Raving 2013
Quote: doubleluckThanks Buzz.... And thank YOU for YOUR service to the World's Greatest Air Force!
I didn't know Buzz served in the RAF :D
Quote: Mission146Awesome!
I'd cover 11 letters and spell, 'This game sucks.'
That would pay 6-5 I believe. :)
ZCore13
Hit rate/opportunity to cap: about 46% vs 22%
Average win: 1 unit vs. 2.75 units
Average Cap Amount : 1 unit vs. 3.75 units (U can cap orig. HM wager along w/ winnings)
When I have played HM, the hit rate was never a concern. My biggest gripe was that roughly 2/3 of the hits only resulted in a 1:1 pay and capping with 2 units on about half of your wins wasn't enough action (capping 10 units on that AK suited was really sweet, only has happened once for me, but I remember it). Capping with 1 unit twice as often isn't going feel like a lot of juice to players either, IMHO.
Also, players hate losing ties....I experienced that first hand in a field trial with a game with that feature. You can have them push on ties or get a 2nd chance to win on ties (like Casino War), but an out right loss when they didn't get beat is a hard pill to swallow....particularly when it happens 1 out of 13 times which was the exact fequency in my game. Think about a 6 player table, 50% of the time with a full table, everyone is going to see 1 player get screwed by the ties lose rule every other hand.
All that being said, the game is simple, easy to play along with Regular blackjack and I definitely see the appeal of putting it out on the floor. And I think it will get out there and quickly depending on jurisdictional approvals.
The IP issue that DJ alludes to is one that concerned me as well, but my guess is until the game is proven as a winner and generating revenue, SHFL won't care. If it turns out to be a commercial success and does infringe on SHFL IP, well, contact from SHFL legal is likely forthcoming.
Quote: ParadigmWar Blackjack vs. House Money (these are rough numbers):
Hit rate/opportunity to cap: about 46% vs 22%
Average win: 1 unit vs. 2.75 units
Average Cap Amount : 1 unit vs. 3.75 units (U can cap orig. HM wager along w/ winnings)
When I have played HM, the hit rate was never a concern. My biggest gripe was that roughly 2/3 of the hits only resulted in a 1:1 pay and capping with 2 units on about half of your wins wasn't enough action (capping 10 units on that AK suited was really sweet, only has happened once for me, but I remember it). Capping with 1 unit twice as often isn't going feel like a lot of juice to players either, IMHO.
Also, players hate losing ties....I experienced that first hand in a field trial with a game with that feature. You can have them push on ties or get a 2nd chance to win on ties (like Casino War), but an out right loss when they didn't get beat is a hard pill to swallow....particularly when it happens 1 out of 13 times which was the exact fequency in my game. Think about a 6 player table, 50% of the time with a full table, everyone is going to see 1 player get screwed by the ties lose rule every other hand.
All that being said, the game is simple, easy to play along with Regular blackjack and I definitely see the appeal of putting it out on the floor. And I think it will get out there and quickly depending on jurisdictional approvals.
The IP issue that DJ alludes to is one that concerned me as well, but my guess is until the game is proven as a winner and generating revenue, SHFL won't care. If it turns out to be a commercial success and does infringe on SHFL IP, well, contact from SHFL legal is likely forthcoming.
Am I confusing something here? i think you are saying average win on the War side bet is 1 unit, but the side bet allows a higher bet than the main BJ bet. You're also saying the average cap amount is 1 unit.
To me part of the intrigue of the game is that a player can place $5 on the main bet and say $15 for example on the side bet. If they win the side bet with a 10 vs 6 for example and choose to cap, they get their original $15 back and cap with their $15 winnings. Now their main bet is $20 in a favorable player 10 vs Dealer 6 and the only of theirs (prior to the start of the hand) is $5.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13I think it had some good potential but they did a terrible job of explaining the game and payouts to people that had little or no knowledge of Cribbage. They were experts but weren't able to "dummy down" and go slow enough for people new to the concept. Big mistake.
ZCore13
You're correct about the 'unwashed masses', but I was simply working on the assumption that a crib player would 'get it' right away and a non-crib player simply wouldn't care. It limits the market, but the market it does attract wouldn't need much explanation.
Quote: Zcore13I think it had some good potential but they did a terrible job of explaining the game and payouts to people that had little or no knowledge of Cribbage. They were experts but weren't able to "dummy down" and go slow enough for people new to the concept. Big mistake.
ZCore13
Honestly, I don't see how you COULD explain cribbage payouts in short order. Finding all the "fifteen twos" would be a rough challenge for a beginner.
Quote: Zcore13Am I confusing something here? i think you are saying average win on the War side bet is 1 unit, but the side bet allows a higher bet than the main BJ bet. You're also saying the average cap amount is 1 unit.
To me part of the intrigue of the game is that a player can place $5 on the main bet and say $15 for example on the side bet. If they win the side bet with a 10 vs 6 for example and choose to cap, they get their original $15 back and cap with their $15 winnings. Now their main bet is $20 in a favorable player 10 vs Dealer 6 and the only of theirs (prior to the start of the hand) is $5.
ZCore13
I TOTALLY missed that, but yeah, according to the rule card that Mike posted, that's right.
I gotta think that's a typo. You can't, or shouldn't, be allowed to bet more on War than the BJ bet. Of, have a max cap equal to the BJ bet.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I doubt whether BlackJack War will ever see an install. The key feature, as I understand it, is the ability to take the War winnings and cap the BJ bet. That's the key feature of SHFL's House Money. As you may recall, when I first wrote about HM, I said that the side bet itself was nothing special, but the option to cap the BJ bet was huge.
I disagree, Dave. A re-intro may work. Bet limits are important as to how the bet "feels" (juice-wise) to the gambler. 2nd time might be a charm.
Quote: DJTeddybearIt seems to me that that feature should have been well protected by SHFL when they created HM. On the assumption that there are no patent infringement problems, then I gotta say that making the Ace low is a mistake. Yeah, I realize that capping a bet when you have an ace is a huge player advantage, but one of the beautiful parts of HM was that some of the best BJ hands also won the most on the HM side bet - and you COULD use it to cap the BJ bet. Considering that all ties other than Aces lose, I find it hard to accept that there's not enough edge to allow Aces to be high in War. Perhaps if Ace ties is a loss, then it would work? Or maybe if the War winnings are limited to even money for a BJ...
1. The inventor of Blackjack War is a veteran Patent Attorney. I think he has this covered.
2. The Ace as low is doable, and game protection/HE would be shot with Ace as high.
ZCore13
Quote: thecesspitI didn't know Buzz served in the RAF :D
Hey, I had to enlist in the RAF and on April 21 was finally able to do what you redcoats could not. I ended the streak of 80 air combat victories by Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen !
Quote: Zcore13In theory that would be correct. In reality 75 of players don't play very well. They don't play perfect blackjack and don't really care. They are probably playing the main game at 4 or 5 percent house edge anyway.
ZCore13
FYI-in my online experience, I've seen a range of 4-10 times the HE as the actual hold for blackjack games, depending on the specific rules and country of origin.
I tend to agree. It's a different decision point that leads to capping the main bet. Just like Switch has a push covered on a dealer breaking with 22-26. But there is a game in Colorado that pushes on 16. As I saw another somewhere with a push on 17. Who knew LOL
Quote: Scooter77FYI-in my online experience, I've seen a range of 4-10 times the HE as the actual hold for blackjack games, depending on the specific rules and country of origin.
I think you are both wrong ! Playing to never bust , never hit 12-16 is only a 3.91 HE. Or Mimic the dealer, never double or split, never hit a soft 17 or 18, ALWAYS hits 16 or less is a 5.48 HE.
Drop is more a reflection of how often the players grind the bankroll over and over.
I rarely see a ploppy play worse that never bust, have not ever seen a drunk play anywhere as bad as Mimic the dealer. I mean there are only a limited number of opportunities to be stupid and the wrong decision is usually minor.
Did anyone get the HE on War Blackjack side bet with optimal play?
Quote: BuzzardI think you are both wrong ! Playing to never bust , never hit 12-16 is only a 3.91 HE. Or Mimic the dealer, never double or split, never hit a soft 17 or 18, ALWAYS hits 16 or less is a 5.48 HE.
Drop is more a reflection of how often the players grind the bankroll over and over.
I rarely see a ploppy play worse that never bust, have not ever seen a drunk play anywhere as bad as Mimic the dealer. I mean there are only a limited number of opportunities to be stupid and the wrong decision is usually minor.
Not sure how I'm wrong when I say actual is 4 - 5 percent house edge and then you proceed to say never bust is 3,91% (pretty close to 4%) and mimic the dealer is 5.48% (pretty close to 5%). Add in players who don't play those two schemes but double incorrectly, split incorrectly and hit incorrectly while just playing for fun and you've got A LOT of players playing with the same main bet HE as the available side bet (Lucky Ladies 25% excluded).
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13In theory that would be correct. In reality 75 of players don't play very well. They don't play perfect blackjack and don't really care. They are probably playing the main game at 4 or 5 percent house edge anyway.
ZCore13
That may be true, but one advantage player can wipe out that edge.
Quote: Buzzard... Just like Switch has a push covered on a dealer breaking with 22-26.
Switch has 22-26 covered in his patent, but he only uses Push-22 on his games.
Quote: etablegamesThank you so much, Mike and Daniel. We are guilty for not updating the video on youtube. It is now down. The new version will be up soon. It was a good show. Even though we did not win in the contest, we have received some serious commitments from attendees. See Arizona Stud in casinos near you soon.
Video version notwithstanding, I heard positive comments about Arizona Stud from most of the attendees I talked with. Another good game, Wayne! Good luck out there.
Quote: DJTeddyBearInteresting comment, particularly when you consider the source is someone who has told me on many occasions that he thinks Poker For Roulette will fail.
Sick about the outcome? On the contrary, I congratulate the Luck brothers and wish them success.
FYI: Variation? Nope. RiverBoat Roulette and Poker For Roulette are SIDE BETS. you can still play the standard game and ignore the side bets if you choose to do so.
---
Only a couple people here know this: I had a visit to SHFL's offices, a month AFTER G2E, to show my game one more time. The very short version is that although people have high opinions of my game concept, everyone hates my manual tracking method. If an electronic version were easy and/or simple, I'd probably already be seeing installs. Or at least field trials.
Similarly, if I was at Raving showing my game with my convoluted manual tracking method, I doubt it would have scored very highly.
Please don't respond to these comments. I'll soon be posting a longer version, in a thread about my game.
---
I've never been to Raving. It was only after it became too late that I started to get the full concept. I wish I was there, if only as a spectator...
---
Congratulations to Babs for what people have described as "Walking into SHFL's office, and walking out with a deal." It doesn't often happen that way, but there is history of such a thing. I don't know how quickly it happened, but Mike demoed Mulligan Poker at the Focus Group last year, and it wasn't long before SHFL had an install. There are probably more examples. Unfortunately, it didn't go well for Mike. I wish Babs better luck.
I am so glad I got to meet you at G2E, Dave; you have such a generous spirit. Thank you for the good wishes and lack of rancor towards both me and the Luck brothers, as well as the other inventors who participated. I think whenever anybody succeeds here, it strengthens the whole independent design/developer community. And, of course, OftM hasn't been installed anywhere yet, so we're taking nothing for granted - the adventure continues.
I'm looking forward to seeing your longer thread on PFR, because I don't understand the issue you're seeing about the manual tracking. Maybe with all of us looking at it we can help you break it loose?
Quote: beachbumbabsII'm looking forward to seeing your longer thread on PFR, because I don't understand the issue you're seeing about the manual tracking. Maybe with all of us looking at it we can help you break it loose?
Here's the long description I promised, although I don't see how we can overcome the problem:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/15892-dead-end-for-poker-for-roulette/
Thanks DJ!Quote: DJTeddyBearSick about the outcome? On the contrary, I congratulate the Luck brothers and wish them success.
The video clips for Arizona Stud in the 2013 Table Games Conference have been uploaded. It is a 5-card stud poker game.Quote: PaigowdanThe 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).
Arizona Stud - Part I and Arizona Stud - Part II
Quote: WizardSpeaking of video clips, check out Tables Games Conference 2013 of lots of pictures from the show. Very nicely done.
Also spent a few seconds on just how hot the dealer for "Mulligan 21" was...haha
Quote: WizardSpeaking of video clips, check out Tables Games Conference 2013 of lots of pictures from the show. Very nicely done.
Not sure who put this together, but well done. Very much appreciate OftM inclusion towards the end; thank you!
Quote: etablegamesThe video clips for Arizona Stud in the 2013 Table Games Conference have been uploaded. It is a 5-card stud poker game.
Arizona Stud - Part I and Arizona Stud - Part II
Keep us up to date on placements as you get them, please! I'd enjoy going and playing this once it's out there, and best of variance on it.
Quote: jonOne game I liked that seems to be unrecognized was Showdown Poker (and it wasn't just the booth babes). Anyone know anything about this game? It seemed a bit like Multistrike Poker on a table and I thought it was fairly solid.
I also liked this one. Haven't heard anyone else mention it.
You made two mandatory equal bets, let's call them 2nd Hand & Third Hand. Player was dealt six cards and had to arrange them into 3 two card poker hands. Dealer then randomly dealt themselves two cards for their first hand, two for their 2nd Hand and two for their 3rd Hand. The dealer could not set their hand any other way then as the cards were dealt.
The two sets of hands were compared. The player had to win the first two hands or all bets were lost. If the player won the first & second hand, but not the third, the 2nd Hand bet was paid even money and the third hand bet was lost, a net push. If the player won all three hands, the player was paid even money on the 2nd Hand bet and 2-1 on the Third Hand bet for a net win of 3 units.
There was at least one side bet, but I can't recall the concepts there.
The game was interesting, but I didn't like the fact that you had to win all three hands to make a profit. I realize the dealer's cards were random, but that still seemed like a difficult hurdle. Wonder what the hit rate was excluding pushes.
DEQ has something to do with Showdown Poker as indicated by one DEQ executive. The game was not about the showdown between two on-site hot hot dealers.Quote: jonOne game I liked that seems to be unrecognized was Showdown Poker (and it wasn't just the booth babes). Anyone know anything about this game? It seemed a bit like Multistrike Poker on a table and I thought it was fairly solid.
