SHFL Focus Group
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:33:47 PM
permalink
Deleted
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:44:32 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan
A HUGE number of participants left with hurt feelings and with "the tail between the legs" - but that's NOT what is was about.
.
Thanks for clearing that up, Dan. We thought it was a
competition. From reading your thoughts and observations,
obviously it was something else. I guess we'll have to
wait and see what that 'something else' was. Maybe some
of the other game presenters can give us their interpretation
about what happened.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:48:53 PM
permalink
Quote: PacmanFor the record, two of the 14 games were mine.
Roger
Very Fine. I meant, Shufflemaster sponsored/internal, or SHFL presented.
It's hard to have an independent presenter present a game as well as you.
This may be arguably a factor or a specter, a powerful ghost that has some effect, real or imagined.
By no means am I dissastisfied, I am VERY satisfied with it all, but walking with Johnny and Dave and Gary to the parking lot after the group, the was an absence of jubilation, and they felt and seem depressed, bitter, and they should not have felt this way.
A lot of this is on them, (again, we're stepping into the ring), but I feel a "pure indy" group would have felt better for some.
Just an honest opinion and contribution; overall, I thought it was fantastic.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:53:35 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThanks for clearing that up, Dan.
You're welcome
Quote: EvenBobWe thought it was a
competition.
It was really an exposition, an expo of new games.
Quote: EvenBobFrom reading your thoughts and observations,
obviously it was something else.
There were very many levels to it all.
I do not think you can grasp them all, being a very far outlier to this industry.
Quote: EvenBobI guess we'll have to
wait and see what that 'something else' was.
No you don't. If you weren't in the event to begin with, you will never get a phone call one way or the other.
And I can assure you, not everything that will be a result of the event will remotely involve you or be discussed on the forum.
Quote: EvenBobMaybe some of the other game presenters can give us their interpretation
about what happened.
Perhaps they can. We are all ears. May they step up to the plate.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:57:00 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdanbut walking with Johnny and Dave and Gary to the parking lot after the group, the was an absence of jubilation, and they felt and seem depressed, bitter, and they should not have felt this way.
OK, Dan. The guy who put the thing on, who hired all
the judges, got the highest score ever gotten. And Dave
got a minus 45 and Buzz got a minus 20. How should
they have felt, if what they were feeling was wrong in
your opinion.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 4:06:41 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanIt was really an exposition, an expo of new games.
An exposition that gave scores and rated the games.
Sounds like a competition to me. Roger told us the
winner has a 75% chance of getting his game into a
casino. Expo's don't have winners, Dan, competitions
do.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 4:06:52 PM
permalink
nobody likes to hear that people think they have an ugly baby
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
May 2nd, 2012 at 4:07:58 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobOK, Dan. The guy who put the thing on, who hired all
the judges, got the highest score ever gotten. And Dave
got a minus 45 and Buzz got a minus 20. How should
they have felt, if what they were feeling was wrong in
your opinion.
Bob, that was exactly my point too, but only in a "how it looks" versus "what it really is" type of thing.
Firstly, the was a tremendous amount of USEFUL feedback - and what I meam by that is that sometimes the most useful feedback is criticism, as opposed to patronage or log rolling, ruffled feathers aside.
Secondly, black eyes and blood-shedding cuts are the norm for a game designer who is trying to get a new game out. Get use to this now.
There is tremendous heat in this kitchen, and EVERYONE who finished 4th through Last got a blast of this de rigeur Heat.
One of the best lessons presented is that this is actually a very blunt industry - rude, if you will, so there is a bit of "get used to this now" lesson in it, which is actually very appropriate.
Thirdly, SHFL is not the only game in town, there is Galaxy and DEQ.
Fourth, this expo or event was a PART of the evaluation process. The last-place finishers in the eyes of a handful of casino dealers means nothing, as the last-placers may still be the next three-card poker. Again, just a part of the equation, not the be-all or end-all of it.
Fifth, you picks yourself up to fight another day.
Quote: WongBonobody likes to hear that people think they have an ugly baby.
So TF what. They may need to hear it, - especially if their baby needs a make-over something fierce.
Dang. That was the whole point and opportunity in this event.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 4:15:09 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAn exposition that gave scores and rated the games.
Sounds like a competition to me. Roger told us the
winner has a 75% chance of getting his game into a
casino. Expo's don't have winners, Dan, competitions
do.
Doesn't matter what it "sounds like" to you.
It matters if you use the information provided from it, to make your game good enough to get out there.
If you treat it like a competition, then you can and will hang up your hat and jump off a bridge.
It was really an expo, if not an R & D effort.
I can put an altimeter in my Ford Focus, and call it an airplane.
The real test of this event will be to see who fixes an "almost there" game into a "Really there" game.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 4:46:44 PM
permalink
To all who participated, well done!!!!! Understand, the score is only another part of the puzzle to help you improve your game, abandon your game, or whatever you take from it.
Just so we are all clear, there is less than 1% chance that anyone of these game will succeed. We all hope that we are in that 1% but that is not realistic. I did not say that it had less than 1% chance of seeing the inside of the casino, I said of succeeding.
As a kid we all wanted to hit that game winning home run in the bottom of the ninth inning of the world series, or hit the final basket in the championship. We know our limitation based on competition. This was a competition and all who did well deserve a pat on the back and those who did not, be realistic but do not abandon hope.
This was a great experience no matter what the outcome. BTW, specific gamblers like specific games and shun other games. I think roulette is retarted. Hate baccarat, indifferent to BJ, don't play TCP, FCP, and video slots.
I like paigow poker even though there is absolutely no skills involved. Love/hate craps but can't stay away from it. Looking for that one person to roll for 1 plus hrs. Enjoy poker esp. stud. Everyone have their own poison.
The only score that counts is, will people bet on this game and will it draw a lot of action.
Just so we are all clear, there is less than 1% chance that anyone of these game will succeed. We all hope that we are in that 1% but that is not realistic. I did not say that it had less than 1% chance of seeing the inside of the casino, I said of succeeding.
As a kid we all wanted to hit that game winning home run in the bottom of the ninth inning of the world series, or hit the final basket in the championship. We know our limitation based on competition. This was a competition and all who did well deserve a pat on the back and those who did not, be realistic but do not abandon hope.
This was a great experience no matter what the outcome. BTW, specific gamblers like specific games and shun other games. I think roulette is retarted. Hate baccarat, indifferent to BJ, don't play TCP, FCP, and video slots.
I like paigow poker even though there is absolutely no skills involved. Love/hate craps but can't stay away from it. Looking for that one person to roll for 1 plus hrs. Enjoy poker esp. stud. Everyone have their own poison.
The only score that counts is, will people bet on this game and will it draw a lot of action.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
May 2nd, 2012 at 4:57:39 PM
permalink
I thought the event was a great idea and huge success. Some feelings were hurt, but overall I think it was a win-win situation for all. I'd like to thank Roger (pacman) and Shufflemaster for their participation in this forum about it, and welcome it next time.
I was hoping to get a WoV picture at the event, as there were lots of forum members present. However, it would not have been practical during the event, and afterward a lot of people had to leave. I'm sure it broke a new record.
To those who didn't do well -- It takes a thick skin to make it the new table game business. You're better off getting honest feedback about a flawed game, than wasting years on it because nobody has the heart to tell you to your face that they didn't like it.
I was hoping to get a WoV picture at the event, as there were lots of forum members present. However, it would not have been practical during the event, and afterward a lot of people had to leave. I'm sure it broke a new record.
To those who didn't do well -- It takes a thick skin to make it the new table game business. You're better off getting honest feedback about a flawed game, than wasting years on it because nobody has the heart to tell you to your face that they didn't like it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 2nd, 2012 at 6:18:40 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobOK, Dan. The guy who put the thing on, who hired all
the judges, got the highest score ever gotten. And Dave
got a minus 45 and Buzz got a minus 20. How should
they have felt, if what they were feeling was wrong in
your opinion.
I see it that Roger had 'home' advantage but nothing more than that. I don't know his Bad Beat Hold Em game but it clearly outperformed the rest of the games by a long margin including mine. Also, you are competing against a highly experienced poker game designer - Roger has seen what works and what doesn't - some of his own games haven't made it...but he learns from that and that is what could be valuable to the participants.
You can take the scores with a pinch of salt to some degree - it's helpful as feedback and can help the designer view his game from a different perspective.
May 2nd, 2012 at 6:36:54 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobOK, Dan. The guy who put the thing on, who hired all
the judges, got the highest score ever gotten. And Dave
got a minus 45 and Buzz got a minus 20. How should
they have felt, if what they were feeling was wrong in
your opinion.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that fairness or equality should have been part of the equation. That's like suggesting you should equally like every kind of soda. Having participated, I can tell you that the scoring was done in as fair a manner possible short of a double-blind study, where none of the participants know which game was produced by whom. That not only would have been impractical, it likely would have added very little to the results. This wasn't an expo like Stations or Raving used to run with a guaranteed field trial for the winner. This was a meeting to help flesh out SHFL's product strategy, and I believe for them it was a success.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
May 2nd, 2012 at 6:52:26 PM
permalink
Quote: SwitchYou can take the scores with a pinch of salt to some degree - it's helpful as feedback and can help the designer view his game from a different perspective.
I took the dealer's comments with great consideration - and ONLY.
Gary and I immediately called Charles Mousseau with a new work request for a mod, instead of going to a bar to drown any false sorrows - when there need not [be any at all].
I also spoke with Roger, and he stressed that:
1. he did it for the consideration of game designers, even if it were not immediately appreaciated as such (appearances of non-actual impropriety are totally deceiving).
2. He did it to show the gaming newbies in this field how it really works: it is a rough and tumble business, ("we are all salmon") - and a direct comment of "your game sucks, fix the following problems, jack" is a just command to submit an ever-better or perfect version of your game via the tabulations. Take this personally - keep your day time job at Starbucks. Take it professionally and FIX the problems - and you will make it to the promised land.
3. Revisions are an absolute constant, and a poke in the eye is a directive to make your game perfect - so that it CAN be sold and be successful for all involved is only what it was all about. It was BOOT CAMP, you pussies! Cry me a River! Welcome to the gaming industry, Jesus!
4. Some of the reactions of the participants were that of utter ingratitude: lousy scores were only valid and some needed homework assignments for us designers. People came close to crying in the parking lot; I went to make prop bets with Mike at PT's using a waitress for answers and laughs and giggles. I paid for Mike's lunch and his cell phone bill, and had a blast with him, - and one CRITICAL adjustment on the Check-or-Raise bet to Hong Kong Poker.
5. Roger may have received some undeserved flak from his SHFL bosses for this, just wrong, and I find that absurd. It was immensely valuable to game designers (and some mathematicians), and to SHFL, who are NOT the Darth Vaders but successful players in this business - and we should take the invaluable sessions seriously, and without sour grapes.
Roger was brave - fearless - and he went out on a limb for us.
Both we and the execs at SMI should appreciate it.
Advancement comes with both bruises and muscle growth, as does boot camp.
Next will be Field Artillery School. I was in fort Sill, 1982.
I was also at the SHFL new games event.
Both were a blast, and part of a man's education.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 6:54:48 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistYou seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that fairness or equality should have been part of the equation..
Silly me. I'm reminded of the old TV show Dukes
of Hazzard, where every year Boss Hogg's daughter
won the local beauty pageant. Just a coincidence.
But you're right, I wasn't there. I'm sure all the
judges were seasoned gaming experts, and the
result was fair as fair can be. They listened
patiently to all the games presented, and made
the correct decisions based on their expertise
in the field. These guys, some of whom came from
very far away just for this, deserved nothing
but the fairest treatment.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:04:07 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThese guys, some of whom came from
very far away just for this, deserved nothing
but the fairest treatment.
And they got it -- everyone was treated with the utmost respect. Don't confuse being treated fairly as a person with having the fruits of your labors judged. You're not proposing that everyone's game should have scored identically, are you?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:13:41 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistYou're not proposing
I wasn't there, I'm not proposing anything. That
the guy who paid the judges won, is an oddity.
But maybe his games were so overwhelmingly
good he deserved the two highest scores. To an
outsider it all sounds, well, strange. I know how
much a couple of the presenters were depending
on this competition, I'm interested in hearing
their side of it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:43:17 PM
permalink
To be frank, I'm somewhat disturbed by DJ Dave's
score in last place. I studied his game, and tho I
don't like side bets on roulette, I certainly didn't
see the major flaws the judges obviously saw.
Last place? Are you telling me every game there
was better than Dave's game? Thats what the score
says. Without more evidence, I'm not buying it.
Something's not right here. I can't believe Dave's
presentation could have been so bloody awful
that he was in last place. He knows this game
like the back of his hand.
But like I said, I wasn't there.
score in last place. I studied his game, and tho I
don't like side bets on roulette, I certainly didn't
see the major flaws the judges obviously saw.
Last place? Are you telling me every game there
was better than Dave's game? Thats what the score
says. Without more evidence, I'm not buying it.
Something's not right here. I can't believe Dave's
presentation could have been so bloody awful
that he was in last place. He knows this game
like the back of his hand.
But like I said, I wasn't there.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:48:43 PM
permalink
Deleted
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:51:40 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSilly me. I'm reminded of the old TV show Dukes
of Hazzard, where every year Boss Hogg's daughter
won the local beauty pageant. Just a coincidence.
But you're right, I wasn't there. I'm sure all the
judges were seasoned gaming experts, and the
result was fair as fair can be. They listened
patiently to all the games presented, and made
the correct decisions based on their expertise
in the field. These guys, some of whom came from
very far away just for this, deserved nothing
but the fairest treatment.
If I may be so bold to chime in and give my 2 cents. Let's not loose our focus of what is really important. The score was just an opinion and there is only one opinion that counts; it is the gambling public. They will cast their vote by playing it or not.
Game developer's opinion count as much as he believes in his game(s). This means sacrifice, both dollar and time.
Family and friends opinion is tainted because they do not want to hurt the GD's feeling. If they invested (look above) time/$ then their opinion carries more weight.
The judges at this focus group are more likely to give an honest opinion than family and friends, unless family/friend have invested interest (look above).
It will be a hard pill to swallow but the winner of this focus group doing better than the one who scored the lowest is minimal. Only the vote of the public counts and they vote with real wagers. The winner has much greater chance of seeing the inside of the casino but doing better is minimal IMO.
Since there is no reward by having an actual placement of the game in a real casino, think of the result as a preseaon game. Something to use to tweek and improve your game for the next trial.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:55:02 PM
permalink
That the host's game won should not invalidate the value of the event. It was not about one winner and 14 losers. There were no trophies or prizes. It was a chance to getting honest feedback about your game, getting an idea how to measures up to the field, and a shot at Shufflemaster's attention.
I've worked with hundreds of game inventors. They all think their game is the best thing since sliced bread, and all their friends tell them the same thing. If you want compliments, they are easy to get. If you want to know if your game needs fixing, or dumping, this kind of blind test is the perfect venue. Roger knows that not all his ideas are home runs, so I think he is entitled to the same feedback he offered us for free.
Again, I think Roger and Shufflemaster deserve nothing but thanks.
I've worked with hundreds of game inventors. They all think their game is the best thing since sliced bread, and all their friends tell them the same thing. If you want compliments, they are easy to get. If you want to know if your game needs fixing, or dumping, this kind of blind test is the perfect venue. Roger knows that not all his ideas are home runs, so I think he is entitled to the same feedback he offered us for free.
Again, I think Roger and Shufflemaster deserve nothing but thanks.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:16:32 PM
permalink
MathEx, wait, I thought each game was presented by each inventor. Are you saying the participants did not know who Roger was when he presented game? Or a non-SHFL person presented Roger's games? or there was no SHFL logo on his felts??Quote: MathExtremist... Having participated, I can tell you that the scoring was done in as fair a manner possible short of a double-blind study, where none of the participants know which game was produced by whom....
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:26:37 PM
permalink
Just for this, I like Roger.Quote: PacmanPaigowdan,
You misquoted, misunderstood and misrepresented me.
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:29:10 PM
permalink
Post removed
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:31:02 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI've worked with hundreds of game inventors. They all think their game is the best thing since sliced bread, and all their friends tell them the same thing.
I've seen the same thing with writing and cooking, and I suppose it's also true for all other creative acts. If you don't think your story, recipe, painting, play, game, business, etc is a great idea, you won't bother to develop it in the first place. And naturally your friends will tell you they like it.
When you submit a story to, say, a magazine, you're most likely to get a form rejection letter. If you get a personal rejection letter, that means the editor thinks well of your work, even while he's tearing it to pieces.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:44:29 PM
permalink
Quote: PacmanJust to fan the flames of this nonsensical argument (metaphor intentionally mixed), this is how the games I dealt finished on the leaderboard:
Bad Beat Texas Hold'em: 1st
On the River: 2nd
Three Card Hi Lo: 6th
Max 9: 7th
Hi Lo Stud Poker: T8th
XX Poker: T8th
The 6 games you dealt all finished in
the top 8? What are the odds of that
happening. If this were the Holidays,
it would be a Festivus miracle.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:48:34 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe 6 games you dealt all finished in the top 8?
Or maybe his games were better than the others.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:51:54 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIf this were the Holidays,
it would be a Festivus miracle.
The Shufflemaster focus group isn't over until someone pins Roger?
Are we through with the airing of grievances portion yet?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:54:13 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardOr maybe his games were better than the others.
I really have no comeback, I'm still chuckling
over my Festivus miracle comment.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:54:29 PM
permalink
Deleted by Dan.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:56:10 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
Are we through with the airing of grievances portion yet?
Somehow I doubt they've gotten started yet.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 8:59:08 PM
permalink
Deleted
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:13:36 PM
permalink
i am waiting for the feats of strength....
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:15:31 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI really have no comeback, I'm still chuckling
over my Festivus miracle comment.
I scored it at -90.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:23:49 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBoi am waiting for the feats of strength....
Yes, me to. We're seeing the feats of self aggrandisement
and bragging, but that gets long in the tooth very quickly.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:24:35 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI scored it at -90.
You're Canadian. Disqualified as a judge.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:26:06 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYou're Canadian. Disqualified as a judge.
Bzzt. Incorrect. -10 points.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:28:53 PM
permalink
There is a huge public relations opportunity here for someone to grab the brass ring.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:31:51 PM
permalink
Deleted
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:34:15 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe 6 games you dealt all finished in the top 8?
Looks like the top 9 to me. But then, math isn't a very big thing around here.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:42:34 PM
permalink
It's getting late here and I usually regret sending emails or posting when I'm tired but I wanted to add a bit more to the discussion. If this post ends up saying "deleted" then it's due to me waking up in the morning and coming to my senses :-)
Here goes:-
Firstly, I feel that some games have an instant 'Wow' factor and some take a little playing before it starts to 'Grow' on you. Although 'Wow' seems better than 'Grow' it doesn't necessarily guarantee success in the field. Other factors such as dealer acceptance, variance of the game, ease of explanation are key factors along with both the casino and placement of the game.
For example, I developed a 'Wow' game which had some good feedback - the game was called 'Blackjack Press'. Showing the advantageous part of the game was easy and created the 'Wow', however, I went and played the game as it was struggling to gain longevity on the floor. What I found was:
a) The game was very volatile.
b) The casino compensating rule wasn't blackjack-based.
c) The advantageous rule sometimes turned into a disadvantage for the player.
It could be a mix of all or some of the 3 things above as well as other factors. I think that the game would do well in a showcase like this but then falter when it hits the casino. What this means is that some time in the future when I have time to spare I will look at tweaking this game having had the advantage of playing it for real.
'Free Bet' blackjack is also a 'Wow' game that is easy to explain in 5 or less minutes. I'm hoping that the advantage of this game is that it eliminates the 3 factors above. Maybe there are other discerning factors not considered as yet and this is where installations and monitoring the game plays an important part.
Now I get to a game which has a 'Grow' factor, 'XX Poker'. Most of my negative feedback relates to the game being complicated as it involves several steps. I thought that the SHFL Showcase was an ideal testing station and the results have underlined my previous feedback. However, once the game is comprehended and dealt to players who understand the process it can start to be fun - it's doing extremely well in the one UK casino that has it at the moment (great sample size I know :-) ).
Nevertheless, 'Wow' is better than 'Grow' especially in events like this that have limited time. However, it does mimic the time that you have to try and impress a Casino Director so it relates well to the 'real deal'.
Here goes:-
Firstly, I feel that some games have an instant 'Wow' factor and some take a little playing before it starts to 'Grow' on you. Although 'Wow' seems better than 'Grow' it doesn't necessarily guarantee success in the field. Other factors such as dealer acceptance, variance of the game, ease of explanation are key factors along with both the casino and placement of the game.
For example, I developed a 'Wow' game which had some good feedback - the game was called 'Blackjack Press'. Showing the advantageous part of the game was easy and created the 'Wow', however, I went and played the game as it was struggling to gain longevity on the floor. What I found was:
a) The game was very volatile.
b) The casino compensating rule wasn't blackjack-based.
c) The advantageous rule sometimes turned into a disadvantage for the player.
It could be a mix of all or some of the 3 things above as well as other factors. I think that the game would do well in a showcase like this but then falter when it hits the casino. What this means is that some time in the future when I have time to spare I will look at tweaking this game having had the advantage of playing it for real.
'Free Bet' blackjack is also a 'Wow' game that is easy to explain in 5 or less minutes. I'm hoping that the advantage of this game is that it eliminates the 3 factors above. Maybe there are other discerning factors not considered as yet and this is where installations and monitoring the game plays an important part.
Now I get to a game which has a 'Grow' factor, 'XX Poker'. Most of my negative feedback relates to the game being complicated as it involves several steps. I thought that the SHFL Showcase was an ideal testing station and the results have underlined my previous feedback. However, once the game is comprehended and dealt to players who understand the process it can start to be fun - it's doing extremely well in the one UK casino that has it at the moment (great sample size I know :-) ).
Nevertheless, 'Wow' is better than 'Grow' especially in events like this that have limited time. However, it does mimic the time that you have to try and impress a Casino Director so it relates well to the 'real deal'.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:45:48 PM
permalink
Quote: PacmanYou truly don't understand what you don't understand.
What happened to the line by line rundown
of the former accomplishments of the top
8 finishers? Why were they deleted?
Thats the heart of the problem here. Amateur
competitions never allow pro's to enter, for
obvious reasons. The playing field is so skewed
that the amateurs never have a chance. I read
all the posts here before the competition, these
guys all thought they at least had a ghost of a
chance. But throwing in a bunch of very experienced
pro's just made the outcome pre ordained. Roger
even said the outcome was exactly as expected.
What was the point.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:51:00 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
Thats the heart of the problem here. Amateur
competitions never allow pro's to enter, for
obvious reasons. The playing field is so skewed
that the amateurs never have a chance.
Poker tournaments come to mind and quite often create a new 'star' player.
If you have confidence in your game then you should want to be up against the best. After all that is what will happen on the gaming floor so it would serve no purpose (except possibly morale) to not field the top games.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:55:45 PM
permalink
Quote: Switch
If you have confidence in your game then you should want to be up against the best.
Absolutely not true. If you're an amateur artist, is it fair to compare and compete
with a Renoir or a Rembrandt? If you're an amateur writer, should you enter
a competition with Stephen King or Hemingway? You have to compete with people
in your own category. Having white belts fighting black belts is a foregone conclusion
and makes the white belts look dopey.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:00:47 PM
permalink
Deleted
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:02:45 PM
permalink
Quote: PacmanPaigowdan,
You misquoted, misunderstood and misrepresented me.
I just reread all Dan's posts and don't see where he substantially
differs from you and your comments. Where does he misunderstand
and misrepresent you, exactly? (I'm defending Dan, mark it on your
calendar)
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:03:09 PM
permalink
Bob is right. Game design, unlike Poker, cannot be lucky.
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:06:30 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAbsolutely not true. If you're an amateur artist, is it fair to compare and compete
with a Renoir or a Rembrandt? If you're an amateur writer, should you enter
a competition with Stephen King or Hemingway? You have to compete with people
in your own category. Having white belts fighting black belts is a foregone conclusion
and makes the white belts look dopey.
It is if you want to achieve the same success in the marketplace. There are no "Amateur" and "Professional" games pits in the casinos.
Nevertheless, it should be expected that the pro's do better (as with poker) - the amateurs gain from being part of the event and having a great learning experience. They will come back as more experienced and refined and could well create a game that competes with the best as a result.
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:08:37 PM
permalink
Quote: UCivanBob is right. Game design, unlike Poker, cannot be lucky.
True but golf tournaments sometimes include Amateurs and a lot of amateurs do better than the professionals. On the whole you wouldn't expect an amateur to win a tournament but it gives that player valuable tournament experience and allows him to compare himself against the professionals on a level playing field (if you ignore the hills, bunkers and lakes that is :-) ).
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:08:39 PM
permalink
Quote: Pacman
That means the other nine games were developed by pros.
And mixing amateurs with pro's accomplished what?
A good 'lesson' for the amateurs? Or was the intent
to make the pro's look even better, because the opposite,
making the amateurs look better, never ever happens.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
