Dead end for Poker For Roulette ?

Last month, a month AFTER G2E, I was again in SHFL's offices, giving a demonstration of my Poker For Roulette side bet. This particular demonstration was different than the Focus Group in 2012 or Game Demo Day in 2013. I was invited by Roger Snow to show the game to a couple high-level executives from a big name strip casino. This meeting was all about Poker For Roulette. Roger and another SHFL person was also at the meeting. I explained the game concept, as well as my concept for how the dealer will operate the game, both for a manual method and an electronic method.

I assume everyone here has read enough of my other threads that you all know the concept of the game. If not, go to my website. Or just realize this: The concept is, players make a bet that the next 3 spins will have a result that looks like a poker hand. It could be a simple repeat for a pair, or a three-peat for a three of a kind, or straights, etc.

Although I have described my dealer's operation of the game in detail on the website, I never used photos before. They really help tell the story of the manual method. Click on any photo for a larger version.

This is how I imagine the betting area:


I have that image on the website, and then describe it's use:

Quote:

Bets are placed in the designated position along the back wall of the layout, using Roulette chips. When the dealer announces, "No more bets," he will place a clear cover over the bets. After the ball settles into a pocket and the regular bets are resolved, the dealer will put a marker on top of the cover, showing the current spin result. He then slides this cover and the chips under it into the #1 position, while also sliding the covers, chips and markers forward from #1 to #2 and #2 to #3.

The dealer will then examine the three spin markers to see if they make a winning combination. If so, he uncovers the chips on the #3 position, and pays them as indicated. If the three spin combination is not a winner, he uncovers the chips and mucks them along with other losing bets.

Here's photos of examples.


As you can see, there are chips on the #2 spot, awaiting one more spin, while there are also chips on the #1 spot, awaiting two more spins, as well as new bets, awaiting three spins.


OK, we have another spin, so we place that marker on top of the new bets, and slide everything over. Upon examination, the three results are not a winner, so uncover the chips on the #3 spot, and slide them into the muck pile.

Here's another example.


Again, there are chips on the #2 spot, awaiting one more spin, while there are also chips on the #1 spot, awaiting two more spins, as well as new bets, awaiting three spins.


This time the results are better, because we got a Wild Straight. Uncover the chips on the #3 spot and pay the winners.

Note that the chips on the #2 spot are also winners, for a Wild Pair (11, 00, xx). But since there are 7 results for the xx that can improve the outcome, we have to wait. (9, 10, 12 or 13 for another Wild Straight, or 11, 0 or 00 for a Wild Three Of A Kind). Similarly, the chips on the #1 spot are also guaranteed a minimum of a Wild Pair, but anything can happen on the next two spins.

There is NO advantage to players who make the bet now, because all new bets are always for the next three spins. On the other hand, there's no disadvantage either, and you never know when a good result will come, so players are encouraged to have multiple simultaneous unresolved bets. That's why an elaborate tracking method that allows for multiple simultaneous bets is needed.

In addition to the covers needed to protect the unresolved bets (and to prevent past posting), we need 2 buttons for every number (not three - a yellow "Three Of A Kind" button alleviates that need). That's 78 buttons. You need a way to organize them, so I came up with this nifty rack:


When I did this demo at the SHFL Game Demo Day this past May, Roger was very impressed with my method. Unfortunately, he said that although it's the best method he can imagine for a manual method, it's too cumbersome. I was quick to agree. The same comments were made by the casino execs last month.


The obvious alternative is an electronic version. I have a concept for this as well.

The dealer removes the bet every time, so the player's spot has lights to track the prior unresolved bets. In this image, the 1 and 2 lights are lit. This is similar to having chips under the cover on the #1 and #2 spots in the manual method.

Roger told me that my electronic version of tracking looks good, except it will cost in the neighborhood of $100,000 to develop, test and get gaming approval for such a system. Ditto for merely adding it to their iTable or Rapid Roulette.

Understandably, nobody wants to spend that kind of money on an unproven game. And nobody wants to use my manual method to test the game.


The casino executives had some comments, but the biggest was that my manual method was too cumbersome - that there would be too many dealer mistakes involved. Unfortunately, I agree. And the only answer is an electronic method of some type. Anyone got a spare $100K?

The meeting with the casino execs was supposed to be just to get an opinion about the game, not a sales pitch. Therefore, although they liked the game itself, I didn't ask the obvious question, which was, "If it were available with the electronic interface I described (or on an iTable/Rapid Roulette), would they consider a placement?" In my post-meeting follow-up with Roger, he said that the answer would have been "Yes", and a big yes at that.


Roger has also told me that there was a lot of discussion at the SHFL booth for G2E for a Roulette side bet. But the discussion also revolved around their iTable and Rapid Roulette. I.E. If there was a good side bet on either of those electronic systems, there would be come serious interest.

So maybe my idea hasn't hit a dead-end after all. Maybe I just gotta wait until the interest builds to the point where someone has gotta gamble and develop an electronic interface for my bet. Or someone is willing to field trial it with my manual method, just to see if the players like the game....

Dave,

The roulette trend electronic sign is tracking the numbers in real time; you already have an electronic record of the numbers. The bet payoff is simple odds, so hang a bracket (signage with your sidebet name on it with pointers above and below the outer included bets) ON THE SIGN that delineates the last 3 (or 4 or 5, whichever bet they're doing) and a PFR betting spot on the table. When someone bets the PFR, after the sign updates but before the next spin, dealer looks at the sign and can pay the bet if there's a winning value between the brackets. Player can either take down the bet after it pays or let it ride. A losing combination gets the PFR spot mucked. The spot gets re-bet each time. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, and you're not allowing people to bet it only after they see a pair or a wild - not sure I understand how you're avoiding people Wonging the bet.

EDIT: Re: Wonging - So maybe people are betting 3 in advance of the resolution, and that's why the slide? When they get in after a wild, they're betting for the time AFTER the wild has cleared the board for resolution of that bet? So you're only paying the 3 spot each time, but those who are on the 2 spot now know they've got a winner coming along, but new bettors are on the PFR spot 3 away from the 3 spot at the time they start the bet, and each bet rides for 3 spins before resolution. Is that how it works? That would make sense, anyway.

For trial purposes, could the bet just be available every 3 spins? It would be an abbreviated version that's much easier to manage?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Dave,

The roulette trend electronic sign is tracking the numbers in real time; you already have an electronic record of the numbers. The bet payoff is simple odds, so hang a bracket (signage with your sidebet name on it with pointers above and below the outer included bets) ON THE SIGN that delineates the last 3...

Yeah, I thought about that too. But you can't use the history display to determine a winner. It WOULD be much simpler without the 78 buttons and button tray.

You CAN do exactly what you're talking about, as long as there are methods in place in the event of a sensor malfunction. iTable and Rapid Roulette already have a method in place to allow the dealer to correct sensor errors. But then, you can't really add a side bet using chips to those tables, can you? And adding the side bet to the electronic interface would be costly.

On the other hand, I have reason to believe that in Nevada (and perhaps elsewhere) you CAN do what we're talking about, without any additional electronics. You just need a manual method such as my buttons handy in case of a sensor failure.

I'm gonna do more research. If that's true, expect to see me participating at Raving in 2014.

Quote: Babs

EDIT: Re: Wonging - So maybe people are betting 3 in advance of the resolution, and that's why the slide? When they get in after a wild, they're betting for the time AFTER the wild has cleared the board for resolution of that bet? So you're only paying the 3 spot each time, but those who are on the 2 spot now know they've got a winner coming along, but new bettors are on the PFR spot 3 away from the 3 spot at the time they start the bet, and each bet rides for 3 spins before resolution. Is that how it works? That would make sense, anyway.

Exactly.

And this was brought up with the casino execs, as in, "What's to stop someone from betting right after a 0 shows up?" My response was that if a dealer saw a shit-load of bets after the 0, that they would remind the players that the new bets are for the next three spins. And even if the dealer said nothing, when the player didn't win as he might have expected, the dealer then explains it. Any reasonably intelligent person would probably respond, "Oh, duh."

Quote: 21Revolution

For trial purposes, could the bet just be available every 3 spins? It would be an abbreviated version that's much easier to manage?

Yes. In fact, that's what one of the casino execs suggested.

The problem with that is, who decides when the three spins begin? What if a player steps up to the table and wants to bet it after it began?

And most importantly, as I point out on my Sample Spins page, players are encouraged and/or advised to make the bet every spin.

Quote: Sample Spins page

Each bet is active and unresolved until after the third spin. This may cause some bettors to assume that they can only place the bet once every three spins. Not only is this not true, it can cause the bettor to miss out on some winning combinations.

Check out the page for examples of why players are encouraged to make the bet every spin. Therefore, you don't want to prevent people from making the bet whenever they want.



Thanks for the ideas. Keep the comments coming!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yeah, I thought about that too. But you can't use the history display to determine a winner. It WOULD be much simpler without the 78 buttons and button tray.

You CAN do exactly what you're talking about, as long as there are methods in place in the event of a sensor malfunction. iTable and Rapid Roulette already have a method in place to allow the dealer to correct sensor errors. But then, you can't really add a side bet using chips to those tables, can you? And adding the side bet to the electronic interface would be costly.

On the other hand, I have reason to believe that in Nevada (and perhaps elsewhere) you CAN do what we're talking about, without any additional electronics. You just need a manual method such as my buttons handy in case of a sensor failure.

I'm gonna do more research. If that's true, expect to see me participating at Raving in 2014.



Exactly.

And this was brought up with the casino execs, as in, "What's to stop someone from betting right after a 0 shows up?" My response was that if a dealer saw a shit-load of bets after the 0, that they would remind the players that the new bets are for the next three spins. And even if the dealer said nothing, when the player didn't win as he might have expected, the dealer then explains it. Any reasonably intelligent person would probably respond, "Oh, duh."




Yes. In fact, that's what one of the casino execs suggested.

The problem with that is, who decides when the three spins begin? What if a player steps up to the table and wants to bet it after it began?

And most importantly, as I point out on my Sample Spins page, players are encouraged and/or advised to make the bet every spin.Check out the page for examples of why players are encouraged to make the bet every spin. Therefore, you don't want to prevent people from making the bet whenever they want.



Thanks for the ideas. Keep the comments coming!

Dave,

I would say if the electronics totally failed, they could pay off all the bets 1/1 (for good customer service) or declare "no bets" and return the chips, and just not accept any more until it was fixed, instead of having to keep a manual update. There's a good 20-30 seconds while the dealer's just waiting for people to finish betting; they have 1/2 second to glance and verify the last number registered (I don't know how often the signs are in error; if that's a common and persistent problem, what I suggest wouldn't work, but it seems like the signs are pretty accurate in my limited play experience).

If you do use the cap-and-push method, capping at the same time as the dealer says "no more bets" doesn't seem like it's a lot of extra work to me. So that would be your cut-off, same as all other table bets. I have to admit, I think a sliding bottom with two handles on the side would work better than 3 individual boxes trying to slide on the felt. I'll try and draw up what I'm envisioning. But it would be a single mechanism, a long and narrow chip shoe with 3 inner walls, and the end plunger would drop the active bets out the far end onto the felt while loading the current bets into lockoff. Use the top handle (lid) to open the inbound box to bets; use the bottom handle ( full lid plus dividers) to lift, reverse and reset the plunger, and re-segregate the chips. It could be made of clear acrylic slabs with steel cornered rails on the bottom, with little rollers or bearings to let it move freely. The whole thing could be on the felt when they wanted to offer the bet, and put away underneath when the table was not in use. It would be about 4" by 12" by 3".

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I didn't ask the obvious question, which was, "If it were available with the electronic interface I described (or on an iTable/Rapid Roulette), would they consider a placement?" In my post-meeting follow-up with Roger, he said that the answer would have been "Yes", and a big yes at that.
...

Of course they would, they have nothing to lose and
no money invested. Just don't take it as a sign they
love your game.

When my wife had the brick and mortar business, she
was always being asked by vending guys if they could
put a machine in her store. The bubblegum type, small.
She always gave them a trial because it cost her nothing
and if it was a success, she got a percentage of the profits.
She didn't like or not like the things, it was all about costing
her nothing and the possibility of making a profit.

Babs -

Using my button system in the event of an electronics failure was more of an option if the casino wanted it. I figure a casino will either close the table or stop offering the side bet should the electronics fail. Then just use some manual method (my buttons or something else) to resolve the pending bets. Then again, I don't know how often those sensors fail, or how hard they are to fix, etc.

I thought about a device similar to the chip shoe you've described, to contain the chips awaiting resolution. The problem is, whatever I use needs to be small. One of the objections I get is that the bet is taking away room where the dealer makes change, and sorts chips, etc. The covers I use are about 3.25" x 2" x 2" and allow two stacks of about 9 chips under each cover. Although it doesn't appear this way in the first image above, the ovals I'm adding to the table are slightly smaller than the ovals in the regular betting area. Plus, your concept of dropping the #3 chips onto the felt at the same time as locking up the new bets is no good. I have to have ALL THREE stacks covered while the ball is spinning.



Bob -

I understand what you're saying, but I believe that the casinos really are looking to get some sort of Roulette side bet. It's just a matter of which one and how soon.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Bob -

I understand what you're saying, but I believe that the casinos really are looking to get some sort of Roulette side bet. It's just a matter of which one and how soon.

Roulette side bets are tough. You already have so
many places to make a bet, and most of those never
get used. I would try and come up with one, but I
really don't want anything to do with the DarkSide,
I don't want to be any part of that. Enabling is not
my thing.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Babs -

Using my button system in the event of an electronics failure was more of an option if the casino wanted it. I figure a casino will either close the table or stop offering the side bet should the electronics fail. Then just use some manual method (my buttons or something else) to resolve the pending bets. Then again, I don't know how often those sensors fail, or how hard they are to fix, etc.

I thought about a device similar to the chip shoe you've described, to contain the chips awaiting resolution. The problem is, whatever I use needs to be small. One of the objections I get is that the bet is taking away room where the dealer makes change, and sorts chips, etc. The covers I use are about 3.25" x 2" x 2" and allow two stacks of about 9 chips under each cover. Although it doesn't appear this way in the first image above, the ovals I'm adding to the table are slightly smaller than the ovals in the regular betting area. Plus, your concept of dropping the #3 chips onto the felt at the same time as locking up the new bets is no good. I have to have ALL THREE stacks covered while the ball is spinning.



.

Dave,

When the dealer says "no more bets", I was envisioning them then pushing the slide, which would eject the waiting #3 bets onto the PFR spot and lock the other 3 bets in correct order in the shoe for the next bet. The shoe could then be set aside, with the bets safely inside and ready for the next round, and the only spot on the layout occupied would be the PFR bet, using up a lot less room. In fact, we could design it on the vertical, with the bets dropping out the bottom and each set dropping down one place when the mechanism is triggered. Bets could be dropped in the top. Once the dealer's done resolving the bets and making change, the shoe can come back and be reset for new bets. I bet if we made it a spiffy acrylic mechanism, people would bet it just for the fun of seeing their bet work its way from the top to the bottom.