Article for all table game inventors

"The New Table Game Craze," by Madison Zornes

This new article (January, 2014) appears to cover everything.

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=glj

Sure does make it sound damn near impossible. Maybe that's cause it is ?

Quote: teliot

"The New Table Game Craze," by Madison Zornes

This new article (January, 2014) appears to cover everything.

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=glj

Eliot, same as your article some 10-20 years ago, no? Just more examples about the games that we have never seen / heard.

"First, the applicant is required to submit a CD-ROM in PDF or Word format that includes five items:"

I have 2 computers and neither came with a CD-Rom drive...

Quote: UCivan

Eliot, same as your article some 10-20 years ago, no? Just more examples about the games that we have never seen / heard.

No, this article has a great many more footnotes.

Quote: socks

"First, the applicant is required to submit a CD-ROM in PDF or Word format that includes five items:"

I have 2 computers and neither came with a CD-Rom drive...

Really? They are still quite common. Usually on a few select laptop/netbook models don't come with the drive.

Good article. Doesn't say much I haven't said before, but it comes off better in a law journal.

The UNLV Gaming Law Journal is a great journal and I've read every issue of it. I should have written an article for it...too lazy.

It is indeed a long, hard road for the game inventor, but along that rode sits casino representatives such as that Wynn executive who truly does not want to miss out on an opportunity. And Wynn is a name associated with change, not merely in game mix but in change of the industry. Volcanoes, pirate ships, canon, water canyon, musical fountains, botanical gardens, .... heck the word change and opportunity sure come to mind.

We need only go back thru the advertizing archives and see the headlines "double odds" in bright large neon letters along the skyline and then perhaps some sharp soul will find that sign in the neon bone yard and depict the two together for contrast effect.

Gone forever are the peanuts on the floor but also gone forever is Faro, once the most popular game in the nation and depicted in Western movies out of Hollywood for years.

Crowds change. On a daily basis casino crowds change, but over time they change too. My local Seminole casino features Hot Air Balloons, Gourmet Food Trucks and locally brewed beers and ales. Probably unheard of in Vegas, but nevertheless its a trend not to be dismissed.

With there being no real tax base in Nevada other than gambling, the balance between ready acceptance of change and the exclusion of anything threatening is a fine line. No one wants to slam the lid down on Faro if its making a fortune for the taxpayers, but with the entire industry on the line, no one wants to keep Faro going for solely historical reasons. Its a business. It supports an entire state and now with new laws, its clear its a business that transcends state lines.

So be glad for the delays and costs involved.

Heaven help all those annoying posers on the Strip if the crowds ever stop!

Quote: geoff

Really? They are still quite common. Usually on a few select laptop/netbook models don't come with the drive.

The non-notebook is a Mac Mini, late '12 model, which is the most recent. I have an external CD-ROm in a carrying case somewhere, but I'd have to look for it.

Quote: Wizard

Good article. Doesn't say much I haven't said before, but it comes off better in a law journal.

Thanks for validating it with a readthrough. There were several things re: patents, testing, GCB regimen, I didn't know before, so I'm glad you looked it over. I don't know whether they cited you or Eliot more often, but that had to feel good as well. Nice contributions from both of you.

Hello all,

I'm fairly new to this forum, and new to the field of table game invention, but have worked in the gaming industry for many years.

Myself and my business partner are working on a number of new games and side bets. We've taken on board the advice from Wizard and teliot, and various others, at how tough and rare it is to have a successful new game. We're going into this eyes wide open, and consider ourselves fully warned, as the Wizard puts it.

Regarding the evaluation procedure for new games, we expected something like this when we submitted the game for full approval, but to have such expensive and restrictive stipulations just for a field trial, when you have no real idea if the game is going to be popular with players, seems ridiculous. And this is just for one state too. It took the wind out of our sails for a bit. I particuarly enjoyed this angry rant from Paigowdan when i was going through the archives, as it pretty much summed up how we felt about it...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/2723-game-variations-in-nevada/#post27040

Also regarding the article, it says the applicant must send a cheque for $5,000, but the form on the Nevada Gaming Control Board website says $3,000. Has it been increased?

Another question is the requirement for laboratary testiing for the mathematical analysis. Why is independent mathematical analysis, from a qualified mathematician, not acceptable, rather than insisting on expensive lab testing? Or have i just answered my own question, and its about more money for them?

It's hard to argue with the conclusion of the article. A fair and regulated industry benefits us all. So stipulations such as these are necessary and fair when submitting the game for full approval, but extremely unfair and restrictive for field trials in my opinion.

We've decided it's just not practical for us to start in the U.S, and are looking at other countries to introduce our games.

Just to end on a positive note...Thanks to everyone that contributes to this forum, it really is great. It's been invaluable to us in our research.

I saw that article when it came out (I am cited in some of the footnotes). The patent info is not completely accurate and not complete (nowhere is the section 101 issue really discussed). Otherwise, it's a good article.

Quote: Buzzard

Sure does make it sound damn near impossible. Maybe that's cause it is ?

It's a tough business, but somebody's gotta do it.

Lucky, you must have balls bigger than King Kong !

Quote: jon

I saw that article when it came out (I am cited in some of the footnotes). The patent info is not completely accurate and not complete (nowhere is the section 101 issue really discussed). Otherwise, it's a good article.

Thanks, jon, I was wondering specifically about the patent info; it was different from my understanding, which is far from complete. I will research further. Noticed your cites also. Will you be requesting a clarification or anything, if the info is inaccurate and/or incomplete?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Will you be requesting a clarification or anything, if the info is inaccurate and/or incomplete?

Oh, the article is already published so he can't modify anything now. He could have emailed me (or I'm sure Rich as well) a draft of the article so we could have reviewed it and commented to him before he published it. Nothing is blatantly wrong, but some things are a bit misleading to some extent. If you are curious what I am referring to, you can PM me.

Quote: teddys

The UNLV Gaming Law Journal is a great journal and I've read every issue of it. I should have written an article for it...too lazy.

I agree, it is a great article. Is there a location that i can access more journals like this one? I'm very interested in reading as many articles as i can about gaming.

Quote: RealizeGaming

I agree, it is a great article. Is there a location that i can access more journals like this one? I'm very interested in reading as many articles as i can about gaming.

I think the UT law library has a subscription. Oh, the hours I spent there...

Edit: Hey now! Every issue online.

Thanks Teddys