Do we need a new topic area for New Games and their designs?

Looking at the action from the Raving New table games area, I think we need a new topic area for this.

We can touch upon:
* Designing new games - the basic rules and objectives that make for better games
* Properly Naming your new beast (should be moderated by Eliot Jacobson !!!)
* The math Pros for your baby's math report - "The Big Five" (Shackleford, Ko, Jacobson, Mousseau and Liu. This cabal sounds like a law firm, but it's not!)
* The brainstorming process: how'd ya come up with it??!!
* The Patent Process nightmare! How to approach it, your options explained
* Getting investors - (is there one born every minute?)
* Preparing a good demo presentation without requiring valium.
* Preparing good documentation - writing the sale sheet, and the product description guide for casino usage
* Baby-sitting YOUR FIELD TRIAL
--- and ---
* The New games of 2008 to now:

- Bet Your Luck (BYL Enterprise)
- Three-Card-21 (Gaming Network)
- Wish-card Poker
- EZ Pai Gow (DEQ/Lubin-Jones, LLC)
- Rabbit Hunter 5-card Stud (Roger Snow/Shufflemaster)
- Hi-Low Pai Gow (Cary Lucier/Unlimited Concepts)
- Super-Bacc
- Moneysuit-31
- Two Cards High (This game has a REAL interesting story, and reveals the Dangers of a bad field trial!)
- FortuneTeller Blackjack
- Die Rich dice (or a die, actually)
- Pai Gow Express (Stanley Ko/Roy Ritner, 5-card Pai Gow with three card Poker down, and 2 cards up)

That is not a bad idea. Given the discussion about the Raving Table Games show, there seems to be sufficient interest in the topic. I'll ask JB to add a category.

Cool, Very Fine.
I think there'll be a lot of input, and a lot of industry guys would be trolling around, reviewing things and ideas. Sort of on on-going and on-line Raving table games conference.

There is a lot to this area in general terms that are completely safe to talk about, a la IP protection.

Would there be rules as to "specific brand-new game" postings?
I.e., Must be fleshed out, with a provisional or utility patent on file, or a math report, or a site? "Installs not necessary" but someone's ideas on new games should be protected before discussed.

And...constructive criticsm, yes - flaming NO!

If it becomes a portal for industry people to congregate and notice stuff that 'common folk' are working on, it sounds like a good idea. I.E. I'd love to have something that would attract movers and shakers to my www.hit-it-again-roulette.com website, or to the WoV Thread that discusses it.

For the record, I kinda think that there are currently too many sections and topics to the forum. I use a Recent Posts bookmark when I come here. The only time I ever look at the listing of sections and topics is when I create a new thread, so I file it in the right category.

But I voted 'Yes'.

Good for you voting yes.
I feel there should be a GO-TO PLACE just for this "New Game Design" area.

I would also... (pending the Wizard's input)

1. Put up an advisory notice: "If you came up with a SPECIFIC New Game idea that you wish to persue and discuss, you are advised to file a provisional or utility patent on your invention first, otherwise...don't give it away until you do this. Ideas are worth money - if they later come viable money-making games. You will need to pay your mathematicians and lawyers, etc. Now Link to www.USPTO.gov"

2. Otherwise, you can Review games without flaming, as factual criticism is valid. Inventors are hyper-sensitive about their creations...they're like their children. No ad hominen attax.

3. Topics like gaming math, choosing a distributor, reviews of New Game Field Trials, patent filing procedures, calculating a general game's house edge, what Casinos LOOK FOR in a new game, where to play a game, etc., are all fine and openly discussable. Also good is how to polish up your presentation, how to write product documentation, etc.

4. If your game is "IP protected" with a patent you are confident with, then you can discuss tweaking your game idea for house edge improvement, or its easy-of-play, simplification, or implimenting some change your distributor or customer wants. With all the game experience here, it could be a resource. But DON'T try to get a full math report for free (See the big Five, above).

I suggested that JB add a category titled "Game Inventors Corner" to the gambling section. If anyone has a better title, I'm all ears. I'm not big on lots of rules. Perhaps you can kick it off with a thread titled "advice for new game inventors."

On a separate note, I challenged PaiGowDan on his provisional patent advice at the show. While I'm not an attorney, I tend to favor splurging for a full blown patent. The reason is that if the provisional patent isn't written perfectly, then it won't hold up. It takes a good patent lawyer to write something that will hold water, and as long as you're splurging for that, you may as well pay the extra USPO fees, and go for the full patent. Here is a good article for more about it: ' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=4111] Pitfalls of Provisional Patent Applications
By Jon H. Muskin.

Sounds Good!

And yes, I'd be happy to light the candle.

You are right, that ideally, the Utility patent is the way to go out of the gate. But Mike, the cost factor is Huge with a new game - and the additional $10K or so can mean the difference of a delay that allows another to get in the same idea first, and therfore having "no game," too.

IF money IS a problem (and it was for us starting out), then the provisional patent is the "necessary evil pill route" that we must take. It is perfectly acceptable, providing that (!!!):

1. it is written correctly, almost meticulously, in thoroughly describing the game idea.
2. It must be "enabable," that is, you can BUILD and OPERATE the game based on its description and instructions, using the patent as a viable blueprint.
3. You have formatted the document correctly, so that they can micro-fiche without failure.
4. THAT YOU HAVE ADDED CONDITIONS AND CLAIMS TO IT THAT CAN BLOCK OFF SOMEONE FROM COMING UP WITH A "VIABLE WORKAROUND" VERSION OF YOUR GAME - ALLOWING THEM TO WRITE OR CLONE A SEPARATE PATENT ON YOUR GAME IDEA, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT ANTICIPATED! (A "Self-limiting" patent error! Did you cover absolutely everything??!!)
5. You have included/filed all accompanying forms correctly.
6. You have received the filing number letter, - with the application number - indicating that your provisional patent application (PPA) has been accepted and filed.
7. And you now have one year to do the Utility patent anyway, essentially giving you one year to get about $10,000 to do the full utility patent.

The advantage is that you save $10,000 if you discover that you had a poor game idea that wasn't pursuable from the get go. I was begrungingly aware that - like all game inventors - that the real players might feel differently about my creation than how I see my own children. ("They're gorgeous" says their mother.) This was something I had to consider. Thankfully, the players really like it, and it gets big action with a solid table hold, with a dozen installs in six states. But I did not know this back then, when I had it up on only the design table.

Because it is SO HARD to write well, no less a patent, to do items 1..6 correctly is, for most people starting out, tricky on their first try. Even if they get accepted and filed, it might be semantically mis-written - that'll allow a competitor to write a similar patent on your game idea - to steal your game without infringing you. This is a BIG risk - a gamble that must be taken if we're broke.

The homework I had done in this area was actually the BULK of my game designing, and it also helped me to better understand the design end as a side effect. I had gotten good enough in writing patents that my lawyer okays this as a cost-effetive measure, even letting me draft the Utility patent, which he touches up/translates into legal language and format, - keeping the game description and "enabability" of it intact.

I ghost write game patents for my business partner (whose games are coming shortly). We would have had more games finished at this point - but not as well protected, and for a lot more money. It's a trade off. This is because the patent homework is necessary, to keep as intellectual property the good ideas you come up with.

While I would agree with the Wiz that a full-blown patent would be better, it's only better if the idea is good and is truly patentable.

Dan's points that a provisional allows the inventor to start talking publicly about it is key, but misses the most important points:

A provisional patent is written in more-or-less plain English, does not need a lawyer to be written, and costs only $110.

And that should be added to Dan's proposed Advisory Notice.

I don't think I could come up with a new casino game, but it's an interesting subject to read about. So I voted yes.

I'm a tad late to this party, but I'll vote yes too -- mostly because I've come up with several games over the years and have even gotten one of them on the floor. I'm very interested in a discussion with like-minded people.

The patent question is *very* difficult to answer succinctly. A great deal depends on context, like whether it's a felt table game, electronic device, slot game method, or something else entirely. I'm personally a named inventor on a dozen patents. The costs can be great, but the payoffs can be much greater. Patent strategy is a big part of game development, so I'll be glad to see a new games forum.

Hey, Dan I will email you :)

Got it and replied.
You can mention that you are from SNK gaming, the creators of wish-card poker at www.snkge.com
Just don't pitch....

I think that the concept of such a forum could be useful for novices to learn about the steps needed to be taken to venture into casino games design along with inventors receiving feedback on new games.

However, there are not many of those who have the full experience of going from start-up to installing a game and they may be apprehensive at giving valuable advice to a wouldbe competitor. For example, if I saw a blackjack variation, which I felt could be improved in some way, then I may not be so forthcoming knowing that it could end up competing for floor space with "Blackjack Switch".

Nevertheless, bearing this in mind, it could still serve as a useful initial testing phase and allow posters here a glimpse of what may be on the casino floor in the near future.

I voted yes anyway :-) I have some new games that have not gone to market yet so I will try and keep updated with the forum here.

Geoff Hall

Any improvement would likely be outside the scope of the inventor's patent -- assuming they filed one and didn't inadvertently make a patent-ruining public disclosure first.

On one hand, I'm all in favor of helping to raise the overall level of sophistication in the "independent inventor" market. For one, many would-be new games are simply not feasible for fundamental reasons, like they can't possibly make enough money to justify displacing a blackjack table. On the other hand, you have to combat "inventoritis". I tried telling someone one year at G2E that his game was broken but he wouldn't listen. I didn't see him the next year though...

I think the usefulness of a new-games forum may go beyond an initial testing phase, too. Social media like this is very useful for building a far-flung network of collaborators, even when those collaborators are in what popular media has coined "coopetition". According to "Wikinomics", the biggest motorcycle manufacturer in China is a far-flung network of different companies. Even here in the U.S., smaller slot machine vendors are being formed as networks of specialized teams, rather than the all-in-one corporate model behind IGT or Bally -- and often the same cabinets or hardware boards are being used by multiple teams. You get a content team, a software team, a hardware team, and a cabinet maker together and you can start producing machines. It's happening today, and slot games are far, far more complex to put together than new table games.

M.E.
Great comment - "Inventoritis."
So true in game design. Whip something up, and it has to be better than craps or BJ. Seldom is.
I can't picture Blackjack, Craps, or Roulette ever being replaced. They basically can not be improved upon. So Game designers are fighting it out for a small area of floor space, jockeying for position.

The number of new games that "made it" are very few:
Let It ride, Carribean stud, Spanish-21, Superfun-21, and the big one, Three Card Poker with 1,500 or so installs.
Mini-Pai Gow and Deuces Wild faded away, as has Superfun to some degree. Pai Gow Poker was actually unpatented, as were the side bets from Galaxy and SMI, for some reason. EZ pai gow has a patented commission-free "queen-high push" qualifer, and is emerging.

A lot of the "games" that do make it are pure side bets: The Fire Bet for craps, and a gazillion side bets for BJ.
The only brand new games I saw were Quick-7 and two-cards high.
Of 12 or so new games I saw at the Raving Table games convention, maybe three will make it: Triple-attack Bl;ackjack, EZ Pai Gow, and Three Card Blackjack.

A lot of the new stuff concerns progressive jackpots and electronic side betting mechanism, which DEQ systems has covered extensively: the G3 side bet console, and the progressive jackpots for table games.

For new table game designers, It's a REAL ROUGH go of it, expensive (patents and gaming approvals) and time-consuming in terms of years. Every new game site I see has a "How to invest in us" button. (Talk about gambling!)

Do not assume at any improvement is outside of the scope of an inventors patent if you haven't read the patent. Many games have had mods to their math and patents;most games need some tweaking before they get finalized and hit the tables.

Quote: Paigowdan

The number of new games that "made it" are very few:
Let It ride, Carribean stud, Spanish-21, Superfun-21, and the big one, Three Card Poker with 1,500 or so installs.
Mini-Pai Gow and Deuces Wild faded away, as has Superfun to some degree.

For some reason, Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em has caught on in a big way at one of the stores near me. I wouldn't hesitate to say they are the largest UTH operator in the country -- four tables operating at peak times, and they just put in a progressive in one. It's interesting to see what catches fire in some places. You can go to another nearby casino and the game will be just about dead.
------------------
Texas Hold 'Em Bonus seems kind of popular. Darvin Moon played it constantly at the WSOP last year, which gave it some publicity.
------------------
I wish the WPT 3x and all-in games were more popular. Those are the closest to true poker, in my opinion.

Teddys:
True, True! - you caught me off-guard, UTH is VERY a strong game now....may because it's still new, and very fine. Some games that peak in massive popularity fade after five years...Deuces Wild Hold 'em Fold 'em is an example. In 2001, they were in 50% of Las Vegas Casinos, and now it's just about extinct, similar to Mini Pai Gow...gone.

Will UTH hold out?....maybe yes! There is absolutely a casino need - and a place - for a Texas Hold 'em Casino-banked game. For a casino to have FOUR tables of a "carnival game" at Full-out is a great endorsement. Roger Snow and all people at SMI should be glad to see UTH just nailing it down...


Personally, I would have thought Texas Hold 'em Bonus would have held out that position, it's a strong game that's simple and easy and Fun to play, with UTH being a little awkward in its betting layout structure.

I know the inventor of Texas Hold 'em Bonus, Paul Omohundro. Actually, he is now the VP of Sales at DEQ (who is distributing my own game, EZ Pai Gow Poker)....in a way, he's my boss, but is quiet (unlike me and Earle H.!)...and Paul did a great job on Texas Hold 'em bonus. I like his game more than UTH, which I feel is "bulky" and "awkward" in its betting structure, while THB is elegant. Very Glad to see THB is getting good action, too...

Some new games act like Carnival games, get every where for a while and are gone 5 years later (mini Pai Gow, deuces Wild, Let it Ride, Carribean) but others Stay with Permanence (Three Card poker, Pai Gow Poker, EZ Baccarat).

Coming up with a new casino game is worse than doing an independent film, as a ridiculously long, long shot. Some may hit like "The Blair Witch Project" - which caught fire and made a billion, and dissapeared. Others are Like "Bad Lieutenant," made peanuts and then died. Others are like "It's a Wonderful life" - about as old as the game of Craps, and not going anywhere, and will never disappear, to live on and on.

You have NO idea if a new game idea will hit, or if it does, if it'll stay around. If you attended a New Table game conference and see one or more games, one might make it BIG for decades to come ("Three Card Poker"), one will hit big then Die ("Mini Pai Gow and Deuces Wild"), one will live on forever at 50 games in the background ("Texas Hold 'em Bonus") - WHILE "JOHN H. WINN" - WHO INVENTED MODERN CRAPS IN 1912 IN PHILADELPHIA - got the job done - patent or no patent, big money or little money, lives forever.

The other games of Blackjack, Roulette, Hazard, Faro, and Baccarat stem from Middle-ages Europe and 18th century America with no author. Actually, Roulette was invented by a single person also, a French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, who tried to come up with a "perpetual motion machine" via a heavily-weighted wheel with virtually NO resistance to slowdown. So, He discovered a great toy for gambling grown ups, to say the least. This was his only non-scientific folly that became Roulette in the 18th Century, much as John H.Winn's "New dice Layout that prevents gaffe dice from playing" became the modern crap game in 1912 Philadelphia.

Boy, did those two games become established!!

Roger Snow, Robert Saucier, Paul Omohundro, Derek Webb, Dan Lubin, and the like - are just trying to pay off a mortage in the Las Vegas Valley, on a bigger house, while keeping the wife happy...

New game developers will never defeat Blaise Pascal and John H. Winn, after them....Maybe because they just gave it to the gambling world, no commission to be charged on some game of sin...

Quote: Paigowdan

So true in game design. Whip something up, and it has to be better than craps or BJ. Seldom is.
I can't picture Blackjack, Craps, or Roulette ever being replaced.

I'm not so sure about that. Faro was replaced ... by blackjack. Blackjack didn't really, *really* get popular until the 60s after Thorp showed you could beat it. It's not inconceivable that blackjack will get stale. It's not happening right now, but it might. Look how quickly Caribbean Stud got stale, and that was going gangbusters when it was first released.

And while there is decidedly fixed floor space in most casinos, a good operator will adjust mix if a better (more profitable) product comes along. In Washington, there's a hard limit on number of tables (15) regardless of floor space -- that includes poker -- so an operator has to decide whether to offer another blackjack table, another hold'em table, or a newer game like Three Card Poker or Let It Ride. If a new game significantly outperforms blackjack, it's not too hard to replace a BJ table with it.

I could say a lot more about my experiences with inventoritis, but I feel I should save something for the new forum. A big part of commercial game design is realizing it's a business and treating it accordingly. For example, I don't have an "invest" button on my site because that's (imo) not how to do a funding round. (Plus, I'm not sure that wouldn't constitute an improper public offering...)

For now, I'll wait until the new-games/inventors forum comes along.

Any news on when the game inventors forum is coming? I just heard something very interesting from the NGCB that belongs there.

I asked JB to add a category, but I guess he has been busy.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not so sure about that. Faro was replaced ... by blackjack. Blackjack didn't really, *really* get popular until the 60s after Thorp showed you could beat it. It's not inconceivable that blackjack will get stale. It's not happening right now, but it might. Look how quickly Caribbean Stud got stale, and that was going gangbusters when it was first released.

Games do get stale - very true - if they're gimmicky, and NOT a better variation that the original game they were spawn from.
But BJ is simple, elegant, fun, fast, low house edge - next to impossible to improve upon - and DID improve upon Faro. (What about re-introducing Faro as a new game?)
New Games that I believe are "permanent" would constitute (IMHO) games that are:
1. Great Improvements to existing games: John Winn's 1912 crap layout replaced one-sided street craps; hopefully commission-free EZ Baccarat and EZ Pai Gow become standard forms of those game.
2. Side bets that are just perfect fits for standard games that were otherwise a bit naked: the Fortune bonus bet for Pai Gow, and Pai Gow insurance.
3. New Games that are just perfectly designed, quick, and fun to play: Three-card Poker. THAT game seems resistant to fading! And "Two-cards High" (a completely novel type of game design) seemed to achieve that in South Korean Casinos.

I think (and am betting) the following won't ever get stale in ouir life times:
1. Blackjack.
2. Craps.
3. Pai Gow.
4. Roulette.
5. Baccarat.
These will always be consumed by gamblers, much in the way that Milk, Chicken, and Rice will always be consumed by humans as basic staple foods, in spite of the presence of Pizza and Manicotti and other variant delicacies and concoctions.

NOW, for YOUR opinion of a new blackjack bet side bet: BUST UP BLACKJACK by Tess Krantz:
a) You make a "Bust-up" side bet of $5 or so that the dealer will get a "bust card" as his up card, that is a 2..6 showing.
b) Pays even money if it does, BUT....you then have the option to Parlay it all - to bet that the dealer will INDEED bust his hand, to now pay three to one, for a total of 6:1 on the original bet - if all this happens.
THAT'S an interesting new bet for Blackjack!

I pitched this bet to the president of a table game distribution company (not DEQ), and he said "GET me her number!" But I lost it. I know that Mike the Wizard was her mathematician. (Mike, can you forward her # ?)

Quote: Paigowdan

NOW, for YOUR opinion of a new blackjack bet side bet: BUST UP BLACKJACK by Tess Krantz:
a) You make a "Bust-up" side bet of $5 or so that the dealer will get a "bust card" as his up card, that is a 2..6 showing.
b) Pays even money if it does, BUT....you then have the option to Parlay it all - to bet that the dealer will INDEED bust his hand, to now pay three to one, for a total of 6:1 on the original bet - if all this happens.
THAT'S an interesting new bet for Blackjack!

Standard disclaimer: I didn't find a published patent application on this...

Just to clarify, if the dealer busts but has an upcard of 7..A, the side bet loses right?

I remember seeing several variations of the dealer-upcard sidebet in the past, but I don't recall any that did the parlay aspect later. I agree, it does sound interesting. One thing I'd make sure about is that the take/pay procedure works between the two bets, because it seems like the player's attention would be going back and forth between the side bet and the main bet. Also, what happens when all the players bust?

M.E.,
Yes, if the dealer has a 7 or better up, the best loses straight away.

The parlay aspect is unique. I assume she has either valid a provisional or "sealed" utility patent. In any case, her game has been previously disclosed to the industry; she pitched it.

A player rarely busts when the dealer has a bust card, but I assume if it did happen (hiting a 12 against a 2), then the bet remains alive, as it is based on the dealer's hand busting, not the player's, and as a separate bet.

Quote: Paigowdan

M.E.,
Yes, if the dealer has a 7 or better up, the best loses straight away.

The parlay aspect is unique. I assume she has either valid a provisional or "sealed" utility patent. In any case, her game has been previously disclosed to the industry; she pitched it.

A player rarely busts when the dealer has a bust card, but I assume if it did happen (hiting a 12 against a 2), then the bet remains alive, as it is based on the dealer's hand busting, not the player's, and as a separate bet.

Sure, I get that it's a separate bet -- but from a procedure standpoint don't you need to change the main game if all players bust? I thought if all players at a table busted, the dealer didn't play out the hand. Here, you'd have to.

M.E.,
Maybe the bust bet loses in conjunction with the main bet, I am not completely certain, but as a side bet that is betting the dealer's hand to bust, then the player's main bet is a separate bet, with no dealer procedure changes for the player's main bet. This is because paying or taking the bust up side bet depends only on the dealer's hand result, so the player's hand is still processed the same - as it is not affected by the side bet.

A player can bust his hand, lose his main bet, get his cards scoped up, while his dealer bust-up bet remains on the table, waiting for the dealer's hand to bust or not, because it hasn't been decided yet. So when the dealer later busts, the player's bust up bet gets paid - regardless if his main hand had already lost from his own bust. If the dealer makes his hand, then the player's bet on the dealer's hand then loses. I would personally impliment a dealing or pit rule that if a players busts his own hand early, that the busted hand be tucked into the bust up bet, to signify this event. This would prevent a player who sat out a round from putting a late bet on the bust up wager, and getting paid with no cards. (Remember, players who had busted early and now have no cards but still have an active bust up side bet waiting to get resolved on the dealer's hand result.) But this is a game protection issue that was not specified to me in Tess's pitch to me on the game. Maybe Mike S. knows, as he did the math on this interesting side bet.

Also available in blackjack is the "push your luck" tie bet. If the player has a blackjack and takes even money against a dealer's ace, he gets paid on the main bet (and therefore his main bet is "paid and over with"). His cards then get moved to the tie bet, because the tie bet hadn't lost yet because the dealer might still have a blackjack. If the dealer does have a blackjack, then the player's tie bet wins (because both the player and the dealer had equal blackjacks) and it gets paid - even though the player's main hand bet had ended earlier, when he took the even money.

Same kind of thing: side bets are separate bets, and if the side bet is based on the dealer's hand, it gets resolved when the dealer's hand is resolved, even if the player's hand was resolved earlier.

It may make for game protection issues, but the main bets are processed and paid the same outside of a side bet.

A side bet that affects or modifies a payout or procedure on some other bet is a game design no-no, and is verboten.

An interesting area....

Quote: Paigowdan

...
A player can bust his hand, lose his main bet, get his cards scoped up, while his dealer bust-up bet remains on the table,....

This is where the bet may die before getting on the casino floor. Since so many players who bust will place their next bet while the current hand is still in play, it may be impossible to control or watch the table enough to prevent someone from past-posting the dealer bust bet. While your tuck idea may satisfy that, it will take a LOT of cooperation and understanding on the player's parts. Since we're talking about people that are happy to play 6:5, that level of understanding might be impossible to achieve.

For what it's worth, I've always felt that it is extremely bad player etiquette to place the next bet when the hand is still in progress. Also, more than once I've seen such an early bet get scooped by mistake. (Maybe NOT by mistake. Casinos cheat thread anyone?)


If it were possible to get people to comply, then a minor procedure change will allow the dealer bust bet to play out even if all players bust. Just show the first player's first card early, using that to resolve the dealer bust bet. (The dealer bust thing is with three cards only, right?)

Dave,
I actually think the "card tuck" idea is good - it's used for the "push your luck" bet, another side bet. Players have no issue with it, as it give them a shot at winning the side bet.
Also, the dealer's bust up bet is with any bust, any number of cards, as far as I know.
I think this side bet is pretty good.

The thing about new games, new side bets, is that we never know how they'll do until they get into a casino and they see action. It's like producing a motion-picture film. Some people who saw The Blair Witch project at a sneak preview thought it was dead on arrival, but it became a huge hit. Countless stories like that. Never give up hope until it hits.

Quote: Paigowdan

A player can bust his hand, lose his main bet, get his cards scoped up, while his dealer bust-up bet remains on the table, waiting for the dealer's hand to bust or not, because it hasn't been decided yet. So when the dealer later busts, the player's bust up bet gets paid - regardless if his main hand had already lost from his own bust.

Here's the specific question: if the only player at the table busts, does the dealer play out the dealer's hand anyway?

Quote: MathExtremist

Here's the specific question: if the only player at the table busts, does the dealer play out the dealer's hand anyway?

Normally, no. Ditto if every player busts.

But that's a procedure put in place to reduce the number of wasted cards, so that there could be more hands before shuffling.

Since my idea of an early deal for the first player's card might not be enough, I suggest the following:

The procedure should be changed so that if every player busts, the dealer still plays out his hand, even if no player bets the dealer bust bet.

That should satisfy all requirements, and ensure that nothing out of the ordinary occurs. The procedure change will apply to any table with that bet on the layout.

While this changes the integrity of the cards, it changes it permanently at those tables, and doesn't make occasional exceptions. In essense, it actually preserves the integrity, since the procedure to not play out the dealer's hand when every player busts, was an occasional exception that changed the cards in the first place.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Normally, no. Ditto if every player busts.

But that's a procedure put in place to reduce the number of wasted cards, so that there could be more hands before shuffling.

Since my idea of an early deal for the first player's card might not be enough, I suggest the following:

The procedure should be changed so that if every player busts, the dealer still plays out his hand, even if no player bets the dealer bust bet.

Right, that's exactly the point: under current main-game procedures, sometimes the side bet will go unresolved, which is bad. Your change addresses the issue in a consistent way at the cost of a very minor slowdown in the game. Overall, the bet should still be very feasible (at least, upon initial impressions); that early-mucking issue just jumped out at me. It's my experience that when you're presenting a game to an operator and they ask "what about when X happens", it's best to already have the answer in the bag.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Normally, no. Ditto if every player busts.

But that's a procedure put in place to reduce the number of wasted cards, so that there could be more hands before shuffling.

Since my idea of an early deal for the first player's card might not be enough, I suggest the following:

The procedure should be changed so that if every player busts, the dealer still plays out his hand, even if no player bets the dealer bust bet.

I would say that it would be better if: the dealer still plays out his hand after all players had busted, only if one or more players have an active dealer bust bet to be resolved.

Currently in blackjack, the "play out the dealer's 'solo' hand" versus "the dealer discards his two cards without hitting" is based on whether the dealer needs to play out his hand to resolve any remaining bets. This should be maintained here, as this is the consistent practice for the dealer drawing cards. If there is a need to do so (because player bets are still active through the dealer bust bet OR having cards), then yes play it out then, else, no, just discard.

The thing about table game design is that you also have to account for dealing and pit procedures, and try to incorporate existing conventions and mechanism that can apply well. Math Extremist is right: you have to have an answer at the ready for any situation.

Pretty impressive game design thought going on here.....

Yeah, I know all that, but consider this: Side bets should not affect the regular game. Players that are not playing the side bet should not be affected by players that are.

Therefore, the only solution is to change procedure, whether there are people betting the side bet, or not.

I think it's better for player that is not betting the side bet, to get upset by this change EVERY time, rather than when it's an execption.

Dave,
Players are affected by other player actions all the time in BJ, in any case. Players may choose to hit a 12 against a 2 on third base, or choose to stay. Sometimes their actions take the dealer's bust card, and sometimes it gives the dealer his bust card.

Basically, the standard BJ procedure on the dealer hitting his two-card hand below 17 at the end of the round is to:
- hit if he needs to resolve his hand because of a player's active bet, and to
- discard his hand immediately if no table bets need to be resolved from the dealer's hand.

Ultimately - and if the "Bust up" side bet gets into casinos - is for the casino houses to set up their own procedures on the side bet. Most will probably treat it like other BJ side bets where:
1. Players' cards may be tucked under the side bet, like in "push your luck," if the player's hand is finished.
2. Dealers will discard their two-card hands below 17, and not play it out, if there is no reason to play it out - but will play it out to resolve a bust-up side bet.

Both of these are standard table procedures on BJ, and will work with "Bust-up Blackjack" as they do with "Push Your Luck" and other wide bets, and are valid options for casino table pits.

Players get upset all the time over any perceived little thing if they're losing, but everything's just fine if they're winning. Players can complain about things, but they cannot run the games on the casinos. How ever the casinos set up a new bet or new game is their call.

Why not just consider the side bet pushed if the player busts? That way no rule/procedure modification for the main game would be needed.

Quote: weaselman

Why not just consider the side bet pushed if the player busts? That way no rule/procedure modification for the main game would be needed.

That raises another interesting question: it seems there may be a strategy effect for the player's hand if they're sitting at 3rd base and the dealer's upcard is 2-6. Here, taking the dealer's bust card has much more impact. Does the addition of the side bet change 3rd-base player strategy? How does that strategy change vary with the ratio of main:side bet (assume 5:1 for starters)?

Weaselman -
that is a consideration for Tess Krantz, though that would change both the rules and the odds of the existing game, with the math already done. And if the dealer reveals a hard 16 at the end of the round, that would look bad.

The thing is, new games and side bets are "organic" - or modifiable - as they go through the processes of becoming established. Three Card poker originally had a 1/4/6/30/30 side bet structure instead of the current 1/3/6/30/40 paytable. I made minor changes and one major addition to EZ Pai Gow Poker; I created a Wild Joker version for the Barona Casino, with new math reports and everything.

Until a new game or side bet is out with a lot of installs, (and sometimes even that late in the game!) things are on the table, and can be considered. (No pun intended.)

Quote: MathExtremist

That raises another interesting question: it seems there may be a strategy effect for the player's hand if they're sitting at 3rd base and the dealer's upcard is 2-6. Here, taking the dealer's bust card has much more impact. Does the addition of the side bet change 3rd-base player strategy? How does that strategy change vary with the ratio of main:side bet (assume 5:1 for starters)?

Many BJ side affect the players play-of-the-hand and messes with using basic strategy, sometimes grossly so, as in FortuneTeller Blackjack.

The play of the hand is very mildly affected here; again, involving hitting 12 or 13 against a dealer's 2.

The reason why the play of the hand is so mildly affected - if at all - in bust-up blackjack is because:
1. correct basic strategy generally calls for the player to not bust his own hand if the dealer has a bust card himself. And with a 12/13 against a dealer's two, there's no way of telling that you'll take away the dealer's bust card if you hit, or promote the dealer's bust card if you hit, so you should just continue to play normal basic strategy anyway. It doesn't matter if you do bust - your side bet is still alive, waiting for the dealer to bust or not, so you can still win anyway.
2. If the dealer has a 7 or better, then the bust-up side bet had already lost, so the player just plays his remaining hand normally there, too.

This is part of the brilliance of the bet, its independance, that it really has no effect on the play of the hand or effect on using basic strategy, and is an exceiting and interesting bet to make going into the next hand.

Man, I wish I had invented this little b]tch.

Quote: Paigowdan

This is part of the brilliance of the bet, it really has no effect on the play of the hand or effect on using basic strategy, and is an exceiting and interesting bet to make going into the next hand.

I wish I had invented this little b]tch.

In that case, I look forward to hearing your feedback on several side bet propositions I'll be promoting soon. Should I wait for the new games forum?

M.E.,
No - because your success is based on YOU being quick to market. Besides, waiting for Mike to get to some things you could grow cobwebs. [A tiny little prodding poke in the eye....ahem, ahem.]

However, do NOT discuss ANYTHING NEW that could make some real casino money unless and until you have spent a week writing a provision patent in clear English...
....filed it according to USPTO.gov guidelines, paid them their $120 filing fee for your invention filing, - and had received back from the USPTO an "Application filing number reciept letter" or your self-addressd post card that has the Application Filing number bar-code sticker attached to it. You are in complete silence until you recieve back you App numbers that it is filed. If you should happen to come up with a brilliant game design, you need to establish ownership with the governments patent office on file first, so you can development without fear of theft of your brilliant idea. FILE it with the gov first.

I do NOT recommend doing a full $7,000 utility patent with a lawyer and a draftsman, because you don't know if your game has the legs to make it into casinos - to make that money back at this point; most new games are not viable, or if they are, may have already been thought of and patented before by another. (This happens all the time. This has happened to me my my five-card Pai Gow poker, with three card poker down and two-cards up).

So why spend $7,000 - $10,000 when you can spend $120 to find out? For $120 (and a LOT of writing work and some filing work) - you will have a year to file that full patent and perfect your game, IF it is novel, and if it is viable and if it is worth it. If it is NOT, you lose $120 and 40 hours of work, not $7,000+ and 3 months of work.
But get at least a provisional patent filed before you speak!!! Lawyers will tell you this is not the way to go because they want the $7K up front. My lawyer says no, always file a provisional for $120 first, and if your game is truly viable, only then do you spend the thousands to follow through with somethiong that might make it in casinos for real.

This is the first step.

If you get your idea successfully filed on a provisional patent, then by all means discuss the crap out of it, because you will need a LOT of feedback and promotion and possible investment - to generate the needed buzz, investment, and promotion to get the game out into casinos for real, now that is is safe to do so.

Also, discussing your game with a patent on file further brands you - through irrefutable public disclosure - as the real author of the game design. If you want to discuss the patent process as it particularly pertains to new table or slot machine games,

This is how it works, if you believe you have a brilliant game idea (you may - I did have one with EZ Pai Gow Poker, Tess Krantz did with her bust-up blackjack, among many other new game designers):

1. Keep silient until you have a provision patent filed, one that you know is well-written enough to describe and protect your game's procedures and novel claims of your new beast. Once done (and make sure this is done right)...

2. Discuss the crap out of your game, to get both good feedback and public ownership of the beast. You might tweak or adjust the game within the guidelines of the provisional patent you filed. Minor adjustments are fine, but changing it to a new sort of game loses the patent protection.

3. Get a very fine mathematician to write a math report on your game: Mike Shackleford, Eliot Jacobson, Charles Mousseau, Stanley Ko, and Cindy Liu are the "Big Cabal of Five" respected mathematicians who produce math reports that get approved by gaming jurisdictions. Disclaimer - they are also other players in this market.

4. Discuss your game with GAME DISTRIBUTORS who might get your game into casinos for a cut. There are FOUR major Players:

a) DEQ systems (of EZ Baccarat, EZ Pai Gow Poker, the G3 side betting, and Progressive jackpots on table games.) www.DEQ.com, via Robert Scott at RScott@DEQ.com. A very Reputable comany that I trust, and that distributes my EZ Pai Gow Poker game.

b) Gaming Network (of the "Lucky Lucky" BJ progressive bet, etc.) www.gamenetinc.com. Directors are Jeffrey Voyles and Randall Zinkil. Also a trustworthy company in this industry, with whom I've done work for.

c) Shufflemaster Incorprated. (Famous from ALL the shuffling machines, and their Three card poker, Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, four card poker, etc. Huge, but they reject a lot of great games that became hits with other distributors, to their dismay.) You will have to Contact a Mr. Daniel Diana and a Mr. Russell Chumas, of SMI to review your game, through their website www.shufflemaster.com. Shufflemaster had strangely rejected a couple of fantasic games recently ("Lucky Lucky" and some other huge money-makers) that they could have distributed themselves. Do NOT expect a positive response from them on anything brilliant that can help both them and you; they have been going through various changes, and sometimes appear rudderless and clueless after their CEO Tim Parrott died of cancer a few months ago. I will say that Both Mr. Diana and Mr. Chumas have been very professional, considerate and gracious in their dealings with new game designers, but are under the larger Shufflemaster Corporation umbrella, which is where they are now, for lack of a better way of currently describing them in their pursuit of great new games.

d) Galaxy Gaming/Robert Saucier. Famous for Emperor's Challenge Pai Gow, and Lucky Ladies BJ side bet. Their CEO fought and won for a strong position in the industry and won. Rob Saucier is the man who turned a monopolistic games distributor gaming industry into a more fair and competitive industry, taking on Shufflemaster the way MCI and Sprint telephone once took on the conglomorate AT&T when AT&T owned the copuntry in terms of that market. And Rob is a regular man who will talk to anyone worthy and return phone calls and emails - if you do not waste his time. At www.galaxygaming.com/home.html

Get and go with a distributor if you can get the game out yourself - do YOU have gaming licenses in countless gaming jusrisdictions? These guys do.

I'm a bit further along than that. I'll start a new thread in the Table Games forum...

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm a bit further along than that. I'll start a new thread in the Table Games forum...

Is the new area online yet?

Quote: Paigowdan

Is the new area online yet?

Not that I see - I meant the existing one under Gambling > Table Games

Here is the new section for game inventors: Game Inventors Corner.

Mike,
Very Fine, you and JB get the job DONE!
Can JB just take this current string and place it there, to start?

Quote: Wizard

Here is the new section for game inventors: Game Inventors Corner.

In that case, could you please move my recent post over there? Thanks.

Quote: Paigowdan

Players get upset all the time over any perceived little thing if they're losing, but everything's just fine if they're winning.

Hmmm....

Yeah, you got a point. I'll retract my prior arguments about the procedures.


---

Quote: Wizard

Here is the new section for game inventors: Game Inventors Corner.

Woo hoo!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Hmmm....

Quote: Wizard

Here is the new section for game inventors: Game Inventors Corner.

Woo hoo!

New area is NOW ONLINE here. GO DISCUSS "HIT IT AGAIN," DAVE!

WE'RE ROLLING....

moved