RoyalBJ
RoyalBJ
Joined: Jul 18, 2011
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 260
February 26th, 2016 at 8:47:57 AM permalink
In the 2015 Table Games Conference, there were 3 winners. The top one was a variant for Ultimate Texas Holdem, the 2nd BJ variant, and Sweep Poker (I saw it at The Orleans, Las Vegas). Could someone update on their whereabouts?
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2788
February 26th, 2016 at 1:36:31 PM permalink
Quote: RoyalBJ

In the 2015 Table Games Conference, there were 3 winners. The top one was a variant for Ultimate Texas Holdem, the 2nd BJ variant, and Sweep Poker (I saw it at The Orleans, Las Vegas). Could someone update on their whereabouts?


http://www.tablegamesconf.com/index.php/bntg-competition

The Winners of Casino Journal's 2015 Best New Table Games Competition are:
* Gold - Texas Switch by Texas Switch, Inc.
* Silver - Half Back Blackjack by Lucky Paradigm Gaming
* Bronze - Super Sweep Poker by Katrillion Entertainment

The Gold winner, providing that the game meets necessary regulatory and/or compact approvals,
will receive floor space at numerous casinos! The current list of confirmed properties includes:

Akwesasne Mohawk Casino & Resort
Bucky’s Casino
Grey Eagle Casino
Muckleshoot Casino
Saratoga Casino Blackhawk
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
Hittem
Hittem
Joined: Nov 13, 2015
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 52
February 26th, 2016 at 2:13:23 PM permalink
Texas Switch had some math "errors" that would need to be fixed before it were approved anywhere. I'm interested to see if they made the necessary change.s
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
February 26th, 2016 at 11:15:44 PM permalink
Half Back Blackjack has been in play at Emerald Queen Casino in Tacoma, WA since 9/1/15. Reports are that it is struggling to generate sufficient play. A second trial is scheduled to commence on or before 7/1/16. We hope a smaller environment and having the iOS App available for free play/learning from day one of the second trial will lead to better initial results.
21Flip
21Flip
Joined: Dec 22, 2014
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 94
March 12th, 2016 at 3:05:00 AM permalink
I find it absolutely AMAZING that the "best game" didn't have the math right.

I could make a game that would blow you away; it's so much fun! I mean, it has a 40% player's advantage, but it's great!

No one else finds this to be as shady as it gets? Bring a "fun game" to a trade show and win a competition, oh, by the way, we have to change it to actually use it?

I have serious issues with the credibility of this competition if they don't verify the math on entries.
kobalj
kobalj
Joined: Jun 23, 2015
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 107
March 12th, 2016 at 7:47:30 AM permalink
I thought the winner was getting placed at Bucky's in Arizona. I didn't know about the math issue. I assume they didn't have GLI approval at the time of the contest. I do agree that still winning is sketchy. Shouldn't that be one of the most critical factors to examine. It should not only work, it should be shown that it can benefit a casino as a strong earner. I was going to enter my game but I was short on time and although I had no evidence or reason behind it, I did feel uneasy about entering. The way I see it, I want my game judged by one thing and one thing only, the numbers it produces when it goes live. So if there was no chance on getting a trial on your own then I guess that contest is good bc it gets you a ticket if you win. That being said, if you can't get a trial on your own is your game worthy of winning such a competition? Hmmmm... Very interesting stuff
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
March 12th, 2016 at 11:27:09 AM permalink
Quote: 21Flip

I find it absolutely AMAZING that the "best game" didn't have the math right.


I haven't seen the evidence that the math was incorrect. I know Hittem originally posted the game had a 135% RTP, but I think he/she backed away from that statement recently (better/more complete game information was discovered/learned since the original assessment...fair enough).

The Bonus Pay Table appeared to be between 5-10% favorable to the player. I rough calc'd closer to 5% player advantage but know Hittem asserted closer to 9%, either way that is not good. But the Bonus bet isn't the big feature of Texas Switch anyway, they ripped that off from UTH with slight modifications. So they modify the pay table, big deal...the hit rate should remain the same and 5%-10% better pays aren't the difference between a game getting votes and not getting votes..

The real questions is for a UTH style game does the "Switch" bet (that at best pushes), along with the betting structure/requirement to make your final bet or fold decision before seeing the last two cards of the community flop, really "pay" for the "switch your two hole cards" feature? I haven't seen that proved or disproved. If the answer is "No" and the base game needs to be adjusted, that is really bad.

Look, Lucky & I came in second to Texas Switch. We have the most to be upset about if the game was mathematically incorrect. But as Kobalj indicated above, if your game is good enough, you get field trials on your own and get real player feedback. No small company like ours is going to be licensed to in NY, AZ, WA & Canada. That is what you need to have in place to be able to trial your game at all the sponsoring properties. It is a nice perk to winning if you can execute, but my guess is that most single game companies will be lucky to be able to execute on one of the sponsoring casinos offers to trial.

Wear out some shoe leather ladies/gentlemen...that is the best way to get your game on the floor somewhere. Listening and getting feedback on your game are the reasons to attend the TG Conference. You may get leads from non-sponsoring casinos that attend (more likely than winning). And look, Half Back BJ has a trial, Super Sweep Poker has a trial, Four Card Split is going to get trial, 21 Flip got a trial before the Conference I believe, Bet 'em All BJ has multiple trials, and I am sure I am missing some others...I don't know that Texas Switch has been live anywhere yet...conclusion: winning isn't the only reason to exhibit your game at the conference....and winning at the TG Conference isn't the only way to get a trial.

Be persistent, be open to changes to concept, be open to scrapping a bad game idea and creating another...these are the characteristics that will move you ahead. And a lot of capital and a lot of time. It isn't for everyone and with today's IP environment, it may not even be a viable path to start down in 2016...but that is a different conversation for a different thread.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 12th, 2016 at 4:18:49 PM permalink
Quote: 21Flip

I find it absolutely AMAZING that the "best game" didn't have the math right.

I could make a game that would blow you away; it's so much fun! I mean, it has a 40% player's advantage, but it's great!

No one else finds this to be as shady as it gets? Bring a "fun game" to a trade show and win a competition, oh, by the way, we have to change it to actually use it?

I have serious issues with the credibility of this competition if they don't verify the math on entries.

The competition can't verify the math themselves, that's a several-thousand-dollar bill. However, don't the rules require a math report from a third party?

Here's a "fun game" entry for next year. It's called "In Your Face" -- the dealer deals six cards face up in the center of the table. If any of them are picture cards, everyone's bet wins even money. And my new table games distribution business model is to pay a casino $2,000 per month to offer this game, but only privately to me. :)
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14246
March 12th, 2016 at 8:26:30 PM permalink
Unless the rules have changed, the only requirement you have to enter the competition is to come up with the cash to BNP while there are still slots available. It seems to be expected that you will be able to provide math reports, field reports, and IP documentation to the prospective TGM's if they ask. But no requirements for any of that, nor do you have to provide anything beyond logo artwork to BNP (and even that's not required, just strongly recommended, as they use it in advertising the show).
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
March 13th, 2016 at 10:22:27 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Unless the rules have changed, the only requirement you have to enter the competition is to come up with the cash to BNP while there are still slots available. It seems to be expected that you will be able to provide math reports, field reports, and IP documentation to the prospective TGM's if they ask. But no requirements for any of that, nor do you have to provide anything beyond logo artwork to BNP (and even that's not required, just strongly recommended, as they use it in advertising the show).



I've always believed that their should be some requirements before entry. The game should have a formal math report provided and have a formal procedural manual. I made a stink about that after seeing the entrants and winners of the 2015 show I believe.

If the winner is going to be given a trial, the game should be ready for submission immediately thereafter... Realistically, if a developer is spending the money for the exhibitors fee and all the essentials, they can clearly have a report generated as well. I'm actually surprised the sponsor facilities haven't required this in the past.
.
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3790
April 28th, 2016 at 8:32:37 AM permalink
As an official sponsor of the winning table game at the Cutting Edge Table Games Competition, today, I officially notified the distributor of the first place game in 2015, Texas Switch, that I will not be placing the game in my casino due to what I feel was an unfair advantage in the competition. Prior to the competition there had been no math done on the game. When I received the GLI math report a few days ago, I then compared the GLI pay table and math to the pay table that was at the competition. It was significantly different. According to my calculations, the game at the competition offered a 5.9% player advantage.

Now, I'm well aware that a math report is an expensive cost to a new game designer. But, I feel that entering into a competition and not having at least preliminary research done to ensure the game as shown is something that can be on a casino floor, is against the spirit of the competition. I have placed every winning game for the past 3 years (High Card Flush, Pick'em Blackjack and War Blackjack), I believe I'm the only casino to do this.

I am contacting BNP Media and requesting they require at least a basic math report to enter the competition. The report does not have to include optimal play or multiple pay tables. But it should provide the house advantage on any/all bets within the game.


ZCore13

Edited to correct a spelling error.
Last edited by: Zcore13 on Apr 28, 2016
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.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
April 28th, 2016 at 9:30:18 AM permalink
That is eminently reasonable. The idea that anyone would present a game to operators that isn't actually feasible to operate is laughable. Not that it hasn't happened before, but in an adjudicated competition the stakes are higher -- someone who did their homework lost out because the winner didn't.

More to the point, it's unreasonable to expect you to operate a game that has a player edge, and it's just as unreasonable to consider the "significantly different" paytable to necessarily be the same game, in which case you never committed to operate that anyway. There are a lot of people who think 6:5 blackjack isn't truly "blackjack," even though only a single payout was changed. This would seem to be a more egregious example.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
TwoFeathersATL
TwoFeathersATL
Joined: May 22, 2013
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 3616
April 28th, 2016 at 9:40:46 AM permalink
Who said you couldn't have a losing game, that you knew was a losing game, on the casino floor? Who said that was a bad policy? You (or the Casino) are looking for losers. You gotta have lots and lots and lots of those, or the business model doesn't make sense, and the investors get really nervous. There is a ton x 10x of investment that needs a return, an annual return, with a timeline, to make some money. Money is a good thing. But, but just maybe. You effed that all up. So much for your yacht, the local houses with decent rules, and decent and personable dealers, they will still be here. Maybe you can get hired there.

For the times they are a changing',. Credit Bob
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11046
April 28th, 2016 at 9:42:17 AM permalink
On a separate note I noticed today that Super Sweep Poker is on the May Nevada Gaming agenda for approval.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
ernestmiddle
ernestmiddle
Joined: Apr 19, 2016
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 90
April 28th, 2016 at 9:57:42 AM permalink
Congratulations on being a man of integrity in a industry that seems lacking in same.

On a side note, Casino magazine has this quote in December 2015 about Texas Switch :

“From the casino’s perspective, they don’t want to know the true house advantage, they want to know the ease of dealing,”

Really ? Dr. Mark Yoseloff

A former CEO of, well, wanna guess ? ? ?
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 206
  • Posts: 10972
April 28th, 2016 at 10:31:43 AM permalink
Z -

Very understandable.

Will you be placing / considering the second place game?
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? 😁
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3790
April 28th, 2016 at 10:42:30 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

Z -

Very understandable.

Will you be placing / considering the second place game?



This just all came down yesterday and I just notified the distributor and BNP today, so I really haven't had time to think about that yet. The problem is, we are now only 5 months away from the next competition and I have limited space to be bringing in new games. The process is pretty time consuming as well, so we'd be running right into the 2016 show by the time it was hitting the floor.


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.
panda1314
panda1314
Joined: Mar 27, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 22
April 28th, 2016 at 12:32:36 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

On a separate note I noticed today that Super Sweep Poker is on the May Nevada Gaming agenda for approval.

congratulations. Even though I have not seen any player played the game at The Orleans in my last 7 trips there.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14246
April 28th, 2016 at 5:17:22 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

As an official sponsor of the winning table game at the Cutting Edge Table Games Competition, today, I officially notified the distributor of the first place game in 2015, Texas Switch, that I will not be placing the game in my casino due to what I feel was an unfair advantage in the competition. Prior to the competition there had been no math done on the game. When I received the GLI math report a few days ago, I then compared the GLI pay table and math to the pay table that was at the competition. It was significantly different. According to my calculations, the game at the competition offered a 5.9% player advantage.

Now, I'm well aware that a math report is an expensive cost to a new game designer. But, I feel that entering into a competition and not having at least preliminary research done to ensure the game as shown is something that can be on a casino floor, is against the spirit of the competition. I have placed every winning game for the past 3 years (High Card Flush, Pick'em Blackjack and War Blackjack), I believe I'm the only casino to do this.

I am contacting BNP Media and requesting they require at least a basic math report to enter the competition. The report does not have to include optimal play or multiple pay tables. But it should provide the house advantage on any/all bets within the game.


ZCore13

Edited to correct a spelling error.



I'm sure that was a difficult decision. I applaud your standard of gaming and the stance you've taken.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
September 2nd, 2016 at 11:58:20 AM permalink
Texas Switch just showed up on the NV New Field Trials list (live 9/1/16).

Just in time to for G2E trip for those wanting to check out the new pay table version of the game. It is at Texas Station.

  • Jump to: