Cutting Edge 2021

Quote: Wizard

According to the Nevada Gaming Control Board, there have been only three field trials since June and the last one was in November. Is it possible that the pathway to business success, for the little guy, in inventing new table games is over? The market for doing math on such games has certainly dried up, except for those who do it for free.

Isn’t it possible that the lack of field trials / reduced math workload, is still due to covid reductions?

Quote: Wizard

I'm not saying this conference has no value for the typical attendee, but I wouldn't recommend paying to exhibit a game there any longer.
link to original post

Is there an alternative other than direct to distributors?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Isn’t it possible that the lack of field trials / reduced math workload, is still due to covid reductions?

Possible, but I would say it's other reasons. The gaming business has been thriving since things opened back up.

Quote: Wizard

Is there an alternative other than direct to distributors?
link to original post

Sure. You have much more bargaining power with the distributors if you can demonstrate a few successful placements yourself.

Quote: Wizard

I'm not saying this conference has no value for the typical attendee, but I wouldn't recommend paying to exhibit a game there any longer.
link to original post

I would say that as a current professional in the area and a speaker at the conference, you run the risk of a negligent tortuous interference lawsuit by the organizer for posting this. Maybe some random lawyer here could comment.

Just saying.

Yeah, seems a little late to be dropping that kind of negativity Mike.

Also yeah, I would suggest that COVID has made an impact on game invention, not just in that it may have made it less likely for Field Trials to go through, but also due to fewer opportunities for inventors to even market their games--in part due to the lack of conferences like these in the last two years, including the virtual Cutting Edge 2020.

There also is just still a lot of negativity and uncertainty in game invention right now due to the patenting situation, the financial barrier to entry no doubt becoming larger as a result of COVID's impact on the economy and on individuals (as lots of new table games are made by distributors, sure, but also independent inventors like us), and the resources and information in the field remaining so limited--the best and most realistic information for success available remains Dan Lubin's book, which can only go so far.

To suggest that there is no longer a market for new games sounds like needless doomsaying. It may be much, much harder, and I don't think anyone can argue that that's not the case. Things may not even bounce back to what they were ten years ago. But the only way the success of game invention dies, as I see it, is if there stops being inventors, and so far that hasn't happened yet.

Quote: SphinxOfCups

Yeah, seems a little late to be dropping that kind of negativity Mike.
link to original post

To be clear, I'm not trying to be negative about this particular show. Most people do not go for the purpose of shopping for or selling new games. For them, by all means, go.

However, as someone who works closely with game inventors, I'm pessimistic about what the future looks like for the little guy making it. My advice could have been better stated to not take the risk of spending time and money on new table games in general at this time, including displaying at any show. However, if you must do so anyway, I think money is better spent at Cutting Edge than G2E.

Quote: Wizard

However, as someone who works closely with game inventors, I'm pessimistic about what the future looks like for the little guy making it. My advice could have been better stated to not take the risk of spending time and money on new table games in general at this time, including displaying at any show.
link to original post

I may be new to the game invention game, but it seems too soon to tell from where I'm sitting. Without conventions like this in two years, without a market for inventors to get into comfortably -- and indeed, in a time period when a lot of resources have suggested to up and coming inventors to wait until COVID dies down and the gaming industry to recover and return to being in a state accepting of New games -- it's no surprise that there would be a temporary dearth. It *might* be permanent, but I don't think we have the data to know or even suggest that right now. Things are only just returning to normal (or new normal) in a meaningful way.

Every industry is hard for the little guy these days, and that's it's own problem with the economy and society we're in, but for the advice to be give up, I find, is needlessly pessimistic and doesn't challenge those norms.

Well said, Sphinx.

I would add one additional barrier that may have been implied but not explicitly expressed: there seems to be a severe shortage of qualified dealers industry-wide, which makes the decision to put a new game on the floor more difficult than ever before; i.e., how can you train your deal staff on a new game when it’s too thin to open the games already on the floor?

Quote: Lucky

Well said, Sphinx.

I would add one additional barrier that may have been implied but not explicitly expressed: there seems to be a severe shortage of qualified dealers industry-wide, which makes the decision to put a new game on the floor more difficult than ever before; i.e., how can you train your deal staff on a new game when it’s too thin to open the games already on the floor?
link to original post

Way out here in the sticks, there are still billboards advertising to hire dealers at seemingly high pay rates. Not sure if they're adding in estimated tokes to get those numbers or guaranteeing a minimum if tokes don't cover it.
I'll keep my eyes open to confirm when next I go through.

A fair number of casinos have seriously cut back table game hours; others have replaced live tables with ETG's. I am assuming this is to reduce the number of dealers they need to try to recruit.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: Lucky

Well said, Sphinx.

I would add one additional barrier that may have been implied but not explicitly expressed: there seems to be a severe shortage of qualified dealers industry-wide, which makes the decision to put a new game on the floor more difficult than ever before; i.e., how can you train your deal staff on a new game when it’s too thin to open the games already on the floor?
link to original post

Way out here in the sticks, there are still billboards advertising to hire dealers at seemingly high pay rates. Not sure if they're adding in estimated tokes to get those numbers or guaranteeing a minimum if tokes don't cover it.
I'll keep my eyes open to confirm when next I go through.

A fair number of casinos have seriously cut back table game hours; others have replaced live tables with ETG's. I am assuming this is to reduce the number of dealers they need to try to recruit.
link to original post

My guess would be if they are offering over $45k a year they are including tips.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Dieter

Way out here in the sticks, there are still billboards advertising to hire dealers at seemingly high pay rates. Not sure if they're adding in estimated tokes to get those numbers or guaranteeing a minimum if tokes don't cover it.
I'll keep my eyes open to confirm when next I go through.
link to original post

My guess would be if they are offering over $45k a year they are including tips.
link to original post

The original ads were guaranteeing $25/hr minimum.
Not being a dealer in the area, I didn't dig into the offer details. I'm assuming there were carveouts for refusing EO, refusing shifts, and a sunset date on the guarantee offer.

edit: Job posting is still up online, mentions $25/hr guaranteed minimum. No details on what the fine print says.

edit 2: Billboard seems to have been re-messaged into a giveaway promo to attract players.

Now that the show is over and I have had a couple days to unwind, here are my thoughts as a first-time exhibitor.

The week got started off on the wrong foot when I was unable the attend the opening reception and first full day of the conference, it killed me to miss this after all that gets invested. I was able to fly one of my play testers down to fill in, and am extremely thankful I had someone to represent although I know it was more than he bargained for and that some of the questions asked he was not prepared for. The two days I did attend I had lots of mixed feelings on.

On the plus-side:
- it was nice meeting other exhibitors/attendees (several of which are members of the forum), all were friendly and open to sharing their experiences. I definitely learned things I wouldn't have otherwise by this.
- I received a small handful of meaningful leads, and a few of these expressed meaningful interest that they might want my game in their casinos
- Received feedback on my game, though not as much as I would have thought, but enough I could take some recurring comments and work with them to make adjustments
- I enjoyed sharing my game with others and playing my fellow exhibitors games. Shout out to SphinxOfCups for his Rule Out game, very original and fun to play!

On the negative-side:
- Expensive for what you get.
- Using a third-party rental company and after being reassured they would deliver through the side door to non incur additional fees by the handling company, they did not, leaving myself and several others in having to incur additional costs. lesson learned. At least my table arrived, which I had limited confidence in happening.
- lower traffic flow than expected, I think having half of conference dedicated to game protection this may be expected, but was apparent my location was not ideal (this was on me, I should have planned this better). Hard to say if it mattered, as I believe those few potentially looking for new games made their rounds.
- table game contest - I will reserve my thoughts for another day

Would I exhibit again? I am not sure, it might depend on what traction I can get from the connections I made. I am thankful the conference happened though.

Quote: zbrownson

Now that the show is over and I have had a couple days to unwind, here are my thoughts as a first-time exhibitor.

The week got started off on the wrong foot when I was unable the attend the opening reception and first full day of the conference, it killed me to miss this after all that gets invested. I was able to fly one of my play testers down to fill in, and am extremely thankful I had someone to represent although I know it was more than he bargained for and that some of the questions asked he was not prepared for. The two days I did attend I had lots of mixed feelings on.

On the plus-side:
- it was nice meeting other exhibitors/attendees (several of which are members of the forum), all were friendly and open to sharing their experiences. I definitely learned things I wouldn't have otherwise by this.
- I received a small handful of meaningful leads, and a few of these expressed meaningful interest that they might want my game in their casinos
- Received feedback on my game, though not as much as I would have thought, but enough I could take some recurring comments and work with them to make adjustments
- I enjoyed sharing my game with others and playing my fellow exhibitors games. Shout out to SphinxOfCups for his Rule Out game, very original and fun to play!

On the negative-side:
- Expensive for what you get.
- Using a third-party rental company and after being reassured they would deliver through the side door to non incur additional fees by the handling company, they did not, leaving myself and several others in having to incur additional costs. lesson learned. At least my table arrived, which I had limited confidence in happening.
- lower traffic flow than expected, I think having half of conference dedicated to game protection this may be expected, but was apparent my location was not ideal (this was on me, I should have planned this better). Hard to say if it mattered, as I believe those few potentially looking for new games made their rounds.
- table game contest - I will reserve my thoughts for another day

Would I exhibit again? I am not sure, it might depend on what traction I can get from the connections I made. I am thankful the conference happened though.
link to original post

I think we're largely in the same boat thoughts-wise. I was also quite unimpressed with the rental and delivery companies' communication. While I'm glad everything I ordered and needed was provided (except for some darn stools!), I would have felt much more emotionally prepared if I were left confident that I was going to have something to exhibit at all prior to the day of.

But yes, while it's hard to say by how much, I think the pros did outweigh the cons. I got some great feedback and I hope some genuine interest in my game, and it was wonderful to connect with so many other inventors, such as yourself zbrownson.

I remember getting a text from my uncle during the convention asking if I was worried about the competition I was up against, and I was able to confidently say, no. There were so many great games, and I genuinely think that there simply couldn't have been any case where the best game was definitely going to win, nor was that the primary reason I was there. I was certain Pick a Hand Poker and Baccarat Blitz we're a shoo-in to place, and I had no illusions that it wouldn't be an uphill battle for Rule Out!, but in the end I think I am quite satisfied with what I got out of the convention and the competition, even if it wasn't everything I expected.

Hi

Just curious, which game got 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Rule out won?

Thanks

1st: Pocket Rockets (3rd year running)

2nd: 21 Stud

3rd: HotSeat Lotto

Quote: SphinxOfCups

1st: Pocket Rockets (3rd year running)

2nd: 21 Stud

3rd: HotSeat Lotto
link to original post

I do not see Pocket Rockets game on the website. Is there a link to the game?

Quote: YouDontSay00

Quote: SphinxOfCups

1st: Pocket Rockets (3rd year running)

2nd: 21 Stud

3rd: HotSeat Lotto
link to original post

I do not see Pocket Rockets game on the website. Is there a link to the game?
link to original post

It's by Casino Gaming Development; their link on the conference website just goes to their Poker Burnout app; they don't appear to have any online information for Pocket Rockets that I can find.

Maybe someone else grabbed their rack card, I regret that was one of the few games I didn't get around to checking out.

Quote: SphinxOfCups

Quote: YouDontSay00

Quote: SphinxOfCups

1st: Pocket Rockets (3rd year running)

2nd: 21 Stud

3rd: HotSeat Lotto
link to original post

I do not see Pocket Rockets game on the website. Is there a link to the game?
link to original post

It's by Casino Gaming Development; their link on the conference website just goes to their Poker Burnout app; they don't appear to have any online information for Pocket Rockets that I can find.

Maybe someone else grabbed their rack card, I regret that was one of the few games I didn't get around to checking out.
link to original post

I missed it too, but saw it explained on the b in the know podcast which explains it around the 9:40 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WozqW36PRjo
pays on players first two cards
11 or less even money
any ace, even money
blackjack 3:2
aces 10:1
suited aces 100:1

Quote: zbrownson

I missed it too, but saw it explained on the b in the know podcast which explains it around the 9:40 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WozqW36PRjo
pays on players first two cards
11 or less even money
any ace, even money
blackjack 3:2
aces 10:1
suited aces 100:1
link to original post

For a six-deck game, I get a house edge of 9.20108830076676% (would love a double check on this). Also, vulnerable to card counting with the count system (-8,-1,-1,0,0,0,0,1,1,2), haven't run a sim to see how much (yet).

Quote: teliot

Quote: zbrownson

I missed it too, but saw it explained on the b in the know podcast which explains it around the 9:40 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WozqW36PRjo
pays on players first two cards
11 or less even money
any ace, even money
blackjack 3:2
aces 10:1
suited aces 100:1
link to original post

For a six-deck game, I get a house edge of 9.20108830076676% (would love a double check on this). Also, vulnerable to card counting with the count system (-8,-1,-1,0,0,0,0,1,1,2), haven't run a sim to see how much (yet).
link to original post

With the count system (-8,-1,-1,0,0,0,0,1,1,2), a simulation of 200M six-deck shoes with the cut card at 52 cards (1 deck) gives the following:

Trigger true count = +6
Frequency of edge = 16.63%
Average edge = 10.77%
Win (in units) per 100 hands = 1.79

I'd say this is a bet that may get some interest if the game is in a deeply dealt six-deck shoe with something more than a $25 maximum bet allowed.

Of course, if this side bet is offered on a game with a manual shuffle and Ace sequencing is possible, or if Ace location is possible for any other reason, the upside may be considerably higher.

I'm going to withhold putting any of this on my website until the game (or developer) has a website, or otherwise I can find it on the web somewhere to confirm that this game actually exists. The vacuum of public information on this game and its win is unique in my experience.

What is a game developer's responsibility for a game that can be beaten by advantage play? Should he tell a casino the possible ways it could be beaten? He then potentially loses income, scaring of a casino. If he doesn't does he bear any responsibility if the casino took a big hit? I suppose it's best to tell the casino prior. Or make the game not attractive to advantage play. Is GLI suppose to make this known as a risk on their report?

Quote: YouDontSay00

What is a game developer's responsibility for a game that can be beaten by advantage play? Should he tell a casino the possible ways it could be beaten? He then potentially loses income, scaring of a casino. If he doesn't does he bear any responsibility if the casino took a big hit? I suppose it's best to tell the casino prior. Or make the game not attractive to advantage play. Is GLI suppose to make this known as a risk on their report?
link to original post

Those are really excellent questions!

My personal opinion is that any casino table games director who is considering a novelty game should ask the company who is providing the game for a cheating and advantage play risk analysis so that they can take affirmative steps to protect the game. If the gaming company can't provide this documentation, well, there are so many more games to choose from, right?

Quote: teliot

Quote: YouDontSay00

What is a game developer's responsibility for a game that can be beaten by advantage play? Should he tell a casino the possible ways it could be beaten? He then potentially loses income, scaring of a casino. If he doesn't does he bear any responsibility if the casino took a big hit? I suppose it's best to tell the casino prior. Or make the game not attractive to advantage play. Is GLI suppose to make this known as a risk on their report?
link to original post

Those are really excellent questions!

My personal opinion is that any casino table games director who is considering a novelty game should ask the company who is providing the game for a cheating and advantage play risk analysis so that they can take affirmative steps to protect the game. If the gaming company can't provide this documentation, well, there are so many more games to choose from, right?
link to original post

That's the smart thing to do, and therefore it's in a developer's best interest to have that analysis already done to either show interested parties that the game can't be beaten or offer solutions for countering any vulnerabilities. Granted, in a lot of ways, catching counting at any Blackjack side bet is going to be handled the same way; if you know what you're looking for, it doesn't matter what counting system they're using, it's the bet spread that gives it away unless they're exceptionally careful and clever.

That said, I'm sure CGD have an analysis on Pocket Rockets, given I've been seeing on LinkedIn that they've been approved for several field trials in a few states since the conference. Assuming those casinos have done their due diligence, I think it's fair to say the developers have as well, especially for how long they've been in the game.

Quote: SphinxOfCups

Quote: teliot

Quote: YouDontSay00

What is a game developer's responsibility for a game that can be beaten by advantage play? Should he tell a casino the possible ways it could be beaten? He then potentially loses income, scaring of a casino. If he doesn't does he bear any responsibility if the casino took a big hit? I suppose it's best to tell the casino prior. Or make the game not attractive to advantage play. Is GLI suppose to make this known as a risk on their report?
link to original post

Those are really excellent questions!

My personal opinion is that any casino table games director who is considering a novelty game should ask the company who is providing the game for a cheating and advantage play risk analysis so that they can take affirmative steps to protect the game. If the gaming company can't provide this documentation, well, there are so many more games to choose from, right?
link to original post

That's the smart thing to do, and therefore it's in a developer's best interest to have that analysis already done to either show interested parties that the game can't be beaten or offer solutions for countering any vulnerabilities. Granted, in a lot of ways, catching counting at any Blackjack side bet is going to be handled the same way; if you know what you're looking for, it doesn't matter what counting system they're using, it's the bet spread that gives it away unless they're exceptionally careful and clever.

That said, I'm sure CGD have an analysis on Pocket Rockets, given I've been seeing on LinkedIn that they've been approved for several field trials in a few states since the conference. Assuming those casinos have done their due diligence, I think it's fair to say the developers have as well, especially for how long they've been in the game.
link to original post

Who does a cheating and advantage play risk analysis? GLI? Cost? I suppose I could do one myself, but I'm sure they would like it from GLI. Almost certain my game does not have that problem, not really enough cards seen. Plus would take alot of signaling. Even then the advantage would not occur often enough. Shuffled every hand.

Quote: YouDontSay00

Who does a cheating and advantage play risk analysis? GLI? Cost? I suppose I could do one myself, but I'm sure they would like it from GLI. Almost certain my game does not have that problem, not really enough cards seen. Plus would take alot of signaling. Even then the advantage would not occur often enough. Shuffled every hand.
link to original post

To my knowledge GLI does not handle AP analyses, but it may just be that they don't do so as part of their certified math report service and instead as a separate service. I got mine from my independent mathematician prior to going all the way to GLI.

Many well-balanced games won't have a significant AP vulnerability, unless there are individual cards in the game that are more valuable to the player, like 10-A in Blackjack. For those that do, like Blackjack side bets, there are a plethora of solutions and ways to minimize that vulnerability. Shuffling every hand is one way, but depending on the game, may not always be realistic for every house, as hands-per-hour starts to come into question when you need to shuffle every hand, and having a Shufflemaster or better on a new game is often regarded as not a popular requirement for a new game with an untested market.

Quote: SphinxOfCups

… having a Shufflemaster or better on a new game is often regarded as not a popular requirement for a new game with an untested market.
link to original post

Hmmm… That thought never occurred to me.

I would have thought that the new game is replacing a game that HAD a shuffler, so….

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: SphinxOfCups

… having a Shufflemaster or better on a new game is often regarded as not a popular requirement for a new game with an untested market.
link to original post

Hmmm… That thought never occurred to me.

I would have thought that the new game is replacing a game that HAD a shuffler, so….
link to original post

You would know better than me, but from all I've heard and read, the more equipment the game needs, even equipment the house already has, the less interested they are likely to be.

Quote: SphinxOfCups

You would know better than me, but from all I've heard and read, the more equipment the game needs, even equipment the house already has, the less interested they are likely to be.
link to original post

I concur with that. I've tried to explain that many game inventors, whose games required special tables, cards, dice, and electronics, but they seldom listen.

Quote: Wizard

I've tried to explain that to many game inventors, whose games required special tables, cards, dice, and electronics, but they seldom listen.
link to original post

I totally agree with the special items you mention.

But a shuffler? That seems like standard equipment to me. But if you say otherwise, I guess I gotta trust your experience on this.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

But a shuffler? That seems like standard equipment to me. But if you say otherwise, I guess I gotta trust your experience on this.
link to original post

I agree that a Shuffler is pretty standard. If I had a game like Pocket Rockets, that is very countable, I would pretty much insist they put it on a shuffler. Casinos won't like that restriction, but it probably wouldn't be a deal breaker.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: SphinxOfCups

You would know better than me, but from all I've heard and read, the more equipment the game needs, even equipment the house already has, the less interested they are likely to be.
link to original post

I concur with that. I've tried to explain that many game inventors, whose games required special tables, cards, dice, and electronics, but they seldom listen.
link to original post

Well there *is* a difference between straight up not listening, which suggests they don't believe you or think they are the exception, and understanding that truth but working through that obstacle as best they can, recognizing the disadvantage they're at.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: SphinxOfCups

You would know better than me, but from all I've heard and read, the more equipment the game needs, even equipment the house already has, the less interested they are likely to be.
link to original post

I concur with that. I've tried to explain that many game inventors, whose games required special tables, cards, dice, and electronics, but they seldom listen.
link to original post

Yes, a new device is a 100% deal-breaker for nearly every casino, everywhere on the planet. Many game inventors just don't want to listen to good advice. Then again, I did some work for an exception to this rule -- it was an Asian casino where they invented a new device and they had a game that used their device they wanted to develop for their own casino. I am not sure if the game was a success, but at least it got placed on a casino floor!

Quote: teliot

Yes, a new device is a 100% deal-breaker for nearly every casino, everywhere on the planet.
link to original post

Um… Slightly less than 100%.

Down Under Blackjack, which uses a proprietary electronic device to determine the range of the dealer’s down card, has (had?) a few installs.

Had I known 2 weeks ago that one location was Excalibur, I would have looked or asked…

I think a single deck game (poker derivative) is going to fall into a different category than blackjack here. I know many vegas casinos will insist on a shuffler for single deck games to minimize dealer error and speed up the game. Where as a blackjack game can be dealt from a shoe, and to require a shuffler there might be more problematic depending on casino.