SHFL Focus Group

Quote: Switch

They will come back as more experienced and refined and could well create a game that competes with the best as a result.

This is just not true. Make the Jr High play against the Varsity,
with no chance of winning, just makes them resentful, not
motivated. You get motivated when the competition involves
an actual chance of winning.

Quote: Pacman

Shuffle Master in the next 4-6 weeks will be conducting a focus-group review of new table games.

If you want your game considered for inclusion, e-mail me at Rsnow@shufflemaster.com. The audience will be dealers and floor supervisors from a few Strip properties and the table game intelligentsia at Shuffle Master. The purpose is simple, but difficult: To help us determine which game will be the next Three Card Poker, the next Ultimate Texas Hold'em, the next Mississippi Stud, or the next Free Bet Blackjack (you don't know that one yet ... but you will).

Roger

EvenBob: This was my initial post, and it lays out the entire purpose of this event. SHFL was already planning on conducting a focus group of new games, and I merely asked if anyone else wanted to participate. It was by no means a casting call for some amateur night.

SHFL always wants to find the next next thing, and this is one method we employ in our search.

Personally, I applaud everyone who participated. They are good guys, smart guys, and they have balls the size of coconuts for going through with this.

Shakespeare said it best: Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.

This applies to all the guys who were at SHFL this morning. They are warriors.

I further believe that a few of the guys will learn from this experience and come back next time with something that kicks ass.

-30-

On the casino floor, there is only the major leagues. If your game can't make as much money as the next game, why would any table game manager keep it? Saying that your game is better than the average "amateur" game is not going to cut it as an excuse if it doesn't pull in its expected hold.

There is no crying in baseball, nor in any competitive business.

Bob, you make it sound like the difference between an amateur and professional games developer is insurmountable - it's not, unlike things like oil painting, playing basketball etc. I could never paint or play basketball at a professional level - I just haven't got the skill or physical ability.

Inventing a casino game can be done several ways - studying past, successful games, coming up with a new twist on a game etc. There are factors that the pro's will take into account and that will give them an edge BUT it's well within the grasp of a dedicated person to digest. This event will greatly accelerate the learning process. If the amateurs who entered expected to trump the top games by the pro's then I think there was over confidence on their part - nothing wrong with being positive but a realistic view would not leave a bitter aftertaste.

If you wanted to improve your poker skills would you choose to observe and play in a 'free' game with 9 amateurs or 9 professionals?

Quote: Pacman

It was by no means a casting call for some amateur night.

Then why didn't you clarify that when you saw posts
like Buzzpaff's, saying the rest of his life was hanging
on this event? When it became obvious that some,
including me, thought it was an amateur casing call.
Why didn't you tell them they didn't stand a chance
in hell of even placing, let alone winning, with so
many pro's involved.

For what its worth, before the votes were read, Roger gave everyone the opportunity to forfeit, without the scores read aloud. I assume to avoid the embarrassment of a bad outcome. Nobody invoked this option. So any crying is not Roger's fault.

On another topic, Roger will be the guest on the May 17 Gambling with an Edge.

Quote: Wizard

There is no crying in baseball, nor in any competitive business.

But there is stacking the deck in a competition and not
being upfront with the participants. Am I the only one
who saw how excited some of these guys were? Thats
because they thought it was a level playing field. When
Roger entered his games I scratched my head, I thought
maybe he was just padding the roster. So lets have the
little league go up against Mickey Mantle, that
should make for a good laugh. Sounds like the guys were
really laughing it up on the way back to their cars today.

Quote: Switch

This event will greatly accelerate the learning process. If the amateurs who entered expected to trump the top games by the pro's then I think there was over confidence on their part - nothing wrong with being positive but a realistic view would not leave a bitter aftertaste.

Having been on the other side of the table for a very long time -- as an analyst and mathematician for other people's games as well as an in-licensing decision maker -- the worst thing an inventor can do is believe their game is too wonderful. If the amateurs on this forum take nothing away from this experience but one thing, it should be this: overcome your inventoritis and focus on whether your product makes a good business decision for your potential distributors. If you've never invented anything before and you've spent a bunch of money on math, marketing, and IP, it's perhaps natural to have a bias toward your invention. Get over it. This might be a labor of love for you, but love doesn't directly translate to revenue.

Quote: EvenBob

Then why didn't you clarify that when you saw posts
like Buzzpaff's, saying the rest of his life was hanging
on this event? When it became obvious that some,
including me, thought it was an amateur casing call.
Why didn't you tell them they didn't stand a chance
in hell of even placing, let alone winning, with so
many pro's involved.

Deleted

Quote: Pacman

Here is the lineup of games for the May 2 focus group, along with the surname of each inventor:

1. Three Card Hi Lo (Ventura)
2. Bad Beat Stud Poker (Snow)
3. Poker for Roulette (Miller)
4. Triple Aces (Ma)
5. Twist'em (Friedman)
6. Hong Kong Poker (Willis)
7. Blackjack Split (Milosevich)
8. Action Blackjack (Paff)
9. Money Suit 31 (Weiss)
10. Hi Lo Stud Poker (Lima/Snow)

Place your bets.

Roger

Deleted

Quote: Paigowdan

Solid games, many pros involved.

EB: Also from April 6, a post by Dan.

I really enjoyed attending and I felt that not all the other people in my group were very respectful to the presenter. I saw games I loved, and some I don't even know how a person coud think it coud work in a casino I was shocked about poker for roulettes score but not surprised by bad beat hold em.

edited

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

I was shocked about poker for roulettes score

I'm in shock over it. How Dave could come in last is a
mystery that needs solving. If some of the judges were
disrespectful to the participants, and even walking away
from their presentations halfway thru, thats unforgivably
unprofessional. Some of these guys came a very long way,
they deserved better than that.

Quote: Pacman

Shuffle Master in the next 4-6 weeks will be conducting a focus-group review of new table games.

If you want your game considered for inclusion, e-mail me at Rsnow@shufflemaster.com. The audience will be dealers and floor supervisors from a few Strip properties and the table game intelligentsia at Shuffle Master. The purpose is simple, but difficult: To help us determine which game will be the next Three Card Poker, the next Ultimate Texas Hold'em, the next Mississippi Stud, or the next Free Bet Blackjack (you don't know that one yet ... but you will).

E-mails only and please keep them brief. I don't have time to read through some manifesto. I've got an empire to run, you know.

Roger

Where can Free Bet Blackjack be viewed?

Many thanks to Roger Snow and SHFL for hosting the focus group. It was a great learning experience. Even though it wasn’t a competition but since there were scores given, it’s normal for our competitive nature to want to do well. I didn’t leave with hurt feelings and I’m not unhappy about the results. It just showed that most of the judges did not like my game although I was hoping to get more feedback from the judges.

If I could have done it differently, knowing that 10 minutes is all I will have with these judges. I would have used just 8 of the 10 minutes to demonstrate the game and with the remaining 2 minutes asking the judges to put down their scores, feedback and suggestions. The scores can only tell if the judges liked or disliked the game but the feedback and suggestions would have been far more valuable because it would give us developers a better understanding as to what they liked or disliked about the games and why.

Since some of the judges had to leave right after the demonstrations, and most were reluctant to provide feedback maybe because they felt uncomfortable or didn’t want to look mean or negative. The scores and opinions were not meant to be taken personally. The way I see it, I was there to learn so some more suggestions and feedback would have been much appreciated. Positive feedback is nice but the negative feedback and suggestions are far more important because they can be very constructive and can shed light to the areas that we need to improve on.

Any inventor who attended the event can contact me for feedback on his game.

seems like some people here are going out of their way to insure that this type of event is not repeated.
it just goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished.
i would like to thank mr. snow for offering this opportunity to the forum members
and for being honest with those whose games need work.
i saw some of these games and i told the inventors exactly what i thought.
of course, they didn't want to hear it from me,
who am i? a nobody.
maybe now that the industry leader has told them their games
are not up to the level expected for successful installation,
they will refine them and come up with something better.
i would think that every one of the participants to a person should thanks mr snow publicly in the forum.
it says a lot about character and maturity to be able to do so.

This is an open letter to all game developers.

First, there is only one gage to measure the success of your game, and that is by having players wagering on your game.
This will be the final validation of all the hard work, sweat, time, and money. In order to get to this point, it has to make it to the inside of the casino floor. The casino manager/ director of table game must stick his neck out and try a new game. This means more work for him and his staff.

Most new games do not succeed! Of all the games installed, over 90% get taken out and the few that remain do not grab hold and spread. This is why getting a field trail is so difficult. This is why most casinos will not even try a new game.

Each one of the participants had an opportunity to get a feedback and some of your egos were hurt. Get over it. As I have said before, if you compare this game to baseball, Mickey Mantle will not make the cut. You need to be hall of famer of hall of famers. Your object is to get a field trial, period! The casino will love the games that make them a ton of money even if they personally hate it.

All your work must go to having it voted on by the gambling public. If you use the distributor, then they will work on having it installed in a casino. If you go solo, then expect the doors to be shut in your face. I would not mind this option, but I did not even get to this point. When I knocked they wouldn't even open the door. One DTG in Mississippi started yelling at me when I mentioned I was a game developer. Others had me wait a few days, only to not even meet with me. She sent over a floor person to have a look and he was in no position to do anything. Others I got a lame excuse that they were in a meeting at all hours, even at 11 pm. At this place I felt that the DTG was BS-ing with the casino manager and didn't even want to give me the courteously of coming down. Oh, if the DTG is talking with the casino manager they must be in a meeting even if they are talking about women, their golf scores etc... Waited 15 minutes and left. Didn't want to interrupt their "meeting."

Stay focus. Your one and only goal is to get it in the casino floor and see what happens. This focus group was free. Learn from it. If you did well, you can give yourself a pat on your back and try for the next phase. If you did not do well, then you can do some reality check and plan on moving forward with more information then you had before.

Best wishes to all and good luck.

AceCrAAckers

"Yo, AceCrAAckers. I'm really happy for you,
Imma let you finish but Mickey Mantle had one of the best records of all time.
One of the best records of all time!"

Quote: WongBo

"Yo, AceCrAAckers. I'm really happy for you,
Imma let you finish but Mickey Mantle had one of the best records of all time.
One of the best records of all time!"

I agree about Mickey Mantle. Yo, he is a hall of famer. But if you could only vote on three player to be given the title of super hall of famer, you would definitely choose the Babe and two more players. Mickey will not be the one of the two remaining spot.

Quote: WongBo

seems like some people here are going out of their way to insure that this type of event is not repeated.
it just goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished.

AMEN!

Fortunately, though, from the post-event comments I've seen, I don't believe the forum members crying 'foul' will deter in any way the host from doing it again if it served SHFL's purposes. I didn't attend and wasn't even aware of the event until the day before, but any serious game developer (amateur or pro) should appreciate an invitation to participate in a 'free' professional rating/evaluation of his or her game, regardless of the outcome. If you haven't yet learned the lessons of disappointment and failure in this business, then welcome to my world; they are natural components of the evolutionary process. The comments by those directly stating or implying that 'success oftentimes comes only after failure' reveal who are the real pros here.

Next time can the inventors leave the room for a minute so we can score them without them watching? I scored what I would anyway but would have liked that better.

Maybe next time everyone can get a trophy just like the soccer moms demand for both teams. No losers there- until they have to face the real world.

Quote: THESWEENEY

Where can Free Bet Blackjack be viewed?

email me at geoff@blackjackswitch.com and I'll send you a description sheet on the game.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

All your work must go to having it voted on by the gambling public. If you use the distributor, then they will work on having it installed in a casino. If you go solo, then expect the doors to be shut in your face. I would not mind this option, but I did not even get to this point. When I knocked they wouldn't even open the door. One DTG in Mississippi started yelling at me when I mentioned I was a game developer. Others had me wait a few days, only to not even meet with me. She sent over a floor person to have a look and he was in no position to do anything. Others I got a lame excuse that they were in a meeting at all hours, even at 11 pm. At this place I felt that the DTG was BS-ing with the casino manager and didn't even want to give me the courteously of coming down. Oh, if the DTG is talking with the casino manager they must be in a meeting even if they are talking about women, their golf scores etc... Waited 15 minutes and left. Didn't want to interrupt their "meeting."

AceCrAAckers

AceCrAAckers, you will do great. Good luck.

I attended the event as a guest of Money$uit. While I did not present a game at this event, I participated in a similar event put on by a casino up in Washington that used their employee group as the judges (something I think more casino's should be doing when evaluating new games).

My intial game, Easy Over Under, did make it on to the floor of a casino, but it died a quick death and was off the floor in 60 days. By the way, it came in 12th out of 13 games at that casino evaluation event.....they already knew something I wasn't seeing.

Since I have walked in the shoes of the game developer, but had nothing at stake in this event and was able to tour the floor and watch just about all the participants make their pitches (including Roger/SHFL's but I missed On The River that came in 2nd), hopefully I provide some neutral insight.

If you weren't there, you should stop posting your criticism's about Roger/SHFL, the event set up, what the participants were told to expect, etc. You don't have any idea of what happened or the many communications that went on before the event between Roger & the participants as to how to prepare, what to expect, etc. Amazingly enough, there was lots of communication done outside of the forum.....shocking! Sorry....you simply don't have all the information that is required to make an intelligent comment about the quality or value of the event. YOU WEREN'T THERE!

Games that seemed to work had the following:

1) New versions/twists of current successful games did well.

BBTH is very close to UTH with a Bad Beat feature as opposed to the Blind feature of UTH and successive raise opportunities instead of making one raise and being done as you do in UTH. Tough for this game not to have done well since UTH is the next TCP in my opinion. The bigger question here (and Roger asked it of the group at the end), would you play this game instead of UTH? More importantly, is there a need for a property to put this game in if they already have UTH on the floor. The game scored well, but the jury is still out in my opinion as to whether BBTH would simply cannibalize players from UTH if the games were placed side by side on the floor.

Wiz's Three Card Poker was well received as it is a slight twist on, again, an existing successful game. I think of it like BJ Switch...it gives players the feeling that they can improve an initial bad situation in a game they already know and love and the take away that gives the game the house edge is well disguised.

2) New Concepts need to be simple particularly if not based on existing games.

BJ Split has similarities to 7-14-21 in that you get six cards and have to arrange them into BJ hands. Think of it as 21-21-21.
Twist'em uses dominos but all you do is arrange them to make two hands close to 9. Totally new concept, but very simple.

3) The Wow factor vs. the Grow on you factor......Switch is on to something here and I think games in the middle of the "rankings" may fall into this category.

Max 9 was really just Baccarat with each player getting a drawing option....no real Wow factor here
High Low Stud poker had a lot going on with the High & Low betting options and related decisions. It was a bit complicated, but may grow on some players.
Same with XX Poker...there are really three games/bets going on at once in this game. Once you understand it may grow on you, but in a short demo setting with players having to learn 14 games in 3 hours tough for it to score well. It did get a couple of "I really liked it" and that was probably from folks that were quick learners.
Hong Kong Poker may also grow on folks. It is an 8 card poker game with 5 hole cards, so a bit new in concept. Dan already indicated what he thought caused his score to be in the middle grouping here.

4) Presentation is important

This is the impact of simply being able present your game well. Roger/SHFL is obviously good at this. Not everyone has these skills and it is hard. Even our beloved Wiz was getting better each round of presenting. "I am not an experienced Dealer" was I think the comment he made early on in his first round. Dealing your game and explaining it at the same time is hard. He overcame this because his game is just like TCP with a twist....presentation is not as significant if the players already know the game.

It was indicated that Action BJ didn't have enough of the game on the sample player card layouts. I think this game was tough for the judges to get a grasp of because I am not sure they fully understood what made it different from regular BJ. Having more of the game on the layout in front of the players may have solved this. I am not sure that Buzz got enough feedback or proper judging as I don't think everyone understood what was different.

5) New concepts and perceived "complicated" don't do well

I think this is what happened with Money$uit & Triple Aces. Both concepts were new.

Moneysuit involves the game of 31 which is not familiar to everyone. There was also the use of dice that selected the Money Suit for each hand. Some payouts on the paytable you were playing against changed if your hand is in the money suit or not. Finally there is the "Family Pot" where you are playing not against the pay table but comparing hands against the other players. I think judges were overwhelmed by the number of new concepts going on in this game. Good news is MoneySuit has the Stud version of his game which is much simpler.

Triple Aces was also a new concept. I thought of it like 3 hands of War that you played all at once against the dealer. Most of the confusion here stemmed from how to set your hand as how the dealer arranged their hand varied based on the dominate color of the three cards held by the dealer. This seemed to be a sticking point for many.....they just weren't sure how to play this new concept with a moving dealer strategy.

I'll post more later on how I think the event itself could be improved, but is was a huge success and those that were there seemed to be the ones that are applauding Roger/SHFL for putting on the event.

The event - and the responses here - provided a wealth of information on both the competitveness of the business, and "how we feel and react about our babies being called ugly," - which is part and parcel in this business.

1. Sometimes our babies are indeed ugly. This is because as game designers, we are also often our worst editors.

2. A make-over (or some plastic surgery) always helps us get a date. Crying about being ugly does nothing. One small change can turn a "horrible product" into an awesome product, and the smart ones took that with them from the event, along with where they stood. This was both a generous gift to us designers, and the needed help graciously offered. Lifesaving medicine takes like sh]t and the babies will cry and wail instead of being thankful for being alive for it, and "in the know" as to what needs fixing, and where they actually stand.

3. The real problem with the event was that there was a false appearance of impropriety that some had perceived. To have a black-belt master be one of the judges is reasonable; to have a black-belt master in the business as one of the competitors creates the appearance of a stacked deck, even though that is actually what you are up against in this business; it cannot help but to "look that way." This was undeniably and ONLY a PR problem, from which there was fallout and can be admitted. There is NO such thing as a "kindler and gentler" gaming industry.

4. Some of the participants may never make it as designers. It is good to know this early on especially in terms of your adjustment or your fit with this often-rude business. You may hit the drawing board as often as you like, to try as often as you like. It is up to you to see if this is a viable practice for your professional life. You may make it, or you may not, and you probably won't. So it boils down to, "does this work for you?" "Are you put off, discouraged, or do you keep on trucking?"

5. New concepts are tough: gamblers resist what they are not used to, if a new concept is too alien.

Well thought-out post Paradigm ... excellent summary.

Outstanding summary Paradigm. Bravo. Thanks for the kind words about my game.

Quote: Paigowdan

3. The real problem with the event was that there was a false appearance of impropriety that some had perceived. To have a black-belt master be one of the judges is reasonable; to have a black-belt master in the business as one of the competitors creates the appearance of a stacked deck, even though that is actually what you are up against in this business; it cannot help but to "look that way." This was undeniably and ONLY a PR problem, from which there was fallout and can be admitted. There is NO such thing as a "kindler and gentler" gaming industry.

For Pacman, I'd be less concerned about looking improper, but also the useful of feedback he might get.

When testing, it's very hard to be objective. People will say they are, and knowing person X designed and presented the game (software/feature) makes no difference, but in reality it does. If the person running the event, and paying the judges is also a guy running a demo and presenting a game, it's just hard for the judges to be objective and make good critical evaluation of the games -that person presents- (there will be a lesser effect for other games by other designers).

I'd suggest if you are hosting the event and the public face, you don't have a dog in the race. If you have a dog in the race, remove yourself from the front end organization as far as possible. If you have no dogs, then hosting, and glad-handing and getting people to be involved and interested in everything is easier. This will allow people to make a much cleaner evaluation. Which may be just as, or more harsh.

Independence of testing is a key thing we strive for in my line of work.

(I am very aware my exposure to this is from these posts, and don't know the details, or how it went down on the day. I'm curious as to buzzpaff and DJTeddyBear's views on it. But I'm not too surprised that the people closer to the game design industry did better overall than than those who aren't. There's always a chance a talented amateur designer can hit it big, though.)

If you're wondering why I haven't responded sooner, it's not because I jumped off something tall. It's because I refuse to pay the hotel for Internet. So here I sit, on a bench in the Forum Shops, using the Apple Store's free WiFi....

I haven't had a chance to read the hundreds of posts since I left home on Sunday, but here's some thoughts.


While I'm surprised I came in last, I would have been much more surprised if I had won. Or even if I came in the top 3. (Not that I was expecting to come in fourth, but you get the point.)

I got a LOT of valuable feedback and have already thought about changes to my presentation and tweaks to the game. On that note, the experience was priceless.

I get the feeling that Roger expected my results to be higher, and will be contacting him next week, once I get home.

I do NOT buy into the "Roger effect" that Dan has mentioned.

I think the format was ok. It could have been better, but only with considerable effort and expense.



The most positive part of the presentation actually occurred while waiting for my turn between my three turns.

At one point, a couple ShuffleMaster staff people were looking at my stuff and asking about. One of them made a comment about the very simple method I devised to track multiple simultaneous unresolved bets. He said that they were trying to figure that part out, and I nailed it.


Anyway, more to come after I get home on Sunday.

Roger wrote to me saying that each participant is welcome to contact him for more in-depth feedback about his game, which was the purpose of the whole event.

On Poker for Roulette:
The unresolved bets might be addressable with a ticket-out feature, but would require networking.
Or a cash-out now feature, that would pay the current award won, or zero if not hit yet, for a multi-spin bet.

The format was very rushed, this is undeniable.
Learning and evaluating 15 brand new games in three hours at 10 minutes a pop, it can only be a bit of a pounding that can affect you. It was like a spin cycle.

1. I would have set up 10 tables max over the course of a day, where you can go the next game that interests you freely, with no time pressure, so as long as you sample all games by 4:45PM. With a lunch break. Keep in mind that people go to the casino as a leisurely experience, not as work or a time-pressured thing. food breaks, etc., would be allowed.

2. I would not have had any known sponsoring company executives pitch or demo any games. The best way to evaluate a game is to have "Joe Dealer" deal the game - as that is what you would have at a typical Casino with your game in the real world, which is where the game IS to end up. I want to see my game work with real dealers from real casinos, or a non-aligned inventor show it himself. I did not want Roger to deal the game. It might have gotten a better score, true, although we don't know for sure, along with an absence of a needed dealer comment who might have been on best-behavior, which was absolutely invaluable

2A. I would not have a mix of company-sponsored or affiliated games mixed in with independent offerings. Expectations do play a part.

3. I would have had a grading system based on A through F, and produce a final GPA score for the game: 0.0 gpa to 4.0 gpa.

4. I would have required comments on the game for the grading cards, for any C grade or less; you must state what you thought was wrong with the game, or that had turned you off, in the comment section. If you are going to send game designers back to the drawing board, tell them what's wrong if salvageable, or perhaps not salvageable, if the case.

The "Roger effect" was indeed considered present, and was mentioned by a number of game designers attending themselves, aside from the fact that it looked biased to some forum members here. However, these are feelings and opinions that have other effects, and are immaterial to what was really important, which was spotting and correcting weaknesses in games, if present, or signing up games with an industry leader, if prolems were not present, and if game is ready-to-market.

I made it back home so have time for final comments on the Focus Group:

Circling back on my previous post, I see that I left off DJ's PFR game in the summary. I was supposed to put him in the "Presentation is important" group not because he didn't do well here as I think he did a good job explaining the game. But he was at a big disadvantage versus the other games. While he had a roulette wheel available and great print outs of how the bet would work, since the electronics weren't in place, I think the evaluators had a hard time fully grasping the "feel of the game". I was able to get a better sense of the game listening to his presentation vs. past reviews of his website. I have a better appreciation for the game than I did previously, but I also had some background in it from being a member here. However, I can't say I have a "feel for the play of the game" at this point.....I want to see how the electronics work, watch how the lights work and track 10 spins putting some bets down on some spins and not on others.

PFR was likely a totally new concept for the evaluators. There was no complete working model to test out and gain a feel for the play of the game. I think this is where the game presentation fell short of putting PFR on equal footing when judged against other games at the event......it had less to do with the game concept versus the inability to really "play the game" during the presentation.

Moving on to the structure of the event:

Well, frankly I don't think anyone of us can really understand the level of work that Roger/SHFL had to put in to coordinate all the details. Not only was there the various e-mail communications in the week before the event that we all didn't see, there was the pre-evening dinner and figuring out what needed to be communicated there, evaluators to coordinate, SHFL chaperone's to be present, determing what games where played at which tables, the rotation schedule, scorecards & game specific scorecard collection boxes, food/beverages at the event (all free for us mind you!), 14 different game player station demo cards to create/proof/send out to developers/make changes and print for use during game play and I am sure a myriad of things that I am not aware of behind the scenes. Bottom line is that in its current form, this is no small undertaking and Roger/SHFL didn't have to do any of it!

So knowing that there is a high level of appreciation for what it took to put on the event as is, here is my input:

1) Too many games. I would look to do a max of 8 games at time and do events like this on a six month basis as opposed to a once a year 14 game type of deal.

2) With less games, you can provide 5 minutes of time between game playing sessions for evaluators to jump into the board room and complete their surveys. A score and one sentence comments are required on every evaluation that say for example "I scored this a +5 because I like this new game concept using dominos & it was simple to learn" or "I scored this a -5 because I didn't like the betting structure or I didn't understand the side bets or...." As developers one sentence positive or negative from 15 separate evaluators will give unbelievable insight to the good/bad of the game. I think you would be amazed that there will likely be one or two similar comments that show up on multiple scorecards which is your "lightbulb moment" to say keep this or change that.

3) Verbal feedback from evaluators after overall scores are revealed is a winner. Somehow we need to get the evaluators to be more forthcoming with those comments. Perhaps the game developers need to get up and say "look, if you guys hate it, I get it......but please tell me what you hated" and then they need to be committed to just listening to what is said. Roger did a good job with this portion of the event pulling comments from the group but there needs to be a sense of it is OK to tell us the good, the bad and the ugly just give us the specifics. There is no wrong opinion unless one is not provided at all.

That is really it. I think Roger can deal the games if he wants to, but I agree that his skills are better used at working the crowd of evaluators and getting candid comments maybe in the board room as evaluators turn in scores...."Did you like that game? Why or Why not?" He could use these tidbits gleaned during the event to ask the whole group questions at the end, i.e. "I had one evaluator tell me that they didn't like the side bet in this game. What did the rest of you think of it?"

OK....those two posts were way too much hot air from this member for a while. I be more of a reader/listener on this thread going forward.

Quote: EvenBob

So when is the demo? Is it going on now, 1pm in Vegas?
How did the dinner go last night, did Buzz get his prime
rib on ShuffleMaster's tab?

Damn right I did, desert too. Only had to drive 1,234 miles round trip to get it !

Quote: buzzpaff

Damn right I did, desert too. Only had to drive 1,234 miles round trip to get it !

Dessert. You've spent too long driving through the, err, desert!

On the subject of your long drive, I have to say one of my ambitions as an Englishman is to drive the States coast to coast. That would be so cool!

Will start another thread on Sunday and try and give an unbiased view of the dinner and focus group.
But before that I must take objection from this remark, by Dan Lubin
" ALL the other independent developers felt burned because the SHFL games all had positive scores, "inflicting" a very heavy curve on the results in some people's eyes." What actions , words, or body language made you think I felt burned ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

If I wrote what I really felt when I read that, I would have a year or more suspension !

Quote: THESWEENEY

Dessert. You've spent too long driving through the, err, desert!

Maybe that was the trade-off? Free steak, but only if Buzz also eats sand?

For the uninitiated like myself, it would be nice if we had a thread that acted as a quick reference guide to games, who invented them, and how they're doing. I get confused easily as I'm a bit dim.

Both DJ and Buzz will have a busy Sunday :-))) Looking forward to the posts.

Quote: rdw4potus

Maybe that was the trade-off? Free steak, but only if Buzz also eats sand?

Right now, Buzz has a mouthful of humble pie. LOL

I am nothing if not honest. But if anyone replies with, " Please don't take it personal" , I always take it personal
after hearing or reading that !

Quote: buzzpaff

I am nothing if not honest. But if anyone replies with, " Please don't take it personal" , I always take it personal
after hearing or reading that !

Please don't take it personal, but shouldn't it be "please don't take it personally?" *DIVES FOR COVER*

Has anybody else noticed that Roger has gone thru this
thread and erased most of his posts from May 1st and
May 2nd? Even his post with the scores, that shows
him winning the first and second spot, has been deleted.

What the heck is going on? Luckily I quoted from some
of his posts, but most of his descriptions of what happened
on Wednesday have been deleted. This is somewhat
mind blowing, to say the least. Why would you do that, Roger?

What the hell happened in this thread? I just got here today (May 4th) and every other post is "Edited" or "deleted" or similar, including the final scores. I've been able to gather how some games scored, obviously...was curious to see the final list though.

Quote: AcesAndEights

What the hell happened in this thread? I just got here today (May 4th) and every other post is "Edited" or "deleted" or similar, including the final scores. I've been able to gather how some games scored, obviously...was curious to see the final list though.

Roger (Pacman) went thru and deleted most of his posts.
All I remember from the list he posted is Roger's two
games placed first and second, with a 110 and a 60. The Wiz was
3rd with a 55. Buzz got a -20 and DJ was last with a -35.
I'm sure others can fill in the blanks. Roger erasing his posts
like this is very disturbing.

Maybe one of the presenters complained about the public posting of the results.

Quote: Paigowdan

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.

To the above post Roger's reaction was: "Paigowdan, You misquoted, misunderstood and misrepresented me."

That post has been deleted also.

Quote: EvenBob

Roger (Pacman) went thru and deleted most of his posts.
All I remember from the list he posted is Roger's two
games placed first and second, with a 110 and a 60. The Wiz was
3rd with a 55. Buzz got a -20 and DJ was last with a -35.
I'm others can fill in the blanks. Roger erasing his posts
like this is very disturbing.

I don't find it disturbing, just curious. It was his shindig, he's free to do whatever he wants with the results. But I thought everyone had agreed beforehand that they were okay with a public posting of the scores.