COU Skill Based Class 2 version

After playing with multiple groups it honestly looks like five players playing is the optimal amount. Please play this with four other people and tell me your thoughts after doing so.


I have noticed that it does appear that the skill based games are making some noise so just out of curiosity I went ahead and tried to see what it would be like if I made a COU into a skill based version. Well I put one together and I have tested it out with multiple groups and the response has been off the chain! They say they are trying to attract millenials w the skill based games like Gamblit Poker and Grab Em Poker but I think this game will do a better job b/c the decisions make it more fun and you don't need a poker background as it only requires simple math. Here it is.

Below is my skill based version of Casino Over Under®. How it would work is very similar to the other skill based games I have seen. I can see this being played on a electronic table or definitely online or in a social casino.


Steps 1 and 2 are the same as the table game.

Step 1: Each player places an ante to get one card face up from the dealer. (They will get a total of three.) Aces are always 11.
Step 2: After seeing their first card each player will choose if their three card total will be either Over 23 or Under 18 by matching their ante and placing the chips in either the Over or Under circle or they can fold and lose their ante.

Here is what turned it into a skill based version:
Step 3: Once the declarations are made the dealer takes all wagers and places them into the pot. Then a marker is given to the person with the highest first card. The marker will then be given to the next remaining player to that player's left after every card that is dealt for the buzzer race.
Step 4: The dealer then presents a card that also appears on a monitor and the players race to claim the card by hitting a button in front of them. First player to hit their button gets the card. After a player gets a card the marker moves to the next remaining player to the player that had the marker's left. This continues until each player has their second of three cards. (If no one hits the button for any card presented by the dealer it goes to the player with the marker in front of them that gets passed around to the remaining players after every card dealt.)Once a player has picked up their second card they are out of the hand until all players have their second card.
Step 5: Each player that wishes to remain in the game for their 3rd and final card must throw another wager into the pot worth an amount designated on the table. (All antes and wagers are the same amount.) If you want to fold at this point you can.
Step 6: Repeat step 4 until every player has their third of three cards.
Step 7: The resolution. The dealer takes the % rake and declares who wins the pot as follows:
Situation A: If every player at the table declared Over and no one declared Under then the player with the highest three card total above 23 wins the entire pot. (If all players have a total of 23 or below the pot carriers over to next round.)
Situation B: If every player declared Under and no one declared Over then the player with the lowest three card total under 18 wins the entire pot. (If all players have a total of 18 or higher the pot carriers over to next round.)
Situation C: If both the Over and the Under were declared by one or more player then the pot gets split with half going to the Over winner and the other half to the Under winner. If both the Over and Under were declared by one or more player and there is only an Over winner or only an Under winner then the entire pot goes to that winner.
Situation D*: If all three card totals of all players are between 18-23 then no one wins and the pot carries over to the next hand. (This would not happen often but would be exciting as hell when it did!)

Of course there would have to be rules for ties but this game would be a blast! It is also much easier than Poker so it could appeal to those players who don't have a poker background. These are the players that I believe skill based poker games miss out on.

Lastly, it would not be a matter of who has the quickest hands either. In fact it would lead to some really tough choices regarding whether to push the button. I will give an example.

Let's say four people are playing and their first cards are as follows.

Person 1: 10
Person 2: 9
Person 3: Ace
Person 4: King

Now, the first card the dealer displays for the buzzer race is an 8.

Person 3 has fast hands but does he want to snag that 8? That is a pretty decent card if you already have 11 w an ace but clearly not the best card. So let's say the person 3 snags the 8 so now he has 19 after two of his three cards being established. Person 3 is now out of the round that establishes each player's second card and the next card dealt is an ace that gets snagged by person 2. So now after two cards being established the score is person 3 with 19 and person 2 with 20. Both ante up for the final round. The dealer deals a queen. Player 3 quickly snags it b/c now he knows person 2 must snag a 10 or higher to win outright but for his final card Person 2 snagged another ace to give person 2 at total of 31 which wins the pot b/c we will say for the purposes of this example the other two players got less than that but all declared Over.

In the above example even though Person 3 had the fastest hands and had the best starting card, Person 3 jumped the gun by swiping the 8 and queen and lost to Person 2 who had the worst starting position and was not the quickest hands on the table. Also the marker is what makes it. There are strategic circumstances like I have never seen before that make this game a blast!! Very fun game indeed!!

Here is another example. I believe the optimal number of players playing is four or five as opposed to 7 or 8 or more. The reason is with 4 or 5 the last two cards dealt are almost always exciting and intriguing strategic spots to be in. FOr example the other day I had 21 going into the last card and was going for over and the other player left had 11 going for the under. SHe had the marker and a 7 came out. Now I could have taken the 7 by hitting the buzzer and guaranteed myself a split. But instead I waited b/c she had the marker and then she got stuck with the 7 which gave her 18 in the dead zone. I then got the last card dealt to me which was a 3 and I won the entire pot as opposed to splitting.

Please try and play with a group of people before responding. It really seems to hit home when you play it as opposed to just reading the rules.

I just got a provate message from someone that I know has a lot of experience and his opinion was constructive and beneficial. Please let me have it if you have an opinion. If it is negative that is fine. There are so many sharp minds here with much more experience than I have so I promise I will not flip out or anything weird.

Well heck I guess the nice member that emailed me was right when he said I was hard to understand with my post and I should consider taking it down given the lack of response. Instead of taking it down let me just ask the following:

In these skill based buzzer race games it seems they all must deal with the following situation: where a card is presented to go to the first player that hits a buzzer or indicator button what happens when no one wants the card?

I made sure when I decided to see if I could turn COU into a skill based I made sure I did not look at how the other games were played in detail until after I did mine just in case a situation such as this arose b/c I did not want to be drawn to follow suit with others with regards to how I handled it unless their way ends up being the only way. So my question is this in Skill Based COU when no one hits the buzzer the person who has the marker gets stuck with a card. In the others they handled this situation by simply giving the card no one wants to the bottom of the burn pile as opposed to sticking it to a player. Any thoughts on that?

One concern I heard was a valid one and that is when you force a card on someone or when someone has no choice but get stuck w a card that makes it less of a skill based game. I think there is some truth to that. However, since I am targeting millenialls that do not have a poker background I think reducing the skill aspect a tad is a plus not a minus.

I understood your post, but in it you explicitly asked for comments after reviewing/playing the game. Since there are so few placements of such games, and in limited regions (such as just Vegas) I would imagine a very small percentile of these forums have actually played the games, and then they would have to see/read/respond to your post.

When a card comes up and no one wants it, I believe there is a counter that counts down from like 5 seconds and the card is then gone and unavailable... and then the next card comes up. IF you had a game where there was a "dealer marker" or something and that person or the next "available" person to their left (perhaps they've locked their hands) must get the card if no one takes it, then this could work with collusion. Say a blackjack type game where a player has 12 and a face card comes up. Well if he has the "dealer marker" and the other players are colluding, they could force the 10 on him and bust him intentionally. Though that would give the team away and ruin the game because the person would more than likely just leave after that... it could happen.

Again though - I'm pretty sure other games like this I've seen they don't force anyone to take the card. It simply gets burned after X seconds if no one claims it.

What makes a game skill-based is each player having the identical experience to each other. In your game, player's would be dealt identical cards, and their subsequent decision making about going over/under would be the skill mechanism. This is much easier to implement in an app than it is on the floor since each player would need a deck (or decks) to play your game. Also these games get super pushy when the skill level balances out, so tie-breakers become much more common.

Quote: Romes

I understood your post, but in it you explicitly asked for comments after reviewing/playing the game. Since there are so few placements of such games, and in limited regions (such as just Vegas) I would imagine a very small percentile of these forums have actually played the games, and then they would have to see/read/respond to your post.

When a card comes up and no one wants it, I believe there is a counter that counts down from like 5 seconds and the card is then gone and unavailable... and then the next card comes up. IF you had a game where there was a "dealer marker" or something and that person or the next "available" person to their left (perhaps they've locked their hands) must get the card if no one takes it, then this could work with collusion. Say a blackjack type game where a player has 12 and a face card comes up. Well if he has the "dealer marker" and the other players are colluding, they could force the 10 on him and bust him intentionally. Though that would give the team away and ruin the game because the person would more than likely just leave after that... it could happen.

Again though - I'm pretty sure other games like this I've seen they don't force anyone to take the card. It simply gets burned after X seconds if no one claims it.

Thanks for the response Romes. When I decided to try and make a skills based I forced myself to try and make it first then to look at how others did theirs in an effort to not be drawn to follow suit on certain things. When I completed my game and looked at the few other skill based table games I too noticed that they all just wait for a certain amount of time then the card is not used. Clearly that means that I have taken a unique approach to handle that particular issue. Now that is a good thing if my way is better or a mistake if theirs is. So I was looking for feedback on which way you folks think is the better way. Even though I agree with your comment about collusion I don't believe that potential negative is more important than the craziness and fun that comes with getting stuck w a card. It really makes it a shifty game where things look like you've got it in the bag then bam. I also made it that way b/c if I didn't there may be no times when all the remaining players end up in the dead zone (18-23) which in the skill based triggers a carryover which leads to a pot twice as big as normal for the next game. So I think my way was a better route to take for that issue of what to do when no one hits the buzzer. (I am biased as hell though.)

Quote: shrimpboatcapt

What makes a game skill-based is each player having the identical experience to each other. In your game, player's would be dealt identical cards, and their subsequent decision making about going over/under would be the skill mechanism. This is much easier to implement in an app than it is on the floor since each player would need a deck (or decks) to play your game. Also these games get super pushy when the skill level balances out, so tie-breakers become much more common.

Thanks for the feedback Captain. Now I could be wrong but another difference I noticed with my game and the Gamblit Poker Live which I absolutely love is that in that game it is possible for a player w the fastest hands to end up with more cards than other players. If that is true then I think my way of having everyone all get 3 cards is a more equitable approach to take which players should appreciate. I have played this game quite a bit the last two months or so but there have not been many ties. I think the reason is b/c usually some players are going for the under and some are going for the over. RIght now I have the ties being resolved by suit.

Also, I do not have buzzers made yet so we literally just hit the table and just be honest about who's first. There is an html5 being programmed right now and I can't wait for that to be ready b/c I am really worried about any gaps in time that may occur from the time someone hits the buzzer until it reflect it in the game. Maybe that will be a non-issue but I will tell you when I get that far.