Easy Over Under Feedback

Now that Easy Over Under is live in a field trial and Wiz has written up the game on the WoO site, I would appreciate the group's feedback on the game.

Wiz did an excellent job summarizing the rules of the game @ the WoO site and my website (www.easyoverunder.com) has both an Instructional & Live Hand Demo Videos so you can get a sense for the speed of the game, etc. (my apologies that my limited technology skills don't allow me to set that up as a link).

Thank you in advance for taking the time to provide your feedback/input.

So far, I've only been to the WOO site analyzing the game.
My first comment may be inapplicable to many, but I sure can't read that layout, even when I blow it up a bit on my screen.
So I hope that in a real casino the layout is more legible to half-drunk, ancient and doddering old fogies. Whats the use if only those with perfect vision can read the layout at a glance?

Hi Paradigm,

Firstly, in the video, I believe that there are errors in the 'spread' when the dealer rolls '11' - 'spread' was announced as 11 and 9 for player cards 'Ace' and '3'. However, the demo' video gives a great feel for the game and clearly shows how it's played.

The game is fast although I did find that the individual settling of the players' wagers made the pace of the game a little bit 'stop and start' - a bit like 'Extreme 21' where each player had to play his/her hand out (and have the bet settled) before moving on to the next player. Without testing it the other way, it's hard for me to completely evaluate, but did you try dealing a card to each player before settling all of the wagers at the same time?

Another thing that I considered is whether the order of dice followed by cards could be reversed. In other words, the players each get a card each and then the dice are rolled - I'm assuming that a 'short side' bet could still be done with the '7' card as the no bet on short side. With this way the outcome is settled for all players in 1 event by the dealer (the dice roll) rather than players waiting for up to 6 events to be done. Again, it's not easy to see how this works unless it's dealt out and played. Finally. the added advantage of rolling the dice last is that there are no card counting issues as players are now betting the 'short side' with a roll of the dice rather than the outcome of a card being drawn.

Overall, the game ticks a lot of boxes. It's simple to play and deal and there are some good payouts to be had on the extreme hands. Pace is fast and I'm sure, with the right group of players, that a good ambiance between players can be generated by the nature of how the game works i.e. it creates a strong underlying feeling of 'us' verses the dealer. I know of at least 1 major 'Strip' casino that would likely try this game if it was presented correctly - PM me if you are interested in looking at distribution in the Vegas market and haven't found a company yet.

Finally, in case I have overlooked the obvious, did you try reversing the dice/card format? If so, were there reasons or problems why it was inferior?

'Good Luck' with the game - I'm happy to say that it doesn't compete with any of mine :-)

Quote: Switch

I know of at least 1 major 'Strip' casino that would likely try this game if it was presented correctly - PM me if you are interested in looking at distribution in the Vegas market and haven't found a company yet.

Success on the strip would be awesome for any new game. But this assumes a new game field trial for Nevada approval. A sponsoring distributor would be a huge help.

Swicth brought up some interesting points on the game's design....do get back to us all!

Switch, you have given me a lot to chew on.

I think in the video, the dice roll was a 12 where the large payout for an 11 spread was paid. That would makes sense on the 11 spread with an Ace and the 9 spread with a 3 card, but I will go back and verify that when I am not on my cell connection to the net.

I agree there is some start and stop to the game. My concern with a community card is the game would be lighting fast and players would be betting with and against each other. It does work in Bacc like that, but I felt like I didn't want the us against them attitude at the table amongst players. However that also provides some comraderie when they all win betting one direction or hitting large spread with a single community card. Again, something to definitely consider.

When we have single players at the table, the game is very quick for them.......I almost need the dealer to slow the game down when the table only has 1 or 2 players. Dealing a community card would avoid the start stop, but increase the speed where the game is already fast.

I need to take a look at the math when you reverse the order of the dice and cards. Since the card outcome is an even distribution of a 1 in 13 event and the dice roll is a variable outcome of 11 possible results with the bias being towards the center of the possibilities (i.e. closer to 7), I believe there were some math issues when I reversed the order. We did include a reversal of card and dice in the IP work. I will definitely revisit based on your input.

The concern with dealing all the cards out before settling each wager was that there would be dead money on the table at 1st base as you were dealing the remaining cards towards third base. I felt that from a security standpoint as soon the card resulted in a loser, we need to lock that money up and get it in the tray.

Thank you for some excellent thoughts.....I really value your and others input from this board.

This is a FORUM. Where the hell is your input. YES I MEAN YOU !!!!!! I know you read this, give the man your opinion.
Past my bedtime or I would now,

Quote: buzzpaff

This is a FORUM. Where the hell is your input. YES I MEAN YOU !!!!

OK. The average person isn't going to play it because its too complicated. The average person doesn't play roulette for the same reason. If you were to introduce roulette as a new game, I doubt if it would make it. Its only in casinos because its ancient and its from a time when people had brains capable of understanding something more complicated than sticking in a quarter and hitting a button.

Thanks for your input! and I do mean THANKS

Quote: buzzpaff

Thanks for your input! and I do mean THANKS

85% of people who go to casinos want to be mindlessly entertained. Thats why slots grew and grew until they now take up most of the space. That leaves 15% to play the table games and they aren't on the overly bright side either. The really smart people never go in casinos.

Quote: buzzpaff

This is a FORUM. Where the hell is your input. YES I MEAN YOU !!!!!! I know you read this, give the man your opinion.
Past my bedtime or I would now,

Who are you talking to, and where it YOUR input?

Quote: EvenBob

OK. The average person isn't going to play it because its too complicated. The average person doesn't play roulette for the same reason. If you were to introduce roulette as a new game, I doubt if it would make it. Its only in casinos because its ancient and its from a time when people had brains capable of understanding something more complicated than sticking in a quarter and hitting a button.

Huh? WTF? - Roulette is not complicated! Put a chip down - and see if the number hits. AS EASY AND AS INVITING AS GAMBLING GETS!
Gambling cannot get any simpler that that!
Roulette is 60% of the Casino Action in the European Union. Has been FOR CENTURIES! HUH?

Easy Over and Under is quite simple and fun to play as a Casino game IMHO, - and I say that as both a veteran casino dealer and as a game designer with a very successful game out (EZ Pai Gow Poker).

I think "Switch" (Geoff) would agree with this - he invented Blackjack Switch - not a bad job game design job on Easy Over Under!

One of the reasons that I think that this game has a chance is due to it's simplicity. It may need tweaking in certain areas but the underlying play is easy for anyone to comprehend.

If you make the game too simple, for example, 'War', then this alienates players by making them feel that they are not pitting their wits against the dealer.

I think that 'Craps' would be a good example of a game that would not make it, if it was introduced today, due to it's more complex play and the fact that it uses a lot of employees to run one game.

Quote: Switch

The game is fast although I did find that the individual settling of the players' wagers made the pace of the game a little bit 'stop and start' - a bit like 'Extreme 21' where each player had to play his/her hand out (and have the bet settled) before moving on to the next player.

That's no different than BJ.

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: EvenBob

OK. The average person isn't going to play it because its too complicated. The average person doesn't play roulette for the same reason...

Huh? WTF? - Roulette is not complicated! Put a chip down - and see if the number hits. AS EASY AND AS INVITING AS GAMBLING GETS!
Gambling cannot get any simpler that that!
Roulette is 60% of the Casino Action in the European Union. Has been FOR CENTURIES! HUH?

Well, it does get simpler. You can play Big 6....

Dan, not to bust your bubble, and certainly not meremy to argue since I too describe Roulette as one of the easier games to play, but it can be complicated and/or intimidating to a novice. I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll start a new one.

Here's the new thread:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/5730-would-roulette-fail-if-introduced-today/

Thanks Bob for the feedback.

We are getting some player feedback regarding the "complication" when it comes to the Short Side bet decision. So your comment is being made by some players as well.

I am trying to balance potentially tweaking that decision point against Switch's latest comments that you can't make it too simple, like Casino War, or the player doesn't feel like they are "involved enough" in the outcome.

I say that while at the same time realizing I have seen more Casino War tables come out in the last 18 months than ever, and the game has been around longer than that. Casino War seems to be finding a niche despite its simplicity and having no player decision which I would not have thought would happen.

The trial has been extremely helpful in assessing the game concept. Game development is a process and I think we are still in the midst of it with Easy Over Under.

Thanks to all for your input.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Who are you talking to, and where it YOUR input?

Not you Teddy, you least of all. Talking to the 200 or so who visit this site daily but rarely post. How long would it take them to evaluate this game? Not a mathematical analysis as to advantage play, or simply clicking on a poll! Just give your opinion. Would you play this game ? Would your friends ? It's not what Switch, Teddy, etc think but the general public who will decide the success of this game,
So PLEASE just post what you like least or most about the game. Is that too much to ask ?????

I am taking 2 college course this summer ( dumb idea ) but will find time to give a detailed analysis, hopefully later today. Meanwhile I hope some of the faceless 200 will post their opinions. Little enough to ask. The author of this thread won't say it but I will.
POST SOMETHING PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

That's no different than BJ.

Hi DJ,

It's been a while since I saw it but 'Extreme 21', from what I remember, completes a player hand and then the dealer completes his/her hand. Play then moves to the next player and that hand is completed followed by the dealer completing a new hand against that player. So, the dealer would actually play 6 individual hands against a 6-player table.

Quote: buzzpaff

Not you Teddy, you least of all. Talking to the 200 or so who visit this site daily but rarely post. How long would it take them to evaluate this game? Not a mathematical analysis as to advantage play, or simply clicking on a poll! Just give your opinion. Would you play this game ? Would your friends ? It's not what Switch, Teddy, etc think but the general public who will decide the success of this game,
So PLEASE just post what you like least or most about the game. Is that too much to ask ?????

I am taking 2 college course this summer ( dumb idea ) but will find time to give a detailed analysis, hopefully later today. Meanwhile I hope some of the faceless 200 will post their opinions. Little enough to ask. The author of this thread won't say it but I will.
POST SOMETHING PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's common on a lot of internet forums for their to be a large majority of people who read and post rarely, or only in entries where they think they have something worthwhile to add.

I'm not one of those people on this board (but I am else where).

Quote: Paradigm

Now that Easy Over Under is live in a field trial and Wiz has written up the game on the WoO site, I would appreciate the group's feedback on the game.

Wiz did an excellent job summarizing the rules of the game @ the WoO site and my website (www.easyoverunder.com) has both an Instructional & Live Hand Demo Videos so you can get a sense for the speed of the game, etc. (my apologies that my limited technology skills don't allow me to set that up as a link).

Thank you in advance for taking the time to provide your feedback/input.

if I lived nearby a casino that has this game then I would play it. At least a little.

Quote: Paigowdan

Huh? WTF? - Roulette is not complicated! Put a chip down - and see if the number hits. AS EASY AND AS INVITING AS GAMBLING GETS!

I've been playing roulette for a long time and have seen countless people not play because it looks too complicated. The layout is a maze to the neophyte. Even when a dealer patiently explains, people still walk away.

*****

*****

Wow...this is good. I love it....

-----

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Paigowdan

Huh? WTF? - Roulette is not complicated! Put a chip down - and see if the number hits. AS EASY AND AS INVITING AS GAMBLING GETS!

I've been playing roulette for a long time and have seen countless people not play because it looks too complicated. The layout is a maze to the neophyte. Even when a dealer patiently explains, people still walk away.

I agree, I mean Baccarat is simple and even intimidates James Bond fans.

Thanks NowTheSerpent for that feedback. I actually heard that thought "doubles should be worth something more" from a table games director when I was shopping the game for its initial trial, so that idea is clearing resonating with others as well.

Right now I am in the process of tweaking the game based on player feedback from the 60 day Red Wind trial. I'll post those revisions on the forum once they are ready for comments.

Thanks again for taking the time to analyze the game and provide specific feedback!