Do you think "thinking" games have a place in today's market?
Thread Rating:
February 23rd, 2015 at 6:18:13 PM
permalink
Do you think there is a sufficient demand for games that require something more than no or simple strategy?
In other words, games where skill plays a larger role in the gameplay?
Think Pai-Gow versus Baccarat...
In other words, games where skill plays a larger role in the gameplay?
Think Pai-Gow versus Baccarat...
February 23rd, 2015 at 6:22:42 PM
permalink
Quote: 21FlipDo you think there is a sufficient demand for games that require something more than no or simple strategy?
In other words, games where skill plays a larger role in the gameplay?
Think Pai-Gow versus Baccarat...
There is still a place for it. Look at all the Blackjack derivatives...
However, the big bucks appear to be in "place your bet and hold onto your hat" games. Who wouldda thunk "Casino War" would find a following?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
February 23rd, 2015 at 6:30:02 PM
permalink
The problem with "thinking" games is they tend to be very slow and therefore don't generate enough win per hour unless the hold percentage is very high.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
February 23rd, 2015 at 10:13:31 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichThe problem with "thinking" games is they tend to be very slow and therefore don't generate enough win per hour unless the hold percentage is very high.
I agree.
Pai-gow is a prime example of this... but it is so damn slow, only a few tables per property, and much higher minimums.
I am thinking about developing a strategy based game, but quicker pacing than Pai-Gow. To much hand setting and such there.
I have a pretty strong idea for a quicker paced game, but I wonder how "niche" the clientele would be. It would not be something that a casual tourist would be interested in, I don't think... I don't want to say it is complicated, because it isn't, but it definitely would have a strategy element to it.
February 24th, 2015 at 3:08:11 AM
permalink
No, I do not believe such a game would be well received. Thinking players go to the poker room. If it takes more than 60 seconds to explain, it will not work. If it takes more than 5 seconds for the player to make their decision, it will be too slow.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 24th, 2015 at 3:29:47 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I do not believe such a game would be well received.
That really depends on what sidebets are available.
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 24th, 2015 at 3:48:22 AM
permalink
Quote:games where skill plays a larger role in the gameplay?
No, I don't think so.
If you're making a skill-based game, it needs to be simple enough for an average joe to be able to think, "Oh that's easy let's try it". Like blackjack. Easy to learn and common sense is usually good enough for a gambler to play the game.
If the game is super complex and requires good amount of skill to play, people aren't going to play it. They might play it a time or two, but once they get slaughtered (because their skill is inadequate), they'll stop playing.
Players want to sit down at a game, like checkers, where they feel they have a good chance at winning and can use intuitive sense to play.
They don't want to sit at some complex game, like chess, where they're constantly in a position where they're unsure of what's best to do.
February 24th, 2015 at 5:08:39 AM
permalink
I know the state of NJ recently passed a law allowing for gambling on "games of skill" in NJ casinos. The Borgata all ready has a basketball contest in the works.
I've wondered about this for years. Think carnival games where there is an element of skill...throw the ball into the hole or whatever. But with gambling. I think the hard part would be that if the game is legitimately winnable by the average gambler, at least occasionally, it would be possible for a skilled player to crush the game on a regular basis. Also, as others have mentioned, it has to move fast enough to generate enough revenue. It would be a tough balance to design I think.
I would also guess that such games wouldn't be legal in most states, as the laws are currently written. So you'd have to clear that hurdle as well.
I've wondered about this for years. Think carnival games where there is an element of skill...throw the ball into the hole or whatever. But with gambling. I think the hard part would be that if the game is legitimately winnable by the average gambler, at least occasionally, it would be possible for a skilled player to crush the game on a regular basis. Also, as others have mentioned, it has to move fast enough to generate enough revenue. It would be a tough balance to design I think.
I would also guess that such games wouldn't be legal in most states, as the laws are currently written. So you'd have to clear that hurdle as well.
February 24th, 2015 at 5:54:14 AM
permalink
Lets not forget dealers must also be able to understand the game operation. If they wouldn't, the game couldn't be dealt right and the casino could be leaking from their errors.
I am a robot.
February 24th, 2015 at 6:33:05 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichThe problem with "thinking" games is they tend to be very slow and therefore don't generate enough win per hour unless the hold percentage is very high.
This is the biggest problem. However, this can be overcome with a good, fun, multi-bet/decision style gameplay. It would however be expensive for players to play a hand out like Miss. Stud, Double Draw Poker and the like. It wont necessarily have a terrible hold if you have decent hit rates but it will surely be incredibly volatile, so some will win big while most get clobbered.
The question is can it survive...? Some, including myself think these type games will die eventually. They are way to expensive to play, which is a big issue. However, in non-competative markets like florida, where players have no choice, these type games are going to be the only available options. High win per unit games will generate the highest yield. But on the flip side UTH shows that multi-bet decision games can work and be very popular, but this is essentially hold'em, making it a very different story.
So it really depends on the market, because in a non competitive market like florida it could work. But if its very slow, the markets typically willing to trial a new game will most likely not try it, which would prevent it ever making it to these florida type markets. Even if you got the trial, it would be very hard to generate a drop high enough to pass trial because of how incredibly slow it will be to teach a large enough returning fan base within 3-6 months. Very tough!
But of course anything is possible if a game is "amazing" but we all know how that goes.............
.
February 24th, 2015 at 6:43:43 PM
permalink
I don't think "thinking" games will die eventually, but I agree that there's a steep uphill on them building a sufficient fan base. I almost think it would be wise for anyone deploying games with subtle or complex strategy to put them online first in electronic form, let people suss them out privately, while dropping frequent references to "if you've enjoyed this, it's even more fun live at your local casino!" Then let the fans of the game come looking, with some confidence they can sit down and play.
All the major casino chains seem to be involved in social gaming, and many of them have free games on their websites. Seems to me like an ideal place to trial games, provide feedback opportunities, track stats on play. I think a game that's too simple doesn't hold people any more than a game that consistently drains their bankroll. But a game that's too complex intimidates a lot of casual gamblers, unless they've had an opportunity to try it without pressure.
All the major casino chains seem to be involved in social gaming, and many of them have free games on their websites. Seems to me like an ideal place to trial games, provide feedback opportunities, track stats on play. I think a game that's too simple doesn't hold people any more than a game that consistently drains their bankroll. But a game that's too complex intimidates a lot of casual gamblers, unless they've had an opportunity to try it without pressure.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
February 24th, 2015 at 7:10:27 PM
permalink
I've consulted with numerous game inventors and always advise them against pursuing anything where the strategy isn't fairly intuitive. The problem with a lot of new "thinking" games is players butcher the strategy, lose too much money too quickly, and leave unhappy, never to return. The key to success is a game has to be liked by both the players and casino, a very difficult task to accomplish. If players butcher the strategy, the game will butcher them. Slaughtering the sheep may be good in the short run, but the key to long term success is to sheer them many times.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 24th, 2015 at 8:05:24 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI've consulted with numerous game inventors and always advise them against pursuing anything where the strategy isn't fairly intuitive. The problem with a lot of new "thinking" games is players butcher the strategy, lose too much money too quickly, and leave unhappy, never to return. The key to success is a game has to be liked by both the players and casino, a very difficult task to accomplish. If players butcher the strategy, the game will butcher them. Slaughtering the sheep may be good in the short run, but the key to long term success is to sheer them many times.
This is exactly what happened to 2011 Raving Table Games of the Year award winner Triple Attack Blackjack. Fun game. Place wagers after you see the dealers up card. Double on any amount of cards. 6 cards 21 or under is automatic win.
The problem was it took too much skill for regular players to master. Held 50% on a 1% optimal play house edge game.
Intense concentrations and retention of learned skills are not traits found in most recreational gamblers. And even less when you add the alcohol factor.
ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
February 24th, 2015 at 8:10:25 PM
permalink
Quote: Zcore13
Intense concentrations and retention of learned skills are not traits found in most recreational gamblers. And even less when you add the alcohol factor.
The average player wants:
To relax. To have fun. To have a
couple drinks and maybe win
a little money. If they wanted to
think, they would have stayed at
work.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 24th, 2015 at 9:06:01 PM
permalink
Quote: beachbumbabsSeems to me like an ideal place to trial games, provide feedback opportunities, track stats on play.
I agree that games should be placed online, I'm sure that's no secret. But as far as using it as a trial in which you track the play via analytics etc... It would be way to easy to manipulate the numbers with bots and other forms of analytics spam (probably not the correct word)... This would be an obvious practice to do to skew the numbers to make a game look successful.
Nice thought though, but 100% a game needs to be online, that's a no brainer.
.
February 24th, 2015 at 11:16:01 PM
permalink
There is a distinction between "thinking games" and "intuitive" decision games. US Players need to be engaged in a decision where they feel they have some level of control for a new game to keep not their attention.....but as EB said, they don't want to feel like they are at work when playing a game. The recipe for success is to give the player some decisions that are intuitively easy to make correctly based on knowledge they already possess before they stepped up to your game.
Alternatively, if mistakes will be made by the majority of players, design the game so the mistakes make the game HE go from 1-2% up to 3-4% versus slaughtering bad players when mistakes cost them 5-6% of increased HE
Alternatively, if mistakes will be made by the majority of players, design the game so the mistakes make the game HE go from 1-2% up to 3-4% versus slaughtering bad players when mistakes cost them 5-6% of increased HE
February 25th, 2015 at 5:03:31 AM
permalink
I think some people like ganes with no decisions (hence the interest in sidebets) but some like the interest of having an effect on the end result (i.e. a choice to make). The best game would be where the decisions are fairly intuitive, perhaps with a couple of nice quirks (e.g. XYZ wins) or scope to improve on "House Way". The simplest is 3-card poker where people still play hunches, some folding Q-high, others playing J-high!
I'm working on a game where the intuitive strategy is fairly close but there's scope to improve it under certain situations, rather like hitting soft 18 vs 9.
I'm working on a game where the intuitive strategy is fairly close but there's scope to improve it under certain situations, rather like hitting soft 18 vs 9.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:46:01 AM
permalink
Personally, the reason I typically play table games and not slot machines is that there is a decision to be made and I ultimately feel that I have some semblance of control over the action, even if the decisions may seem a bit intuitive. Games with no decision making whatsoever seem mind-numbing and tediously boring to me. However, like many have pointed out, you cannot make the game too complicated as if you just cripple people at the tables you will never get them back for a second shot.
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
February 25th, 2015 at 7:03:21 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIf they wanted to
think, they would have stayed at
work.
Bingo.
It's why so many people, who know the basics of card counting, don't bother. Because it feels too much like work.
Even just looking something up on a strategy card can feel like work to some people....
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
February 25th, 2015 at 7:43:53 AM
permalink
People also don't wish to do basic math. Many people would rather play a "penny slot" where you are probably playing 180 credits. over a $10 blackjack game, nevermind the house edge is 8 times more on the slot machine and you probably have 15-20 times more bets per hour
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
February 25th, 2015 at 6:53:29 PM
permalink
If people didn't want to think why is BJ so popular?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
February 25th, 2015 at 8:23:53 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearBingo.
It's why so many people, who know the basics of card counting, don't bother. Because it feels too much like work.
Even just looking something up on a strategy card can feel like work to some people....
These people are called 'casino oriented' and
Dan and management cannot understand
why everybody can't be this cooperative.
Life would be so much easier.. Have a few
drinks and a few laughs and leave your
donation at the tables.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 26th, 2015 at 9:49:05 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe average player wants:
To relax. To have fun. To have a
couple drinks and maybe win
a little money. If they wanted to
think, they would have stayed at
work.
Agreed ... key word being 'average' [player], or as Zcore phrased it 'recreational player.' If they want to concentrate, they can stay home and play chess or bridge.
However, as Axelwolf points out, there's still a large market of blackjack players, but most who can be classified as recreational players either play without knowing basic strategy or have played the game enough to where it's second nature to them, so very little thinking or concentration is required.
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." -- Winston Churchill
February 26th, 2015 at 4:58:55 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichThe problem with "thinking" games is they tend to be very slow and therefore don't generate enough win per hour unless the hold percentage is very high.
This is the exact problem with thinking games.
March 23rd, 2015 at 4:41:08 PM
permalink
just my personal opinion here but it's not so much "thinking" games that are important but for me it's more "hands-on" games that I find more fun. Perfect example: Lunar Poker. What makes that one of my favorite games is the tactile experience of discarding and redrawing and the stratagey that comes with that. Same with craps, actually getting to throw the dice and having all kinds of different ways to play is what makes it such a great game. If I were a gamr inventor I would focus on the following things:
Interactivity; being able to hold something in your hands and having a sense of control. Good examples are Craps, Pai Gow Poker, and Lunar Poker.
Options: being able to play the game in any way you want. Craps is a perfect example of this; everybody has their own "system" for this game, not because they necessarily believe said "system" has any impact on their odds but because that's just how they want to bet. Of course not everybody wants a bunch of choices but I'm talking about more complex games.
And finally what does it for me at least is getting paid more than even money without having to do a total sucker bet, which is why I got sick of Pai Gow. Having something like the Blind in UTH or the way odds pay in craps really makes a huge difference for me.
Interactivity; being able to hold something in your hands and having a sense of control. Good examples are Craps, Pai Gow Poker, and Lunar Poker.
Options: being able to play the game in any way you want. Craps is a perfect example of this; everybody has their own "system" for this game, not because they necessarily believe said "system" has any impact on their odds but because that's just how they want to bet. Of course not everybody wants a bunch of choices but I'm talking about more complex games.
And finally what does it for me at least is getting paid more than even money without having to do a total sucker bet, which is why I got sick of Pai Gow. Having something like the Blind in UTH or the way odds pay in craps really makes a huge difference for me.
March 23rd, 2015 at 5:21:39 PM
permalink
Quote: RealizeGamingThis is the exact problem with thinking games.
If you want to design and play thinking games, go find a board game... or go online and find all the various casual/light games. That's where the market for those are, and where the dollars are spent. Producing a hit in the online casual game space is less difficult than a hit in the casino space. And you'll lose less making a board game that no-one plays.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 23rd, 2015 at 11:10:32 PM
permalink
Well, Carribean Stud although very popular at one time (90's - 2000's) is just about defunct. There was no "improvement(s)" to the base game. In other threads here, most don't like the 1:1 pay if Dealer No Qualify. If holding a Set (or better) that just sucks plain and simple. And IMHO people realized just how difficult it is to actually win a hand.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
March 24th, 2015 at 11:14:53 AM
permalink
Quote: 98ClubsWell, Carribean Stud although very popular at one time (90's - 2000's) is just about defunct. There was no "improvement(s)" to the base game. In other threads here, most don't like the 1:1 pay if Dealer No Qualify. If holding a Set (or better) that just sucks plain and simple. And IMHO people realized just how difficult it is to actually win a hand.
Yeah at all the places in St. Louis Carribean is dead when lunar moves in, at least in lunar you get paid pre-draw if you have something good and if the dealer doesn't qualify the ante pays 4:1 on a straight or better, still sucks if you have a full house or quads or something but there's also the fact that you can get paid twice on the raise bet; you have a pair and a straight draw, and you buy a 6th card and get a straight you'll get paid on both the pair and the straight if the dealer qualifies. Carribean just sucks, period.
March 24th, 2015 at 12:01:34 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfIf people didn't want to think why is BJ so popular?
Does this mean you believe most BJ players actually think? Doesn't appear so in my experiences =P.
But yeah overall people do want thinking games... You see, it's all about control. Giving the player decisions to make gives an illusion of control. The players believe they simply need to make the right choice every time and they'll always win. Never mind the math, never mind that every choice is of negative expectation in the long run... In fact to further the illusion, like in blackjack, all you need to do is give them choices in which one is more predominately the "right" move than the other. They'll feel accomplished for "figuring out" the correct decision and feel as though they should win because of it. This way when they lose, they believe it was just unlucky this time and that if they play right the next time they'll come out ahead (again regardless of the math that proves it's impossible for them to win in the long run). It's all about the players feeling as though they're in control of the outcome.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
April 28th, 2015 at 1:34:33 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfIf people didn't want to think why is BJ so popular?
Because the decision-making process within the game is very simple - hit, stand, split, double. A dolt can figure it out. But a genius can ace it.
Put it this way - why was Who Wants to Be a Millionaire a hit? It was easy as pie to explain, the questions were multiple choice, yet it took a smart person to ace it.
Blackjack's decision-making process is multiple-choice. Pai Gow's is short answer. Which would people rather answer?
