2017 Cutting Edge Table Games Conference - Who is in?
I'm happy to help with anything I can!
Stephanie
NOTE: I post this thread with permission from the Wizard :)
Quote: blondie1sbIf anybody has any questions about the 2017 Cutting Edge Table Games Conference, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'm with Casino Journal/BNP Media - producers of the show.
I'm happy to help with anything I can!
Stephanie
NOTE: I post this thread with permission from the Wizard :)
You're also someone I consider a friend. Welcome, Stephanie! And yes, you are most helpful. :)
I have exhibited games there twice myself and helped others exhibit as well...no quicker way to tell if your game concept has a shot to get on a floor for trial or is a stinker. It is all in the feedback you get, podiums and awards are icing on the cake, but simply getting the feedback that this or that is good/bad/needs changing, etc., it can be a valuable accelerator in the life cycle of a new game concept.
I don't think I am going to make this years event...I think I have been at the last 5 years shows. The agenda looks pretty good, Operators Round Tables are always insightful and Roger/Eliot F. doing a "create a new game with suggestions from the crowd" in 45 minutes or less (Stephanie, make sure they tape this session), hopefully Roger uses the material for an upcoming Article.
If you have a game, I highly recommend you get it to this show, if not this year, plan for 2018!
Hopefully next year I'll be exhibiting.
Quote: blondie1sbNOTE: I post this thread with permission from the Wizard :)
Yes, indeed, permission was granted. Thanks you, Stephanie, for reaching out to us.
Cutting Edge is a fun and friendly show. I will be attending and making videos, as usual. If you will be at the show and like me to do a video interview, let me know. I can do only so many and am happy to give priority to WoV members.
Thank you for all of the support and feedback you've been offering over the years!
This really is the best platform for new game developers to show a new game and get real industry feedback and gives you the ability to gauge any interest that may exist. I would recommend it to anyone tying to bring a new game to the table games market.
Quote: mrsuit31At the moment, I do not plan to attend this year�s show as I have other obligations that unfortunately conflict.
This really is the best platform for new game developers to show a new game and get real industry feedback and gives you the ability to gauge any interest that may exist. I would recommend it to anyone tying to bring a new game to the table games market.
Thank you for your feedback and support of the show. I do agree - if you're a table game developer, I don't know where else you can get this much feedback in a matter of three days. I tell all of my clients that I work with that they have to ask for the good, bad and ugly so they know where their game stands. We hope you can join us in 2018. Don't hesitate to reach out to me with any questions.
Any good games to report?
How is the live version of gamblit’s cannonbeard?
Quote: SM777What were the results?!
1st - Down under BJ (non-Geoff Hall Push 22 variant), they took second last year with this game....
2nd - BJ burnout
3rd - Gamblit
Weren't they all shown in 2016? Perhaps new versions??Quote: mrsuit311st - Down under BJ (non-Geoff Hall Push 22 variant), they took second last year with this game....
2nd - BJ burnout
3rd - Gamblit
Quote: UCivanWeren't they all shown in 2016? Perhaps new versions??
I wasn't present... From what I have been told, Down Under BJ simply added a new card reader vs the one they had installed on the game last year. I am unsure of what changes had been made to BJ Burnout, which was also at last years show, but didn’t place. Gamblit Showed Cannonbeard's treasure Live this year, not Gamblit Poker Live from last year. Based on the results of this years show alone, I would assume that the feedback for Cannonbeard wasn’t as good as Gamblit poker live last year, based solely on the fact that they took 1st last year, with Down Under placing 2nd and this year they took 3rd, with Down under placing 1st.
Fun fact, Gamblit Poker Live just launched recently at Harrahs SoCal. I definitely would like to hear the player response thus far.....
Quote: mrsuit311st - Down under BJ (non-Geoff Hall Push 22 variant), they took second last year with this game....
2nd - BJ burnout
3rd - Gamblit
Two of these three companies finished in the top three last year as well.
I bragged out winning bets on Gamblit Poker last year so in all honesty I bet with DJTeddyBear this year and lost. He had Down Under and I had Cannonbeard's Treasure (by Gamblit). The game to finish higher wins the bet. Congratulations, DJ. Don't spend the $20 all in one place.
On another topic, any thoughts on One Card Poker? I have kicking around ways to do that game for years but just never decided to jump into the pool with anything. I don't think he will object to me using his name so I'll say that Joe Shipman presented a clever version of the game at the show. I am entitled to no complaints as I never acted on the idea. If Joe makes millions on the game I will certainly be kicking myself. Anyway -- thoughts on the game?
Quote: WizardTwo of these three companies finished in the top three last year as well.
I bragged out winning bets on Gamblit Poker last year so in all honesty I bet with DJTeddyBear this year and lost. He had Down Under and I had Cannonbeard's Treasure (by Gamblit). The game to finish higher wins the bet. Congratulations, DJ. Don't spend the $20 all in one place.
On another topic, any thoughts on One Card Poker? I have kicking around ways to do that game for years but just never decided to jump into the pool with anything. I don't think he will object to me using his name so I'll say that Joe Shipman presented a clever version of the game at the show. I am entitled to no complaints as I never acted on the idea. If Joe makes millions on the game I will certainly be kicking myself. Anyway -- thoughts on the game?
Do you have an image of the rack card or a link to the website for Joe’s version?
Is it much different compared to your free play one card poker game on the WOO website?
Quote: mrsuit31Do you have an image of the rack card or a link to the website for Joe’s version?
It's quite a bit different. The rules are easy to explain. The dealer will play against each player one at a time.
1. Player makes a bet.
2. Player gets a card.
3. Player may exchange the card for the next card or stand pat.
4. Dealer has the same option.
5. High card wins. Wins pay even money. Tie is a push.
The dealer strategy, if I remember correctly, was to stand with 9 or more if the player switched and jack or more if the player stood.
Math puzzle time! If this game were played with random numbers drawn from the uniform distribution from 0 to 1, what would be the optimal strategy for player and dealer? A beer to the first correct answer. Please put answers in spoiler tags.
You may find this cubic equation solver helpful.
p.s. Never mind, I'll make a separate thread for this. Too good a problem to be hidden in this thread.
Quote: WizardIt's quite a bit different. The rules are easy to explain. The dealer will play against each player one at a time.
1. Player makes a bet.
2. Player gets a card.
3. Player may exchange the card for the next card or stand pat.
4. Dealer has the same option.
5. High card wins. Wins pay even money. Tie is a push.
The dealer strategy, if I remember correctly, was to stand with 9 or more if the player switched and jack or more if the player stood.
Does the player have to make a second wager at any point? Where does the HA come from?
Quote: mrsuit31Does the player have to make a second wager at any point? Where does the HA come from?
Hi mrsuit31,
I don't think the Player have to make a second wager,
The HA is come from:
*The Dealer's switch decision Rules, is based on after the player's switch decision.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesHi mrsuit31,
I don't think the Player have to make a second wager,
The HA is come from:
*The Dealer's switch decision Rules, is based on after the player's switch decision.
Thanks Stephen.
Quote: mrsuit31Does the player have to make a second wager at any point? Where does the HA come from?
No. Dealer has a positional advantage.
Quote: WizardIt's quite a bit different. The rules are easy to explain. The dealer will play against each player one at a time.
1. Player makes a bet.
2. Player gets a card.
3. Player may exchange the card for the next card or stand pat.
4. Dealer has the same option.
5. High card wins. Wins pay even money. Tie is a push.
The dealer strategy, if I remember correctly, was to stand with 9 or more if the player switched and jack or more if the player stood.
Does the dealer get a new hand for each individual player showdown at the table (e.g. play out player one’s hand vs dealer hand... Then play out player two hand vs new dealer hand... and so on?
Single or multi deck?
Quote: MrCasinoGamesHi mrsuit31,
I don't think the Player have to make a second wager,
The HA is come from:
*The Dealer's switch decision Rules, is based on after the player's switch decision.
Dear Wizard,
What I am saying is:
The Dealer have a good switch Decision-Rules plus/and has the positional advantage.
Basically we are saying the same thing, but I have added (the switch Decision-Rules + positional advantage) and not just (has a positional advantage).
P.S. Just having the positional advantage, without a good switch-Rules for the Dealer, this game will not work.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesP.S. Just having the positional advantage, without a good switch-Rules for the Dealer, this game will not work.
I think the dealer switching rules is implied in my positional advantage answer.
My One Card Poker game can be souped up in various ways. At the show, I kept the core game as simple as possible and added a “suit match” side bet that paid 3 to 1, to reinforce the theme of “fairness” (“where the heck does the House Edge come from?”). It looks like card counting ought to work, but a (quite difficult) math analysis shows it to be impractical.
Quote: UCivanWasn't there a "one card game" by beachbumbabs several years ago? And the story was that SHFL took it over and then treated it unfairly (?) ... Later, the "one card game" later had version 2 and so on. Is that the same game, or same concept?
That seems unlikely. Does SHFL still have the rights to the game? If the game was a rousing success, they would've pushed it and made money off it. Or if they made a mistake on a rousing success and gave it back, said person would have made a lot of money on it.
That sounds like fake news.
I found the game and the 2013 threads. Perhaps you could search for more threads about the game - one for the money:Quote: SM777That seems unlikely. Does SHFL still have the rights to the game? If the game was a rousing success, they would've pushed it and made money off it. Or if they made a mistake on a rousing success and gave it back, said person would have made a lot of money on it.
That sounds like fake news.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/15552-one-for-the-money-sup-tm-sup/
There is another version.
Quote: UCivanI found the game and the 2013 threads. Perhaps you could search for more threads about the game - one for the money:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/15552-one-for-the-money-sup-tm-sup/
There is another version.
I was referring to SHFL treating a successful game unfairly as fake news. If they had a good game, it benefits no one to treat it unfairly. They'd push it and make money on it.
Quote: SM777That seems unlikely. Does SHFL still have the rights to the game? If the game was a rousing success, they would've pushed it and made money off it. Or if they made a mistake on a rousing success and gave it back, said person would have made a lot of money on it.
That sounds like fake news.
Ummm. Yeah, what UCIvan said is pretty close to true. And patent pending on it as well. We'll see.
Currently the only active install is at Crowne Melbourne.
Thank you, Barbara. I believe my memory still serves me well. Your story is legendary, a great lesson for game developers.Quote: beachbumbabsUmmm. Yeah, what UCIvan said is pretty close to true. And patent pending on it as well. We'll see.
Currently the only active install is at Crowne Melbourne.
Quote: JoeShipmanExercise: come up with a better drawing rule for the dealer than the one I used, say how much better it is, and explain why I didn’t use it.
It’s been a long time Joe. Hope all has been well!
How does the dealer draw vs the player work. Does the dealer have different hands for each player? Or am I not understand the game properly?
Can be done either way, operationally easier if the dealer has a separate hand against each player. If you have only one dealer hand, and the dealer has 9 or 10 and the players do different things, then the dealer first settles with his first card against the players who drew, them draws and settles with the new card against the players who stood pat.
Quote: JoeShipmanmrsuit31, I don’t know you from your screen name.
Can be done either way, operationally easier if the dealer has a separate hand against each player. If you have only one dealer hand, and the dealer has 9 or 10 and the players do different things, then the dealer first settles with his first card against the players who drew, them draws and settles with the new card against the players who stood pat.
You worked with me on the math for the original Money$uit31, when you were with GLI way back when...
L-O-N-G post alert.
Yeah, Gamblit and Down Under were also at last year's show, with what can be considered minor changes to their offerings.
Gamblit's underlying game was completely different, but the skill game concept of waiting for required cards, and hitting the button to take the card, as well as the physical table itself, were the same. Does the new game mean if qualifies to enter the competition? Unsure. After all, they were really there to show / demonstrate the table and skill nature of the concept, not the specific game itself. I think the voters that were there last year took that into account when voting. They may have also voted knowing that Gamblit's games already on casino floors aren't exactly setting things on fire.
Down Under Blackjack was the exact same game as last year, but the equipment used to operate the game changed. In this case, that was huge. One might even call it a game-changer. One of the major complaints heard last year was gone. Or mentioned when saying that the scanner is a huge improvement. (Note: Last year, they used specially printed decks that had a mark on the back to indicate the group. This year, a card scanner does that function.) As such, it qualifies for inclusion in the competiton. And the voters agreed by giving it first place. Note that they demonstrated the scanner's ability to read any brand of card, any style. It was even correctly reading BJ style cards where the tens and aces have the rank positioned lower and have that black mark in the corner.
I believe Down Under was my choice for first place last year. With this change, it was obviously the winner, in my mind.
My #2 and #3 choices were Easy Jack and Over Under. I was torn about which should get the better vote. Easy Jack got a LOT of help from UNLV's Gaming program. Should it get a ding for that? Over Under is a friend of WoV. Should it get a push for that? Ultimtely, I decided that voting in that manner was akin to adding a politically motivated slant to my choices, and instead voted on which I thought was a better game. Easy Jack got my #2 vote, Over Under got #3 (Sorry).
At the awards ceremony, when Down Under was announced as the #1 winner, I cheered rather loudly, as any fan of the game should have. I REALLY think that was the best of the bunch. It didn't occur to me that the rest of the people, even those that love it and voted for it, were giving it the kind of applause a winner deserves, but nothing more. As a result, Roger Snow (who was on stage as one of the MCs of the awards ceremony) later came up to me and said, "You were cheering so loudly that someone might have thought you had a financial interest in Down Under. So how much did you win off your bet with Mike?" I told him the truth, "Only 20 bucks, but I REALLY do like that game."
Anyway, my thoughts on some of the games.
Down Under Blackjack. The game itself is the same as last year. Standard blackjack, but you're told that the dealer's down card is in one of three groups: 2-5, 6-9, 10-A. The game retains a house edge by using a modified Push-22 rule. If the dealer busts on 22, any player 21 wins, as well as a 20 composed of two ten value cards. All other player hands push on the dealer's 22. Although knowing the group that the dealer's down card is in changes strategy (like hitting on 19 when the dealer is showing 20), there's nothing else for a player to learn.
Gamblit. I think the game was called Carribean Treasure. The crew was wearing pirate costumes, complete with triangle hats. Same as last year, more money was wagered on the side bet than on the skill game. The side bet is merely a choice that the first three cards will total 11-20 or 21-30. If it's less than 11, all bets (including the unplayed skill game bet) lose. That's where the edge is. In the skill part of the game, each player is given 1 card, then can draw cards to get to the same total as the initial 3 cards. Essentially it's the same "grab a card" concept as last year's game, but without the poker element. The same questions about a pro stalking the game, as well as ADA concerns, were brought up by the other attendees.
Easy Jack. When I play blackjack, I often forget how to add. Somehow, having money on the table, plus all the distractions of the casino, and suddenly, I can't add 3, 9 and 4 together to make a decision. Easy Jack makes it simpler, because 3 plus 9 is simple math, and it's already a bust. I spoke to the inventor about the UNLV program. He said he already had the idea worked out when he found out about UNLV. He needed to commute from out-of-state (don't know how far), but since it was a once-a-week course, he was able to do it. The class helped fine-tune it and get other details finished. Not sure what details that was. Maybe logos, patent, trademarks, etc. He DID say that the patent is merely pending.
Over Under. As I recall, I only played one hand. Because of WoV, I already had enough familiarity with the game. I then introduced myself as DJTB. We had a brief talk, and I wished him luck.
Easy Aces. It uses a highly modified deck containing 25 aces, 12 dueces, 8 threes, 7 fours and 2 jokers. You're just betting on which card comes out. Kinda like a card version of Big 6. From a player's perspective, it's lame. From a casino perspective, it requires a special deck, or using SEVEN regular decks to build the special deck. As I've learned (and Down Under has also learned), any game that can't be played with a standard deck, is trouble. Spanish 21 is acceptable, since it's a standard deck with a few cards removed.
Dead Man's Hand. Another BJ sidebet. Sure, it's got an intriguing name with intriguing art. But that's about it. Oh, and the art? In their betting circle is a photo of Wild Bill, which they said can't be used outside of the United States. Don't know why. What I know about photo copyrights seems to suggest it can't be used AT ALL. Their logo, which includes a drawing of Wild Bill, is fine.
Casino Dominoes was another game developed at UNLV's Gaming program. There was no skill or decision involved. It may appeal to dominoes players, but not me. Also, it uses a completely custom deck of cards. It could use actual dominoes, but that would prevent it from being played in California and other card only jurisdictions. Plus cards go into a shuffler easier.
"Card Roulette" I don't remember the actual name of the game. Our friend Angela (seen in many of Mike's videos) was dealing one of the two roulette style games in this double size booth. Both used cards rather than a wheel. Her version had cards from 6 thru Ace, in three suits, plus 2 jokers. That's 38 cards. In other words, all the inside roulette bets and payouts are the same as roulette. However, the odd/even and high/low are eliminated since they're no longer 50/50. Instead, several three card poker type bets are offered. Angela deals a single card to resolve the regular bets, then two more for the 3CP bets. Their other game was similar, except it used a full deck, plus THREE jokers. It also provided both 'regular' roulette type bets and 3CP bets. I think the first one would actually have a chance in card jurisdictions, but otherwise, I didn't think much of either.
I don't remember most of the other games. Frankly, most were bad. Or at least unmemorable.
This show also included several conference sessions. Two of them are worthy of comments here.
You Won't Know If You Never Try
Johnny Walker (Yeah, that's his real name), Director of Table Games at Muckleshoot in Washington discusses his strategy towards introducing new games, as well as unique promotions. He's a big promoter of new games. One question he rarely asks is, who else has this game. He wants to be a leader, not a follower. A big part of his talk was about Money$uit 31. Not so much the game, but how he introduced and promoted it. Signs promoting the coming of the game, as well as how candy bars were given to any player that played the game during the intro. Then the players move about the casino, and other people ask where they got the candy. "People go nuts for little things like a candy bar, and learn about a new, fun game in the process." At the end of his session, he had gift boxes with the candy bar for each attendee.
What's in a Game: The Art and Science (and Alchemy) of Table Game Design
Roger Snow (Senior VP of Table and Utility Products at Scientific Games) directed this session with mathematician Elliot Frome at his side, to draw ideas for a new game from audience suggestions. It was interesting, but had the feeling of a "Let's throw some shit on the wall and see what sticks" sort of vibe. We ended up with a BJ variant that gave away a lot, but couldn't agree on how to get the house edge back in an elegant manner. I was going to ask, now that we have this idea, how do we protect it in this post-Bilsky era, but I never got a chance.
On a side note, Wednesday evening I went to Planet Hollywood to try some of Gamblit's single player games. They were next to their four player table top games, all of which were unoccupied. (Ok, one had 3 people, but they were using it as a cocktail table, unaware that there was a game available.) One of the single player games had a couple playing a Boggle-type word game. The seats were double-wide so I think playing as a team was somewhat intentional. I sat and checked all the game options and ended up playing the Boggle game myself for about 15 minutes.
Right when I was about to quit, the Gamblit crew walked by (still wearing the pirate clothes and triangle hats), saw me, and stopped to talk about the game. I told them that it was weird that I was playing a 'skill' game since I saw zero correlation between my game score and the credits awarded. I also noted that I spelled "TITS" a lot. Also, in the pre-game demo, it often found words that I had never heard of. I was tempted to Google some of the words it found. On the flip side, the game was kinda fun, and after 15 minutes, I still had $14.75 of my original $20 buy in.
I then went to the new Penn & Teller machine only because I'm a fan of Penn's podcast. That $14.75 lasted about 5 minutes. During that time, I got the bonus round once. There was a choice of 3 cards to pick. After picking, it revealed that the other cards would have started bonus games. My card gave me a mere 60 credits, and right away back to the main game.
WTF? Isn't the fun of bonus rounds why we play these new slots? Then again, I'm not much of a slot player....
In other news, I'll be writing my trip report and Laughlin review soon.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Anyway, my thoughts on some of the games.
Gamblit. I think the game was called Carribean Treasure. The crew was wearing pirate costumes, complete with triangle hats. Same as last year, more money was wagered on the side bet than on the skill game. The side bet is merely a choice that the first three cards will total 11-20 or 21-30. If it's less than 11, all bets (including the unplayed skill game bet) lose. That's where the edge is. In the skill part of the game, each player is given 1 card, then can draw cards to get to the same total as the initial 3 cards. Essentially it's the same "grab a card" concept as last year's game, but without the poker element. The same questions about a pro stalking the game, as well as ADA concerns, were brought up by the other attendees.
....
Johnny Walker (Yeah, that's his real name), Director of Table Games at Muckleshoot in Washington discusses his strategy towards introducing new games, as well as unique promotions. He's a big promoter of new games. One question he rarely asks is, who else has this game. He wants to be a leader, not a follower. A big part of his talk was about Money$uit 31. Not so much the game, but how he introduced and promoted it. Signs promoting the coming of the game, as well as how candy bars were given to any player that played the game during the intro. Then the players move about the casino, and other people ask where they got the candy. "People go nuts for little things like a candy bar, and learn about a new, fun game in the process." At the end of his session, he had gift boxes with the candy bar for each attendee.
Great report as always DJ. Thank you for the info about Johnny's discussion about my game.
On Gamblit, did they do away with the rake completely? That's what it sounds like with all wagers losing when the first the total less than 11, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly. Do you need to match the total of the first three cards to win, or is it the person with the total closest to that wins? How many cards does each player get, if there is a limit? Does the side wager pay odds? or is it simply 1 to 1?
Gamblit? Unless I missed something, no rake. First person to match the total wins. If nobody matches, the player coming closest without going over wins. I assume ties split the pot. I don't think there's a limit to the number of cards you can draw, but there are only X number of cards offered. X is a fixed number based upon the number of players. And it's a relatively small number. I think 12 was the most.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThanks.
Gamblit? Unless I missed something, no rake. First person to match the total wins. If nobody matches, the player coming closest without going over wins. I assume ties split the pot. I don't think there's a limit to the number of cards you can draw, but there are only X number of cards offered. X is a fixed number based upon the number of players. And it's a relatively small number. I think 12 was the most.
Got it, thanks Dave.
Great Post/Report.
Quote: WizardAny thoughts on Face Up Pai Gow Poker? The gist is that the dealer's cards are entirely face up. The take away is a dealer ace-high pai gow is a push. I was kind of surprised such a game held water, at first. However, after playing it a while, I realized that often I had no chance to win or the way I ended up playing is how I would have played against a random hand anyway. There is basically no skill involved -- other than not making an error.
Quote: FCBLComishFace Up Pai Gow doesn't sound appealing to me, but I have heard that players really like it.
I've also heard that people seem to like this version over regular PG.
I personally deviate from house way when it comes to two pair hands pretty often, so this rule would help me in that regard since I wont be making wrong decisions any longer. It definitely does take some of the excitement out of the hand, like you said, as you know the outcome before even setting your hand...
I haven't played this live yet, so I don't really know if the lack of surprise overshadows the player error reduction to favor one over the other. But again, it seems to be developing a following pretty quickly.
