Cutting Edge 2018
Thread Rating:
Poll
 | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 5 votes (38.46%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| | 8 votes (61.53%) |
13 members have voted
I'd like to congratulate the award winners this year, all of whom I have some degree of connection to, especially first and second.
Bronze: Multiplier Blackjack. This is a blackjack with a dealer new bust side bet added.
Silver: Ricochet Poker. This is a player vs. player game, where the dealer plays too, that is similar to a home game I played as a teenager called no-peekie.
Gold: Poker Burnout.
The question for the poll is which was your favorite game at the show?
Click on any image for a larger version.
Multiplier Blackjack
Ricochet Poker
Poker Burnout
However, I'm glad to see that Yo! not only was there, but was good enough to get on the short list of choices in this poll.
I saw that game at G2E and really liked it. So much so, that I suggested to the developer to show it at Cutting Edge. They hadn't heard of that show prior to me mentioning it.
Note that the name is Yo! - with an exclamation point.
Quote: DJTeddyBearHowever, I'm glad to see that Yo! not only was there, but was good enough to get on the short list of choices in this poll.
Nice people behind that game, so I hate to say anything negative. One of many attempts I've seen through the years to do a simplified friendlier version of craps. I'd like to see them do well, but let's just say I didn't bet on it to get an award. Then again, my predictions did badly this year, so what do I know?
I think Poker Burnout may have a chance to do well. It seems to check all the boxes on the things that make a game viable.
I also like some of the changes to Classic 31. I think the "Rainbow" winning combination may be a keeper.
Toe pick!
Quote: Face
That was the first movie I saw with Mrs. Wizard. Needless to say, she chose it, although it wasn't that bad.
All joking aside I do want as much feedback as possible on my game from those who attended the show. Rip it to shreds, tell me it's the next best thing since sliced bread, or anything in between, I just want some honest feedback to improve on :)
Quote: LuckyThe game was interesting and fun, but the honest truth is that a ‘card and dice’ game is a hard sell to operators. I’ve tried it, others have tried it — and it’s never been commercially successful.
I am going to have to agree. The card/dice portion, plus the unlimited (or virtually unlimited) doubling mechanism make the game less palatable for operators. You have to be able to increase the value of what is currently in its place on the floor, and do it by enough to significantly offset the lease payment. This allows for the training, inevitable dealer errors, player confusion, etc. that happens with any new game.
This is a hard pass for me.
Quote: LuckySevensOuch, who do I have to pay to get my game on the poll! As if not placing didn't sting enough ;)
All joking aside I do want as much feedback as possible on my game from those who attended the show. Rip it to shreds, tell me it's the next best thing since sliced bread, or anything in between, I just want some honest feedback to improve on :)
You can approach me by PM and I'll give it to you straight.
If anyone else who attended doesn't remember which one Lucky Sevens was, here is a photo to jog your memory.
Do you mind going into a little more detail about the problem with the showdown (doubling mechanism)? Is it a potential payout issue for the operators you are referencing? As in the potential to pay out too large of an amount?
Quote: LuckySevensHey FCBLComish,
Do you mind going into a little more detail about the problem with the showdown (doubling mechanism)? Is it a potential payout issue for the operators you are referencing? As in the potential to pay out too large of an amount?
We spoke at the conference and I voiced my concern about a dealer purposefully leaving a slug of tens unshuffled in the shoe, while the player doubles himself up to the aggregate payout. Very risky.
As an honest question, is it impractical to request a CSM used for a new game? It of course runs without it, but using one eliminates that potential issue of the game.
There are many variables that need to line up for a new game to succeed. My "spidey-sense" is tingling on this one. It may be a great success, and I hope it will be. I just am not the one who will take a chance on it.
On top of that any other feedback on the game is more than appreciated!
There is no game that is 100% safe, but there are people out there who will see a game, and try to analyze the holes. This mechanism where a player can continually redouble looks exploitable.
Only thing I’d change is film it from a camera angle that allows someone watching to more easily see the cards that each player has during the game play part.
Quote: FCBLComishMany casinos, mine included, do not have CSMs on property. I have removed them from each of the last 3 properties where I worked, for one very good reason.
There are many variables that need to line up for a new game to succeed. My "spidey-sense" is tingling on this one. It may be a great success, and I hope it will be. I just am not the one who will take a chance on it.
Would you please give a brief insight to CSM for those who are not familiar with gambling industry -- what is the reason that many casinos don't want CSM on property? Is it about the cost of the CSM itself? Or is it the maintenance & reliability factor of the machine? Or any other reason?
Quote: 777Would you please give a brief insight to CSM for those who are not familiar with gambling industry -- what is the reason that many casinos don't want CSM on property? Is it about the cost of the CSM itself? Or is it the maintenance & reliability factor of the machine? Or any other reason?
My beef with the Continuous Shuffling Machine (CSM) which is not to be confused with the shufflers that are shuffling one shoe while the other is being dealt is the following:
1) Casinos have been told that these machines save time and equal extra hands per hour. I don't think the extra hands that are gained going from a regular shuffling machine to a CSM outweigh the negatives.
2) Players have a negative reaction to these machines. I can go deep into this one, but there are many people who are NOT AP, that still think these machines are bad for the player (I'm thinking of someone on this board....)
3) Here is the kicker: If APs will not play these, all that remain are recreational players. On a CSM machine, the count is ALWAYS zero. That means that the Basic Strategy players are ALWAYS making optimal plays. The house advantage in blackjack comes when people follow basic strategy that is not always correct for their individual situation. CSM removes all these mistakes. You see the same thing happen when casinos restrict doubling to 9-11. There are so many people who make mistakes on soft doubles, that removing them from the game eliminates more casino house edge by not letting the people make their mistakes.
This information is not widely known, and my beliefs are not widely held, but they are my beliefs, and they are backed up with 34 years on the dark side..... YMMV
I'd rather, by a little, hear that you're cheering for the players. The casino edge is built in. That genuinely should be enough to keep the lights on.
The frequency of return visitors, and tips, are NOT built in. So I would think (and if I ever do run a casino, will do this) you would WANT to offer the best possible game for the most players. Winners tip much better than losers. Winners come back again and again and bring their friends. So your people benefit, your customers benefit, and the House trusts the HE will bring their benefit.
And THAT'S the part I wish more casinos and their employees understood. This 6:5 BJ, shaving bonus pay tables, lowering craps odds, all the rest is just killing gaming. Now it's about bottle clubs and name restaurants. It didn't have to go that way.
Quote: beachbumbabs
And THAT'S the part I wish more casinos and their employees understood. This 6:5 BJ, shaving bonus pay tables, lowering craps odds, all the rest is just killing gaming. Now it's about bottle clubs and name restaurants. It didn't have to go that way.
I've often used the phrase 'MBA types' but that encompasses just anyone who focuses on immediate
increases in the bottom line, pleasing Wall Street or bankers, pleasing executives, etc. Benny Binion
realized you have to give the gambler a square deal. A steak, a drink and good game. If you
focus on immediate gains by shrinking the steak, watering the drink and eroding the players
chances, why should he tip your dealers, why should he come back, why should he bring his
friends and eventually bring his kids?
Quote: beachbumbabsA somewhat unique perspective, well said. Thanks.
I'd rather, by a little, hear that you're cheering for the players. The casino edge is built in. That genuinely should be enough to keep the lights on.
The frequency of return visitors, and tips, are NOT built in. So I would think (and if I ever do run a casino, will do this) you would WANT to offer the best possible game for the most players. Winners tip much better than losers. Winners come back again and again and bring their friends. So your people benefit, your customers benefit, and the House trusts the HE will bring their benefit.
And THAT'S the part I wish more casinos and their employees understood. This 6:5 BJ, shaving bonus pay tables, lowering craps odds, all the rest is just killing gaming. Now it's about bottle clubs and name restaurants. It didn't have to go that way.
I actually am cheering for the players, almost all the time. My last name is not Wynn or Trump or Caesar. I get paid a salary to ensure the games are fair and that the players enjoy the time they spend with us. If you were to ask any of the players at my casino about me, I would guess the response would be over 95% favorable. And yes, any regular player there knows who I am. I spend a lot of time on the floor interacting, listening for suggestions, and trying to ensure they have a great experience every time, win or lose.
Quote: FleaStiffI've often used the phrase 'MBA types' but that encompasses just anyone who focuses on immediate
increases in the bottom line, pleasing Wall Street or bankers, pleasing executives, etc. Benny Binion
realized you have to give the gambler a square deal. A steak, a drink and good game. If you
focus on immediate gains by shrinking the steak, watering the drink and eroding the players
chances, why should he tip your dealers, why should he come back, why should he bring his
friends and eventually bring his kids?
Benny Binion is the model of an excellent casino operator. I agree that when the MBA bean counters get involved and make decisions without considering the effect on operations, many times the guest experience is lessened.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRS9FJiSrI
Quote: FCBLComishMy beef with the Continuous Shuffling Machine (CSM) which is not to be confused with the shufflers that are shuffling one shoe while the other is being dealt is the following:
1) Casinos have been told that these machines save time and equal extra hands per hour. I don't think the extra hands that are gained going from a regular shuffling machine to a CSM outweigh the negatives.
2) Players have a negative reaction to these machines. I can go deep into this one, but there are many people who are NOT AP, that still think these machines are bad for the player (I'm thinking of someone on this board....)
3) Here is the kicker: If APs will not play these, all that remain are recreational players. On a CSM machine, the count is ALWAYS zero. That means that the Basic Strategy players are ALWAYS making optimal plays. The house advantage in blackjack comes when people follow basic strategy that is not always correct for their individual situation. CSM removes all these mistakes. You see the same thing happen when casinos restrict doubling to 9-11. There are so many people who make mistakes on soft doubles, that removing them from the game eliminates more casino house edge by not letting the people make their mistakes.
This information is not widely known, and my beliefs are not widely held, but they are my beliefs, and they are backed up with 34 years on the dark side..... YMMV
The percentage of players who have a negative reaction to a CSM is incredibly small. Almost immeasurable it is so small.
Quote: SM777The percentage of players who have a negative reaction to a CSM is incredibly small. Almost immeasurable it is so small.
I disagree. What is your source? Mine is constant daily interaction with Table Games players.
Quote: FCBLComishI disagree. What is your source? Mine is constant daily interaction with Table Games players.
Exactly. My source is your evidence.
At your one casino, seeing the same players day in and day out, all 20 of them that don't like a CSM are a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.
It is a mathematical fact that on the low end a CSM increases hands per hour by 15%. Multiplied by days, months, and years, it's not in the best interest of any casino not to have them. I'm glad the 20 customers of yours that don't like the CSM have you stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w415ZGRhjn8
This game already had a field trial at Harrah's, so I wrote a page for it at WoO.
Quote: WizardToday's Cutting Edge video is Easy Jack.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w415ZGRhjn8
This game already had a field trial at Harrah's, so I wrote a page for it at WoO.
I like this. Would play. Fun to count.
Quote: SM777Exactly. My source is your evidence.
At your one casino, seeing the same players day in and day out, all 20 of them that don't like a CSM are a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.
It is a mathematical fact that on the low end a CSM increases hands per hour by 15%. Multiplied by days, months, and years, it's not in the best interest of any casino not to have them. I'm glad the 20 customers of yours that don't like the CSM have you stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
At my 4 casinos I have worked in since the invention of the bloody things. Not one. Not 20 players.
Based on the drop of the control game next to it with a 6 deck shoe and otherwise exactly the same conditions. Do you really think we make decisions just on a whim?
A CSM increases hands per hour by 15% over HAND SHUFFLING. When you consider a shuffle machine that is not continuous, the increase is negligible.
However, feel free to disagree. When you are in a position to make these types of decisions you may choose the opposite. In the words of Mark Horstman, "The Other Way Often Works Just Fine". Google him, it is worth the read.
Quote: SM777The percentage of players who have a negative reaction to a CSM is incredibly small. Almost immeasurable it is so small.
Not sure how reliable or meaningful is the number that you had brought up. The number that management should look at for the long term or for the health of the gambling/casino industry is the number of consumers playing the games, returning patrons, market shares ...
I apologize for the blurriness of this video.
Comments on the game?
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=RTpr5w0vXTQ
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvV7lLLUDic
Comments?
Quote: WizardToday's Cutting Edge video is Multiplier Blackjack, which won third place...
That's a nice video that explains the game completely.
I like the option to play the regular bet, multiplier bet, or both. I'm sure blackjack players would love that bet because of the excitement of getting paid odds on the multiplier bet. Also, it's good the player gets paid on the multiplier bet for a winning hand even if the dealer doesn't bust.
As a reminder, here is what the Multiplier bet pays, by dealer bust card:
6: 4 to 1
7: 3 to 1
8 or 9: 3 to 2
Face card: 1 to 2
10: push
Outscoring the dealer still pays 1 to 1.
