SHFL Focus Group 2

setup

allinriverking -


My first reaction is it sounds confusing. Then again, I'm having a hard time getting a good mental picture.

Do you have a website for this? Or a PDF of a rule card?

I can already predict one reason your game will get bad reviews: Many casinos run their craps table without a boxman during the slow times. Some don't use a boxman AT ALL! Therefore, it may be a PITA for the dealers to run this game on their own.

----

Are you aware there's no craps table in the ShuffleMaster demo room? You'll demo on a BJ table, but you should otherwise be as prepared as possible. For one thing, bring casino quality dice. Do NOT use dice from your Monopoly set, or novelty store casino dice with holes drilled thru them. Go to Gambler's General Store and buy real dice. They're located about a mile south of Downtown. A stick of 5 dice is only $12.00.

Hey Buzz,

I think maybe some are reluctant to post about their games, after seeing how some people on here ridicule other people's games; ironically those ridiculing people were put in their place by Roger at the last focus group about their games.

There is a fine line between ridicule and constructive criticism. DJ Teddy Bear beat me to "it sounds confusing" i was critical of moneysuit31, even after playing in on his website. After seeing it played live at the focus group, I apologized for my earlier
criticism. Even PM'd the inventor afterwards and asked if I could introduce his game to a CEO in the industry who owes me a favor.
He said he hopes to sign with a distributor shortly and will post on this forum when he does.

I told Rich I thought he was penalized by the 10 minute time line and was glad to see his name was drawn.

" ironically those ridiculing people were put in their place by Roger at the last focus group about their games." I did not see anybody put in their place by Roger. Instead I saw people exposed to the flaws in their games and appreciative of the opportunity.

Quote: allinriverking

Hey Buzz,

I think maybe some are reluctant to post about their games, after seeing how some people on here ridicule other people's games; ironically those ridiculing people were put in their place by Roger at the last focus group about their games.

To be clear and open, Absolutely no games at all where ridiculed in their design or how they played.
The strange scoring, as a one-off event, was publicly and loudly questioned by me as a one-off event that should be later corrected, and by some others. I think it was indeed by many, if not all. That's different.

AllinRiverKing, - Can you post us here a single instance here on this thread where someone's new game mechansim or design was ridiculed - as weak or stupid - by me or anyone else?
Like in,
1. "Your focus on using an eight-card poker hand was stupid...", to Dan Lubin, me...
2. "Your concept of using multiple spins on a Roulette Game was stupid..." - to Dave Miller...
3. "Your concept of suited play was stupid.." - to Brent Weiss...
4. "Your concept of Aces-high focus play was stupid" - To Johnny Ma, Buzz, etc...
etc...
No one here said anything to that effect.
Where do your get you sh**/things from...?

There was never an instance of this, All in river King.
Can you find us one in this thread, - to hang us, - now that you are accusing?

You cannot.

We all thought that all games were worthy. NO one said otherwise.

It's just that the initial scores and game tally results seemed totally out of line and painful to almost all at the time, and to some later - which they had experienced then, at that point, as new game designers.

This was all that was really said, and that's all.

Also, some here recommendend corrections as suggestions - and they seem to be taken up by the majot sponsor, Shufflemaster Incorprated - to their credit.

River King... any rebuttals?

Quote: allinriverking

Specially labeled discs are used to mark the die spots, there are 12 of these discs - 4 labeled with a "W", 4 labeled with a "I" and 4 labeled with a "N".
Boxperson will mark die-spots on layout using the discs...

Just for the record, I spoke with about a half-dozen boxpeople this week (in Biloxi for Southern Gaming) and they uniformly hate the tracking lammers for the Tall/Small bets. In the several hours I was at the tables, I saw several instances of missed numbers. Also, they complained about lack of area for doing color changes. If you look at Galaxy's page on it, there really is no room between the bonus bet layout and where the drop slot goes.

(btw, kudos to Galaxy for finally changing their old website.)

Point is, making the process even more complicated seems like a bad idea. It might work on an electronic craps table device, but for a physical table it's a procedural nightmare.

Gee, just when I thought I was gonna have a nice day. I find myself in total and complete agreement with a Dan Lubin post .

Well said, Dan !!!

ME I for one was critical of your domino game, before catching glimpses of it at the Focus Group. I think it is a big step
forward, as I only see poker or BJ games cannibalizing one another in the future. And doing little to attract new
table game players.

Quote: buzzpaff

Gee, just when I thought I was gonna have a nice day. I find myself in total and complete agreement with a Dan Lubin post .

Well said, Dan !!!

Buzz, Charlie, I never had a problem with you.

Always though you were a very fine man and soul.

I stated my complains about the process, applying it to no man, not even to Roger; the process, yes...

Just want to see the next re-iteration done better for us all, everyone.

Quote: buzzpaff

ME I for one was critical of your domino game, before catching glimpses of it at the Focus Group. I think it is a big step
forward, as I only see poker or BJ games cannibalizing one another in the future. And doing little to attract new
table game players.

I appreciate that, Buzz. My overarching goal was to expand the market and bring a niche gameplay mechanic (tiles) into the mainstream, not just add a replacement product to an already-crowded field of card games. It's much harder but, if successful, could be a meaningful expansion of the gambling palette.

Quote: Paigowdan

Also, some here recommendend corrections as suggestions - and they seem to be taken up by the majot sponsor, Shufflemaster Incorprated - to their credit.

River King... any rebuttals?

My mistake, I got lost in reading some of the threads after the last event. It just seemed like a lot of attacking and conspiracy theories targeting SMI as well as others close to SMI. I guess I mean some should not take suggestions from others, that don't have their games perfected themselves.

Quote: MathExtremist

Just for the record, I spoke with about a half-dozen boxpeople this week (in Biloxi for Southern Gaming) and they uniformly hate the tracking lammers for the Tall/Small bets. In the several hours I was at the tables, I saw several instances of missed numbers. Also, they complained about lack of area for doing color changes. If you look at Galaxy's page on it, there really is no room between the bonus bet layout and where the drop slot goes.
(btw, kudos to Galaxy for finally changing their old website.)

Point is, making the process even more complicated seems like a bad idea. It might work on an electronic craps table device, but for a physical table it's a procedural nightmare.

I play those current small/tall bets and there is room on the layout for those bets, even if you need to reduce overall size of betting squares they use to gain more space.
Also, a bad crew on a game can make any game look bad. I find it hard to believe the players didn't speak up. At Blue Chip were I play and at Hollywood in Illinois, players speak up to have a number marked. It's all about procedure as with dice anyway, left to right, left to right. Such as with games that use hop bets, lets say 9 rolls the stickperson is to say 9 and then 6-3 or 5-4 afterwards. Procedure.. And there will be procedures set in place in case a number is missed, but with having to mark 2 spots each roll, mostly, no one is going to forget; at least the players shouldn't. And yes, lazy box people don't like marking the spots or setting up bets because they feel they are above that now they are in a Supervisory position, of which they need to get over themselves. Because it's about the players they pay the bills and salaries, those dice bets including firebets around here are eaten up by the players.

Quote: allinriverking

Bet A wins if all 6 die-spots under side A are marked with specially labeled discs, before a total of 7 is rolled. The die-spots represent the 6 different sides of a die, instead of the 5 spots which represent the total of the dice rolled (2-6). To mark on a spot on this side, the spot that corresponds to the side of the die rolled with the fewest pips face-up, is marked.

Bet B wins if all 6 die-spots under side B are marked with specially labeled discs, before a total of 7 is rolled. The die-spots represent the 6 different sides of a die, instead of the 5 spots which represent the total of the dice rolled (8-12). To mark on a spot on this side, the spot that corresponds to the side of the die rolled with the most pips face-up, is marked.

Bet A needs a 12, 11/10 to be rolled to hit the 5 and 6.

Net B needs a 2 and 3/4 to hit the 1 and 2.

Quote: Paigowdan

Can you post us here a single instance here on this thread where someone's new game mechansim or design was ridiculed - as weak or stupid - by me or anyone else?

I know I'll regret doing this, BUT does this qualify

Quote: ceb

Was there a common problem among all of the new games?

Quote: Paigowdan

Yeah, as a matter of fact there was... They sucked ass, for the most part

Hopefully you find some humor in having this pointed out to you.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one...

Dan sometimes is not as tactful online as he is in person. So that there is no misunderstanding about myactions at the forum,
let me say I have not availed myself of the 30 minute phone call to Roger for feedback on my game.
I feel I am already in his debt for being invited to the Focus group. Plus that was a damenfine Prime Rib he picked the tab up for.
I will however post from the email to Roger on my own feedback about my game and my performance :

Hi Roger
Thought I would save you some time and do my own feedback. You can verify how accurate it is with the DEPUTY assigned to my table.

1st 10 minutes :
Buzz rambled on for 4 or 5 minutes and was all over the place with rules, HE, history etc. The only thing worse than his pitch,
was his attempting to deal pitch BJ. The only positive thing was all the cards remained on the table.

2nd 10 minutes
Buzz cut his pitch to 2 minutes and almost explained the rules, almost. The DEPUTY suggested Buzz deal a face up game
and again no cards hit the floor, but several did wind up under the place mat. He did such a poor job of explaining the rules,
one evaluator asked about the push 22 rule on the felt.

3rd 10 minutes
Buzz would have given those minutes to moneysuit31 had he the opportunity. He got the rules in this time as the Deputy asked
if his game could be played multi-deck. The previous session Buzz had dealt a pair of aces to a player but the other two aces
were exposed. So much for the WOW factor of split aces. On the next to last round, Buzz finally noticed that most of the dealers
had bet $10 on each hand, as is usual in a lot of casinos if you play more than one hand at a table minimum. Buzz dealt one
more hand, then asked the DEPUTY " Please tell me I only have 14 seconds left " The deputy said " You have 40 seconds"and
Buzz cheerfully said " Close enough ". He would have said that if the DEPUTY had said 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

If you get a chance check with the Deputy and let me know if I missed anything.

Thanks for a GREAT learning experience,
Buzz

Quote: Paigowdan

Can you post us here a single instance here on this thread where someone's new game mechansim or design was ridiculed - as weak or stupid - by me or anyone else?

Quote: ceb

I know I'll regret doing this, BUT does this qualify

Quote: PaiGpwDan

Yeah, as a matter of fact there was... They sucked ass, for the most part

Quote: ceb

Hopefully you find some humor in having this pointed out to you.

the thing is:
1. no, the games didn' totally suck ass for the most part; but...
2. HOWEVER - If you DO try to walk into a casino - to sell your game in REAL LIFE -

You ARE specifically TOLD that essentailly - "You game sucks" - by them saying to you: "NO SALE, - Thanks for your time!" Except for a couple of people, we left with NO contracts...and so were told that. We appeared to leave empty handed, for the most part. Well...because our games sucked.

Now THIS is how it works - it is next to impossible to get a real life casino game table sale FOR.....people like us.
It is really hard. And the games were not impressive. Except for a variation of UTH, which was already impressive, and a commercial hit. We were all in the repair shop here.
What they do not actually come out and tell you is.....is that your game sucks ass - Not because it is bad.
But because they cannot see leasing it, and you cannot convince them to do so.
But they come now out and tell you: "Sorry, Sir - No Sale - no money or placements for you or your table game - in your life as a game designer...."
Or so it seems. Now this is the situation: "Your game sucks."

Nothing was truly impressive, though some were a bit novel.

A game actually "sucking ass" is determined by....well, - the actual number of casino placements it gets....in the real world.
Usually ZERO!
So, if you spend $50,000 - and four years of your life - to patent and market a game that YOU believe in, and get $0.00 and no installs (or minus $50K) back,
You will have spent a lot of time and money "apparently" for nothing. The game sucks. One way to look at it, because this is what most game designers are looking at. If you got better at it from it, and got games out, or got invaluable lessons from it, then it was a value to do.

In real world terms, (and describing what I went through):
My wife said that my game sucks if it cannot help pay for the car payments, and that I did a disservice to her and my family for it...
My investors said that I was a crook.....seeing no quick return at first...

And this is how new tables games absolutely suck ass for the most part:
Your wife wants to kill you and divorce you, as she thinks you're insane for working in the garage with a computer running spreadsheets and game simulations, and pitching cards, and marking up bedsheets with a sharpie on an old kitchen table to make layouts....you see, she is convinced you are certifiably insane...
And there were a ton of glitches and unimpressive gimmicks in these games, aside from a couple of catchy changes that may catch on. We don't even know yet.

Your investors think you ripped them the hell off, and they want to kill you - even though you actually spent all the money on patent lawyers and gaming math, and can prove it.

And if you had spent your off-work life sitting on your ass, eating Doritos and watching movies on cable TV, - provably doing absolutely nothing good in your life after menial daytime work, - and not even trying to do so, you see - you would have accomplished much less, but would have been considered healthier, more normal, more decent, and gotten MUCH less shit for it, - just by being a useless couch potato when NOT at your menial hourly or office job...

You see, Your game does indeed suck ass.
The Same as everyone ELSE who tried - and still has Zero sales.
Because YOU have achieved....absolutely ZERO sales....yet.

So yeah, I was saying the new games there sucked ass.
No sales.
No signing bonuses.
No personal citicism on any game there - except for my own. Do note this particular point.
No interest from the tired and burnt out dealers shuffling from game to game to denouce you life's efforts with their vote. Many were openly more concerned about being late for their work shifts than in your game! Now this was very off-putting...
So....The games really sucked ass.
Nothing was impressive at all, though some got better scores.
BAD BEAT UTH was impressive, but it was a clone of an already fantastic hit. +110 was its score. It shamed us all.

I sometimes wonder if the original version of Three Card poker would have been trashed there at such an event. Certainly no dealer-judge there would have noticed the 4:1 versus 3:1 minor flush payout error that caused Three Card Poker to get trashed in its first release run in Atlantic city many years ago...

I don't think we still even know what was a good game from that event.
And we won't know for years, but we have a just slightly better idea. This actually means a lot.
The feedback was crucial. This means even MORE

I know my own game sucked ass....
I went straight back to the drawing board...

Quote: ceb

Hopefully you find some humor in having this pointed out to you.

Yeah, as a matter of fact I did. I found it funny that I thought I was closer to it than I really was. Another lesson for me.

Quote: thecesspit

Bet A needs a 12, 11/10 to be rolled to hit the 5 and 6.

Net B needs a 2 and 3/4 to hit the 1 and 2.

yes a 12 is needed to roll for the 6 on side A to be marked and a 11 or hard 10 for the 5. And a 2 is needed to roll for the 1 on side B to be marked and a 3 or hard 4 for the 2.

Damn I am starting to feel guilty at having less than $200 invested in my game. Yet I got the same Prime Rim as Dan could have had.

But Dan can not presently eat meat. Life is so unfair LOL

Don't feel guilty or proud about how much or little you had - or had not - invested in your game,
or in what my cardiologist tells me is okay to eat. If it keeps my cholesterol down when the statins couldn't, it is all damn fair for me to hear. And if you got $200 worth of experience from your investment, you broke even or actually ahead.

If I spent $100,000 on patents and math, but will take in $3,200,000 over ten years on a game, then it is a very fair deal.

any hand you complain about may be unfair in your eyes if you misplay it, or go nowhere with it, or if it loses.

I want to send out a huge thank you to miplet for helping me with the odds for my game. I know he went out of his way to help me and I greatly appreciate it. Hopefully the game is enjoyed by everyone on June 12.

Quote: Paigowdan

It is hard as hell - and a REALLY long road - to get a game out from a cocktail napkin sketch to the casino floor. Everybody makes sacrifies. Every game designer needs to know it is not for the faint-hearted or the dreamer, and usually, more than often, ends in failure. But, you shouldn't have missed it for the world, and with NO regrets for trying and as getting as far as you did. Without such projects, many would have been vegetating in front of a late-night HBO movie eating Dorito's if not better distracted with this personal game design mission, so such an endeavor if not successful, it is still successful in many ways. My wife used to think I was f*cking nuts. Now she knows better and goes shopping. And it took YEARS!

This sounds like the stuff of a new cinema verite reality series for A&E. Seriously.

Looking forward to hearing about the upcoming SHFL focus group happening next Tuesday. All the participants should be excited about the opportunity to get knowledgeable feedback on your creation.

Spend time thinking of questions you would like to ask the group of participants regardless of how the game scores. What do you want to know about your game from industry professionals that have just played your game for the first time? What do they think is strong about your game? What are it's weaknesses?

My guess is that Roger will allow you just a few precious minutes to ask the group questions.....to me this is the most important part of the day for participants so be prepared with what you want to get answered in that limited window of time.

There will be very few opportunities where you are able to demonstrate your game to complete strangers with industry knowledge and are not also trying to sell them on installing the game. Take full advantage of it!

Ding, ding, ding!!!!

Paradigm has given you nuggets of pure wisdom right there.

Do not focus on the numeric score - even if you score the highest.

And certainly don't focus on the score if you scored the lowest.

As the person who got that bottom of the barrel score last time, I can tell you it was momentarily disheartening. But hearing the reasons for those low scores was fantastic.

It's like I've been telling family and friends who ask: They liked it well enough to tell me why they hate it. But now I can fix it.

And fix it is what I've been doing. Look for an announcement of my new version and updated website in a few days.

I think the only thing worse than my performance at Focus 1 was the feedback session at same.

FEEDBACK : The return of information about the result of a process or activity; an evaluative response:

The point system was like most points system. More indicative of failure than success . A student who scores well
on tests in school may not succeed in that field, but F's usually indicate a student does not have a basic knowledge
of the subject.

Feedback is invaluable in that often the scores are not really good indicators. How else to explain a game of Switch's
only scoring 25 points above my abysmal -20 and Money Suit 31 actually scoring 10 points below me ? And both of
those games are already in casinos.

The evaluators, those who remained , were asked about the 14 games they has played for 5 minutes each in the preceding
hour and a half. Twiice Roger had to remind them of the scores and insist they had to say something about the game in
fairness to the inventors. Not exactly the perfect way to solicit feedback.

When feedback was given it was usually only by 2 or 3 people, often the same 2 or 3. I know Roger is a great inventor, sharp
as a tack, etc. And his input was invaluable. But still, all in all, the feedback process sucked !

I congratulate Roger on his new format of 20 minutes this time and only 6 games presented. It is always easy to criticize or spend
someone else's money. But I have attended 30-40 focus groups in Denver. Any where from Stouffer's Lasagna to Shingle Shots.

At almost all of those I was asked to fill out a feedback form at the conclusion, rating the product, label price, etc. Would be nice
if the evaluators in the future were to be given 5 minutes to fill out a form immediately after playing a game. One of those generic
LIKED MOST >>> LIKED LEAST etc. About various subjects like Rules Easy To Understand, I Would Play This Game, Etc.

Ok Mr Lubin Fire when ready !

Buzz -

Maybe the feedback format was bad (in your eyes) because you've participated in a variety of consumer product tests and Roger probably hasn't, and/or Roger has had success with the format in the past, and/or it's hard to compare a casino game focus group to a consumer product focus group.

On the other hand, considering how we were told that the valuators are all intelligent casino employees who really know what gamblers want, I agree that they should have been able to provide better feedback.

For the record, I believe the best feedback I got was when I spent an hour with Roger, two days after the event.

On that note, I suggest all the participants in the event next week, do just that. Make an appointment now to meet with Roger before you leave town. Do it!

In the meeting I had, not only did Roger give me great info and guidance, but he was (contrary to what some people might expect) very hospitable and gentlemanly.

And he even showed me a game that wasn't part of the focus group. It's friggin' fantastic, but he swore me to secrecy.
(Hey Roger! Is it OK to talk about that yet?)

" For the record, I believe the best feedback I got was when I spent an hour with Roger, two days after the event."

I agree but I also know how valuable Roger's time is. I did not take him up on his generous offer of a 30 minute phone call.

Actually I emailed him my own feedback of my game and my performance.

If anybody needs a laugh I will post it here. Free prime rib dinners come and go, but even Roger's clock only has 24 hours in a day !

Quote: buzzpaff

" For the record, I believe the best feedback I got was when I spent an hour with Roger, two days after the event."

I agree but I also know how valuable Roger's time is. I did not take him up on his generous offer of a 30 minute phone call.

Actually I emailed him my own feedback of my game and my performance.

If anybody needs a laugh I will post it here. Free prime rib dinners come and go, but even Roger's clock only has 24 hours in a day !

I think what Buzz is saying is that that the feedback loop for the inventors could have been better for the session. I am looking forward to a longer session with the players, so that I have time to ask questions. After dealing the third hand last time, I had like 20 seconds, or something too short. One comment was a gem, and it made for changes on a game.

Exactly what i meant. Just think if 15 evaluators has filled out a card, with space for best feature, least liked, etc.
What a great value that would have added to the process !!

Damn, Dan Lubin agreed with me. Least I can do is post my feedback on my game here. LOL



Hi Roger
Thought I would save you some time and do my own feedback. You can verify how accurate it is with the DEPUTY assigned to my table.

1st 10 minutes :
Buzz rambled on for 4 or 5 minutes and was all over the place with rules, HE, history etc. The only thing worse than his pitch,
was his attempting to deal pitch BJ. The only positive thing was all the cards remained on the table.

2nd 10 minutes
Buzz cut his pitch to 2 minutes and almost explained the rules, almost. The DEPUTY suggested Buzz deal a face up game
and again no cards hit the floor, but several did wind up under the place mat. He did such a poor job of explaining the rules,
one evaluator asked about the push 22 rule on the felt.

3rd 10 minutes
Buzz would have given those minutes to moneysuit31 had he the opportunity. He got the rules in this time as the Deputy asked
if his game could be played multi-deck. The previous session Buzz had dealt a pair of aces to a player but the other two aces
were exposed. So much for the WOW factor of split aces. On the next to last round, Buzz finally noticed that most of the dealers
had bet $10 on each hand, as is usual in a lot of casinos if you play more than one hand at a table minimum. Buzz dealt one
more hand, then asked the DEPUTY " Please tell me I only have 14 seconds left " The deputy said " You have 40 seconds"and
Buzz cheerfully said " Close enough ". He would have said that if the DEPUTY had said 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

If you get a chance check with the Deputy and let me know if I missed anything.

Thanks for a GREAT learning experience,
Buzz

I was sorta looking forward to Evevbob's comment on my feedback. Guess that won't be happening for a while !

Quote: DJTeddyBear

And he even showed me a game that wasn't part of the focus group. It's friggin' fantastic, but he swore me to secrecy.
(Hey Roger! Is it OK to talk about that yet?)

Yes.

Quote: Pacman

Yes.

Yay!!! :-)

TOMORROW IS THE BIG DAY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY

Those guys should be wrapping up around now......hope it was a good experience for the presenters and they got some useful feedback.

I believe Switch was going to be a judge/player in this Focus Group and, as a veteran game developer, he should have been a great source of feedback.

Posts should be coming and hopefully the host will be treated with a bit more grace. Let the "Post Party" begin.......

Results from today's new-game focus group at SHFL:

1 Three Card 21
2 Texas Dinero
3 Rock it Dice
T4 Tricarta
T4 2 Way Blackjack
T4 On Target
7 Royal Match Streak
8 Casino KAT

I haven't been to one of these focus groups before so I have nothing to compare to but it seemed to run really smoothly IMO.

Switch, can you give us a run down on how each of the games is played? I did find YouTube videos on Three Card 21 & Texas Dinero.

I am guessig that Royal Match is Wayne Hong's Royal 89 Game, that is also on YouTube, but I could be wrong.

Couldn't find Rock It Dice, Tricarta, 2 Way Blackjack (I think also a Wayne Hong game), On Target or Casino Kat information anywhere and it would be interesting to understand the games after seeing how they faired at the event.

Quote: Switch

I haven't been to one of these focus groups before so I have nothing to compare to but it seemed to run really smoothly IMO.

It went very smoothly; we ALL got excellent feedback from the evaluators.
Some notes:
1. The evaluators were industry pros, top people, including Geoff/Switch.
2. No SMI products, the field was all independent games; no hurt feelings, issues, contentions, strife, etc. Zero. Just "where did I finish," - "where did I go wrong," "what was good about the game," etc. Game qualities were discussed. Spot on!
3. teliot's Three Card 21 was first, and my Texas Dinero finished 2nd. No home runs, but a some two-bagger doubles here and there, some strike outs. The winners had clearly positive scores, but no grand slams; a double down the line drives in a man from third.

On Texas Dinero: (alternate names: "Play the Board," "Texas Hold it"), etc. I did the casino version based on Gary Willis' Poker room version, added bonus bets, house edge mechansim (required), dealing procedure, math.
1. Players make an ANTE bet, with an optional bonus bet (trips+ on final hand), and Optional "Bad Hand" bet (a high card at final hand.)
2. Player gets ONE hole card. No individual card is "bad" to have, unlike having two hole cards, - and the board is six cards, not five.
3. Player folds, or makes PLAY bet, same unit.
4. Dealer shows three-card flop.
5. Player makes check or raise bet. (Check, or raise one unit; other versions raise up to 3 units.)
6. Dealer shows three final cards, and completes six card board.
7. Compare hands; winners pay 1:1, losers lose, copies tie.

Trips or better pays on bonus on paytable (2,3,6,10,50,100,500) for trips to Royal.
High card hands pays 3:1 on Ace-high, 4:1 on K-high, 7:1 on Queen high, 10:1 on jack-high, 25:1 on 10-high, and 100:1 on 9-high.)

House edge mechanism has two options:
1. Dealer Qualifies on King-high or better, otherwise hands push. Optional Ace-high, house edge adjustable.
2. if a hand copies with the same hole card match, only the Ante bet loses, the rest of main bets push.

Sounds like it went well.....thanks for game description of Texas Dinero, betting is slightly different than I imagined based on YouTube video where it gave the impression that there was mandatory betting on every street and there was a 3 Card Flop, 2 Card Turn and Final River Card. Either that is a video of a different game or previous version.

In Texas Dinero, what is the decision point on the hole card? Do you play any card or is there some cut off like 5 or higher is worth making the play bet and you fold any 2,3 or 4? Which mechanism did you use in demo? Have you found one preferred to the others based on feedback?

Was Three Card 21 teliot's game? I thought his was Three Card Blackjack and enivisioned Three Card 21 being the Score Gaming game where you can play 3 initial cards as one hand or split into two hands (or three hands if you have a pair in your three card initial hand). Teliot's game is ante/play mechanism and plays more like Three Card Poker vs. Blackjack but uses a BJ scoring system.

Quote: Paradigm

Sounds like it went well.....thanks for game description of Texas Dinero, betting is slightly different than I imagined based on YouTube video where it gave the impression that there was mandatory betting on every street and there was a 3 Card Flop, 2 Card Turn and Final River Card. Either that is a video of a different game or previous version.

Thanks. The youtube video was of the poker room version. The description here is of the casino version.

Quote: Paradigm

In Texas Dinero, what is the decision point on the hole card? Do you play any card or is there some cut off like 5 or higher is worth making the play bet and you fold any 2,3 or 4? Which mechanism did you use in demo? Have you found one preferred to the others based on feedback?

The basic strategy is to play every hand, as the EV is always higher to see the flop and determine to check, or raise (if a pair or better then), as you will be getting three more cards after this on the board. By using a ANTE/PLAY method, you may optionally fold on a five or less, though no hand is hopeless pre-flop, as in Texas Hold 'em, where you may get 7-2 or 8-3 off suit, etc. The thrust of this game is to avoid starting a round with a dog hand pre-flop, and in this regard, is one of its best feature, though as in all game designs, there are trade-offs.

Quote: paradigm

Was Three Card 21 teliot's game?

Yes, in a revamped version. Eliot should by all means chime in and describe his baby!

Quote: Paradigm

Switch, can you give us a run down on how each of the games is played? I did find YouTube videos on Three Card 21 & Texas Dinero.

Hi Michael,

I'd seen Three card 21 before but hadn't seen any of the others. The games were (without my feedback):-

1. 2 Way Blackjack - player plays 2 hands (equal wagers), one spot marked 'Never Bust' and the other 'House Way'. You are dealt 2 hands and with your first hand ('Never Bust') you can decide to 'Hit' or 'Stand'. 'Blackjacks' pay 1/1 and you can only split A,A. if you go over '21' then the card is used in your 2nd hand, if the 2nd hand also goes over '21' then you lose half of your 1st hand wager.

Your 2nd hand is played using the 'house way' i.e. hit until 17 or more. So, you have to hit 16 verses a 6 for example.

Example, you are dealt 2,7 and 10,7 verses a dealer 6. You may as well hit the 10,7 as any 'bust' card will be dealt to your 2nd hand which cannot 'bust'.

I think that the strategy would be harder than the 'switch' strategy by a long way.

2. Casino KAT - A 'Rock, paper, scissors' version using a 54-card deck of cards consisting of 18 each of A, 2 and 3. You wager on A, K or 2 and you get 1 card - the dealer gets 1 card and highest wins with Ace beating king, king beating 2 and 2 beating Ace. There were also some tie rules and a 'streak' sidebet.

3. On Target - A streak-style version of 'Red Dog'. Players are dealt 4 cards and decide whether they will hit a target of 1, 2, 3 or 4 wins with ascending payouts. Dealer deals 2 cards and you have to put down 1 of your 4 cards that is in between the dealer's 2 cards. So, a hand such as 3, 6, 8, 10 would be quite a good starting hand.

4. Rock It Dice - A craps side wager that is based on a streak of events similar to the 'Fire Bet' or 'Any Tall Any Small' bet. Players can opt to bet the 'High' or the 'Low' or 'Both'. Each 'High' and 'Low' contains the numbers 1-6. The dealer will mark off the numbers depending on the 2 dice values - a 7 will end the run. So, for example, a player rolls 5, 1 so 5 is marked on the 'High' and 1 is marked on the 'Low'. Next roll is 3,3 so a 3 is marked off on both 'High' and 'Low'. Play continues until either 'High' or 'Low' or 'Both' are completed, or a 7 is rolled.

5. Royal Match Streak - As the name suggests, this is a Blackjack side wager where players are aiming to get suited cards. Each time the player gets a suited 2 cards then the wager moves up a ladder - the more hands that match then the higher the payout up to a possible 3 levels. For example, player is dealt 5, 7 diamonds so his sidebet wager is moved to 'Level 1'. Next hand he receives A, 9 spades so his wager now moves to level 2. Next hand he receives 3 clubs, 10 hearts so as they do not match suits the wager is now settled at level 2 odds.

6. Texas Dinero - As explained by Dan.

7. Three Card 21 - Also explained by yourself in an above post.

8. Tricarta - A roulette-style game using 3 cards rather than the spin of a wheel. Players can bet on the outcome of the first card - suit, color, denomination, actual card, as well as bet on the structure of the 3 cards in total i.e. straight, flush, pair etc. Players may also bet on any of the 3 cards that they think will be exposed by placing their wagers on a roulette style layout marked with the 52 cards. A 'Joker' is also included which acts as a 'stopper' i.e. if the first card is the King of spades and the 2nd card is a 'Joker' then just the one card is used to settle the wagers - all 3-card wagers will lose ('Joker' is sort of like the 0, 00 on the roulette wheel). You can bet on the 'Joker' appearing as well.

And those were brief descriptions of the games. Just an overview as there were additional rules or add-ons that I haven't covered in order to keep this post at a reasonable length.

Dan,
How much do you think the 20 minutes time period and 8 games contributed to the smooth operation this time ?
Almost half as many games and twice as much time !!
You were at both focus groups. Was there a difference in the way feedback was solicited ?

Quote: Paradigm

Was Three Card 21 teliot's game?

When GN folded, 3CBJ was returned to me. I approached Roger with it and he invited me to have the game in the focus group. I met with him and he suggested some changes. I don't really know what the final version presented was of my game. My understanding is that Roger introduced a new hand, an actual "3 card 21," and made that the top hand, above a player blackjack. It then made sense to rename the game "Three Card 21." I don't know the qualifier or if my game was played blind or with one card exposed. Roger also created a new side bet for 3CBJ. The side bet that I included with the game, "Ace Plus," was not described in the patent. I did not attend the focus group.

As for the actual name, whether it's "Three Card Blackjack" or "Three Card 21," there may appear to be an issue with trademarks, since Paradigm pointed out there is another game named "Three Card 21." Actually, I know two other games named "Three Card 21." It is not possible to trademark either of these names for a game, since they are merely descriptive. "A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods and/or services." The name "Three Card Poker" is likewise struggling with trademark issues.

Thanks Switch....that was a lot of info and time to post. Appreciate your efforts in updating the forum! It helps to know the games while viewing the results to see what types of concepts were well received and others that need tweaking to do better.

Quote: buzzpaff

Dan,
How much do you think the 20 minutes time period and 8 games contributed to the smooth operation this time ?
Almost half as many games and twice as much time !!
You were at both focus groups. Was there a difference in the way feedback was solicited ?

Huge difference!
The 15 minutes was enough time to show the game (just exactly enough, as opposed to nowhere near enough).
Feedback was not solicited: it was announced, FYI style: "you came here, you need to know this about your score."
It was totally civil and courteous.

This question/comment is not meant to offend anyone who is trying/has tried to create new table games. I realize it is very very difficult and it costs money and a lot of time. It seems to me there are very very few new games introduced each year. Most of the new ideas also seem to have very complicated games. I just know from my wife she gets and loves the basic games, BJ, 3 card, 4 card etc... but if I show her a game she has to take time to "learn" she just is not interested. How many new games do get introduced and become successful and does a game have to generally be simple so a basic 5 times a year casino goer can learn to play it?

Quote: hook3670

... does a game have to generally be simple ...?

Hell, YES!

When the Wiz was working with me on my Poker For Roulette side bet, he must had used the phrase "Keep it simple" about a hundred times.

While "it's too complicated" was NOT something I heard about my game at the first Focus Group, what they did tell me has led me to make revisions that result in a simpler game.

Look for my new version to be uploaded and announced in a day or two.

It just seemded to me at least a lot of the new games that were debuted sounded too complicated for the casual casino goer and that could be a detriment to having them accepted.

Quote: Paigowdan

Huge difference!
The 15 minutes was enough time to show the game (just exactly enough, as opposed to nowhere near enough).
Feedback was not solicited: it was announced, FYI style: "you came here, you need to know this about your score."
It was totally civil and courteous.

Would I be correct in assuming the score were totaled privately and the posted, versus the public tallying used in the previous group ?

Were there 15 evaluators this time also ?

Quote: hook3670

It just seemded to me at least a lot of the new games that were debuted sounded too complicated for the casual casino goer and that could be a detriment to having them accepted.

Hook, you have it right on.....if your wife can't understand the game AND feel like she can play it without making mistakes in 2 or 3 hands, the game is dead. Not only does it have to be a simple concept, but the strategy on how to play the game well must be able to be mastered quickly.

I think the concept of simple is why all the successful games are variants of existing games. Variants can draw on player's previous knowledge of the main game so any twist on the original game is all that is "new" to the player. Variants provide instant familiarity even though a twist is involved. The key to variants is will players drop what they are playing now in favor of the new variant game.

If you look at the two hottest titles right now Ultimate Texas and Crazy Four Poker, that answer with both of these games vs. the other variants is "yes". People are chosing UTH over the three or four other Texas Hold'em games out there (Texas HE Bonus, WPT Texas Hold'em, etc.) and players that were die hard 3 Card Poker players are migrating to Crazy Four.

If your game isn't a variant, the game concept and how to play in order to maximize your chances of winning must be intuitive to a new player, such as your wife, almost instantly.

But too simple also doesn't work and neither does "no strategy" games (with the exception of side bets and Casino War, but CW is a one off). The key is a simple game with a simple strategy that will still have players coming back time and time to play.....it is a very tough nut to crack!

" The key is a simple game with a simple strategy that will still have players coming back time and time to play.....it is a very tough nut to crack! " Now you tell me ! LOL

On a serious note, if craps were to be invented today, it would wind up in the litter basket of failed games.