Introducing Royal Showdown
I'm excited to introduce my game, Royal Showdown, to the forums!
I met some of you at the Ravings conference in November, where I first demoed the game.
The game is very simple - the basic goal is to get more face cards than the dealer.
Both the player and dealer are dealt 3 cards, and the player has the option to bet on Jacks, Queens, and/or Kings after the dealer partially reveals his/her hand. The player wins by having more of the selected face card than the dealer, with increasing payouts if the player beats the dealer by 2 or 3 cards of the selected rank. The game also has a side wager that pays out for any diamond suited face cards in the player's hand.
The game uses Pinochle card decks, containing only 9's through Aces, so face cards comprise 50% of the deck.
The game has a house edge of 3.4% for the main bet and 7.4% for the side wager.
I just released mobile versions of the game - check them out below and let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks!
(links removed by mod)
Quote: royalshowdownHi All,
I'm excited to introduce my game, Royal Showdown, to the forums!
I met some of you at the Ravings conference in November, where I first demoed the game.
The game is very simple - the basic goal is to get more face cards than the dealer.
Both the player and dealer are dealt 3 cards, and the player has the option to bet on Jacks, Queens, and/or Kings after the dealer partially reveals his/her hand. The player wins by having more of the selected face card than the dealer, with increasing payouts if the player beats the dealer by 2 or 3 cards of the selected rank. The game also has a side wager that pays out for any diamond suited face cards in the player's hand.
The game uses Pinochle card decks, containing only 9's through Aces, so face cards comprise 50% of the deck.
The game has a house edge of 3.4% for the main bet and 7.4% for the side wager.
I just released mobile versions of the game - check them out below and let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks!
(links removed by mod)
Hi, royalshowdown, and welcome. I'm torn, because I'm interested in the links, and very much respect that you entered Raving, but we don't accept this kind of solicitation from a new member without permission from the Wizard. (See forum rules, especially #3) Could you please PM him (use the "Private Message" feature in the light blue menu bar above) and get his permission to provide those links to the forum? Then you should be able to re-post them and get the discussion and feedback you want. Thanks very much!
Quote: royalshowdownHi All,
I'm excited to introduce my game, Royal Showdown, to the forums!
I met some of you at the Ravings conference in November, where I first demoed the game.
The game is very simple - the basic goal is to get more face cards than the dealer.
Both the player and dealer are dealt 3 cards, and the player has the option to bet on Jacks, Queens, and/or Kings after the dealer partially reveals his/her hand. The player wins by having more of the selected face card than the dealer, with increasing payouts if the player beats the dealer by 2 or 3 cards of the selected rank. The game also has a side wager that pays out for any diamond suited face cards in the player's hand.
The game uses Pinochle card decks, containing only 9's through Aces, so face cards comprise 50% of the deck.
The game has a house edge of 3.4% for the main bet and 7.4% for the side wager.
I just released mobile versions of the game - check them out below and let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks!
(links removed by mod)
Congratulations!!! Do you have any placement now? where is it played?
Quote: DCSBLUEWho did your app? Looks good
Thanks! I wrote the actual app myself. A friend of mine did the graphic design work.
Quote: RoyalBJCongratulations!!! Do you have any placement now? where is it played?
Thanks!
No placements yet. I'm currently reaching out to some tribal casinos.
Quote: beachbumbabsHi, royalshowdown, and welcome. I'm torn, because I'm interested in the links, and very much respect that you entered Raving, but we don't accept this kind of solicitation from a new member without permission from the Wizard. (See forum rules, especially #3) Could you please PM him (use the "Private Message" feature in the light blue menu bar above) and get his permission to provide those links to the forum? Then you should be able to re-post them and get the discussion and feedback you want. Thanks very much!
The line between presenting and promoting a game is a fine one. It's very tricky to know what is allowed/dis-allowed in a sub-forum titled "game inventors corner." The name itself would seem to suggest that inventors should come here to discuss, vet, and promote their games. But that activity appears to be disallowed by rule #3. It's probably good for the forum in general if some guidance could be given about what can and can't be posted in this particular sub-forum.
Is the Wizard the right person to be giving permission for rule 3 exceptions? That might still be the case, but I think the rule was written when this was the Wizard's site. Post-sale, is Zuga now the proper admin to give that blessing?
I am sure he is trying to get some feedback on the game. I assume based on your response that the App has some commercialization feature for RSD as opposed to a pure "play for free" type app, but I don't see the links at this point.
From a Forum perspective, I took his post as one trying to get feedback on the game like any other inventor posting to the Game Inventors Corner, but again, I don't have the links anymore to get the full picture you had initially.
My vote would be to cut him some slack......if I have to pay for the App, I won't be trying it out & my guess is neither will a lot of members. If it is free play and he wants the feedback, I am sure he will get a lot of responses.
Quote: ParadigmHey BBB, I met RoyalShowDown at Raving, he is a good egg.
I am sure he is trying to get some feedback on the game. I assume based on your response that the App has some commercialization feature for RSD as opposed to a pure "play for free" type app, but I don't see the links at this point.
From a Forum perspective, I took his post as one trying to get feedback on the game like any other inventor posting to the Game Inventors Corner, but again, I don't have the links anymore to get the full picture you had initially.
My vote would be to cut him some slack......if I have to pay for the App, I won't be trying it out & my guess is neither will a lot of members. If it is free play and he wants the feedback, I am sure he will get a lot of responses.
The app is 100% free, and fairly easy to find if you search for the game in either of the two largest app markets. I also posted a link to my informational website - also easy to find if you add a dot com to the game's name.
I'm simply looking for feedback and advice from the community here and figured that a link to my website and to an electronic demo was the best way to do so.
Quote: royalshowdownThe app is 100% free, and fairly easy to find if you search for the game in either of the two largest app markets. I also posted a link to my informational website - also easy to find if you add a dot com to the game's name.
I'm simply looking for feedback and advice from the community here and figured that a link to my website and to an electronic demo was the best way to do so.
I meant what I said about respecting your presence at Raving and I'm glad to see you here. I feel confident the Wizard would allow the link, as he's done a review on Raving 2014 and reported on the games presented there (over at WizardofOdds.com if you haven't seen it). I know the community would like to assist with feedback, but I would appreciate you dropping the Wizard a line and respecting his forum rules. Despite the ownership change, the rules themselves did not, and so I'm holding to them. And yeah, I get that people can find them for themselves, even before the 'hints' you've provided above; I do find it curious that you would respond in that way rather than just writing the Wizard. Thanks very much!
Quote: beachbumbabsI meant what I said about respecting your presence at Raving and I'm glad to see you here. I feel confident the Wizard would allow the link, as he's done a review on Raving 2014 and reported on the games presented there (over at WizardofOdds.com if you haven't seen it). I know the community would like to assist with feedback, but I would appreciate you dropping the Wizard a line and respecting his forum rules. Despite the ownership change, the rules themselves did not, and so I'm holding to them. And yeah, I get that people can find them for themselves, even before the 'hints' you've provided above; I do find it curious that you would respond in that way rather than just writing the Wizard. Thanks very much!
When I posted my game Casino Spades I included links to the demo. Is the issue because he is new the forum? Or because they are downloads instead of just a site to play? If the demo is free, I don't really see that he did anything at issue. It would be the very first question if he didn't post a link to the app -- "Where's the link to the demo so we can see what you got?"
Quote: darkozWhen I posted my game Casino Spades I included links to the demo. Is the issue because he is new the forum? Or because they are downloads instead of just a site to play? If the demo is free, I don't really see that he did anything at issue. It would be the very first question if he didn't post a link to the app -- "Where's the link to the demo so we can see what you got?"
Darkoz (and Paradigm),
Yes, the issue is that his first post had 3 links to apps and a demo for a game that he's presumably selling (or why pay to be a part of Raving?) without asking permission to post them. I removed them, but did not ban him for spamming/advertising because I would like to encourage his participation here.
I'm not understanding why this is a question; if you walked into someone's place of business with flyers for something you're promoting, whether free or not, would you tape them up in the store's window without asking? The Wizard has asked people to ask, especially if their first post (presumably why they joined, and apparently so in this specific case) is promoting their product, before they put up their flyers. I can't speak for him, or I would have okayed it after checking the links for malware or spam, but it's a simple courtesy to PM him and let him decide.
Looks good and plays well. House edge is just a little high for my taste. But I would definitely give it a spin at the casino.
how many decks does it use?
You make an Ante and eventually both the Player and Dealer will receive three cards from a stripped deck consisting of 24 cards.
After seeing two of the Dealer's cards, you have to select King Queen or Jack.
Then you receive your three cards and the Dealer one more. I assume you lose standoff and you have to get more of the picture card to win 1,3,16.
It seems fairly simple strategy because out of King Queen or Jack there will be one of them (or more) that the Dealer does not have in the first two cards. For simplicity assume the Dealer does not have a Jack. Therefore our best (or equal best) chance is to pick the Jack as (a) none have yet appeared and (b) we have three chances/cards to get one while the dealer only has one chance/card.
The other cards are irrelevant - we are only interested in the 4 Jacks or the other 18 "non-Jacks".
Always bet on the picture which didn't come out (say a Jack)
There are still four Jacks in the pack from 22 unseen cards
Dealer Player P (D) P (P) Odds
0 0 18 4080 -1 73 440 -73 440
0 1 18 3264 1 58 752 58 752
0 2 18 612 3 11 016 33 048
0 3 18 24 16 432 6 912
1 0 4 4896 -1 19 584 -19 584
1 1 4 2754 -1 11 016 -11 016
1 2 4 324 1 1 296 1 296
1 3 4 6 3 24 72
175 560 -3 960
-2.256%
It initially sounds an interesting game, but eventually you work out that the dealer only has four logical hands XX,XK,KK,KQ, and sadly the strategy is identical, only bet (the) one that didn't come out and make no extra bets.
Quote: Canyonero"second download" - dammit somebody beat me to it.
Looks good and plays well. House edge is just a little high for my taste. But I would definitely give it a spin at the casino.
how many decks does it use?
Thanks.
The current version uses 6 pinochle decks (288 cards). The pay tables could easily be adjusted to bring the edge down if needed.
Fewer decks could be used for an online casino application. 2 decks (96 cards) works well for this.
Quote: charliepatrickPlease could you explain the rules again (I've not been able to download the app) as this is how I read the game.
You make an Ante and eventually both the Player and Dealer will receive three cards from a stripped deck consisting of 24 cards.
After seeing two of the Dealer's cards, you have to select King Queen or Jack.
Then you receive your three cards and the Dealer one more. I assume you lose standoff and you have to get more of the picture card to win 1,3,16.
It seems fairly simple strategy because out of King Queen or Jack there will be one of them (or more) that the Dealer does not have in the first two cards. For simplicity assume the Dealer does not have a Jack. Therefore our best (or equal best) chance is to pick the Jack as (a) none have yet appeared and (b) we have three chances/cards to get one while the dealer only has one chance/card.
The other cards are irrelevant - we are only interested in the 4 Jacks or the other 18 "non-Jacks".
Always bet on the picture which didn't come out (say a Jack)
There are still four Jacks in the pack from 22 unseen cards
Dealer Player P (D) P (P) Odds
0 0 18 4080 -1 73 440 -73 440
0 1 18 3264 1 58 752 58 752
0 2 18 612 3 11 016 33 048
0 3 18 24 16 432 6 912
1 0 4 4896 -1 19 584 -19 584
1 1 4 2754 -1 11 016 -11 016
1 2 4 324 1 1 296 1 296
1 3 4 6 3 24 72
175 560 -3 960
-2.256%
It initially sounds an interesting game, but eventually you work out that the dealer only has four logical hands XX,XK,KK,KQ, and sadly the strategy is identical, only bet (the) one that didn't come out and make no extra bets.
Yes, you are correct on the strategy. In an actual setting, however, a player will likely be pressured to place additional bets on any cards not revealed by the dealer and put more $$ on the table to avoid a missed opportunity on a large payout. Using this basic strategy, a player will on average place slightly more than 2 bets per hand.
A couple clarifications on your math:
1) Ties push (except 0 vs. 0 is a loss)
2) The game uses 6 pinochle decks (288 cards)
I also have nothing associated with the business but found it an interesting game and mathematical exercise (until I realised the simpler obvious way of thinking of a solution) and using 12 stripped decks (or 6 Pinochle ones) have now come to the same House Edge as the OP.Quote: pokerfaceI have nothing to do with this business but I feel BBB did/asked the right thing.
Firstly not being one deck, as I had originally assumed, the game might be liable to counting. My gut feelings are casinos might not like having to use 12 decks of cards to deal this. I agree that on Friday night people might want to add more bets. However my personal feeling is the House Edge of over 3% is too high and a better paytable might work.
