBob

Having an ace be the low card confuses the heck
out of people. They'll be told it's low, know it's
low, and still get excited when they get an ace.
It's in our DNA that ace is always the best card
in the deck to get.

I absolutely, unequivocally agree with you. I was more interested too find out who made the operational change, Babs or her partners.

Quote: EvenBob

It's in our DNA that ace is always the best card
in the deck to get.

Not in Screw Your Neighbor.

deleted

Quote: Wizard

Not in Screw Your Neighbor.

Is that a Vegas game in your neighborhood?
I could enjoy a game like that.

Quote: EvenBob

Is that a Vegas game in your neighborhood?
I could enjoy a game like that.

I tried it once, the outcome was not as favorable as the input :)

Lesson learned I guess

deleted

I see pictures of all these new games and nothing really stands out to me.
People want to have fun, not learn new rules.
I always thought a new gambling game should be somewhat based on sports.
Football or baseball, transfer the essence of the game to a board game and then figure out a gambling angle.
I love games and through the 60's and 70's their were board versions of sports such as baseball with stratomatic.
Too me the advantage of transferring the sports games to a board game is that everybody is familiar with the sports arcane rules.
Maybe this is all absurd and ridiculous, but I was thinking such as Football as a board game and gambler is calling offensive plays, longshots, long pass, low odds, running play.
House is defence, Touchdown wins money, field goal even money, turning over on downs, house wins.
Gambler gets shot at trying to put together a touchdown drive over and over calling simple offensive plays. Roll dice to determine outcome of play due to odds of play working. Long pass, got to roll a 2 3 11 12, everything else incomplete. short pass, roll 7 to complete ect.
Maybe this is a seed to a great idea, maybe this is just the stoner in me talking.

Quote: Tomspur

I tried it once, the outcome was not as favorable as the input :)

Lesson learned I guess

I had a girlfriend in the 70's whose ex husband
played Screw Your Neighbor with the woman
across the street. They forgot to close the drapes
and she saw them on the couch from her living
room window. It didn't end well..

Quote: EvenBob

I had a girlfriend in the 70's whose ex husband
played Screw Your Neighbor with the woman
across the street. They forgot to close the drapes
and she saw them on the couch from her living
room window. It didn't end well..

Infidelity rarely does ;)

Quote: Wizard

Not in Screw Your Neighbor.

I generally agree with EvenBob, but we did play aces low in Lowball Stud and Lowball Draw, though those are home poker games.

Quote: Mission146

I generally agree with EvenBob, but we did play aces low in Lowball Stud and Lowball Draw, though those are home poker games.

Yes! It works at home very well, and it sucks
in a casino. You get drunks and hoopleheads,
you can tell them 8 times ace is low, and they'll
still yell WOO HOO when they get one.

Quote: Wizard

Aces are low in cribbage too.

Where is the cribbage table in the casino,
I like cribbage.

Quote: EvenBob

Where is the cribbage table in the casino,
I like cribbage.

Bob - there is Cash Crib - the Casino version (seriously) - AND it is on display at Raving. I loved how well they did it, but think there only a tiny market for Casino Cribbage. They have a few installs in Canada. Our own CRMousseau did the fine math on the game.

Quote: Wizard

Aces are low in cribbage too.

Cool, never heard of it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Bob - there is Cash Crib - the Casino version .

Too complicated for casino play.

http://www.luckyspadegaming.com/Cash_Crib.html

Quote: Mission146

Cool, never heard of it.

Cribbage is a very underrated game. I'd be happy to teach it to you when you're in town. As much fun as it is, it is difficult to morph into a good casino game.

Quote: Wizard

Cribbage is a very underrated game. I'd be happy to teach it to you when you're in town. As much fun as it is, it is difficult to morph into a good casino game.

That sounds good to me, I looked up the Rules on Wikipedia, but being shown the game will help. It looks like it operates on the same general principles as 500 Rummy, just with a different scoring system.

Quote: EvenBob

Too complicated for casino play.

http://www.luckyspadegaming.com/Cash_Crib.html

True. But that's due to cribbage. It can be "reduced," but would be "less Cribbage." It a tough game for casino, and a shame.

There are people that collect old cribbage boards,
there are hundreds of different kinds. Brings back
a lot of summer memories, playing cribbage for
hours in the shade outdoors.

My vote based solely on the booth setup and game display.

GOLD : DRAW 21 Lovely Dealer Color co-ordinated water bottles and backs of cards. Dealer apron say DRAW 21 with NO BUST
placed in a contradictory position. Just a very professional set-up !

SILVER : Mulligan 21 Just edged OFTM, the deciding factor being the business cards in same rack as rack cards. In case you want to
just slip card in wallet or pocket, versus folding a rack card in half or smaller.

Bronze : One For The Money Looks like Roger and his lieutenants out rounding up votes for the merger. Definitely not up to usual
SHFL Entertainment standards.

Quote: Buzzard

My vote based solely on the booth setup and game display.

GOLD : DRAW 21 Lovely Dealer Color co-ordinated water bottles and backs of cards. Dealer apron say DRAW 21 with NO BUST
placed in a contradictory position. Just a very professional set-up !

SILVER : Mulligan 21 Just edged OFTM, the deciding factor being the business cards in same rack as rack cards. In case you want to
just slip card in wallet or pocket, versus folding a rack card in half or smaller.

Bronze : One For The Money Looks like Roger and his lieutenants out rounding up votes for the merger. Definitely not up to usual
SHFL Entertainment standards.

I thought M21 looked the best, 3 to 1 was second, Draw 21 third.
OFTM doesn't stand out at all, I give it maybe 7th. M21 had the
knockout dealer, that's for sure.

Quote: Tomspur

Babs, I noticed on the layout, after I wretched my eyes away from the dealer :), that the layout you had on there went with the ACES high option? I know you said it didn't matter one way or the other.

Who decided to go with this option?

Mathematically, it didn't matter; strategy labels changed one rank and the game played the same. Stylistically, it was a debate among us for several weeks, with the traditional play of the party poker game and the power of the kings, and a distinctive feature for the game, eventually giving way to the traditional poker value of an ace usually being high and valuable (not always, as in wheel straights, bacc 1 value, BJ 1/11 value, etc) but overall true. One of the deciding factors was that we see a lot of market potential for "newbie" gamblers, and yet we had an unusual ranking of hands, so it might be better to keep to traditional ace values just to avoid possible confusion. The guiding principle for simplifying the game (highly recommended by teliot, the Wizard, Paradigm, everyone who works with game design on this forum) was: the more standard the mechanics of the game, the faster it can be played, and the lower the error rate will be. The aces low was the 2nd to the last frill to go, and I would say following that guideline was the overriding reason.

In one version of the game, which did not survive the simplification process, the aces changed rank from low to high in certain hand configurations (a variation in the first of 3 patents filed, so I can mention that method here), and we were still testing that rule for viability and desirability when we took the game to demo that week (we did not present that variation). We had the discussion in all the demos we did about how much the ace rank mattered, why or why not to change it.

When SHFL decided to make an immediate offer (we genuinely did not expect things to move that quickly; it was just time to show some people the game as far as we knew), they then took command of the marketing, design, and commercialization and made the change within a day or two, I'm assuming by Roger Snow, but possibly someone else. I think I got the best of both worlds on this, by the way; there's very little changed in the design, math, concepts, patentable methods, naming, or game play since the agreement was made, so my product stands on its own merits, AND the most successful commercial poker game designer in the business is further refining and improving it for our mutual benefit and taking some ownership in its success. I'm still amazed things have come to this point, and the adventure has just begun. If some other aspect doesn't survive live trials or other testing, I expect it to change as well.

The latest procedural change I'm aware of is that, since the game indicated mathematically no significant vulnerability to counting on a 6 to 8 deck shoe through 90% penetration, it can be dealt face up, with the advantages in round speed and game protection that brings. We were in the process of verifying and validating the multideck options when we reached agreement with SHFL (the ink was barely dry on the multideck math; CrystalMath and I worked in collaboration with SHFL in the next couple of days to validate the viability of several multi-deck aspects), and at the time it was a hypothetical though desirable choice. It has since proved out well enough that I expect the first commercial version will be face-up multideck (and was how it was demo'ed last night).

The single-deck version still has a slight vulnerability (though never +ev) with perfect player knowledge of other players' cards, so either the low-odds paytable may be tuned to an edge that allows the single-deck game to be dealt face-up while ensuring a viable HE, or the game may remain face-down-dealt to mitigate it, if it's even necessary; it's a very small amount, but in contrast to the multideck nil factor, it should be acknowledged. That decision has not been finalized that I know of, and the game may never even be marketed for single-deck play. There are also other variations, with more cards per player in order to facilitate sidebets requiring more than 3 cards (such as a linked 5 card poker hand progressive), that overall would benefit from face-down dealing. I think, like BJ, if the base game catches on and new variations are introduced, there will be room for both face-up and face-down versions, as well as both single-deck and multi-deck presentations, and different casinos can select what best suits their clientele.

And you thought you asked a simple question....ha!

Quote: Wizard

Cribbage is a very underrated game. I'd be happy to teach it to you when you're in town. As much fun as it is, it is difficult to morph into a good casino game.

Cribbage was a very big game in our family growing up. It's also very popular in many control tower break rooms. It can be VERY intense strategy with 4 players (2 teams), and cutthroat 3 handed is vicious as well, but most often I think it's a 2 person game, and very enjoyable that way as well. There are neat little cribbage travel sets that are perfect on an airplane, cards and folding wooden board in a nice little leather case.

I'd like to see it make a comeback, and I'd definitely play the casino version if I get the chance.

3-1 Blackjack looks interesting, not doubling (in cases where the dealer card is 7+) may be the best strategy for the overall bet if the player bets substantially more on the side bet, in a few cases, as the player would want to maximize probability of winning.

Do you think Teliot will rip 3-to-1 Blackjack apart?

Here's the way it looks to me:

From your site, Wizard, the probability of a win, discluding pushes on BJ is .4636.

Okay, so the first criteria that must be satisfied is that the cards be the same color, for eight decks:

(208/416 * 207/415 * 2) = 0.4987951807228916

Multiply in the Probability of winning the BJ hand:

0.4987951807228916 * .4636 = 0.23124144578313255 (Probability of a Win)

The probability of a loss is thus 1- 0.23124144578313255 = 0.7687585542168674

The House Edge, not taking pushes into account as affecting only EoR is:

(-0.7687585542168674) + (0.23124144578313255 * 3) = -0.0750342168674698

Is it countable?

Imagine if there's only a deck left and we know that the count is +2 in favor of Reds, so 27/25:

(27/52 * 26/51) + (25/52 * 24/51) = 0.4909502262443439

However, there may come a certain point at which the probability is improved by reduction of a color, let's try +4:

(28/52 * 27/51) + (24/52 * 23/51) = 0.49321266968325794

+6?

(29/52 * 28/51) + (23/52 * 22/51) = 0.49698340874811464

Nope, +8?

(30/52 * 29/51) + (22/52 * 21/51) = 0.502262443438914---Cards match over half of the time!

HE:

(0.502262443438914 * .4636 * 3) - (0.7687585542168674) = -0.0702119478820259

Not enough, what does the probability of the color match have to be in order to reduce the house edge to nothing?

(x * .4636 * 3) - (0.7687585542168674) = 0

x = 0.5527455811

This reflects a count of:

(x/52 * (x-1)/51) + ((52-x)/52 * (51-x)/51) = 0.5527455811

x = 35.1072 AND 16.8928

(36/52 * 35/51) + (16/52 * 15/51) = 0.5656108597285068

(0.5656108597285068 * .4636 * 3) - (0.7687585542168674) = 0.01789302949353988

Conclusion

At any given time, we are looking for a true count of +/-20. If there is 3/4 of a deck left, this would result in a running count of +/-15 of one color or the other.

(27/39 * 26/38) + (12/39 * 11/38) = 0.562753036437247

Perhaps one player could keep a standard Blackjack count while a partner just tracks Blacks/Reds that have come out of the deck, in terms of betting, they would just follow one another's lead.

I'm guessing these situations won't happen very often, (can anyone figure out how often the TC +/- one color or the other goes +/- 20?) so this side bet is only going to be negligibly countable. In any event:

A.) The game could be dealt from a CSM.
B.) One full deck could be cut off of an eight-deck shoe.
C.) Staff should be trained to look for players only making the side bet, at or near Max, towards the end of a shoe.
D.) Do not allow the wager on the side bet to exceed the wager on the base game.

And you thought you asked a simple question....ha!

I expect nothing less from you Babs :)

One for the Money is the only one I like. I would like 3-to-1 Blackjack side bet if not for the House Edge, assuming I got that right, they could reduce the HE by having some kind of bonus (maybe 3.5:1 or 4:1?) on a winning Natural for the Side Bet.

I don't know the house edge for 3 to 1 Blackjack, but here is a scan of the strategy card from the show.

Quote: Mission146

3-1 Blackjack looks interesting, not doubling (in cases where the dealer card is 7+) may be the best strategy for the overall bet if the player bets substantially more on the side bet, in a few cases, as the player would want to maximize probability of winning.

Do you think Teliot will rip 3-to-1 Blackjack apart?

He might, but game protection is an issue on games, and he has very high standards on this, - good for him.

Quote: Mission146

Here's the way it looks to me:............[game protection analysis]....
Conclusion

At any given time, we are looking for a true count of +/-20. If there is 3/4 of a deck left, this would result in a running count of +/-15 of one color or the other.

(27/39 * 26/38) + (12/39 * 11/38) = 0.562753036437247

Perhaps one player could keep a standard Blackjack count while a partner just tracks Blacks/Reds that have come out of the deck, in terms of betting, they would just follow one another's lead.

I'm guessing these situations won't happen very often, (can anyone figure out how often the TC +/- one color or the other goes +/- 20?) so this side bet is only going to be negligibly countable. In any event:

A.) The game could be dealt from a CSM. [Dan: Yes. check. Good.]
B.) One full deck could be cut off of an eight-deck shoe.[Dan: Yes. check. Good.]
C.) Staff should be trained to look for players only making the side bet, at or near Max, towards the end of a shoe.[Dan: Yes. check. Good.]
D.) Do not allow the wager on the side bet to exceed the wager on the base game.[Dan: Yes. check. Good.]

The Game is viable in my opinion, as is the base game of blackjack itself.
3 to 1 BJ is a great, catchy side bet that is viable, IMHO. A good BJ side bet has to easy and irresistible - like Doritos for the gambler.
While a non-voting attendee, I like (my top 5):
1. Arizona Stud;
2. Mulligan 21
3. 3 to 1 BJ
4. One For The Money.
5. Double Draw.

My top five picks reveal that both SHFL games made my personal preference list (or 100% of their display), because I rolled on this "all corporate allegiances aside." Simply put, the SHFL table game design and acquisition team are pros and know what they're doing, - as are we at GG. DEQ did not display but attended, and are building and acquiring games also.

I really liked the games Arizona Stud (Wayne Hong), Mulligan 21 (Michael Templeman, Harry - and of course Kevin Patrick Mulligan), and 3 to 1 BJ (Tim Eaton).

Viable games get installs - and they work. Five out of 24 are very good. The ball rolls off the end of the table at #6 on down, not because "they're bad games," (All are polished) - but because of market and feasibility of distribution.

Quote: Paigowdan

He might, but game protection is an issue on games, and he has very high standards on this, - good for him.

Quote: Mission146

Here's the way it looks to me:............[game protection analysis]....
Conclusion

At any given time, we are looking for a true count of +/-20. If there is 3/4 of a deck left, this would result in a running count of +/-15 of one color or the other.

(27/39 * 26/38) + (12/39 * 11/38) = 0.562753036437247

Perhaps one player could keep a standard Blackjack count while a partner just tracks Blacks/Reds that have come out of the deck, in terms of betting, they would just follow one another's lead.

I'm guessing these situations won't happen very often, (can anyone figure out how often the TC +/- one color or the other goes +/- 20?) so this side bet is only going to be negligibly countable. In any event:

A.) The game could be dealt from a CSM. [Dan: Yes. check. Good.]
B.) One full deck could be cut off of an eight-deck shoe.[Dan: Yes. check. Good.]
C.) Staff should be trained to look for players only making the side bet, at or near Max, towards the end of a shoe.[Dan: Yes. check. Good.]
D.) Do not allow the wager on the side bet to exceed the wager on the base game.[Dan: Yes. check. Good.]

The Game is viable in my opinion, as is the base game of blackjack itself.
3 to 1 BJ is a great, catchy side bet that is viable, IMHO. A good BJ side bet has to easy and irresistible - like Doritos for the gambler.
While a non-voting attendee, I like (my top 5):
1. Arizona Stud;
2. Mulligan 21
3. 3 to 1 BJ
4. One For The Money.
5. Double Draw.

My top five picks reveal that both SHFL games made my personal preference list (or 100% of their display), because I rolled on this "all corporate allegiances aside." Simply put, the SHFL table game design and acquisition team are pros and know what they're doing, - as are we at GG. DEQ did not display but attended, and are building and acquiring games also.

I really liked the games Arizona Stud (Wayne Hong), Mulligan 21 (Michael Templeman, Harry - and of course Kevin Patrick Mulligan), and 3 to 1 BJ (Tim Eaton).

Viable games get installs - and they work. Five out of 24 are very good. The ball rolls off the end of the table at #6 on down, not because "they're bad games," (All are polished) - but because of market and feasibility of distribution.

Thanks, Dan; it's an honor to make your list. I haven't heard much at all about Arizona Stud; would you or someone else who is there please talk about it?