Poker Variants Are Popular

Seeing all of the new poker variants popping up gave me inspiration to build one of my own. It's simple yet skill based so you shouldn't get bored playing it. The rules are as follows.

Up to six players at a table play against the house (dealer).
Each player places an Ante wager of one unit.
The dealer then deals five cards face down to each player and seven cards face down to himself from a normal 52 card deck.
Each player, in order from the dealer's left, to right will decide if he wants to fold or bet 2 additional units. If the player folds, he forfeits his ante to the house.
If the player does bets 2 additional units, the player then has the option of discarding 1 or 2 cards or holding on to all five original cards dealt.
The dealer will then replace the discarded cards from the players hand with replacements from the un-dealt cards that remain in the deck so that each remaining player once again has five cards.
Each player will then have the option to check or raise their bet by an additional 2 units for total possible action of 5 units.
The dealer then reveals his seven cards from which he makes the best possible five card poker hand.
If the player's poker hand is higher in rank (including kickers) than the dealer's hand, then the player wins even money on the ante, bet and raise (if applicable).
If the player's poker hand is lower in rank (including kickers) than the dealer's hand, then the player loses his ante, bet and raise (if applicable).

A side bet named "Insurance" will be based on the dealer's best five card poker hand and pays according to the following table:

Dealer's Poker Hand	To 1
Royal Flush	2000
Straight Flush	200
Quads	50
Full House	7
Flush	5
Straight	3
Trips	2

I'm still working on a Player's Hand side bet but it'll probably be the same as the best Jack's or Better Video Poker pay table. Since you're only allowed to draw two cards, this should provide a sizable casino advantage yet make it familiar to a casual player.

What do you think? Would you play it? My test Monte Carlo simulations have the best strategy that I can program at a 5% casino advantage for Ante, Bet and Raise (hold all pairs, go for outside straights and four card flushes), 9.25% casino advantage for the Insurance bet. I'm thinking about having the dealer's "Flop" or his first three cards face up as an extra tease.

Quote: s2dbaker

What do you think? Would you play it? My test Monte Carlo simulations have the best strategy that I can program at a 5% casino advantage for Ante, Bet and Raise (hold all pairs, go for outside straights and four card flushes), 9.25% casino advantage for the Insurance bet. I'm thinking about having the dealer's "Flop" or his first three cards face up as an extra tease.

Nice idea.
I like it.
Yes I would play it.

I just played 4 Card Poker last week and like the fact that there is NO min dealer qualifying hand. Sure the dealer gets an extra card, everyone knows that is where the advantage comes from, but most I talked to HATE the "dealer does not qualify" rule.

Games like Caribbean Stud and 3 Card Poker have them, I think Caribbean Stud died in most places in Nevada because of the "Dealer did not qualify" rule.
My second hand playing CStud was quad 4s, the dealer did not qualify and I only won $5. of course I had the bonus $1 bet, so I think I won $200 or $500, it was along time ago.

Death to the "Dealer does not qualify" rule!

yes, honey, it is my turn to walk the dog.

Quote:

Death to the "Dealer does not qualify" rule!

That was part of the thought process. So I had to start with a game that had a significant casino advantage and then try to even it up through the betting system. I'm still tweaking it. My original betting system had 1 unit ante, 1 unit bet and 1 unit raise but that lead to a slight player advantage and that would make for an awesome game that would never be seen :)

Quote: s2dbaker

That was part of the thought process. So I had to start with a game that had a significant casino advantage and then try to even it up through the betting system. I'm still tweaking it. My original betting system had 1 unit ante, 1 unit bet and 1 unit raise but that lead to a slight player advantage and that would make for an awesome game that would never be seen :)

I hope that you have protected/applied for patent before posting this on an open forum.

Quote: Switch

I hope that you have protected/applied for patent before posting this on an open forum.

I'm not a professional. For me, this is an amusing exercise. If someone steals this idea then I've learned a hard lesson but then again, I get to play a game that I invented in a casino. This isn't the only idea I had, just the easiest to program into an SQL database engine. I can make more!!

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm not a professional. For me, this is an amusing exercise. If someone steals this idea then I've learned a hard lesson but then again, I get to play a game that I invented in a casino. This isn't the only idea I had, just the easiest to program into an SQL database engine. I can make more!!

That's not a bad attitude to take.
I went through the whole patent/Gaming mathematics report/Gaming jurisdictions licensing approvals/distribtor agreement process, and it all can be hell: expensive, time-consuming, - takes YEARS to see your table in a real casino, and everyone else gets paid FIRST. The process is rough.

Some notes:
1. A dealer qualification is not a bad idea; beats the crap out of charging a commission. Having a dealer advantage of two extra cards over players without the discard feature might be steep, even ignoring the absence of a dealer qualifier, but is generous with two player discards. Have you taken a look at your game with one extra dealer card, not two, and no discard feature? You only need about a 2.5% house edge on even-money bets, and about a 7% edge on poker-type bonus tables. Also, three units to play out the hand is expensive for players, and the discard process makes for a slow game, which casinos hate.
2. The Poker variant carnival game area is REAL crowded, and so is the Blackjack game area, BUT...if you don't have a basis where players can hook into your game, it'll be even tougher to get people to try it. Two-Cards High is a fine little game, but it has a three card Baccarat hand of Zero from five cards as a player goal, and not enough casino players know or play Baccarat on a regular basis to feel comfotable with it (though it did take off in Korea; Baccarat is a bit of an Asian pit game).
3. The dealer's bonus bet table could be shaded to the lower end; if players get burnt out quickly from it, they'll stop playing it. You can also have a player's hand bonus bet table start lower. The table could be higher in payout, because it'll be real hard to form a hand of two pairs or better with five cards. In Deuces Wild (table game), it's real tough, and that's with four completyely wild cards (2's).
4. Without a patent filing, and a public announcement of your game (like on a gambler's forum here) pretty much you've put it into the public domain. But if that's okay with you...then as a thought experiment or a trail run, then fine.
5. You're right, - you can always create more more game ideas. Hard to find a sure-fire winner of a game, but the ONLY way to get there is to keep hacking away. I've come up with some follow-ups, one of which seems very promising.

I like Mississippi Stud, every man needs a relaxing sit down in between craps bouts!

Thanks Dan, that's a lot of good information. I did weight the "insurance" bet to the low side. I originally had trips paying even money but thought better of it. My initial run had my hair on fire since the dealer hit a royal flush twice within the first few thousand deals. I thought I had a bug, that cost me an hour to figure out.

I do need to help the player a little. It's pretty solid at 5% casino advantage right now. I'll expose the flop and generate some more data based on that.

I tried having a six card dealer hand vs. A five card player hand but that game left me with little room to maneuver the betting rules. I hear what you're saying about dealer qualifying not being bad but for me, it's bad. I won't play a game like that. It irks me a little that the Ante bet in Texas Hold'em Bonus doesn't pay unless the dealer has a Straight in LV and NO or a Flush in AC. If I beat you, I want to get paid even money! So the exercise here was to create a game where the imbalance wasn't in the betting but built into the game and make it not boring like Baccarat. The player should be engaged and making decisions. Even lousy decisions have a resonable shot at winning ( unlike Blackjack ). I'll get a few friends together and play test it. I don't think the discard process will slow it up so much since it's only two cards.

Baker -
Best of Luck.
You're the game designer, and you can design your game as you see fit. Indeed, you should and you must, if you design games. Compromises occur when you try to make game design your daytime gig for money. You can just put it into the pubic domain (indeed you have), and let others - them - pick it up and take it from there - and a modified version version of your game may make it into casinos, in a form you might not recognize or make a cent on, but you may be a father who sired a son into this crazy casino world.

But, if your game is to ever end up in real casinos with your licensing signature, then gaming people who may know far less than you will insist upon massaging the shit out of your game, "just to make it better," and often in their frequently questionable opinion. [Pardon my French.]

Casino Floormen, and Shift Managers, and Casino even managers - who have never designed a game themselves, and spend most of their time assigning dealers to various shifts, and buying games based on things they've heard from others who have also never designed a game, or worked in casino procurement, - or have a clue as to what makes a casino game desirable - will decide what goes into a good game once you've done your initial version.
Gamblers decide by playing it and staying with it over 25 casino installs or more, and they call the tune with their buy-ins, essentially picking the games that stay in the industry.

If it's fun to play, easy for casino dealers to deal, and players choose it to play with real money - bang - you're in.

If casino operators did know all this, they'd own the patent and games, and be collecting the licensing fees themselves.
All casinos know is how to assign various dealers to various tables and shifts, and count down table chip racks, and see what games are busy with action, and which hold a profit. That is IT! Hence Derek Webb [of Three Card Poker], The Talisman Group [of EZ Baccarat], Eliot Jacobson [of Three Card Blackjack], Paul Omohundro [of Texas Hold 'em Bonus], Stacy Friedman [of Bad Beat Blackjack, aka MathExtremist ], - and this knucklehead here.
Game distributors know a LOT more than casino operators, but not everything, and so take some input from the inventors, - especially when there's a renewable license and the game is indeed selling for real. But distributors too take orders from the casino opertors to make a game placement or sale, even if it's wrong at first, and will "fix things and make it work later" if they have to. And they do or die trying.

In my opinion, if you feel that a dealer qualification mechanism is bad for your game - well, then, you're right, it's just bad. That's how I felt about eliminating the commission for Pai Gow poker - that the commission was just bad, and so I came up with commission-free Pai Gow. It sold, and is in the process of replacing commission-based Pai Gow Poker in casinos. After four years, I was still not able to retire, but I bought a new car. And I have my lurv child in a number of casinos.

If you can come up with dealer-qualification-free Poker, then maybe you too will have a hit game, you do not know yet. And you can take the position that you're the game designer, and you're the boss, and that's all there is to it.
It's like, "this is MY son, dammit - and Brad Pitt don't have shit on him! Leave him AS IS!" Up to a point.
I fight with DEQ all the time (amicably) about my game installs and how they configure my game, because I went "commercial."
Sometimes they know better, sometimes they don't and have to massage things, but after a lot of strife, they ultimately call the tune, and are open to reason, and it all works out, - after a few years.

A couple of rules-of-thumb:
1. If you have multiple bets to play a hand - that is, ANTE plus PLAY or another bet to play out a hand fully, then the game is more expensive for casino goers to play, so if it burns them out more quickly, they will abondon it, even "trash" your game. It's like paying restaurant prices for McDonalds when you're getting to get them to try your Poker-Burger. You need a "Cheap to Enter" and a "Steady-State Give-and-take" sense to your game, to avoid this burn-out sense or feel to your game. The Deuces Wild table game is a "bad" example of this, and regular blackjack is a positive example of this element. Only one bet to play, and you win often enough to keep playing the gambling action. A "Flat bet" main bet should have about a 2% to 2.5% house edge, like Pai Gow Poker, or Blackjack, they way most players play the game.
2. Bonus bet payout tables are very important. They have to pay out frequently enough on the low end (trips, straight, flush) because table players won't chase a royal like they do on VP. They have to have about a 7% house edge, because a big player hit locks in a house loss, as players on a big win will "snap out of gambling chasing mode," and leave to pay bills, when the payout is big enough.
3. Easy to deal. If dealers don't like dealing your game, they'll kill your game, because dealers who LIKE your game will SELL your game, and dealers who HATE your game will KILL your gtame.
4. Name your game properly. A simple, clean, and descriptive name helps. Naming your child something retarded like "Super-Duper Awesome Whoop-Ass Scrotum-Stomping Freakin' Poker" will kill your game, no matter how boss you think it is. In fact, the name has to get out of the way of your game to be a good name. This was the experience of "Whoop-Ass Poker," a real casino that this is in NO [zero] casinos. "Rabbit Hunter" is also a bad name, what was Roger thinking. Craps is bad enough, but it is well-established. "Three Card Poker" and "Carribean Stud" are very good and fine example names.
5. Be real flexible and open to suggestions if a distributor picks it up. Whatever it akes for it to see the light of day.

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm not a professional. For me, this is an amusing exercise. If someone steals this idea then I've learned a hard lesson but then again, I get to play a game that I invented in a casino. This isn't the only idea I had, just the easiest to program into an SQL database engine. I can make more!!

It's a two way street; Shuffle Master has a whole lot of IP on game structures like the one you suggest. Rather than someone else stealing this idea, it may be that you've (inadvertently) stolen it from someone else. Please, for the sake of your pocketbook, hire an IP attorney to do clearance before spending any money on R&D.

Stacy -
Baker said he was disinterested in patent rights or ownership, and if his idea conflicts with a real patent, then it's out in any case, to no loss as a thought exercise.
But...I don't think SMI thought of six-cards versus five cards as a house edge mechanism, and it's out and public anyway.

Edit: for his next game idea, and if it is anything sharp, Baker will need to be to very quiet and check first the patent pool, then file a patent, before he hits a gambler's forun board with a patentable game idea for public discussion.

I would not play it. Then again, I avoid all carnival games.

I think giving the dealer 7 cards to choose from is way too strong.

Do the math. The dealer may still have an advantage even if he starts with only 6 cards. Picking 5 from 6 is a lot better than blindly picking 1 or 2 to replace with unknowns. Of course, if the math does show a dealer advantage with only 6 rather than 7 starting cards, many players will not believe it, making this a popular game for carnival players.

If I'm right, then you gain an additional option: Since only 48 cards are used, you have 4 left over. You can add the option that any player who shows an ace, can discard up to 3 cards.

That will really make the math interesting, as well as make players really think they have an advantage.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Picking 5 from 6 is a lot better than blindly picking 1 or 2 to replace with unknowns. Of course, if the math does show a dealer advantage with only 6 rather than 7 starting cards, many players will not believe it, making this a popular game for carnival players.

If I'm right, then you gain an additional option: Since only 48 cards are used, you have 4 left over. You can add the option that any player who shows an ace, can discard up to 3 cards.

That will really make the math interesting, as well as make players really think they have an advantage.

I think things are being seen here and said here that are not yet in any gaming patent, even SMI, and this may be the case. Some may say, Yikes!

Consider:
1. Players get six cards, and the dealer gets seven - as the house edge mechanism. Each consider their best 5-card hand. Still VERY strong for the house.
2. AND, a single "Play" bet makes the game inexpensive and inviting to play, and quick for the casino to pump out more hands. "Discard and Swaping" cards may just bog down the game.
3. Still No qualifier, as desired - to boot.

Quote: DeMango

I like Mississippi Stud, every man needs a relaxing sit down in between craps bouts!

I recently discovered Mississippi Stud, very entertaining. Also very easy to get drained. I play the Wizard's strategy, but sometimes you just don't see a winning hand for ever and ever. Bet 3x on a PP is always rough, I got dealt 55 thrice in a row last time I played and never hit once. Course sometimes the winners just hit maybe 3 two pair in 6 or 7 hands. That is when it is time to leave the table and go try craps again. :-)

OK sorry to have hijacked the thread, the moral of my story is these poker variants are indeed entertaining.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. Players get six cards, and the dealer gets seven - as the house edge mechanism. Each consider their best 5-card hand. Still VERY strong for the house.
2. AND, a single "Play" bet makes the game inexpensive and inviting to play, and quick for the casino to pump out more hands. "Discard and Swaping" cards may just bog down the game.
3. Still No qualifier, as desired - to boot.

That's a lot of cards on the table, though. You want a quick game with minimal distractions if it's going to be a carnival game.

How about:
1) Dealer get 5 cards
2) Players get a choice to bet on a hand with 3 or 4 cards. Or both.
3) If a given player's hand beats the dealer, player wins more than even-money. Winning with a 3-card hand pays more than with a 4-card hand, but both pay better than 1-1.

No qualifier, no secondary betting, no strategy other than where to place the initial bet(s). Should be quick, especially since the player will be losing well over 50% of the time. (No, I haven't worked out the math yet.)

Quote: RonDiaz

... the moral of my story is these poker variants are indeed entertaining.

Agree! They will always be a part of the casino table line-up.
But they have to be cheap enough, and steady-state enough, to not burn out players, and to stay around.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a lot of cards on the table, though. You want a quick game with minimal distractions if it's going to be a carnival game.

True - but Pai Gow Poker is 7 cards for everyone, best 5-card hand wins the bonus (except 7-card SF and royal match).
It seems that if six positions plus dealer can be dealt from a single deck, it's not considered too many.

Quote: MathExtremist

How about:
1) Dealer get 5 cards
2) Players get a choice to bet on a hand with 3 or 4 cards. Or both.
3) If a given player's hand beats the dealer, player wins more than even-money. Winning with a 3-card hand pays more than with a 4-card hand, but both pay better than 1-1.

More than even-money, or any non-even payout is a logistic nightmare for a typical casino dealer and surveillance. This is part of the reason why so many poker side games are broken out into ANTE and PLAY bets. The "flat bet" has to be truly flat, (outside of craps place/buy bets, which is why 80% of casino dealers can't deal craps well.) Craps wouldn't make it today as a new game because of that aspect, so this has to be considered. A common dealer error is to pay 3:2 on a single-deck 6:5 game when thrown right onto it.

Things have to be so damn easy for a new game, for a casino to implement.

Quote: MathExtremist

No qualifier, no secondary betting, no strategy other than where to place the initial bet(s). Should be quick, especially since the player will be losing well over 50% of the time. (No, I haven't worked out the math yet.)

Yes, dammit!! :)
Everything has to be so damn quick and easy. EZBaccarat is amazing in that regard: just place your bet, player or banker, no commission, no strategy thinking, or fractional payouts. Dealer handles it ALL, and you win push or lose even money.
It does have a "tiny" qualifier, a winning banker's three-card seven is a push, but the dealer handles that, and it's very rare, just enough for a banker's edge.

Quote: Paigowdan

More than even-money, or any non-even payout is a logistic nightmare for a typical casino dealer and surveillance. This is part of the reason why so many poker side games are broken out into ANTE and PLAY bets. The "flat bet" has to be truly flat, (outside of craps place/buy bets, which is why 80% of casino dealers can't deal craps well.) Craps wouldn't make it today as a new game because of that aspect, so this has to be considered. A common dealer error is to pay 3:2 on a single-deck 6:5 game when thrown right onto it.

Are you sure? Most poker games simply don't work mathematically without the separate ante / play bets and the corresponding player choice/dealer qualification aspects. Also, in 3CP the ante is paid > 1-1 if the hand is high enough, and so is the raise in Caribbean Stud.

I'm not saying you're wrong about it being *more* difficult to pay a multiple, but how hard is it to size into a stack twice (2-1) or three times (3-1) instead of just once? You seem to be suggesting that it's impossible for any new game to have payouts greater than even money, but that flies in the face of enduring successes like roulette or wheel of fortune (the iconic break-in game). I'd think if surveillance can handle 10-stack pushes across a roulette table, they can handle a few extra chips on a blackjack-sized table.

Quote: MathExtremist

..before spending any money on R&D.

I'm not spending a thin farthing. If I have a knack for this then maybe (in quotes and bold italic) I'll consider persuing this. I make a bucket of money in my current profession of database jockey.

So I need a working name, for now, let's call it Cameltoe Poker because that makes me giggle and I like giggling. I doubt it will ever be developed beyong this forum thread but we'll affix a better name later if need be. So I've gleened that I need to make it easy on the dealers because they will promote/kill your game. Easy on the newbie player, cheap to get in and cheap to stay in. Interesting for the experienced player and maybe throw in enough gawgads so that people think they they can beat the game with the correct betting system which is part of the reason I named the bet on the dealer's hand, Insurance.

Thanks for all of the good advice, I'll reformulate Cameltoe Poker into something that better meets the criteria suggested. I already have an idea!

Quote: MathExtremist

... but how hard is it to size into a stack twice (2-1) or three times (3-1) instead of just once? You seem to be suggesting that it's impossible for any new game to have payouts greater than even money, but that flies in the face of enduring successes like roulette or wheel of fortune (the iconic break-in game). I'd think if surveillance can handle 10-stack pushes across a roulette table, they can handle a few extra chips on a blackjack-sized table.

Stacy, it's easy to size into a stack two or three times, - I agree - but the concern here is the multiple bet requirement for the new player to play out a hand.

People who buy into a two-bet game face twice the nominal table minimum, - and games like Deuces Wild that require FOUR betting units to play out a hand can REALLY cream a player's $100 buy-in trying out a new game, or existing game. THAT'S the real problem with an Ante-Play-Raise scheme, as opposed to a one-bet game.

Buying into a Deuces Wild game for $100 is really akin to buying into a $5 Blackjack game for only $20 or $25 dollars, especially on a volitile poker game.
One bad little streak and the player is dust, cursing "this game SUCKS!" As a dealer, I've seen it a million times. A 30% plus table hold is really a scary thing.

So - Risk Of Ruin for a player trying out a new game is a real problem. $100 on a three or four unit game is NOT the same at all as a $100 buy-in at a $5 Blackjack or Pai Gow game.

Also, those extra betting spots - or extra tall stacks - or greater-than-even-money payouts - ARE more of a problem and workload for surveillance and game protection, and are an extra tax on a game. Cannot be denied, and as such is a game design consideration! They just are more difficult for the casino pit to operate, train on, and manage, - and so increase operational cost and headaches on top of player resistance. Roulette and craps have been around for a hundred years, so are required to have and offer. But...with new stuff....

You end up with:
1. Greater player "pushback" against some games because the Risk of Ruin more frequently creams a player and creates an enemy of the game,
- and
2. Greater casino operator pushback, because of the operating and training "threshold" on top of the player pushback.

The Hard Pass is the best thing for craps - once it finally gets out, but casino operators are scared of the dealer training pushback and the surveillance Manager's opinion. Easy to Bet - but hard to train on and to survey the game.
Poker-for-Roulette is another great game idea, but here the game distributors are saying, "I love it, but the product development costs [programming, dealer training, and table add-on tracking electronics] are like a $300,000 nut!"

Anything that increases any pushback - player, casino, or distributor - is a concern.

Give the dealer 6 cards to choose from and I'm in.

Thank you, slyther:
There it is - a real gambler's opinion on a game spec, straight out.

To add color to my response above:

Regardless of how the math pencils out, giving the dealer 7 cards to choose from APPEARS to me to be a huge advantage for the house (regardless of player options) and thus I would keep on walking. That's why I suggest 6.

Quote: Paigowdan

Stacy, it's easy to size into a stack two or three times, - I agree - but the concern here is the multiple bet requirement for the new player to play out a hand.

People who buy into a two-bet game face twice the nominal table minimum, - and games like Deuces Wild that require FOUR betting units to play out a hand can REALLY cream a player's $100 buy-in trying out a new game, or existing game. THAT'S the real problem with an Ante-Play-Raise scheme, as opposed to a one-bet game.

I agree; that's why all the games I design use a single bet minimum. In the example I gave above, the player may make two bets, but they're really two separate wagers -- kind of like betting on 1st column and 19-36 in roulette. You can do one or the other, or both. If you want longer odds, bet 1st column. Want a better chance to win and a lower payout, bet 19-36. Same deal here, just with different odds/payouts. There's no strategy. In that regard, it's somewhat like that 10-card hold'em game we just saw in another thread, but here you're betting that your hand will beat a dealer's hand. That should minimize dealer errors when compared to the 10-handed game. It's much easier to determine which hand is better when you compare just two than it is to determine which of 10 hands is highest.

But now I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack this one....

Quote: slyther

Regardless of how the math pencils out, giving the dealer 7 cards to choose from APPEARS to me to be a huge advantage for the house (regardless of player options) and thus I would keep on walking. That's why I suggest 6.

Six cards is tough. I can make a nearly even game but it would be really dull. I'll try to add some device to make it more interesting without screwing up the payouts.

Quote: RonDiaz

I recently discovered Mississippi Stud, very entertaining. Also very easy to get drained.

Yup, but I found a $2 MS game at Treasure Bay in Biloxi. It has become so popular it is open 24 hours, with three tables open (one $5) in the afternoon. Down the road at Beau Rivage, the bloodsuckers have a $10 minimum table which only opens at noon. Wonder why?

Quote: slyther

Give the dealer 6 cards to choose from and I'm in.

I'm still having difficulty putting that together so I'm back to seven cards. one thing that I discovered is that it's better to keep the pair even if it's a pair of deuces rather than go for the flush with four suited. The average player winning hand is a pair of jacks or better. Maybe I'll come up with a "player has to qualify" clawback to offset the dealer advantage.

Quote: MathExtremist

It's a two way street; Shuffle Master has a whole lot of IP on game structures like the one you suggest. Rather than someone else stealing this idea, it may be that you've (inadvertently) stolen it from someone else. Please, for the sake of your pocketbook, hire an IP attorney to do clearance before spending any money on R&D.

Worse yet, even if IP attorney gives you a green light, someone can challenge they had that idea before you.In USA it's first to invent, not first to file. Congress in process of changing, perhaps in weeks or months

Quote: buzzpaff

Worse yet, even if IP attorney gives you a green light, someone can challenge they had that idea before you.In USA it's first to invent, not first to file. Congress in process of changing, perhaps in weeks or months

yay! That means that my post here is proof enough that I invented Cameltoe Poker first.

Where should we send your royalty check ??

Quote: buzzpaff

Where should we send your royalty check ??

I'll give you some of it with you if I can get some help. The core game remains the same. Each of one to six players antes up 1 unit and then gets dealt five cards, the dealer gets seven cards face down. The player looks at his cards and then decides if he wants to bet or fold. Betting costs 1 unit. So far the player is in for two units, the Ante and the Bet (strategically, the player is better off not folding ever). The player then can discard none, 1 or 2 cards in exchange for the same number of replacement cards. The player then gets an option to Raise their bet 1 unit or stand pat.

If the player beats the best five card poker hand that the dealer can make with his 7 cards, then the player wins even money on his Ante, Bet and Raise (if applicable). If the player's hand loses then the player loses his Bet and his Raise (if applicable). The player only loses his Ante if his final hand qualifies with a pair or better. Ties push.

I calculate a 5% casino advantage ( considering the Bet and Raise, it's probably more like 2% ) under these rules, but I will admit to programming some bugs into my simulations or even punting on some simple logic. Since you are only allowed to draw up to two cards, I programmed my Monte Carlo simulation with the following rules:
If the player is dealt anything less than a pair:
1) Four cards to the flush, discard the one off-suit card.
2) Outside Straight, go for it.
3) Three cards to the flush, discard the two off-suit cards.
4) Otherwise discard the lowest two cards.
Pair or better:
If the player has a pair then discard the lowest two cards that are not a pair.
If the player has two pair, then discard the one card and go for the full house.
If the player has three of a kind then discard the remaining two cards.

The only strategy that I could think of that might make a difference in the direction of the player is to discard low pairs in hopes of making a better pair or not qualifying. Because of the added complexity of the drawing of two cards, it would take several months to write the algorithm to calculate all of the possible decision points and come up with what's theoretically the best play per hand dealt much less run it. Having said that, I can run this through a Monte Carlo simulation without much difficulty. I guess what I need now is the strategy that beats this game. Any ideas?

Hi s2dbaker,

compare your game with this two games show below, see any similarities?

Game 1 (Four Card Poker) Rules:

All players get five cards each and the dealer gets six cards. One of the dealer cards is placed face up, and five face down.
Players making the Ante bet must decide to fold or raise.
If the player folds he forfeits all bets.
If player raises, then he must raise at least the amount of the Ante and at most, three times the Ante.
Players then keep their best four cards and discard one.
Following is the ranking of hands from lowest to highest: high card, pair, two pair, straight, flush, three of a kind, straight flush, four of a kind.
After all decisions have been made the dealer will turn over his cards and select the best four out of six.
The player's hand shall be compared to the dealer's hand, the higher hand winning.
If the dealer's hand is higher the player shall lose the Ante and Raise.
If the player's hand is higher or equal then the Ante and Raise shall pay one to one.
If the player has at least a three of a kind he shall also be paid a Bonus, regardless of the value of the dealer's hand. Two different pay tables are available for the Bonus, as displayed below, and are based on the ante bet. Pay Table 1 is the only one I know of to be actually used.
Another bet is available (similar to the Pairplus in Three Card Poker), based only on the player's four card hand, called the Aces Up. Seven pay tables are available as indicated below. The only one I know of to be actually used is pay table 5.


Game 2 (No Flop Pineapple) Rules:

To begin, the player makes an Ante wager. He has the option to make a wager on the Pocket Pairs side bet.
The dealer then deals three cards face down to each player and three cards face down to himself. He also deals two community cards face down.
Each player then examines his three cards and determines which two cards he wishes to keep and which card to discard. Players are not allowed to share information about their unseen cards with other players.
After all players discard one card, the dealer will reveal the first community card. Each player must now decide to either fold his hand and lose his Ante or make a Play bet of 2X his Ante to continue playing the game.
Next, the dealer will reveal the last community card and his three hole cards. He will then discard one of his three cards to make his best possible four-card hand.
The dealer will then compare his hand to each players' hand.
If the dealer's hand beats the player's hand, the player loses his Ante and Play bets.
If the player's hand beats the dealer's hand, the player wins even money on his Ante and Play bets.
If the hands tie, the player's Ante and Play bets push.
If the player gets a flush or better, the player wins an Ante Bonus regardless of the outcome of the game. The following is the pay table for the Ante Bonus:

We need Rich Newman to comment on this.

Edit:
- First to file a patent, or,
- First to discuss on a forum...

Quote: MrCasinoGames

Hi s2dbaker,

compare your game with this two games show below, see any similarities?

Game 1 (Four Card Poker) Rules:

...

Game 2 (No Flop Pineapple) Rules:

...

In the Four Card Poker game, I see a similarity in that the dealer has an advantage by having an additional card although the mechanics are quite different (I can't really comment about whatever "Pay Table 1" or "5" is). In the Pineapple game, the player is required to discard, but in Cameltoe poker, a discard isn't required and if you do discard, you get replacements further, it's the player who has to qualify in Cameltoe poker, not the Dealer. I think the playing rules are not similar enough to raise concerns about copyright infringement.

Oh, and I discovered that discarding one from a low pair in favor of 4 suited is better then holding the pair and getting two cards. Still tweaking strateegery.

Quote: s2dbaker

In the Four Card Poker game, I see a similarity in that the dealer has an advantage by having an additional card although the mechanics are quite different (I can't really comment about whatever "Pay Table 1" or "5" is). In the Pineapple game, the player is required to discard, but in Cameltoe poker, a discard isn't required and if you do discard, you get replacements further, it's the player who has to qualify in Cameltoe poker, not the Dealer. I think the playing rules are not similar enough to raise concerns about copyright infringement.

Oh, and I discovered that discarding one from a low pair in favor of 4 suited is better then holding the pair and getting two cards. Still tweaking strateegery.

It's not copyright infringement you should be concerned about. If someone (e.g. ShuffleMaster) has a patent on the generic method -- regardless of the number of cards -- and your specific version falls under that patent, you'd be technically infringing if you offer to sell your game. If it were me, I'd do some IP clearance before proceeding.

Quote: MathExtremist

... you'd be technically infringing if you offer to sell your game. If it were me, I'd do some IP clearance before proceeding.

I have a lucrative career already. I can't improve upon iot now by switching to "Game Inventor". Or can I? How much money does a game inventor make?

Who says youhave to switch hats??

Quote: s2dbaker

I have a lucrative career already. I can't improve upon iot now by switching to "Game Inventor". Or can I? How much money does a game inventor make?

Depends on how successful the game is. At one point, John Breeding's Let It Ride was earning around $1000/table/month on several hundred tables. There were over 200 in NV alone in the mid-90s. The Derek Webb/Three Card Poker story is even more convoluted, involving lots of legal wranglings. One of the salient points that came out of the lawsuit was that Three Card Poker would have earned roughly $13M in royalties but for Progressive Gaming's actions. And when Ernie Moody sold the Triple Play rights to IGT, he got $2M up front and $11.15/day per machine. Let's suppose there are 1000 variations of the Triple Play game out there...

Those are three of the biggest success stories. There are a few dozen smaller ones, including several that are regionally successful but never really catch on anywhere else.

However, most game inventors make nothing, and waste a lot of time and money going after it. It is exceedingly rare to make back your investment in the patent process, even if you only file a provisional for $110. If you do that, you should consider yourself lucky. So far, I'm one of the lucky ones. But I'm still spending money on patents...

Hey Dan, I'm happy to enter the game so thanks for calling my number...

Perhaps I should write a post on the America Invent's Act changes, particularly with respect to the change from first to invent to first to file, which can be more strict than the rule applied in the rest of the world even though it purports to harmonize our laws with the rest of the world. I have a bad feeling that it may screw a lot of inventors out of their rights.

Anyway, with regard to the current laws, first to invent requires two things - conceiving an invention and reducing it to practice. Reduction to practice is a legal concept with a definition set forth in case law. In short, an invention can be reduced to practice either actually, through a physical manifestation or demonstration that the invention works for its intended purpose, or "constructively" by filing a patent application that describes the invention and how to make and use it.

When determining who was the first to invent, both the date of concieving an invention and the date of reducing it to practice are considered. The first to invent is the one who was first to conceive AND diligently reduce to practice. Diligence is important in that should the evidence show that an inventor was first to conceive but second to reduce to practice, they may still be considered the first to invent if they worked on the invention with a reasonable amount of diligence from a date just prior to the other party’s conception to the date of his own reduction to practice.

For example, inventor A concieves on day 1, does something diligent to reduce it to practice on days 2-10 and files provisional on day 11. Inventor B conceives of the same invention on day 2 and files a provisional on day 5, thus constructively reducing it to practice on day 5. Inventor A is the first to invent.

I'm not saying this applies to this specific situation but just giving some insight and general principles. However, I will say that in my opinion the law favors inventors who are diligent about reducing their invention to practice, and often the easiest way to meet the reduction to practice requirement is by filing a patent application.

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the situation any.

Ok now I'm fired up and I can't resist talking about the proposed change because I think it's screwed up. Under the proposed first to file system, the one year grace period only applies to disclosures by the inventor, not public use or offer for sale as it is now. Thus, an inventor can publicly disclose on day 1 and file an application one year after without losing rights. However, if that same inventor offered the invention for sale or committed a public use the day before filing the application, then it is barred from patentability. This is actually stricter then most foreign jurisdictions. Some scenarios provide strange results. For example, let's say inventor A invents and reduces to practice by day 11 as above but inventor B concieves on day 2 and either offers it for sale or commits a public use prior to day 11. Under the first to invent rule in current law, inventor A wins. Under the proposed new rule, inventor A is first to file but the invention is no longer novel so inventor A is barred. The ultimate effect is that the invention is now in the public domain, and there are actually many scenarios I can come up with which have the same outcome.

Quote: MathExtremist

However, most game inventors make nothing, and waste a lot of time and money going after it. It is exceedingly rare to make back your investment in the patent process, even if you only file a provisional for $110.

I think I can burn $110 for this. Maybe I will. I just play tested it with a friend, he likes it. He says it feels like Let-It-Ride except that you control your own destiny. He ended up 2 units after about 20 hands but he was down as much as 7 units. It seemed easy to deal. I'll consult with an actual casino dealer who I know down in New Orleans and see what he thinks.

What other dreams are available for a mere $110 ? Damn few, my friends !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sadness! I had to change the rules yet again. I had to make it a tiny bit easier for the player to qualify. Now, the player has to have AK or better to qualify. I was really hoping to keep it at a pair or for simplicity's sake better but the player wins by a lot! Even with AK though, the house has only the tiniest of advantages. I'm figuring that the house edge will increase with simplification of strategy making it more marketable.