SHFL Focus Group

Quote: Wizard

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

Roger said he had the permission of ALL the
presenters before he posted the results. And
if one of them complained, just delete his name
from the post, not erase the whole list.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I don't find it disturbing, just curious. .

I find it disturbing because when people do
things like this, its obviously for a reason. Is
he trying to distance himself from his own
event?

Quote: EvenBob

I find it disturbing because when people do
things like this, its obviously for a reason. Is
he trying to distance himself from his own
event?

Many of those posts contained both the info about the game creators identities and Roger's own contact info. I'd imagine that one of those two things was eventually re-thought.

Organizing and running an event in which a person has a vested interest is one of the very hardest things in the world to do. It sounds like Roger pulled it off quite well. Kudos to him for that. Now he has to listen to all of the (mostly constructive) criticism about an event that he already bent over backwards to put on.

For some unknown reasons, I downloaded the game list and scores. I am not sure if the information is proprietary to SHFL or to Roger, or to the participants. If it is, I will burn them right away - don't want to mess with the Emperor and people. If it's not, PM me and I will send you a copy. How could I find out if it is or not?

Posting from McD's again. Still haven't read everything....


As the person with lowest score, I can assure you that I was TOTALLY OK with public disclosure.

For the record, I called Roger and asked for a meeting this morning, to get his personal thoughts on the event and my game.

I had hoped to steal 15 minutes of his time. The meeting lasted just over an hour. As I left, I remarked to the receptionist that it was possibly the most valuable hour of my life.

Roger was very candid and very much a gentleman during the hour.

Assuming the comments about the edits are true, I can't help but think that he had a VERY good reason to edit the posts. But I'm also troubled by it. He not only asked us via email but again before the ballots were counted, AND AGAIN AFTER they were counted.


More details on the meeting when I get home and don't have to post on an iPhone....

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I had hoped to steal 15 minutes of his time. The meeting lasted just over an hour. As I left, I remarked to the receptionist that it was possibly the most valuable hour of my life.

Roger was very candid and very much a gentleman during the hour.

I trust that the critics are taking notes on the lengths that Roger/SHFL have gone to in order to provide value to those that participated.

A free hour meeting with the number one guru in table game development......I bet every participant would have flown to Vegas just for that meeting alone.

But watch.....Roger will get thrown under the bus over the next several pages for editing his posts. After the abuse he took on this thread after the event, I would have pulled my posts and gone home a long time ago.

Tell me again, what is in it for him.......?

1. My undeleted post was brought back by Bob, and I'm fine with it. It was heated, - and there WAS some sour grapes.

2. I stand by my comments that SOME indy designers were put off by how it was handled. Some were sour grapes, but a lot were alienated by how it was handled. I can see that. This is not my position, I was fine with it, took the feedback I needed to hear, but I also got to hear a lot of comments from people felt really off-put by it on the side, and not here in official post-on-it-land.

3. I stressed VERY EARLY ON in this here thread - WAY before the event - that it was a great chance for a company viewed wrongfully as an evil empire to express some good faith, get some good PR, but that that is tricky, and that relationship building and PR aspects have to be considered and handled very thoughtfully and delicately, to prevent any aspects or appearances of stacked deck entering the picture. In the end, there were some problems related to this: not enough strong and specific feedback of game faults to be addressed, an excessively prominent role of the company's own products, and a prominent role of the company's top game design exec in the presentation.

4. If I held a game design event, I would not show or look at my own stuff, as I have some experience and some advantage, which would color external entries. I wouldn't want that to be a factor in the process at all. Like I said, I want to see how Joe x. would do against Joe Y. - not Eric Clapton on guitar playing some songs versus Joe and his garage band. If I did have my stuff in it such a competition that I held, I wouldn't want to finish and block-up the top third block of the voting results. I would stop, say "Woa!", and discount my entries, and consider only indy stuff against other indy stuff.

Quote: Paradigm

Tell me again, what is in it for him.......?

You're joking. He stated here that winner of the
event had a 75% chance of getting his game into
a casino. HE was the number 1 and number 2
winner! He made a point (with an asterisk) that
HE got the highest score of all time at one of these
events. And you ask whats in it for him?

I'm not a game inventor, so all the obvious fawning
and scraping every time Roger's name is mentioned
is lost on me. The only game I can tolerate that
ShuffleMaster makes is RapidRoulette, and thats because
I beat the stuffing out of it every time I play it. I much
prefer IGT's RouletteEvolution, it gives a true 60 spins
a minute. RapidRoulette is extremely flawed, with all the
hold-ups for buy in's and pay outs, dealer mistakes, and
super slow dealers who make the game about as fast as
a regular table at times. I can't count the number of times
I've asked them sarcastically why they call it 'rapid' when
the opposite was true.

I see they have a RapidBacarrat game, but I've never seen it. Is
it in any Vegas casinos?

Quote: Paigowdan

that it was a great chance for a company viewed wrongfully as an evil empire

You made laugh at that one, Dan. I never looked
at SM as being evil, well, no more evil than the
casino itself. They build the toys for the real evil
empire, so the evil does wear off. I'm all for games
that have real dealers and give me more decisions
per hour. I liked casinos much better when there
was BJ, craps, roulette, poker and Keno, and that
was it. All the new games, with the whistles and bells
and promises just make me chuckle as I pass them.
But then, so do video games..

Quote: UCivan

For some unknown reasons, I downloaded the game list and scores. I am not sure if the information is proprietary to SHFL or to Roger, or to the participants. If it is, I will burn them right away - don't want to mess with the Emperor and people. If it's not, PM me and I will send you a copy. How could I find out if it is or not?

The information is not proprietary. Scores were pulled down at the request of one of the presenters.

Quote: Pacman

The information is not proprietary. Scores were pulled down at the request of one of the presenters.

So put the list back up without their name. What happened to
the rest of your posts?

Quote: EvenBob

You're joking. He stated here that winner of the
event had a 75% chance of getting his game into
a casino. HE was the number 1 and number 2
winner! He made a point (with an asterisk) that
HE got the highest score of all time at one of these
events. And you ask whats in it for him?

OK, are YOU joking now? Do you actually think that because Roger won Roger's event, Roger now has a higher chance of getting Roger to market Roger's game?

Quote: rdw4potus

OK, are YOU joking now? Do you actually think that because Roger won Roger's event, Roger now has a higher chance of getting Roger to market Roger's game?

Absolutely! Why do you he made a point of
saying he got the highest score ever? You think he
makes the final decision on games that go into casinos?
He doesn't own the company, the decision has to be
made by a team of people and winning this event sure
makes his games look good.

" 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."

Do you still stand by this statement, DAN ??????

Bob, any game that Roger invented and thinks is good has a 100% chance of getting on a casino floor for trial......that is kind of a given when your games are already on over 2500 tables around the globe. He doesn't need to win anything to get field trial somewhere and then the players will vote with their dollars. As AceCrAAckers has indicated, they are the final judges provided the game is holding enough.

So tell me again what is in it for Roger/SFHL with opening the event up to outsiders, taking them all out to evidently a very nice dinner, generously offering to help any of the presenters with one on one feedback over the phone or in person after the event, giving at least DJ the most valuable hour of time he has spent to date on PFR, etc.

Do you think it is possible Roger/SHFL were hoping for some outside games to do well so that they could sign the creator up for a contract? Any possibility of that being a motive for doing all the work to put on the event?

Was the event perfect in everyone's eyes, no but events are rarely perfect. And Dan I think is very appropriate in expressing his opinion on what wasn't perfect and his opinion is valid.....he was there, he talked to some of the developers that were in pain leaving the event. It is brutal when your game gets crushed. I have experienced that pain, my first reaction was they don't know what they are talking about, the event was set up poorly, etc.

Later, after a subsequent failed field trial, I conceded that the evaluators in my event may have seen some things that needed to be changed and I went back to work at it. It was invaluable to get that feedback and reconsider everything about the game I had created. That is the process in game development.

I am very interested to see what DJ and Buzz post on Sunday after having several days to reflect on the experience. What they say will be worth reading and provide insight.

Quote: Paradigm

He doesn't need to win anything to get field trial somewhere

So he was just showing off then. And the bragging about
it later, what was that all about. If you don't need to enter
your games in a competition, why would you?

Quote: EvenBob

So he was just showing off then. And the bragging about
it later, what was that all about. If you don't need to enter
your games in a competition, why would you?

It was not a competition, and presumably he valued the feedback from the focus group. You seem to care very much about this. I'm curious as to why...

Quote: rdw4potus

It was not a competition, and presumably he valued the feedback from the focus group. You seem to care very much about this. I'm curious as to why...

Do we have to go over this again? Of COURSE it was a competition.
Scores were given and it was understood the WINNER of the
competition would have a 75% chance of getting his game into
a casino. There were scores, there was a prize, thats the very
definition of a competition, look it up. Why all the flurry over tying to make into
something else.

Quote: EvenBob

Do we have to go over this again? Of COURSE it was a competition.
Scores were given and it was understood the WINNER of the
competition would have a 75% chance of getting his game into
a casino. There were scores, there was a prize, thats the very
definition competition, look it up. Why all flurry over tying to make into
something else.

Maybe the "winner" has a 75% chance of being placed in a casino (more, actually, if Roger liked his own game anyway). But the "losers" don't have a 0% chance. Also, the 75% chance isn't a prize for winning, it's the expected success rate for a game that is good enough to win. If more than one game did well enough to win, more than one game would have a 75% chance of success. Someone else will need to confirm this, but to the extent that the winner did extremely well, I suspect that this situation is the case n this focus group. Roger first posted and then redacted the scores for both this session and for a prior session, so I'm a little fuzzy on the numbers. I think that many games in this session did about as well as the winners in the prior session. If the prior winning scores were expected to be the winning scores of this session, then many games from this session may in fact have a 75ish% chance of being placed.

Quote: rdw4potus

then many games from this session may in fact have a 75ish% chance of being placed.

Why are you allowed to deal in pure speculation and I'm not.
When I go thru casino's, I don't see too many empty tables
with a sign that says "Waiting Foe Newest Casino Game".

Quote: EvenBob

Why are you allowed to deal in pure speculation and I'm not.

Your statements are absolute, while mine include qualifiers? ;-)

Quote: rdw4potus

Maybe the "winner" has a 75% chance of being placed in a casino (more, actually, if Roger liked his own game anyway). But the "losers" don't have a 0% chance. Also, the 75% chance isn't a prize for winning, it's the expected success rate for a game that is good enough to win. If more than one game did well enough to win, more than one game would have a 75% chance of success. Someone else will need to confirm this, but to the extent that the winner did extremely well, I suspect that this situation is the case n this focus group. Roger first posted and then redacted the scores for both this session and for a prior session, so I'm a little fuzzy on the numbers. I think that many games in this session did about as well as the winners in the prior session. If the prior winning scores were expected to be the winning scores of this session, then many games from this session may in fact have a 75ish% chance of being placed.

Bob is just trolling you. He can attempt to make pseudo-legal arguments about the definition of competition, but he's so far removed from how the industry works that he's just blowing smoke. There are a few companies in the industry, including Shuffle Master, who are so established as vendors to gaming operators that they can simply make a phone call and get a product placed in a casino. That goes not only for table game vendors like SHFL, but also vendors for slots, game equipment, and even back-office systems. The average independent Joe Inventor can't do that. With regard to the 75% number, it was just an estimate of the likelihood that a highly-reviewed game would end up in a casino somewhere, based on historical knowledge of prior such events, but Bob took that and somehow contorted it into the event being a formal competition with a prize of sorts. It wasn't. He's just playing his part as forum curmudgeon so pay no heed. Bob lives in the world where juice comes from squeezing oranges.

" And Dan I think is very appropriate in expressing his opinion on what wasn't perfect and his opinion is valid.."

Not when he speaks for "ALL" independent developers !!!!

Quote: MathExtremist

Bob is just trolling you. ,

Nope. Something was rotten in Denmark as has
just been proven by the announcement of another demo
in 6 weeks, and without the ringers this time. I'm
one of the few people in this conversation who doesn't
give a rats rear end what Roger Snow thinks because
I have zero riding on his opinion of anything. I
spent a certain amount of time talking to 3 of the
contestants before Wednesdays demo and I was very
disappointed for them at how it was run. They expected
more and should have got it.

I had a LONG wait in McCarran...


Bob -

It may seem like I'm picking on your posts. It's just that you gave me the most reasons to reply...

Quote: EasyBob

Quote: PaiGowDan

... that it was a great chance for a company viewed wrongfully as an evil empire

You made laugh at that one, Dan. I never looked
at SM as being evil, well, no more evil than the
casino itself. They build the toys for the real evil
empire, so the evil does wear off. I'm all for games
that have real dealers and give me more decisions
per hour. I liked casinos much better when there
was BJ, craps, roulette, poker and Keno, and that
was it. All the new games, with the whistles and bells
and promises just make me chuckle as I pass them.
But then, so do video games.

Roger addressed the "Evil Empire" thing at the dinner the night before. In fact, he brought it up.

It's something of an insider's opinion, that Roger was unafraid to acknowledge and discuss.

Quote: Paradigm

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.

Thanks.

For the record, I think that was only part of the problem.

The feedback, primarily, was that players don't sit as the roulette table for that many spins. While I find that hard to believe, it was indicative of the real problem: a player will feel like he needs to make 5 bets before there's any resolutions.

Quote: Wizard

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.

we all got that letter.

It included a comment that we were invited to call him and tell him to "Shit in his hat" or something like that.

While I had no intention to say that, it certainly seemed like an open invitation to call. I chose to make it a meeting since I was still in town.

And I'm VERY grateful for that meeting.

Quote: EvenBob

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.

Don't be so shocked. You weren't there. But more important, the judges didn't have the benefit of reviewing my website prior to the event.

My presentation was fine for what it was.

The problem was trying to show or demonstrate an electronic player interface using a paper mock-up, as well as the "trapped waiting on a resolution" thing.

Quote: EvenBob

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.

Like I said, I don't view it as a "competition" but "research".

Also, the fact that Roger won should surprise nobody. He didn't hire people that would stuff the ballot box blindly. Instead, he presented great games. After all, he's an expert in his field. The results are predictable only because he's an expert. That Mike came in third proves there was no specific ass kissing involved.

Sorry for the late submissions here.

I first off have to say that it was a pleasure meeting all those who i had met for the first time at the dinner/group. I appreciated all of the kind words from all(especially you buzz, you didnt have to go out of your way to tell me what you did and i wont forget it either...)

I also have to thank roger for the opportunity to present and the way he treated/welcomed me as he did so to all of the participants.

There is one thing to would like to offer to all those who have participated in the event and have been following the thread. (I know its a little late for this but...) The score is not the only/most important potion of the voting/tallying that should have been closely followed by the participants. The breakdown of votes (good/indifferent/negative) is, in my opinion, by far more important statistic than the final score and i know i followed this closely with my game... The negative score i received obviously didnt make me happy at first but when i comprehended what had taken place, it was the tally that was far and gone the most important. Think of this situation where a game gets all 0s and a final score of zero. On paper and at a glance that game blew my game as well as many others out of the water while not a single person in the room had actually enjoyed playing the game, where a third of the participants enjoyed playing mine and a third were indifferent... Given the new rules for shfl 2 I am quite confident that the number of likes would increase for mine solely on the fact that "burnt out" examiners are not going to have any patience to learn a new concept to them, as 31 was to all of them(mind you i was second to last to present in my individual group. By the second presentation lets just say that the examiners didnt exactly exhibit an excited to learn demeanor! Where the first group was very receptive and clearly enjoyed playing based on immediate feedback) Also on the same subject, think of this scenario where you have an even split of 6 people liking your game and vote +5 and 6 hate it and give a -10 for a total of -30, that game looks like garbage on paper doesn't it, but is it really? Or better yet... Think of getting 10 +5 votes and 5 -10 votes for a score of 0, you have a large majority of the voters that like your game and would play, but still get a score that makes your game look like dog doodie. (I think a good idea for the next group would be to eliminate the -10 & +10 and stick to a bad -5, indifferent 0, good +5 vote. It is very easy to say you hate a new game and give -10 but not so easy to give a +10 to a brand new game. Of course this is merely one persons opinion)

All in all it is a great learning experience and we take from it what we choose. Regardless of what happened only time will tell the fate of a game. We all know that this is an absolutely BRUTAL industry but isnt that what makes it fun :), as long as you can take a few shots on the chin and make it to the next round... As i have a few other trials that are in the end stages of finalization for both variants of Money$uit, there are clearly plenty of markets that are looking for new concepts to broaden their game mix horizons. But again only time will tell...

Quote: mrsuit31

We all know that this is an absolutely BRUTAL industry .

Al industries that involve talent are brutal.

Music. Try writing a song and getting it published.

Books. Ditto for a book. Stephen King got 60
rejections before he sold his first story.

Art. Do you have any idea how many
artists there are?

Inventors. Which includes casino games.

Acting. Everybody wants to be an actor.

Its all brutal because there's such an over
abundance of crap out there. And separating
the crap from the truly great stuff means
that 99% of it gets left behind.