SHFL Focus Group 2
June 13th, 2012 at 11:12:57 AM
permalink
I wonder how BJ would do if introduced today...that strategy is pretty complicated and not exactly intuitive in some situations.
You also feel like you can pretty easily embarass yourself if you are a brand new player and your decision to hit or stand "feels" like it impacts the rest of the table (although we know that it doesn't).
You also feel like you can pretty easily embarass yourself if you are a brand new player and your decision to hit or stand "feels" like it impacts the rest of the table (although we know that it doesn't).
June 13th, 2012 at 11:15:43 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearHell, 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.
Go Teddy Go
June 13th, 2012 at 11:20:59 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffOn a serious note, if craps were to be invented today, it would wind up in the litter basket of failed games.
I wonder if craps were invented today, whether the WoV membership would regard it as a carnival game. This business about eltting the player shoot the dice looks awfully like a gimmick, doesn't it? ;)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 13th, 2012 at 11:21:05 AM
permalink
I don;t know about craps. But for sure, this could be said about "3 Card Poker". Try to play it without chips in your kitchen. It's super boring.Quote: buzzpaffOn a serious note, if craps were to be invented today, it would wind up in the litter basket of failed games.
June 13th, 2012 at 11:23:37 AM
permalink
Anything played in the kitchen is boring. Except for hanky-panky with the wife. LOL
June 13th, 2012 at 11:49:27 AM
permalink
Quote: UCivanI don;t know about craps. But for sure, this could be said about "3 Card Poker". Try to play it without chips in your kitchen. It's super boring.
Someitmes I practice shuffling cards on my bed, and deal hands of 3CP between shuffles. It's not exactly thrilling, but no adversarial game of cards is without money involved. I also deal PGP, Texas Hold 'em and, recently, 3 card hold 'em. With the last, I realized how common straights and flushes were.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 13th, 2012 at 12:13:38 PM
permalink
Quote: UCivanI don;t know about craps. But for sure, this could be said about "3 Card Poker". Try to play it without chips in your kitchen. It's super boring.
Now put yourself in the shoes of one of the judges for the Focus Group.....you are trying to judge a new game by playing without real dollars on the line.
In this same environment, Three Card Poker, the most successful game of all time, would appear super boring (I agree with UCiv's assessment by the way, it is super boring without any real action).
June 13th, 2012 at 12:14:56 PM
permalink
There's plenty of adverserial games that are fun without money involved... Bridge, Whist, Hearts, Skat, Pinochle, Euchre....
Poker is dull without money, as the game is about betting, not the play of the hand (or the betting is part of the play of the hand).
Poker is dull without money, as the game is about betting, not the play of the hand (or the betting is part of the play of the hand).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
June 13th, 2012 at 2:30:36 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffWould 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 ?
The scores were tallied publicly ... there were 6 evaluators this time so the max' score was +60 and the min' score was -60.
June 14th, 2012 at 10:18:11 AM
permalink
I wasn't at the event, what was the score for 3CBJ?
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
June 14th, 2012 at 11:43:10 AM
permalink
Can anybody post all the scores as in Focus group 1 ? Assuming none of the exhibitors protest. I seriously doubt such information
would undermine your chance to get a distributor !
would undermine your chance to get a distributor !
June 14th, 2012 at 4:58:31 PM
permalink
Quote: teliotI wasn't at the event, what was the score for 3CBJ?
3CBJ scored +25 out of a possble 60.
June 14th, 2012 at 5:03:07 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffCan anybody post all the scores as in Focus group 1 ? Assuming none of the exhibitors protest. I seriously doubt such information
would undermine your chance to get a distributor !
I can give you the scores but Roger can decide whether to allow the scores to be matched to the games. I don't mind Three Card 21 having the score posted (+25) as Eliot has asked for the total anyway.
Scores possible range is from -60 to +60 as there were 6 evaluators. Final totals were:-
+25, +10, +5, -10, -10, -10, -15, -50
June 14th, 2012 at 5:16:06 PM
permalink
Switch, were you the celebrity judge? I had the dice game side-bet.
June 14th, 2012 at 5:34:48 PM
permalink
Quote: allinriverkingSwitch, were you the celebrity judge? I had the dice game side-bet.
I'm not sure if we had a celebrity judge - all of the evaluators were well experienced and provided great feedback.
For what it's worth, I quite liked your side-bet and if you followed some of the suggestions made at the focus group then I'm sure it would be even more appealing.
June 14th, 2012 at 6:09:56 PM
permalink
I wish I had the other popular dice side-bet stat info at focus group so that I could of compared them for everyone. I now see the Firebet has a different pay table available, that took the hit frequency from a 1.06% (top payout of 2,000 for 1) to a 4.40% hit frequency (top payout of 300 for 1). The all tall/small has a hit frequency of 2.63%, whereas my lil/big has a hit frequency of 4.27%. The all or nothing at all has hit frequency of a very low .53% only payout of 175 to 1, whereas my it all rocks bet has a h.f. of 1.12% top payout of 1,000 to 1 with other payouts of 50:1, 75:1, 300:1 and 600:1. Would of having this info, helped eliminate the hit frequency criticism of which seemed to be the biggest issue with everyone?
June 14th, 2012 at 7:52:02 PM
permalink
I'm not sure if the other dice info' would have helped as the feedback was given on how the game played and the feel of the game. I realise that with a low hit frequency you are unlikely to experience a high win over a short demo' but it quickly became apparent that either 1,1 or 6,6 needs to be thrown to have any chance of winning.
Your top payout of 1,000/1 relies on the 'WIN' tokens as well so I'm not sure how that affects the hit rate. Personally, although different, I found that part a bit confusing at first and felt that improving one overall payout would be more beneficial and easier to manage at the table.
Without seeing the analysis it's difficult to make any cast iron ascertions about the game. I realise that you have to decide on a mixture of low hit rate and high payouts verses a higher hit rate and, consequently, reduced payouts, so it's difficult to gauge an effective balance that makes it attractive. I believe that the general concensus was to offer a slightly higher hit rate with reduced payouts to compensate. I would be interested to know the frequency that 4 & 5 points occur in comparison to all 6 occurring.
Your top payout of 1,000/1 relies on the 'WIN' tokens as well so I'm not sure how that affects the hit rate. Personally, although different, I found that part a bit confusing at first and felt that improving one overall payout would be more beneficial and easier to manage at the table.
Without seeing the analysis it's difficult to make any cast iron ascertions about the game. I realise that you have to decide on a mixture of low hit rate and high payouts verses a higher hit rate and, consequently, reduced payouts, so it's difficult to gauge an effective balance that makes it attractive. I believe that the general concensus was to offer a slightly higher hit rate with reduced payouts to compensate. I would be interested to know the frequency that 4 & 5 points occur in comparison to all 6 occurring.
June 14th, 2012 at 8:04:43 PM
permalink
5 or 6 spots marked makes it about a 16% h.f. on lil/big, adding the 4 spots raises h.f. even more. I definitely understand how the "WIN" tokens can make the process harder, but it was a novel idea that was slot-like, which could be unappealing originally to most crap players. But as non dice players pass table, it would peak their interests because you could play these bets and not know anything about Craps. I am currently working on a 5 and 6 spots marked, with unmarked tokens, that offers a new twist that would make it harder to win and stimulate hardway betting. Am aiming for a 8 to 10% h.f..
June 14th, 2012 at 8:06:46 PM
permalink
Switch - I don't know if we are aloud to exchange email addresses on here, but if we are I can send you the packet on the game including math breakdown that shows the impact of marked tokens.
June 14th, 2012 at 8:19:12 PM
permalink
PM sent Allin
(edited to remove email address)
(edited to remove email address)
June 14th, 2012 at 8:23:52 PM
permalink
Quote: Switch
+25, +10, +5, -10, -10, -10, -15, -50
+25 is just OK, the rest of the scores are pretty
awful. What was wrong with these games.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 14th, 2012 at 8:28:26 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob+25 is just OK, the rest of the scores are pretty
awful. What was wrong with these games.
It would take a long time to go through each game Bob but you're right, on the whole the games had quite a few things wrong with them.
June 14th, 2012 at 9:58:30 PM
permalink
Quote: Switch-50
Ouch! Not to kick someone when they're down, but what was the story with that game?
Quote: buzzpaffCan anybody post all the scores as in Focus group 1 ? Assuming none of the exhibitors protest. I seriously doubt such information
would undermine your chance to get a distributor !
Roger posted the scores, but somebody complained, so he took them down. Since you were there I'll send them to you, if I can find the picture I took of the final tally.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
June 15th, 2012 at 12:08:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardOuch! Not to kick someone when they're down, but what was the story with that game?
.
Rumor is, it was a live animal game called 'Skunk or Squirrel'
and things just got out of hand. Roger is paying the dry cleaning
bill's and is mulling over banning live animal games entirely.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 15th, 2012 at 4:43:15 AM
permalink
Bob -
Thanks for that insightful, well thought-out comment. NOT!
Thanks for that insightful, well thought-out comment. NOT!
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
June 15th, 2012 at 4:46:38 AM
permalink
I think Buzz is asking for the scores for #2 to be posted, in the same manner as had originally been done for #1.Quote: WizardRoger posted the scores, but somebody complained, so he took them down.
Frankly, I think the scores should be removed from this thread as well.
Roger posted the finishing rank. Someone else posted the scores.
Don't you think that if Roger meant for them to be public, he would have posted them himself?
And let's not forget that the scores bear very liitle significance. Oh, sure, the top ranking game is going to get Roger's attention faster than the others. But it's the feedback that is the Holy Grail of the focus groups.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
June 15th, 2012 at 9:08:42 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob+25 is just OK, the rest of the scores are pretty
awful. What was wrong with these games.
I disagree....25 is a pretty good score when you consider there were only 6 judges (avg. of 4.16). That would equate to a 60-65 score in the first focus group with 15 judges....I can't recall the score that came in 2nd in the first group, but 60-65 would have been up there.
However, I concur with DJ, scores don't really matter except maybe as a guage of how close the game concept is to being ready to market. A bad score for a game means there are problems with the game. Some problems can be fixed, others are inherent in a base concept. Feedback is the key and the ability to change the game to address the feedback is the key in determining if a game can be saved.
June 15th, 2012 at 9:18:04 AM
permalink
I guess the real question is, what score do you need for SMI to write you a check?
June 15th, 2012 at 9:45:03 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearBob -
Thanks for that insightful, well thought-out comment. NOT!
Hey, I've seen animal games in Vegas. The tic tac toe
chicken was Downtown a few years ago and back in the 80's
I saw a monkey that you could bet on.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
