'Hand cards' might get confusing, since players have hands of Hand cards... Maybe 'Poker Hand cards' or something? Maybe it's not a concern.
I'd call the "Black active player token" something else- "The Button" or the "Active Player Button"
If there are less than 6 players you set aside 1 gambler and remove the rest from the game... why not always have 6 Gamblers playing? Or just the same number as players? What does the set aside Gambler do for the game? I assume it's so people can't be sure who has which gambler. If that's the case I'd still recommend using all 6... This ties in with another comment I will be making later.
"Deal out 30 poker chips..." Just say 'place 30 poker chips on each gambler mat'
Maybe call the "active player" the "Dealer"? That would make the button the Dealer Button, which I believe it's called in real life.
Just out of curiosity, where does the number 8 for number of rounds come from?
Round order: "A bonus round", not "The bonus round"
I'm not sure I like choosing a gambler. I don't see a good reason for it... if you have a good hand would you want to pick 'your' gambler, and if you have a bad hand would you pick another? would there be a good reason to pick one over another? Perhaps the gamblers should be dealt out randomly each turn (not the Secret Gamblers- those are set at the beginning of the game). If there are more Gamblers than players, some players will get dealt 2 Gamblers, and would play for both that hand. This goes hand in hand with the possibility of there always being 6 Gamblers for each pot.
Since the Dealer Button rotates and there is a set number of rounds it should even out as far as who plays 2 gamblers and how often. I would maybe set the number of rounds to 2x#players or something. I suppose it could be a set number of rounds depending on the number of players whic would keep the number more consistant... Like 8 rounds for 2 or 4 player, 9 for 3 players, 10 for 5 players, and 12 for 6 players (trying to keep # of start player instances the same for each player).
Definition of Checking- just say "Pass the bet to the next player"
Bet- first off, there's a typ-o ("If not bet has yet..."). Second, as mentioned previously by Random_Person and seconded by myself, perhaps the bet shoudl also require a VP bet. Rather than simply betting 1 chip, allow players to bet as many as they like, at the cost of 1VP per chip, or per 3 Chips (and have each pleyer begin the game with 10 VP)...
If people have to pay VPs to bet, that does a couple of things- it keeps peopls from gaining by tanking, it forces people to try and win VPs throughout the game (so they can afford to bet), and it adds a sort of resource management aspect to the game. You need to spend VPs to get more, so you have to figure out the best way to do that.
You say "After a bet has been made players have basically three options:" then go on to define 4. Strike that whole line, it's unnecessary. Just define Call as "Matching the current bet" and Raise as "Matching the bet and then increasing it."
Raise action: when raising the bet you get to play an upgrade card, correct? This raise should cost VPs just like betting. Maybe the upgrade should cost 1vp to play or something too..?
All In: could maybe be re-worded. The All In should cost VPs same as calling, 1vp per X chips that you actually are putting in (not how many they would have to to fully match the bet).
Your 'Max bet/raise 1 chip' and twice around betting is interesting, might keep the game moving and make it less similar to just playing poker. maybe that's the way to go... the above suggestions still apply. (although, twice around betting sounds sorta arbitrary)
Upgrade Chart: Do pairs have a Suit? Or do you mean Value/Rank?
Winning a hand: I imagine you mean in the case of a tie, the TIED player closest to the dealer's left wins the hand... not just the player left of the dealer.
As for points- as Random_Player suggested there could be a Point pot as wella s a cash pot- winning Gambler gets the cash, winning Player gets the points... OR there could be a set number of points won for winning. I think paying to bet replaces penalties for losing.
End of round stuff:
Do you like the players having the option of keeping their Hand cards or ditching them for more? I think it might be better to have to keep them, getting the cards played replaced each round. If you don't like your hand, you can always 'upgrade' to get cards out of your hand... :)
"After scoring, players retrieve any Bluff cards they played and the dealer button is passed to the left. The new dealer shuffles the Hand card discards intot he Hand deck and deals replacement cards to bring everybody's hand to 4."... something like that.
Have you considered there simply being several Bluff cards in the deck, rather than each player always having 1? Also, is it necessary to reshuffle each round? Why not have each player replace their spent cards from the deck at the end of each round, and reshuffle the discards when the draw pile runs out. This allows 'card counting' which you may or may not want. It's almost like you might want it, because that's a big part of playing cards.
Bonus Scoring:
There was a lot of discusison of the Guess the Traitor mechanic in Jeff's game. Similarly, is this really an important part of your game? Is it really necessary to figure out who is who? Doesn't doing so already give you some semblance of game advantage without having to score for it?
Scoring by Gambler Ranking. I had assumed the scoring would be related to the size of the Gambler's purse, but I like your idea better. I think the Bankrupt token works in nicely that way. Minor comment, normally if there's a 3-way tie for 2nd, then there is no 3rd or 4th place. But that could go either way in my opinion- go ahead and give the last place guy an extra 2 points! :)
An interesting idea, kind of a twist on poker. In general, it's probably more fun to just play poker, but for people who don't want to play for money poker is either not an option, or stupid because when playing for nothing people don't play 'right' because they have nothing to lose. I think your game might be a fun way to remedy that, and give people who don't want to play poker for money something to do which might provide a similar experience.
- Seth
VP and gambler chips are different. VPs are scored by players winning poker hands, correctly guessing the other players' secret gamblers and based upon the ranking of their secret gamblers at the end of the game (determined by how many chips each secret gambler has). And obviously I want to penalize players for losing hands, based upon the severity of the loss.
The chips are used by the players to bet with each round. The players have access to the gambler's stock that they control that turn.
The most VP points obviously.
Yes essentially, players score points for winning poker hands and gamblers earn chips for winning hands. For the time being, I'd rather not have the players 'spend' VPs for anything. I'd rather just penalize them for losing based upon the severity of the loss.
Currently I have it so you earn bonus VP's based upon your gamblers 'ranking' at the end of the game. Ranking is determined by the # of chips the gambler ends the game with and how many bankrupt tokens they have.
I'll go read the rest of the rules now and see if anything hits me.