Cutting Edge 2021

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.