NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

Cobblestone · 2015-05-25 07:33:38

NPR did a segment that I thought was worth a listen: http://www.npr.org/2015/05/08/405125484 … nes-boring

Basically slot machines don't attract younger crowds, so casinos are looking in to offering skill-based gambling. Of course, I immediately thought of CM.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-25 14:26:39

Anyone with iOS wanna try some of these games and report back?

https://gamblitgaming.com/games/

I'm wondering if they have the real money part in place in the AppStore version... Looks like it.

The rating is 17+ for:

Gambling and Contests
Frequent/Intense Simulated Gambling

Apreche · 2015-05-25 14:34:09

In the segment they are suggesting a single player skill based game. That I think is a very very bad idea. They are underestimating the capacity of gamers to practice and come clean them out. They think they can adjust the payout so they always profit, but I don't see that happening.

Say for example, they offered Tetris, a very addictive and popular game. People are already willing to pay 25 cents to play a Tetris arcade machine and not get anything back even if they win. Now imagine a Tetris machine that paid out to winners. Even assuming that a lot of people play, few will sit there for long. The reason to play Tetris on the machine instead of their phone is the chance of winning. They will test their skill a few times to see if they are capable of winning. If they aren't, they'll stop playing since they can just play on their phone for free.

Meanwhile, the grandmasters will descend. When they find out their is a game they can reliably win, and get paid to do so, they will play Tetris all day. To profit off them, they will have to make the payouts so low for winners, or the difficulty so high, that nobody will even want to play in the first place.

It has to be a CM-like game where the casino takes Jason's role. But will people really be interested? If they're already in the same room together in a casino, and they want to bet against each other. Why let the casino take a cut? Just bet with each other at a table in your hotel room. What is the casino providing that you're going to let them take your money? Jason is providing software and technology services.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-25 15:14:06

Yeah, I agree that the guy being interviewed sounded like he was peddling a flop there. That's never going to work, and no casino is going to fall for it.

The only successful "skill gaming" things that I'm aware of always involve other players. For anyone interested in this area, I highly recommend checking out King's stalwart endeavor here:

http://www.royalgames.com/

It's worth putting money into. The experience is really good. You will win money for a while until the matchmaking catches up to you. Yep, this is what they did before Candy Crush.

Oh, unless you want to count carnival games and Chuck-E-Cheese. I love these machines, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLwIOk-0jpc

I think the trick here is that they are SO HARD that really, no one stands a chance. So hard that they are effectively ruled by chaos in the end. Angry Birds may be like this (quite a bit like Skeeball or bowling). But Gamblit's other two examples look like slow strategy games.

With the coin game, the incremental investment (just another quarter!) can hold the promise of a gigantic potential payout (look at all those quarters that are just about to fall). And the presentation is kind of deceptive, because the coins hanging off the edge have a pretty robust structure (overlapping scales supporting each other).

Still, I can't see casinos moving toward quarter-pushing games...

Also, since these things are legal everywhere, why would you want to go to a casino to play them? Same goes for Royal-style "skill contests," etc.

Nate · 2015-05-25 17:50:54

I find it hilarious that when it comes to wagering, most states want us to only play games of skill on the internet and games of chance in the casino...but why? It makes no sense to me.

The root of the problem is that games of skill can produce random results, and games of chance can be dictated by skill... and many games exist that involve both skill and chance. Additionally, labeling any game as either "skill or chance" makes zero sense, because free will and random numbers are both illusions caused by an individual human's failure to understand the universe. Politicians are stupid.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-25 18:09:53

Oh, you must mean:

FREE WILL and random numbers are both ILLUSIONS caused by an individual human's FAILURE to understand the UNIVERSE.

Apreche · 2015-05-25 20:39:28

The reason US gambling laws are as they are is pretty simple. Right now gambling is only allowed in a few places such as Vegas and Atlantic City, as well as a few others. This means if you want to gamble you have to travel to those places. By centralizing it, they can make big money. Hotels, shows, restaurants, and the gambling itself.

Now imagine if gambling were legal everywhere. There's a slot machine in the Buffalo Wild Wings near your house. There's a tiny casino in your town. That casino isn't going to make much money at all. Nobody is going to get rich on that without the economy of scale. But the big casinos in vegas can't survive if gambling is legal everywhere. It only works because it's in a few places. The Internet is ruining this for them, case in point, Atlantic City.

Not to mention the fact that its seen as a vice which attracts shady characters. People want to visit it, but they don't want to live near it. On the Internet you don't have this problem.

As for coin pushing machines, this video is an absolute must-see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0OnmhhFk9g

This game is astonishing.

Cobblestone · 2015-05-25 23:56:11

jasonrohrer wrote:

I'm wondering if they have the real money part in place in the AppStore version... Looks like it.

I just skimmed through the current App Store spec. It looks like they do allow real-money gambling as long as it's legal in the territories where you're distributing the app, you have the proper licenses in place, and you don't use IAPs as a deposit method. Since CM isn't technically gambling (being skill-based), I imagine you could distribute it through the app store without worrying. It might be worth contacting someone at Apple to discuss, if that's even possible. I couldn't find anything that said if payouts can be done within the app or have to be done through a separate website.

Personally, I'd love to see an iOS version.

Apreche wrote:

It has to be a CM-like game where the casino takes Jason's role. But will people really be interested? If they're already in the same room together in a casino, and they want to bet against each other. Why let the casino take a cut? Just bet with each other at a table in your hotel room. What is the casino providing that you're going to let them take your money? Jason is providing software and technology services.

The same could be said of poker, right?

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-26 05:14:02

With Poker, the casino (or card room) is a draw BECAUSE there are lots of people coming together to play there. Pros need lots of fish, and casinos attract them. One or two fish can feed a table full of pros, so it works well and stays balanced.

.. · 2015-05-26 14:25:56

I don't see why the same couldn't work for CM (or online poker or two-player skill games): a few fish losing a lot of money, so that the pros randomly get paired up with other pros most of the time (breaking nearly even on average) and some of the time win off the fish, on the whole profiting.

That Japan Jackpot thing is pretty nuts. All kinds of roulette wheels and minigames, and half of them are physical!

Last edited by .. (2015-05-26 14:26:37)

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-26 14:41:46

Well, it does work... it's just way slower. It also dissuades people from playing higher stakes.

In Poker rooms, the minimum buy-in (to have a full stack) is $300. Each chip is $1. But you can sit there for hours with that and play hundreds of hands against eight other opponents. Your stack goes up and down, but you can bide your time and wait to get into hands with the fish.

Here, if you buy in for $300 and land with a pro of the same skill, there's a 50% chance you will lose the entire $300 (well, unless you smell the pro and get out before losing too much). You can't sit there for a while and read the whole opponent pool and look for your opening.

Finally, one more big problem that has only been tangentially addressed in the past. Even if you beat the pro (or the fish) in CM, your risk is rewarded by turning your $300 into at most $600. That's great, but compare it to Poker.

If you sweep a 9-person table, you can turn your $300 into $2700. Add in the fact that the fish (and sometimes the pros) run out of chips and re-buy (pulling more $100 bills out and calling for the chip runner to bring them more chips), and you stand to get way more than that.

In Vegas, there was a time when I had $1000+ sitting in front of me at the $300 table.

I always wondered why heads-up poker (2-player) wasn't more popular, given that it's more interesting (you must play way more hands and fold way less) and deeper (the difference between a good hand and a bad one is more subtle, and it's all about reading your opponent well). Yeah, it's not economically feasible in a poker room (a dealer paid for each pair of players?). But online, it's offered, but never popular. The above reasons help to explain it.

Also, note that "never popular" is based on my own subjective wait times for an opponent online at 2-person tables. Of course, the parity problem is still there, so my wait time may have nothing to do with how popular it actually is.

.. · 2015-05-26 16:37:14

Having the chance to win far more than you're risking is surely the main appeal of gambling. Hence the excitement generated by CM tournaments. Erm, we haven't had one in a while. Weren't weekly tournaments floated as an idea? Think quiz night - a developed habit. (Run a poll? "What night of the week...")

It would also be possible to emulate the chance to win big from a single CM game. Such as bounties for defeating a player (like in some poker tournaments, I read). Basically the same thing as winning amulet points. Unfortunately, collusion....

Speaking in fragments. Four AM.

Last edited by .. (2015-05-26 16:39:16)

Professor Chin · 2015-05-26 17:45:27

.. wrote:

Having the chance to win far more than you're risking is surely the main appeal of gambling. Hence the excitement generated by CM tournaments. Erm, we haven't had one in a while.

Yes, I'm quite looking forward to some "regular" tournaments.
I think it would be worth having them often and experimenting a bit with stakes, formats etc...

Also I dream of an Highlander Knockout tournament where there can be only one CM champion!

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-26 18:46:18

Would anyone be interested in a tournament with a $20 or higher buy in? Prizes would be large, of course.

I've also thought about running a $100 buy-in tournament at some point.

jere · 2015-05-26 20:16:35

Sure. I'd guess $20 is the highest you can go and still get some sort of turn out. Based on the current dollar balances, I don't see $100 buy in being a good idea any time soon.

claspa · 2015-05-26 20:41:29

I might join a $20 tournament.

Dan_Dan84 · 2015-05-27 04:07:29

For me, part of it depends on the format of the tournament. I didn't join the CM community until after all of the tournaments had run, but if I understood it correctly, the last $5 tournament ran for a few hours, during which you could play as many or as few games as you wanted, while trying to generate profit from other tournament contestants (the final profit determining where you place in the standings). Losing some early games would make it harder to make a comeback, but at least there's no way you can get knocked out.

I would view joining a tournament as entertainment for those few hours, so even if I lost, I'd still feel like I got my money's worth. I'd happily pay $5 or $10 for a few hours of intense CM matches! $20... maybe, though I think I'd be the fish feeding the sharks!

What I wouldn't want is to be knocked out early: the equivalent of buying in and losing my whole stack on the first hand.

I would suggest at least two regular tournaments per week, maybe adjusted to catch people in different time zones.

.. · 2015-05-27 06:18:39

Sure you could run a $20 buy-in tournament for the 3.2% of the playerbase who can afford it. Running tournaments should also attract some bigger investments. But I think it would be insane not to also run plenty of lower stakes tournaments for the enjoyment of everyone else. (I wouldn't be entering a $20 one)

Last edited by .. (2015-05-27 06:19:57)

Cobblestone · 2015-05-27 07:10:37

I'm all for tournaments, as long as they're at a time where I can participate! $20 seems a little rich, at least at first. I wouldn't mind jumping in on a $5 buy-in, though.

However, I agree with dot dot. Lower stakes would be a good idea. Actually, it wouldn't hurt to run a small stakes buy-in tournament this weekend to keep the momentum going from the launch and include new players.

Apreche · 2015-05-27 13:27:25

I play a lot of Netrunner tournaments at local game shops. The way they work is people pay a small entry fee, usually $5. We play swiss rounds and there are participation prizes for everyone. That way nobody feels like they wasted their time and entry fee if they don't win. The winners get better prizes. Some stores even turn the entry fee into store credit and distribute it. So if 10 people show up and pay $5 each, that's $50 in store credit that gets distributed among the top players something like $20, $15, $10, $5 to the top 4 finishers respectively.

There are currently no competitive online multiplayer games offering this kind of tournament format that I know of. I would love to be able to sit down at my computer at any time, pay $5, play 3 to 5 rounds of a skill-based game, get a prize no matter what, but have the chance of a big prize if I win.

CM has the problem that the tournaments can't be spontaneous since there isn't enough player base. I live in NYC, and the timing of every event that has been had so far has been inconvenient for me. Also, there's no prize that can be offered besides money. In other games you can offer participation prizes like skins and whatnot.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-27 14:52:29

Yeah, I don't think I could make it so that everyone got a prize. I mean, with an entry fee of $5, if 20 players enter, the entire prize pool is only $100. If we're going to give some players a bigger prize, that means others would walk away with a prize less than their entry fee. Thus, it would operate like a poker tournament, with the top N players getting bigger prizes, and the bottom M players getting $0.

Example of a $5 tournament:

http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … ea_goat_18

Cobblestone · 2015-05-27 16:18:52

If everyone got a prize and the prizes came from the entry fee pool, then everyone would just get their entry fee back...
It seems in the spirit of CM to pony up the entry fee with the risk of losing it for the reward of getting a huge prize based on your skill during the tournament.

One thing I'd like to put out there is that I really liked the first test contest we did with the amulets. Obviously we found out that the amulet points were exploitable, but I really liked having a multi-day tournament. It seemed like everyone was able to participate, I could play during normal hours and get my score to a point where I was ok going to work or going to sleep, and the first thing I'd do in the morning was check the leaderboard. I'm not sure if any of the other tourament structures would work over the course of a week, but I think it'd be enjoyable if they could.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-27 17:04:12

Yeah, I think the "standard" tournament where max profit against other tournament players could work over a longer period. Like 2 days or whatever.

I'll start with some shorter ones, though.

jere · 2015-05-27 18:12:48

We play swiss rounds and there are participation prizes for everyone. That way nobody feels like they wasted their time and entry fee if they don't win....Also, there's no prize that can be offered besides money. In other games you can offer participation prizes like skins and whatnot.

Yeah, I don't think I could make it so that everyone got a prize.

It's not inconceivable that there could be non-monetary prizes. For a $5-$20 entry fee, you could offer all sorts of either digital or physical prizes for everyone and the top N players get the big cash prizes.

Physical:
-CM themed dice, red and green with the Hebrew characters on them
-Long shot, but a CM t-shirt if the entry fee was high enough?
-Stamped dollar bills (OK it's monetary, but cheap)

Digital:
-Permanent or temporary alias changes selectable by winners
-Participants get featured more prominently on a leaderboard in the game or on the main site (rather than buried in a thread somewhere)
-Flair/badges that are displayed to participants in game and/or to their opponents after a game concludes. It'd be really cool to have a unique badge that can never be acquired again. Perhaps I've jumped the shark here. Badge leaderboards?

I can see the allure here. If you're not one of the best players, a tournament seems like a good opportunity to simply waste $20. But if you are guaranteed at least some neat memento, it doesn't look like such a waste.

So I doubt the t-shirt thing would ever happen, but I bet I could make some cool shirts myself. I've done the bleach method and it looks pretty snazzy on a black shirt. This gives me lots of ideeeeassss

Cobblestone · 2015-05-27 18:25:40

I like the dice idea a lot! Also, I think the in-game badge would be cool too. It'd be like seeing the cabal member symbol pop up after a match.

CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

#1 2015-05-25 07:33:38

NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#2 2015-05-25 14:26:39

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#3 2015-05-25 14:34:09

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#4 2015-05-25 15:14:06

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#5 2015-05-25 17:50:54

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#6 2015-05-25 18:09:53

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#7 2015-05-25 20:39:28

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#8 2015-05-25 23:56:11

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#9 2015-05-26 05:14:02

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#10 2015-05-26 14:25:56

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#11 2015-05-26 14:41:46

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#12 2015-05-26 16:37:14

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#13 2015-05-26 17:45:27

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#14 2015-05-26 18:46:18

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#15 2015-05-26 20:16:35

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#16 2015-05-26 20:41:29

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#17 2015-05-27 04:07:29

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#18 2015-05-27 06:18:39

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#19 2015-05-27 07:10:37

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#20 2015-05-27 13:27:25

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#21 2015-05-27 14:52:29

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#22 2015-05-27 16:18:52

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#23 2015-05-27 17:04:12

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#24 2015-05-27 18:12:48

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

#25 2015-05-27 18:25:40

Re: NPR: Casinos Looking at Skilled-Based Gambling

Board footer