As far as the UK is concerned, it can be confusing to determine what’s the best option, and there’s a balance to be struck. While it can seem a straightforward proposition to simply whack as many side bets as possible on, for example, a Blackjack table (and Galaxy, for one, are working on a deal where their entire library is available for fixed fee so there’s no incremental cost implication) it’s not quite so straightforward.
The maths, in terms of expected win, clearly favour pushing as much stake money as possible onto side bets with edges of 3-11%, or better still, progressive side bets with an edge of up to 30% - clearly that’s a better result than having money on the base bet with an edge of 0.5% upwards depending on player skill. However, there are two linked negatives to having sidebets plastered across the layout. Firstly, in terms of pure game speed, side bets can slow the game down by as much as 50%, diluting the advantage of having higher effective edge. It’s not just the time taken to place and settle bets, a significant part of the issue is making change for side bet stakes every hand or two.
The other impact of too many sidebets, beyond the simple slowing down of the game, is the impact this slowdown has on the player, particularly the regular Blackjack player. The UK is relatively unusual in that a very high proportion of the table play is from extremely regular players - when you have 140+ casinos in a relatively small country and no “resort” casinos as such, it’s inevitable that the casino becomes more of a socialising spot for regular players, rather than a destination night out in itself. Such “3 times per week” players, who love the base Blackjack game and have worked through the side bets long enough to recognize the bankroll drain they represent, don’t particularly want the slower hand rates and general messing about caused by too many side bets in play. Anything that upsets these players – who are the core of the business in the UK – is unlikely to be worth doing just to squeeze a few more pounds out of transient weekend players.
The solution is of course keeping the minimums right on the side bets. To take it to extremes, as a number of sites do, keeping the minimums the same as the base bets minimums will keep the number of side bets low, while keeping the total stake respectable (assuming players accept this). Obviously the local competitive situation will be a factor, but certainly having a £5 table, for example, with a £1 side bet is likely to be counterproductive.
As always in these types of situation, analysis is key. While in years gone by there was a fair amount of estimation and occasionally laborious CCTV analysis used to determine sidebet participation, these days things are much more sophisticated. Any progressive sidebet by its nature will be trackable, but now standard side bets can be tracked with simple sensors, leading to a much more comprehensive dataset which can be used to adjust what sidebets are most profitable on which tables. This is something that Galaxy have developed for their clients, and Barnett told us “we are finding that clients really value the ability to track each individual sidebet on each table. This is helping them mix and match bets to the gaming areas in which they’ll be most effective”.
Completely new games are, however, a different matter altogether. We are all familiar with the very limited number of huge success stories in the industry – Three Card Poker is the rock star in this regard, although nothing else has had quite the impact. Blackjack Switch, Crazy Four Poker and newcomer High Card Flush are notable growers, but the ratio of success stories to failures is extraordinarily low.
Anyone who’s been in the industry a while has been approached by a colleague with “the best game idea for a century” and frankly in my experience they tend to be a bit underwhelming. Any successful game has, in my opinion, to have a combination of three things:
1) The casual player has to be able to understand at least one of the bets within 1 minute – and as casino people, that translates to 20 seconds in our cases (with more experience and focus on learning).
2) Beyond that, the game has to have some intrigue and depth, to keep a player interested after half an hour of playing.
3) Ideally the game needs more than one “reveal”. Three Card Poker has two – seeing your own hand and that of the dealer. Blackjack has multiple – initial deal and every card thereafter. Even Roulette has the fun of watching the ball bounce around.
The truth is for all the games that are invented by passionate entrepreneurs from inside andd outside the gaming industry, while nobody wants to cede control of their baby to a distributor, the costs of protecting the game and convincing someone to trial it in a friendly legal environment mean many games die before they ever make it to the public. Passing it along to a specialist and giving up a good percentage of the future earnings is often the only way to have a realistic chance to have the game see the light of day.
Having said that, find me a game that ticks all of those three criteria, with a snappy name (and please, please not “it’s a cross between x and y” – I’ve heard that a million times) and you’ve a chance to make it work.