Shut the Box
Place your bets, roll the dice, and go for the shutout!
Click here to play.
I'd love to hear honest opinions on this game. What are the pros and cons you see? Is it fun to play? Should mechanics be tweaked in any way?
Also, I am very aware the table layout is cluttered with text, explaining payouts and the like. This is by design, at least for the moment.
Players roll the dice, but the house shuts the numbers.
- The dice are totalled
- If a single number can be shut, it shall be
- If not, then the 2-number combination that contains the highest number will be shut
- No more than 2 numbers may be shut in one roll
1 2 - - - - 8 9
Roll is 9
The 9 will be shut.
1 2 - - - - 8 9
Roll is 10
The 1 & 9 will be shut.
1 2 - - - - 8 9
Roll is 12
No numbers will be shut. 1+2+9 = 12, but maximum 2 number are shut per turn.
|7-Up||Wins when 7, 8 or 9 numbers are shut.|
Pays 1:2, 1:1 and 3:1 respectively
|Low-5||Wins when 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 numbers are shut.|
|Singleton||Wins when 8 numbers are shut.|
Pays X:1, where X is the number remaining un-shut.
|No 7 Streak||Wins when any non-7 is rolled.|
First non-7 roll qualifies bet, each non-7 after pays 1:5.
If game ends on a non-7 roll, player wins additional 2:5 bonus.
|Shutout Progressive||Wins when all 9 numbers are shut.|
Pays X:1, where X is the winning number thrown.
Doubles pay double.
Snake eyes pays 200-1, except $5 bet pays Progressive Jackpot.
$0.15 of every losing $1.00 bet goes towards progressive.
The game itself is all right. My only concern is not being able to use three numbers to shut the total. If the numbers are available, then it should be allowed. I know this probably adds to the HE, but as somebody who has played shut the box,that would be very frustrating to me.
While the idea of a progressive is nice to attract jackpot players, I wonder if a "Fire Bet" of sorts might be a better idea. For exampe, if you shut the box once, it pays 25-1, twice gets you 250-1, third time gets 1000-1. I just see a progressive on a dice type table as being very complicated, especially in the event that it hits.
How many dealers would you have working the table? Or would it be an electronic game? I would be hard-pressed to think a casino would want to devote three dealers and a box to the game. The way the layout is you could probably get away with 2 dealers and a box, but any less would slow the game and make it tedious for players.
I like the No-7 bet idea, but to pay that out on every roll, especially in $1 increments would also be tedious. Depending on how strict the house is, the dealer may have to cut the checks for the camera EVERY time, which only slows the play. Perhaps there could be a button that the box hits to keep track and pay out after 7 is rolled.
Overall, if the game makes its way to the floor, I'd give it a roll. I can't imagine committing too much of a bankroll to the game, and I'm not sure that you would pick up many of the players this would fit well for (people who want to learn craps but are too stupid to do so). I wish you the best... I like the concept.
It is OK as a online game and may be add more bets to it too.
I would not be at all surprised to see an online casino offering this -- in fact, I think that someone said that Ladbrokes casinos already do. I have been surprised in the past by some of the games that I've seen offered at online casinos; Rock Paper Scissors (like in that Chevy Chase movie), Solitaire, maybe even Backgammon somewhere. Yet never Pai gow tiles. If anyone has any idea why nobody seems to let you play tiles online for money, I'd love to know. It's a normal casino game and has been for years, and Wizard's practice version demonstrates that online versions of the game are totally possible. Yet nobody seems to offer it for real money.
Anyhow, you've built a very cool game. I love to see older, traditional games getting revived, so this is definitely neat.
If I were to include 3 or 4-number shuts in a roll, I'd have to redo the analysis of the game. I used a spreadsheet to track every possible game, with every roll in order. That is the way I was able to determine the HE of each bet, and to figure out how each bet could be paid. By adding a new rule (shutting 3 or 4 numbers is allowed), this would change the result of some games.
This also gave me a perspective on the difficulty of both creating and analyzing a game.
Questions asked in replies:
Would a "Fire Bet" work better, vs. a Progressive Jackpot?
Probably. I don't know how a jackpot could be paid to multiple people without splitting it up, nor how to add fractions of different sized bets to the progressive jackpot. Do all Progressive games have a slot to put your money into? Can you bet different amounts against the jackpot?
This is one aspect of the game I'd want to heavily re-work.
The odds of shutting all numbers is just over 1 in 20. Paying 20-1, then 400-1 would work well.
How many dealers would work the table?
I can see this as a one-dealer game. Most bets are resolved at the end of the game. The only one that resolves on every roll is the No-7 Streak. I would expect the chips to be cut every time on each result, and not stacked as they are in my example game. That was mostly for simplicity in display. How many dealers does Rock n Roll Dice take? Or Scossa? Or 3-Dice Football?
Wouldn't this work better as an electronic game?
Maybe so. This would allow players to shut their own numbers, and it wouldn't affect any other players. Of course, this would make certain bets easier/harder to win. If I played "terribly", I might win the Low-5 bet at 3-1 very often. By having a House Way of shutting numbers, this allows for easier analysis and odds setup.
Just from the short list of replies, it sounds like this would be a game of luke-warm response. "It sounds fun, I would play it, but I might not play it seriously." And that's fine! It goes to show that making a winner in the new games market isn't easy.
How many dealers does Rock n Roll Dice take? Or Scossa? Or 3-Dice Football?
When I played 3-D Football, there were three dealers, but it could be run with two.
Sic bo normally has only one dealer, in my experience, unless it's the rare double table with a layout on either side of the dice dome. I feel like an already-fast game gets too fast when they have one dealer pushing the buttons and another paying winnings and collecting losses.
There are some big differences between Sic Bo and this proposed game. 1) The dealer is the one rolling the dice, not the player. There are no rolls over the table or passing the dice. 2) The payouts are lit up on a Sic Bo table, where this game the dealer has to know where to pay and when and how much. 3) All bets are "1-roll" where this game has payouts that occur on every roll, and ones decided by the endgame. 4) This game encourages a lot of people playing at once. The same COULD be said for Sic Bo, although I have rarely seen a Sic Bo table have more than 4-5 players at once.
I don't think it would do well live, since so many turns are ended after a bad roll with two or three numbers left, and many "wins" are actually "smaller losses". Perhaps adding more one roll "action" bets (e.g., hopping hardways, field), or even place bet options, would keep folks more engaged.
The bottom line is the box is very hard to shut. This will limit its sucess.