31 Classic
Poll
 | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 7 votes (43.75%) | ||
| | 6 votes (37.5%) | ||
| | 2 votes (12.5%) | ||
| | 3 votes (18.75%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 2 votes (12.5%) | ||
| | 2 votes (12.5%) |
16 members have voted
The question for the thread is: Which version of the game do you like better?
Game Demo Links Below:
Money$uit 31 Demo
31 Classic Demo
Does the M$ ever change the strategy? I think not, therefore get rid of it.
I much prefer 31 Classic - although I think Classic 31 sounds better.
Note: Change the logo at the top of the page for the 31 Classic demo.
Quote: DJTeddyBearK.I.S.S. - Get rid of the extraneous random suit and you've gotten rid of a source of potential confusion and incorrect payouts.
Does the M$ ever change the strategy? I think not, therefore get rid of it.
I much prefer 31 Classic - although I think Classic 31 sounds better.
Note: Change the logo at the top of the page for the 31 Classic demo.
Thanks Dave, Ill see what I can do to change the Logo... I added each individual game logo to the applicable pages. Take a look and let me know. I'm pretty much limited to the way I have it now...
Quote: DJTeddyBearDon't worry too much about the web design. But I really think the name should be Classic 31.
Not married to it, but several other and myself like 31 classic over classic 31... Thought it has a nicer ring to it. That said, im sure people are going to call it both and seeming it's going to be called simply classic the most....
I'm all ears to what people think on here as always.
Quote: mrsuit31Not married to it, but several other and myself like 31 classic over classic 31... Thought it has a nicer ring to it. That said, im sure people are going to call it both and seeming it's going to be called simply classic the most....
I'm all ears to what people think on here as always.
Classic 31 sounds much better to me
Quote: michael99000Classic 31 sounds much better to me
Noted
Quote: mrsuit31Not married to it, but several other and myself like 31 classic over classic 31... Thought it has a nicer ring to it. That said, im sure people are going to call it both and seeming it's going to be called simply classic the most....
I'm all ears to what people think on here as always.
Personally, I prefer the name '31 Classic' -- or simply '31', but I don't think it matters which of the three mentioned names you choose.
Much more important is the version selection, and you've got both covered; however, IMO the simpler version (classic) has more market potential.
I also like the sound of "Classic 31" as opposed to "31 Classic," unless...
Now there's a "31 Classic!" ;)
Best of luck going forward, Mr. $uit!
Best wishes on both!
Lucky, you know I agree with what you had said.
Joeman, I am obviously with you on the M$ vs. Classic favorite. However, like you and everyone else said, the market may take to Classic much quicker (while M$ did so well in MI, but things happen).
Babs, on day you learn that my name is Brent :p lol.
I am waiting on the final word for an install in the NE area (don't want to be specific and jinx anything) for M$ 31. But I started promoting Classic a few days ago. Hopefully, this will help some get over the hump and give the Classic version a go. However, we all know how that goes...
That being said I wanted to check how you modified the pay tables to make up for not having any moneysuit multipliers. You added more odds to the top heavy section of the pay tables to balance the math out. I personally would love to see SMALLER sections of winning where you can win "more" easier at the bottom of the pay tables and keep the top how it was with moneysuit.
To me, when I do win, 99% of the time it feels like a 1-1 or maybe a 2-1 thrown in. That's a lot of the fun of the game for me, is seeing the big odds get pushed back to me, or at least not winning the "minimum" when I do (because to me the money in the game is past the first pay).
Example (NOTE: I did NOT check the return on this to see how it lands but this is just an example of a more 'balanced' system in my opinion):
17..............Push
18-19.......1 to 1
20-22.......2 to 1
23-25.......3 to 1
26-28.......4 to 1
29-30.......5 to 1
Trips.........6 to 1
31.............10 to 1
Mini.........20 to 1
While this "slightly" contradicts the KISS by adding a couple more pay lines, I think it adds some "simplicity" by counting up the pays 1 at a time. I think this would add a lot more EXCITEMENT to the game because the player would feel like they got a "big hand" (i.e. anything more than the minimum 1-1) more often too.
Again, I didn't check the math, but if you could slim down the zones for winning so there could be more chances to win more than the minimum, I think that would help the excitement and feel of the game a lot.
18% player advantage.Quote: RomesI definitely like both games... I would imagine in your industry the simpler the game the better it is for the casino and the players; so I also agree with DJT on the KISS method.
That being said I wanted to check how you modified the pay tables to make up for not having any moneysuit multipliers. You added more odds to the top heavy section of the pay tables to balance the math out. I personally would love to see SMALLER sections of winning where you can win "more" easier at the bottom of the pay tables and keep the top how it was with moneysuit.
To me, when I do win, 99% of the time it feels like a 1-1 or maybe a 2-1 thrown in. That's a lot of the fun of the game for me, is seeing the big odds get pushed back to me, or at least not winning the "minimum" when I do (because to me the money in the game is past the first pay).
Example (NOTE: I did NOT check the return on this to see how it lands but this is just an example of a more 'balanced' system in my opinion):
17..............Push
18-19.......1 to 1
20-22.......2 to 1
23-25.......3 to 1
26-28.......4 to 1
29-30.......5 to 1
Trips.........6 to 1
31.............10 to 1
Mini.........20 to 1
While this "slightly" contradicts the KISS by adding a couple more pay lines, I think it adds some "simplicity" by counting up the pays 1 at a time. I think this would add a lot more EXCITEMENT to the game because the player would feel like they got a "big hand" (i.e. anything more than the minimum 1-1) more often too.
Again, I didn't check the math, but if you could slim down the zones for winning so there could be more chances to win more than the minimum, I think that would help the excitement and feel of the game a lot.
I like Classic 31. The perfect strategy should be lots simpler than the M$ one.
Quote: miplet18% player advantage.
I like Classic 31. The perfect strategy should be lots simpler than the M$ one.
No wonder why Romes wanted that.... SMH. Also, Romes, the bonus payouts went up a pretty solid amount on the lower ends. The base game, there isn't really much I was able to do with the lower end, when removing the Money$uit. At least not without dropping the top pays down to virtually nothing.
Thank you Mip. Feel free to chime in with that optimal strategy at any time lol...
17------------- 5.22855%
18-23----------24.995847%
24-27----------4.28922%
28 & 29-------1.39921%
30------------- 0.55111%
Trips---------- 0.76498%
31------------- 0.35017%
Mini-Royal---- 0.07240%
If I understand it you need trips at 8 to 1 to make it reasonable to play pairs 2-5 with an unmatched 10 (pair of 6's have additional outs of A's). The total needs to be greater than -49 to make the EV of playing better than the -1 of folding.Quote: Romes......
Trips.........6 to 1
....
Consider 2s 2h 10d...
| Card(s) | Pays | Outs | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
2d 2c | (1+8)/1 | 2 | +18 |
7d | (0+0)/1 | 1 | +0 |
8d 9d Jd Qd Kd Ad | (1+1)/1 | 6 | +12 |
49-9 others | -2 | 39 | -78 |
Totals | 49 | -48 |
Edit: Adjusted table as 17 doesn't pay anything for Ante nor Raise bets.
I'll do the basic strategy soon. I just can't run the program from my phone. Hopefully it's the right one that I found as there has been many versions of this game.
Quote: miplet17 pushes on both the Ante and Play.
I'll do the basic strategy soon. I just can't run the program from my phone. Hopefully it's the right one that I found as there has been many versions of this game.
Ill PM you the links to the spreadsheets I used to calculate this math. Hope that will help navigating through the 47 you have done for me at this point.
Thanks. Personally I'd prefer the Ante to pay for a winning 17, but can understand if the maths prevents that happening.Quote: miplet17 pushes on both the Ante and Play...
As an aside I know other games where the payouts for various results have to be set so it's correct strategy that the player "Goes For It".
Even pushing the play and paying the Ante changes to a player advantage of 2.5%. You would need to cut the other payouts too much.Quote: charliepatrickThanks. Personally I'd prefer the Ante to pay for a winning 17, but can understand if the maths prevents that happening.
As an aside I know other games where the payouts for various results have to be set so it's correct strategy that the player "Goes For It".
Sounds about right. What's wrong with that??? lolQuote: miplet18% player advantage...
Hey I said I didn't check the math. I was just giving an example where it broke the categories down a bit more so it "felt" to the player like they hit bigger hands more often.
I figured your hands were slightly tied by the math of the game and having to pay out "bigger" payouts on the top end. Just a suggestion to look in to if you felt it was an okay idea.Quote: mrsuit31No wonder why Romes wanted that.... SMH. Also, Romes, the bonus payouts went up a pretty solid amount on the lower ends. The base game, there isn't really much I was able to do with the lower end, when removing the Money$uit. At least not without dropping the top pays down to virtually nothing.
Thank you Mip. Feel free to chime in with that optimal strategy at any time lol...
Hmmm, I'll have to take a look at this later and see what i can come up with, but is there an easy way to break out more categories to decifer thier hit frequencies from that?Quote: mrsuit31Romes, here is the detailed breakdown of the events probability for the base game for you. Courtesy of the fine work of miplet. This is on the game math tab on the site in greater detail....
17------------- 5.22855%
18-23----------24.995847%
24-27----------4.28922%
28 & 29-------1.39921%
30------------- 0.55111%
Trips---------- 0.76498%
31------------- 0.35017%
Mini-Royal---- 0.07240%
i.e.
17 -------------------5.22855%
18-19----------------x%
20-22----------------x%
23-25----------------x%
26-29----------------x%
30-------------------.55111%
Trips-----------------.76498%
31--------------------.35017%
Should be easy enough to play with the pay table and "other" return value to see what the house edge would come out to be then.
Quote: Romes(long post from romes)..
Sounds about right. What's wrong with that??? lol
Hey I said I didn't check the math. I was just giving an example where it broke the categories down a bit more so it "felt" to the player like they hit bigger hands more often.
I figured your hands were slightly tied by the math of the game and having to pay out "bigger" payouts on the top end. Just a suggestion to look in to if you felt it was an okay idea.
Hmmm, I'll have to take a look at this later and see what i can come up with, but is there an easy way to break out more categories to decifer thier hit frequencies from that?
i.e.
17 -------------------5.22855%
18-19----------------x%
20-22----------------x%
23-25----------------x%
26-29----------------x%
30-------------------.55111%
Trips-----------------.76498%
31--------------------.35017%
Should be easy enough to play with the pay table and "other" return value to see what the house edge would come out to be then.
Yup I can find out in second any breakdown you want. I have spent countless hours experimenting with the tables over the years. These were the ones that played best. One thing to keep in mind is that when you have the smaller ranges as you propose, the percentages per event drop significantly for each. So your idea of having each range of one or two values won't really "feel" much different at all. It just gives the dealers 100 times more work increasing the number of pays to be familiar with.
But I can easily get that stuff for you.
P.S. That definitely doesn't qualify as a long post of yours... it's a majority of quotes. Just sayin :p
Quote: charliepatrickThanks. Personally I'd prefer the Ante to pay for a winning 17, but can understand if the maths prevents that happening.
As an aside I know other games where the payouts for various results have to be set so it's correct strategy that the player "Goes For It".
Sorry for missing this post earlier Charlie. The math doesn't allow it as it's designed (obviously I don't need to explain anything math related to you as you have significantly superior knowledge on that subject than I do), however I feel that dealers would absolutely hate me for including a half pay like that when it's nowhere else in the game. This version is all about simplicity, while of course not going to far down the simplistic path...
So sorry. I'm an idiot sometimes.
Fwiw, Classic 31 is better imo.
Quote: beachbumbabsBrent Brent brent.
So sorry. I'm an idiot sometimes.
Fwiw, Classic 31 is better imo.
Lol, its not a big deal. Been waiting to give you hard time about it for a little while now. Its just extra funny on certain social media platforms that have my name written right above the misspelling.... lol
Fair enough on the name. It seems the majority of people on here and those I have talked to are slightly more partial to classic 31. That said. I like the logo as it is now regardless of the name, so in the end it really doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme I guess...
(i) Trips
(ii) Pair and any matching suited card except
6 6 2
5 5 4-2
4 4 5-2
3 3 6-2
2 2 8-3
(iii) Pairs without any matching suit
8s+
p(7s) and 8+
p(6s) and Ten+
p(5s)-p(2s) and Ace
(iv) Three suited cards that total 17 or more
(v) Three different suits
A and 8+
X 9 6+, X 8 7 or X 8 6
9 8 7
(vi) Two different suits
Play any 16+
Play 15 with a 6+
Play 13+ with a 7+
Play 11+ or 64 or 73 with an 8+
Play Ace with two cards totalling 8+
Fold all others (32.824%)
HE = 2.828%
Quote: charliepatrickThanks for the various figures - I agree with the percentages but come up with a slightly different strategy than the simple one proposed. Note that I haven't done the maths two ways to confirm the figures.
(i) Trips
(ii) Pair and any matching suited card except
6 6 2
5 5 4-2
4 4 5-2
3 3 6-2
2 2 8-3
(iii) Pairs without any matching suit
8s+
p(7s) and 8+
p(6s) and Ten+
p(5s)-p(2s) and Ace
(iv) Three suited cards that total 17 or more
(v) Three different suits
A and 8+
X 9 6+, X 8 7 or X 8 6
9 8 7
(vi) Two different suits
Play any 16+
Play 15 with a 6+
Play 13+ with a 7+
Play 11+ or 64 or 73 with an 8+
Play Ace with two cards totalling 8+
Fold all others (32.824%)
HE = 2.828%
I believe that is the proper HA Charlie. I just rounded up for the two decimal figure.
The basic strategy isn't optimal at all. I know Miplet is working on the new one for me to update on the website. I didn't want to overwhelm anyone with a crazy optimal strategy on the website for a number of obvious reasons.
That said, I personally play looser than the basic strategy on the site, but I am by no means an ap.
Most of all, thank you for being involved in this convo about the games and for taking the time to do the analysis you have been sharing. Very much appreciated on all fronts.
I'm going to PM you in a few minutes with something you may be interested in looking at, when I get back to my computer.
Quote: IndyJeffreyI like both games. That said, I don't love either of them. I feel like I am folding way more than playing. That's not fun - I want action. That said, maybe I was playing wrong or unlucky.
Thank you Indyjeff. I think you may have been playing wrong or simply getting crappy cards (which happened in a horrible way at my last demo).
The math is broken down under the game math tab for the game. The fold rate is just under 35%, therefore the play rate is just above 65%. That said, when the cards are poopie, there isn't much you can do.
The original version of the game from wayyyy back when used to have a very high fold rate, which led to a number of changes leading up to these two recent versions.
Give the demo a spin again if you wouldn't mind and let me know if anything changes card wise.
For instance if you used a simple pay table including full pay for 17, then you would fold less (28.796%) (you now play marginal hands such as p(7s)) and P(17) goes up (5.661%).Quote: Romes...17 -------------------5.22855%....
Should be easy enough to play with the pay table and "other" return value to see what the house edge would come out to be then.
Simple payout : House Edge 1.964%
17-29 : Pays 1/1
30-31 : Pays 5/1
Trips : Pays 8/1
Alternative payout structure: House Edge 1.942%
17-24 : Pays 1/1
25-30 : Pays 2/1
31 : Pays 5/1
Trips : Pays 8/1
Quote: charliepatrickFor instance if you used a simple pay table including full pay for 17, then you would fold less (28.796%) (you now play marginal hands such as p(7s)) and P(17) goes up (5.661%).
Simple payout : House Edge 1.964%
17-29 : Pays 1/1
30-31 : Pays 5/1
Trips : Pays 8/1
Being a pay table based game, I personally like/feel the need to have a number of payouts possible for the base game. This is just my opinion of course.
The pay table you proposed is something I have been considering for a "vs a dealer" version of the game that would act like a ante bonus as in 3CP. However, I am not ready to add another finished version of the game to the list just yet. But of course anything is a possibility down the road.
Quote: charliepatrickThanks. Personally I'd prefer the Ante to pay for a winning 17, but can understand if the maths prevents that happening.
Quote: IndyJeffreyI like both games. That said, I don't love either of them. I feel like I am folding way more than playing. That's not fun - I want action. That said, maybe I was playing wrong or unlucky.
As a result of some brainstorming and experimenting with different pay tables, I have made some changes that include the two requests mentioned above. I incorporated a single unit pay on the base game 17 and have also dropped the minimum pay requirement on the side wager back down to 16.
To address the fold concern that IndyJeff had stated, the new base game table increases the paid hit rate up to 39.1% and increased the play rate to 70.4%. Therefore, less than 3 of 10 hands should be folded. The hit rate on the side wager is now up to 28.2%
Give the demo a spin and let me know what you all think. 31 Classic Game Demo
Make sure to refresh the page once viewing the demo to make sure the new coding is being read by your computer.
So you don't like too few payouts:Quote: mrsuit31...One thing to keep in mind is that when you have the smaller ranges as you propose, the percentages per event drop significantly for each. So your idea of having each range of one or two values won't really "feel" much different at all. It just gives the dealers 100 times more work increasing the number of pays to be familiar with.
Ha, messing with you... of course there's a fine balance, but I'm going to stick with my personal (quite possibly wrong) feeling that smaller buckets and more payouts will make the player think they're winning "bigger" more often. My honest opinion is I have more fun every time I get a non 1-1 payout. That's where the game would capture my attention/feeling/passion.Quote: mrsuit31Being a pay table based game, I personally like/feel the need to have a number of payouts possible for the base game. This is just my opinion of course.
1) What's the fun of the game? When you get past the 1-1 payout and you hit a big hand you get that 'rush' of a 'big' win. By adding more buckets you should be able to get past the 1-1 payout a bit quicker and thus more people will feel like they do better in the game.
2) The dealers won't have much more work at all. Compare this game (with the smaller buckets I proposed) to several other games in a casino and yeah, not very hard at all to deal this game. 1 dealer card and then a little simple addition... easier than blackjack in my opinion.
I made about $10k... should I expect the check in the mail?
Quote: RomesI made about $10k... should I expect the check in the mail?
Haha, I'll get right on that...
Quote: mrsuit31In lieu of an upcoming trial for the game (information to be released once the game is approved and live), I have uploaded a new game introduction video for the game to my youtube/website. Please let me know your thoughts on the video in terms of clarity.
Well done. Good luck on the trial.
ZCore13
The video has a really good verbal explanation of the game. The visual though is a bit small, imo. Are you going to have this on a large screen tv or something near a booth? If so, then that could work. I have a fairly large monitor and still in theater mode on youtube had to focus hard to read the pay tables.Quote: mrsuit31In lieu of an upcoming trial for the game (information to be released once the game is approved and live), I have uploaded a new game introduction video for the game to my youtube/website. Please let me know your thoughts on the video in terms of clarity.
IF you were going to make edits, I'd suggest focusing on only 2 spots, or 1 spot. That will enlarge the pay tables and make the cards easier to see to understand the game.
Hope your trial goes well!
Quote: RomesThe video has a really good verbal explanation of the game. The visual though is a bit small, imo. Are you going to have this on a large screen tv or something near a booth? If so, then that could work. I have a fairly large monitor and still in theater mode on youtube had to focus hard to read the pay tables.
IF you were going to make edits, I'd suggest focusing on only 2 spots, or 1 spot. That will enlarge the pay tables and make the cards easier to see to understand the game.
Hope your trial goes well!
Hi Romes,
Thanks for the well wishes!
This is just an intro video for the website and youtube. I don't plan to use this for any other reason, as the players from MI had liked the video I had done for M$31. This also gives the dealers a quick intro to what the procedures look like as well, and I will be doing a more procedure based training video as well.
I know the video appears small on the thread itself (no formatting options available), but you can do full screen and it is clear (you should even be able to read the pay tables in full screen), or you can watch on the website or youtube itself which have larger viewing screens (maybe this sizing issue for videos can be recoded for this site, I leave that to Wiz and the Mods of course).
One nuance that I think would be good to add is on the last hand having a small club card as the Draw card to illustrate that the game is always a three card suited total even when the player ends up with 4 suited cards including the Draw card. This explanation likely adds 10 secs in length.
I agree with Romes, you only ever use one player spot in the video, so a closer view of the player spot would help with seeing the pay tables...this is a minor issue in my opinion, but one that could be changed if you did decide to re-shoot.
It may be worth the extra 20-30 secs it would take to expose the players three cards to the camera before placing the play wager. This would be best achieved if you had another individual be the "player hands" on the screen and have that individuals hands pick up the three card initial hand, exposes it to the camera, replace them face down on and make the play wager on top of the . This would be a truer visual to what a player is actually experiencing. Again, not a big issue, but if you were going to re-shoot I would do this.
The verbal script is excellent and in the end, the game if very well explained in what you have presently.
Query if you show a folding hand as well...first three cards are exposed, player decides to fold, the Ante and the 4th Draw card are collected. You expose to show the losing Bonus bet hand and move on to the next hand.
All the above would add time to the video's length...I like that it is short and the necessity of all of the above is clearly up for debate. Overall...great job!!
Quote: ParadigmMrSuit31 - The video is very good my friend! Short 3 mins 21 secs so easy to watch all the way through and the game is explained quite well. I think you covered all the key points.
One nuance that I think would be good to add is on the last hand having a small club card as the Draw card to illustrate that the game is always a three card suited total even when the player ends up with 4 suited cards including the Draw card. This explanation likely adds 10 secs in length.
I agree with Romes, you only ever use one player spot in the video, so a closer view of the player spot would help with seeing the pay tables...this is a minor issue in my opinion, but one that could be changed if you did decide to re-shoot.
It may be worth the extra 20-30 secs it would take to expose the players three cards to the camera before placing the play wager. This would be best achieved if you had another individual be the "player hands" on the screen and have that individuals hands pick up the three card initial hand, exposes it to the camera, replace them face down on and make the play wager on top of the . This would be a truer visual to what a player is actually experiencing. Again, not a big issue, but if you were going to re-shoot I would do this.
The verbal script is excellent and in the end, the game if very well explained in what you have presently.
Query if you show a folding hand as well...first three cards are exposed, player decides to fold, the Ante and the 4th Draw card are collected. You expose to show the losing Bonus bet hand and move on to the next hand.
All the above would add time to the video's length...I like that it is short and the necessity of all of the above is clearly up for debate. Overall...great job!!
Thank you Paradigm!
I will likely address all of what you had stated in the procedure/training video. In that video, I plan to cover all possible situations (e.g. folding hands, 4 suited cards where only three are used, and the few nuance procedures for the dealer). I really like having a very short video that includes a full game description and three sample hands, as I don't want to lose anyone's attention.
Not that it really matters, but to explain the slightly panned out shoot distance, I wanted to have the game logo present in the video. That's the only reason I hadn't zoomed in on the single player space. I may opt for the two player spots as Romes had suggested in this training video, so that the pay tables are clear and readable.
Thanks for the suggestions everyone!
As the inventor, mrsuit31, is one of our own, I hope you will join me in wishing his game success in field trial!
Quote: LuckyBest of luck on this trial, Brent.
Thank you Lucky!
For anyone who will be in town, I will be giving these away during the time I am in town for those who play....
If anyone wants me to try and hold one for them, feel free to PM me or post.
This version is now approved in NV, WA and MS.
Once we finalize a launch date I will let everyone know the details.
NV trial update for Advantage Play 3 Card Fury will be available within a week or so as well.
Hoping for a good year!
Thank you all for the continued support!!!
One aspect I do like about 3 card Blitz a bit more is the simplified pay tables and side bets. I always know exactly what card I’m hoping for next and I can pretty easily check if the dealer has paid me correctly. It would be something I’d be concerned about playing 31 classic
Obviously because of the above I prefer 31 classic to money suit.
Also as your churning out new games I wonder if you’d be willing to stray from the gold and gradients a bit? Would make the game feel a bit newer. Especially because one of your logos (maybe for double shot?) was pretty modern and sleek
If both tables were in our casino I’d end up just letting my girlfriend decide which we play because I like both! Good luck and I hope we see you in New England some time!
Quote: GBAMIf any of your games came to New England I’m sure my Girlfriend and I would be regulars! We play 3 Card Blitz a good amount which is similar but against a dealer (I’m sure you’re familiar)
One aspect I do like about 3 card Blitz a bit more is the simplified pay tables and side bets. I always know exactly what card I’m hoping for next and I can pretty easily check if the dealer has paid me correctly. It would be something I’d be concerned about playing 31 classic
Obviously because of the above I prefer 31 classic to money suit.
Also as your churning out new games I wonder if you’d be willing to stray from the gold and gradients a bit? Would make the game feel a bit newer. Especially because one of your logos (maybe for double shot?) was pretty modern and sleek
If both tables were in our casino I’d end up just letting my girlfriend decide which we play because I like both! Good luck and I hope we see you in New England some time!
I am very familiar with 3 Card Blitz and that game's creator is familiar with my games.
Where do you play Blitz, Foxwoods or Mohegan? Does the game get decent play?
I appreciate the kind words. I have been pursuing the northeast with my 31 games for a VERY LONG TIME........... Maybe one day you will have the opportunity to play my games in the NE.
