Chase the Flush

Here is my second entry on the August barrage of field trial games in Vegas -- Chase the Flush. It is on field trial at the Luxor as well as the Fantasy Springs near Palm Springs.

The game follows an Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em like structure but based on High Card Flush scoring. The good news -- a low element of risk of 0.67% only! The bad news -- nobody has quantified a strategy for it yet. The analysis, which I quote, is by Stephen How, who did it by brute force.

I played it for about an hour yesterday. There were three players at the table when I arrived and same three were there when I left. All seemed to enjoy it and one was very helpful in explaining it to me. Most of the time I wasn't sure what the odds favored doing. This makes it an engaging game but I'm sure at the cost of losing a lot to mistakes. It has a nice slow pace of play, which results in losing less.

So please click the link above and let me know what you think. As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

The question for the poll is would you play Chase the Flush?

WHEN are the 2020 Olympics?

So just to clarify the player does not have to make the all in bet, he can check it all the way.Unlike in Ultimate where if you don't make a 1x bet you are folding?

Quote: Hunterhill

So just to clarify the player does not have to make the all in bet, he can check it all the way.Unlike in Ultimate where if you don't make a 1x bet you are folding?

Good catch, thank you. My explanation of the rules was wrong. Much like in Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em, at the last decision point the player must bet 1x or fold.

Never heard or saw that kind of game. Is there any casino the offer that kind of game. it will be good addition to their card games.

Interesting how they tried to steal High Card Flush from Galaxy Gaming and got their butt handed to them in court.

Then tried to copy High Card Flush with Flush Rush, which seems to have died an early death.

Now copying UTH and High Card Flush in the same game.

I think this version has a better shot at making it then Flush Rush, but it's an uphill battle when you're not bringing fresh concepts to the table. I'm sure it will get a few dozen installs. I don't see it being a 100 install game though.


ZCore13

I voted "Yes."
This is HCF with an Ultimate Texas Hold 'em betting structure, quite a combo. Looks real interesting to play.
I don't like going in without a strategy, so I propose, as a strategy, a really loose ballpark method here:
1. Raise 3x with holding two suited to a Queen+, or three suited
2. Raise 2x after two card flop, if holding Ace-high two to a flush (Ace in hand) or a three-card or better flush.
3. Call 1x with 10-x-x or better of a suit.

What a coincidence, I was just developing my own strategy. Here it is:

1. At the first decision point raise with any three suited or Q-9 suited or better with two suited. If close to Q-9, consider the singleton, the higher in rank the better.
2. At the second decision point, raise with any three suited cards.
3. The third decision point is tough. 68.6% of the time you will raise at this point. If forced, I would raise with any three suited or two strong suited pairs.

Pretty similar to your strategy. Great minds think alike. I think we differ the most on the last decision point, where I would raise more than you.

If anybody is looking to break new ground in the area of casino game analysis, here is your chance. Create a better strategy and prove its value via a simulation.

Quote: Wizard

If anybody is looking to break new ground in the area of casino game analysis, here is your chance. Create a better strategy and prove its value via a simulation.

Charles "Charlie Ray" Mousseau better chime in on this......

Quote: Paigowdan

Charles "Charlie Ray" Mousseau better chime in on this......

I would welcome his contribution but wouldn't begrudge him if he said he has nothing to do with it. Maybe zccore13 or ThatDonGuy will rise to the challenge.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Paigowdan

Charles "Charlie Ray" Mousseau better chime in on this......

I would welcome his contribution but wouldn't begrudge him if he said he has nothing to do with it. Maybe zccore13 or ThatDonGuy will rise to the challenge.

Neither would I begrudge him, and he's a busy man. We ourselves gave a good starting blurb on what a rack card strategy should be for this game. Is it perfect? Is it optimal? No, perhaps not.

But CRM did the math on a sea of great commercial games; I think it would be good for WOV to have a few pro's chime in on what makes for a good streamlined rack card strategy, something that's perfect and needed for any players new to the game, - and from their experienced eye. They've been in the trenches on this, and it is missing and needed.

I logged on to WOV and seen this thread. I don't have time to read everything and click the link. Is there is a +EV situation or not? If not I'll move on, if so I'll go back and look. I don't care about a game that can't be AP'ed.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Paigowdan

Charles "Charlie Ray" Mousseau better chime in on this......

I would welcome his contribution but wouldn't begrudge him if he said he has nothing to do with it. Maybe zccore13 or ThatDonGuy will rise to the challenge.

Not in my skillset. I can adjust some math after it's been done to suit the needs of my players, but I can't do math from square one.

ZCore13

Quote: The Wolf

I logged on to WOV and seen this thread. I don't have time to read everything and click the link. Is there is a +EV situation or not? If not I'll move on, if so I'll go back and look. I don't care about a game that can't be AP'ed.

There's no ability to count it down as a single-round per shuffle game, and with three cards per player, even less collusion chances than with regular HCF.

You won't be interested in this gambling. Keep moving, nothing to see here folks, if an AP.

Played this game to death 10:30PM to 1AM at the Luxor. Bought in for $260, left with a thousand, a good night.

1. The two card suited "Q-x + / Q-9+ strategy" works, won a number of final hands with that start; on occasion a high 3rd kicker card got me the win with the board. Just about all 3-card starting flushes won.
2. Different than HCF, you've got to play strategy and then fish out your hand with the board versus the dealer, a bit more work than 7-card private hands.
3. Hit a Royal, which counted as a 5-card straight flush. Had Qc-10c-Kd and raised 3x, then the two-card flop was Ac-Jc. The Kc was the 4rd board card.
4. It was just me and my wife at 11PM, then it filled up at 11:45 and it stayed that way until I left, all spots filled.

Quote: AxelWolf

I don't care about a game that can't be AP'ed.

The game may be vulnerable to collusion.

I have developed an (unpublished) strategy for High Card Flush that is better than any of the published strategies. I also found, during my analyses, that Mousseau and the Wiz had made an error in their HCF analyses relating to how to treat those situations in which the dealer has a 3-3-1-0 suit distribution.

I've started taking a look at Chase the Flush and will let you guys know.

Quote: gordonm888

I have developed an (unpublished) strategy for High Card Flush that is better than any of the published strategies.

We would be curious to see your better HCF strategy. The T-8-6 suited-three strategy by Charles Mousseau seems to be verified by Mike Shackleford, and I would say these two men are very reliable mathematicians.

Quote: gordon888

I also found, during my analyses, that Mousseau and the Wiz had made an error in their HCF analyses relating to how to treat those situations in which the dealer has a 3-3-1-0 suit distribution.

The dealer's hand is closed and unknown until the player finishes all his strategy decisions, so it would be impossible to have a strategy based on dealer distribution. On a full table filled with 5 colluders, 17 cards are still out, true, and it wouldn't be very definitive. It would also be quite a busy auction to convey all this info, an "Ocean's 14" maneuver to pull off.

On Chase The Flush with three hole cards per player, a full table of 6 players would leave 34 cards unknown at the 3x raise point, and 30 cards unknown at the call-or-fold point. I would say it is next to impossible to collude on CTF in the real world.

Quote: gordon888

I've started taking a look at Chase the Flush and will let you guys know.

This would be great, curious to see a solid strategy for CTF.

Quote: gordonm888

I've started taking a look at Chase the Flush and will let you guys know.

I look forward to it.

Quote: Wizard

The game may be vulnerable to collusion.

Please, think of Dan's health. Just kidding!!!

Quote: Boz

Please, think of Dan's health. Just kidding!!!

Of course you kid.
I couldn't care less about the AP vulnerability of a game designed by someone who didn't do their homework, and with collusion, you got four or five fools wasting their time and looking for trouble. I also have little sympathy for the Table Game manager and the designer if they didn't check and review this.

Both an AP report and a strategy determination should be done for any new game by its game designer or distributor, and I'm confident CTF isn't particularly vulnerable. Mike will tell us the poop on CTF soon enough, I believe.

Quote: Paigowdan

Mike will tell us the poop on CTF soon enough, I believe.

I will hit that ball to Eliot and Stephen How. My educated opinion is that a table full of colluders, perfectly sharing and using the information, could probably overcome the house edge. However, I would file it in the very full folder of games with a theoretical vulnerability but are very difficult to exploit and for a thin reward.

Quote: Wizard

I will hit that ball to Eliot and Stephen How. My educated opinion is that a table full of colluders, perfectly sharing and using the information, could probably overcome the house edge. However, I would file it in the very full folder of games with a theoretical vulnerability but are very difficult to exploit and for a thin reward.

Good point. AP play has to be real-world based for real money, and as discreet as possible.
1. I can't picture five guys saying "Let's all get together and risk money just to break even, using monstrously complex signaling, and stand out like a sore thumb to surveillance."
2. High Card Flush I can see as a tricky collusion play with seven cards per player; that, as is, is a bit much of a real-world challenge. CTF with three cards per player I would think is de facto impossible.
Curious to see what the gurus say.

No one is wasting their time colluding these games when there are way more and better opportunities out there.

On first look, I would agree with Zcore & PGD, this is AGS's best version of a Flush based game.

But I wonder if the attraction and growth of HCF is the simplicity of the Ante/Play 3 CP betting mechanism combined with the increased pool of possible results due to 7 cards being used vs. three cards in 3CP.

I look at HCF as targeted at 3CP players...and Chase the Flush is a more challenging multi-stage/multi decision game like UTH.

I query who the target player group is for Chase the Flush? The 3CP crowd will go more towards HCF with its single decision. I don't see the UTH/Texas Hold'em crowd wanting to "dumb" down their Poker game play to only count Flush hands. So who picks up this as their go to game vs. the other poker offerings out there (Crazy 4/MS Stud/LIR/PGP)?

Quote: Paigowdan

Played this game to death 10:30PM to 1AM at the Luxor. Bought in for $260, left with a thousand, a good night.

Dan, would you play Chase The Flush vs. UTH or Heads Up Hold'em? I guess the question is a bit unfair because I doubt you would play HCF over Pai Gow Poker (I put those together because you get your 7 card hand packets all at once in both games).

Quote: Paigowdan

The dealer's hand is closed and unknown until the player finishes all his strategy decisions, so it would be impossible to have a strategy based on dealer distribution. On a full table filled with 5 colluders, 17 cards are still out, true, and it wouldn't be very definitive. It would also be quite a busy auction to convey all this info, an "Ocean's 14" maneuver to pull off.

The better basic strategy for High Card Flush that I developed was based on taking into account the ranks and flush distribution of the other (non-flush) cards in the the players 7-card hand when holding a hand with a s-card flush. To illustrate with some extreme examples: Given that you have a 3-card Q-High Flush:
- If the other 4 off-suit cards in your hand are all Aces and Kings, it significantly reduces the chances that the dealer's 3-card flush will be higher than your own.
- If the other 4 off-suit cards in your hand are all 2-8, then it reduces the probability of the dealer not qualifying.
- the worst ranks to have in your off-suit cards (when holding a Q-High 3-card flush) are 9-J -these reduce the chance of the dealer having a qualifying 3-card flush that your Q-High can beat and also increase the odds that the dealer will not qualify.
I found that those kind of considerations affect the HIT/Fold decision for certain specific 3-card Q-High flush holdings.

I also took a look at collusion strategies for HCF but only based on the player peeking at one or two other hands at the table and utilizing the observed information on high cards vs low cards in those hands ("High vs low rank" info seemed to be more important than suit distribution info when only viewing 1-2 hands.) However, I found that I was not able to overcome the HCF house edge with that level of collusion information.

Quote: Paradigm

On first look, I would agree with Zcore & PGD, this is AGS's best version of a Flush based game.

But I wonder if the attraction and growth of HCF is the simplicity of the Ante/Play 3 CP betting mechanism combined with the increased pool of possible results due to 7 cards being used vs. three cards in 3CP.

I look at HCF as targeted at 3CP players...and Chase the Flush is a more challenging multi-stage/multi decision game like UTH.

I query who the target player group is for Chase the Flush? The 3CP crowd will go more towards HCF with its single decision. I don't see the UTH/Texas Hold'em crowd wanting to "dumb" down their Poker game play to only count Flush hands. So who picks up this as their go to game vs. the other poker offerings out there (Crazy 4/MS Stud/LIR/PGP)?


Dan, would you play Chase The Flush vs. UTH or Heads Up Hold'em? I guess the question is a bit unfair because I doubt you would play HCF over Pai Gow Poker (I put those together because you get your 7 card hand packets all at once in both games).

Not true - I love new and interesting games (Chase the Flush, yes, Color War, NO)....
As mentioned, I had a good two to three hour session on Chase The Flush at the Luxor, hit a Royal (for a $500 SF), and found the game both fascinating and challenging in a way that HCF simply is not. It is like "Professional High Card Flush," for lack of a better description. Like comparing Ultimate Texas Hold 'em to Three Card Poker, I loved it. But it is for the more serious thinking gambler....the HCF player ready to move up, or the astute playing public should take to this game well.

1. A good basic strategy must be followed to play: at the hole cards, hope for a two-suited or one suited hand, not a rainbow hole card hand. Raise 3x Q-9 with a jack+ kicker, any K-x/A-x suited, or a flush hole card set, else check. Hands like Ks-4s-Ah are super raise hands.

2. If checked, then on the flop Raise 2x holding three to a flush where you have two to it, or a face card+, a "top touch" to a three-flush. Also raise 2x if having two 2-card flushes holding a face card to each of the two 2-card flushes. Also 2x raise if hole cards plus flop is 100% two suits.

3. Call 1x if having a three card suit touching your hand if your hand holds a ten or higher. I disagree with Mike where it is not enough to just have three of a suit to call, you need strong holdings to the three (a ten+ in your hand, or holding two of the suit.) The call decision gets trounced if holding one low card to three of a suit or two cards. Fold with three suited on the board if not touching it, holding a lesser straight, as with three cards the dealer will probably touch it and the best you can do otherwise is push.

The board's composition is important (rainbow, two suited, three suited, overcards, etc.) and affects strategy, but if overly considered, makes for an awkward/impossibly difficult strategy and won't give that much more when you seek to get going on CTF. Looking at your hand's support to any flush is more important in play, and simplifies things for the gambler playing it. I feel this three-step strategy should be on the rack card: you want the playing public to play your game fairly well - to support it.

I have started analyzing Chase the Flush (CTF) and I am finding it is extremely challenging - In the early going I have found it to be far more challenging than any game I have ever analyzed (including Pai Gow Poker, MS Stud).

In my discussion of CTF, I will refer to the FLOP (1st 2 cards on the board) and the RIVER (2nd pair of cards on the board).

The mathematics and framework for analyzing CTF is very different than High Card Flush because:
- there are four COMMON cards between the dealer's and players' hands -so the probabilities for the dealers hand cannot be rigorously calculated without specififying the ranks and suits of the four cards on the board.
- the X-TRA Bonus BET is entangled with the outcome of the ANTE/All-IN bets, because the X-TRA Bonus does NOT pay-out according to the Pay Table when the player's hand ties or loses to the dealer's Hand. There are times when the player may have a 4,5,6 or even 7 card flush and not get the payout because of a higehr dealer card. (I can see that Steve Howe calculates this correctly.)
- there are 3 decision points -the 1st and 3rd appear to be the most critical. Rigrorusly calculating the correct basic strategy for the 3rd decision - after the river - is extremely difficult because when the player has a 3-card flush hand, the correct river decision will depend not only on the strength of the 3-card flush, but on the ranks and suits of the other 4-cards (and on which cards are on the board vs in the players hand.) Without a rigorous river decision strategy, it is problematic whether a rigorous strategy for the first decision can be calculated.

Let me illustrate, again with some extreme hands to illustrate the point. If I specified that that the player holds a 7-card hand with two 3-card flushes, one is AKQ-suited and the other is AT8 suited, I suspect that most people would automatically say that this hand should be bet on the river rather than folded. But that's not always optimum.

Problem 1
You are dealt T-8 spades and 9 hearts. You check. The Flop is K-c, Q-c. You check. The River is A-h, A-c. What do you do?

Answer
You will never win this hand because the dealer also has an AKQ of clubs. The best you can do is tie, which pushes.

You will lose this hand whenever the dealer's 3-card hand contains one club (giving delaer a 4-card club straight) or is exactly 3 spades (giving dealer a 4 card spade straight. Your hand is AKQ of clubs, AT8 of spades and a 9 of hearts. Despite this, it is optimum to fold this hand (abandoning the ante bet) rather than bet one more unit for a showdown with the dealer.

The 4 common cards are: AKQ of clubs and A of spades.

If you Fold on the river, you forfeit you Ante BET for an EV = -1.0
If you BET on the River, you never win. You TIE only 45.53% of time -that's the probability that the dealers hand does NOT have 1 or more clubs and also does NOT contain 3 spades. The EV for BETTING one unit on the river is EV= -1.089.

Problem 2

You are dealt: 3,2 of spades and a 3 of hearts. You have checked twice and the board has come rainbow, but 4 high cards: A-d K-c, A-h, K-s

You have made a King-high 3-card flush: K-3-2 spades. What do you do?

Answer
You should Fold. You will never win. You are beaten anytime that the dealer's 3 cards contain 2 or more spades, hearts, clubs or diamonds (except for those trivial instances when the dealer's hand has exactly a 2,3 of diamonds or clubs - which would result in a tie.) On the rest of the possible dealer's hands, the dealer will fail to qualify, resulting in a PUSH. The EV for folding is -1, the EV for Betting 1 unit on the river is approximately -1.2.

So, as I hope you can see, this game has a few subleties.

Yes, it does indeed.
What often tricks people is a false sense of strength from the board in this game; any three-card flush where you're holding a low singleton to it is typically, if not impossibly weak: Board has Ah-Kh-7s-7d. You hold 2d-2h-4s. Your three-card Ace-high flush (AK2) is really a 2-high three-card flush, and with the dealer's three cards to be revealed, - odds on the dealer has a heart to cream you, even with the 7s-7d weak for him. The board is even worse for the player if it is something like Ah-Kh-As-Ks, as any spade or heart higher than a 2 for the dealer is death to the player's hand. You really need a rank (face-high) card or two to the flush to be in a good position.

To consider a hand "reasonably and hopefully made" in the game is a Q-x-x suited or better; this is why my short strategy says Q-x-j-kicker+. You need to hold flushes headed by either a face card, or two to it, to be in a reasonable position. Think of it as a strong touch to the board. Sneaking that into a simple strategy is key, without a forming a treatise on over-cards to consider, in order to play well on CTF off the bat.

Most games can produce a rack card strategy with a few simple steps that can get a player up and running on a new game and play reasonably well; but a few games cannot be made easy to play.

I have just noticed some very strange aspects of a rule in Chase the Flush. I need some help from Mike with clarification.

"14. If the player and dealer tie, then the Ante*, All In, and X-Tra Bonus bets shall all push."

Now, according to the Pay-out table for the X-TRA Bonus bet, the player loses the X-TRA Bonus Bet when the player's longest flush is 3 cards or less.

However, according to the rule, in the singular case when the player's 3-card flush is identical to the dealer's (qualifying) 3-card flush, then the player not only pushes on the Ante and All In Bets, but also pushes on the X-TRA Bonus Bet! That is weird but my casual inspection of Steve Howe's table seems to bear this out -the X-TRA Bonus Bet appears to push whenever a TIE occurs on a qualifying 3-card flush.

But, now, let's go down the Rabbit Hole. Another rule says:

"11. If the dealer does not qualify, then the Ante bet pushes."

This rule allows the X-TRA Bonus Bet to be paid off when a player has a flush that is 4-7 cards long even though the dealer's hand did not qualify. But what happens to the Bonus X-TRA Bet when the dealer's hand does not qualify but is still identical to the Players hand? A straight-forward reading of the rules seems to indicate that the Bonus X-TRA bet should PUSH
- when the dealer's and player's longest flush is 3-cards, 8-high or lower, and the dealer and player have identical 3-card flush hands
- more improbably, if the dealer's longest flush is 2 cards, say A-Q, and the player's longest flush is also 2 cards of the same rank, i.e., A-Q, and of a different suit.

Somehow, I don't believe that the intent of the CTF rules is to return (PUSH) the X-TRA Bonus bet when the both the player and dealer have a longest flush of 2 cards and the two cards are identical, resulting in a TIE. Could the Wiz or someone else assist me with a clarification of these rules?

I played this game at the Luxor.

The Ante+Xtra Bonus performs similarly to ANTE=Blind;

1. If the dealer fails to qualify, only the ANTE bet pushes, and is returned to the player. ALL other bets remain in action to win or lose. For example, if you have a two-card flush AK, and the dealer a two-card flush of A-10, you get paid on the All-in (raise) bet, and the Xtra bet pushes. If the Dealer has AK and you have A-10, the All-in bet and the Xtra bet lose.

2. The Xtra bet wins on a players win of four or more cards, regardless of the dealer qualifying. AGS' rack card states this. The Xtra bet pushes on a tie, and loses on a loss in all cases.

So:

Quote: G888

But what happens to the Bonus X-TRA Bet when the dealer's hand does not qualify but is still identical to the Players hand?

It pushes. If the dealer did not qualify and you tied him, then you have less than a four card bonus on the Xtra bet in any case.
Example: You have AQ suited, and the dealer has AQ suited. ANTE is returned and the All-in and Xtra bet push on the tie.

Quote: Paigowdan

I played this game at the Luxor.

The Ante+Xtra Bonus performs similarly to ANTE=Blind;

1. If the dealer fails to qualify, only the ANTE bet pushes, and is returned to the player. ALL other bets remain in action to win or lose. For example, if you have a two-card flush AK, and the dealer a two-card flush of A-10, you get paid on the All-in (raise) bet, and the Xtra bet pushes. If the Dealer has AK and you have A-10, the All-in bet and the Xtra bet lose.

2. The Xtra bet wins on a players win of four or more cards, regardless of the dealer qualifying. AGS' rack card states this. The Xtra bet pushes on a tie, and loses on a loss in all cases.

So:

It pushes. If the dealer did not qualify and you tied him, then you have less than a four card bonus on the Xtra bet in any case.
Example: You have AQ suited, and the dealer has AQ suited. ANTE is returned and the All-in and Xtra bet push on the tie.

Dan, thank you very much for this info. This is indeed the way the rules read, but it is an odd feature. From a practical point of view, I suspect that there actually wouldn't be any TIEs between 2-card flushes in optimal strategy. If the players suit distribution is a raggedy 2-2-2-1, then optimal strategy will be to FOLD the hand at Decision Point #3 and not go to showdown with the dealer.

Quote: Paigowdan

The Xtra bet wins on a players win of four or more cards, regardless of the dealer qualifying. AGS' rack card states this. The Xtra bet pushes on a tie, and loses on a loss in all cases.

This is correct. My rules previously incorrectly implied a player win with two cards would be a loss. It would be a push, contrary to what the dealer told me.

Quote: gordonm888

Somehow, I don't believe that the intent of the CTF rules is to return (PUSH) the X-TRA Bonus bet when the both the player and dealer have a longest flush of 2 cards and the two cards are identical, resulting in a TIE. Could the Wiz or someone else assist me with a clarification of these rules?

I think that is the intent and the rule. A player and dealer tie will result in a push of the X-TRA bonus as well as the All In bet.

Quote: Wizard

I think that is the intent and the rule. A player and dealer tie will result in a push of the X-TRA bonus as well as the All In bet.

Yes. An interesting aspect of this, is that when the best hand is on the board then the X-TRA Bonus Bet does not pay-off.

For example, if the FLOP and RIVER comes 4 cards of the same suit, and the player does not have a fifth card of that suit, then the player will NEVER get the XTRA Bonus Bet payout (of 1 unit) for a 4-card flush - because the Dealer's hand will always TIE or BEAT the 4-card flush that is on the board. This seems "fair" - the player's hand has done nothing to contribute to the 4-card Flush, so he has not "earned" the XTRA Bonus pay-out.

What is clear is that even though the X-TRA Bonus Bet has a Payout Table it cannot be treated as a side-bet in the game analysis - it is entangled with the gameplay decisions on whether to Check, Raise and/or Fold.

No different than the "Blind" bet on UTH. Must beat the dealer to be paid.

Quote: gordonm888

Yes. An interesting aspect of this, is that when the best hand is on the board then the X-TRA Bonus Bet does not pay-off.

That happened while I was playing. I had no fifth card to the flush so was hoping the dealer didn't either. Fortunately, he didn't so the hand was a push. Seems fair.

Quote: Wizard

That hppened while I was playing. I had no fifth card to the flush so was hoping the dealer didn't either. Fortunately, he didn't so the hand was a push. Seems fair.

That's not even a close play as the dealer won't get a 5th card over half the time, link
Now here is a close one: You 6c,6d,6h, Board qh,8s,9s,ts link.
Use at your own risk. I checked for typoes/brainos, but you never know.

I finally get it! I am embarrassed by how dense I have been.

When the Dealer does not Qualify, the 1-unit Ante Bet becomes a push - but the 1-3 unit ALL-IN bet is still in play and is determined by comparison of the Player and Dealer hands. And, as we have been posting, the X-TRA Bonus Bet is still in play as well. So, whether the Chase the Flush dealer qualifies or not is of lesser import than it is in other games such as 3-Card Poker and High Card Flush.

If P= Win Probability (Probability of the Player winning a showdown) and Q =Probability of the Dealer Qualifying, then the Player should make an ALL-IN Bet of 1 unit on the River, rather than folding, when his Win Probability, P, exceeds a threshold value:

P > 0.5*(1-1/(1+Q))

By the way, one of my earlier posts was wrong. Steve Howe's table clearly shows that sometimes a 2-card Flush hand should be bet on the River - and wins. I agree with that.

2-Card Flush Example
If the Player is dealt a hand with a suit distribution 1-1-1-0, and the four cards on the board come up rainbow -that is, 1-1-1-1 - then the players hand is 2-2-2-1. Without knowing the ranks of any of the cards, the Dealer will not qualify about 46% of the time with this specific deal, which means that the player's Win Percentage must be >17.5% to make the all-in bet. With the given suit distributions: 1-1-1-1 on the board, and 1-1-1-0 in the players hand, the dealer's longest flush will be only 2 cards with a frequency of about 40% -so the cards in the players hand must be sufficiently high so as to win a showdown with a dealer's 2-card flush hand about 45% of the time. I think you could achieve that simply by having at least one A or K in your 3-card hand. (but this needs to be calculated.)

The key point is that when the Board is rainbow -4 different suits -it makes it much less likely that either you and the dealer will have long flushes. In this example, the dealer will be limited to a 2-card flush with a frequency of 40%! That's an incredible, unexpected number -and it leads to some surprising strategy moves.

The ability of the player to see the ranks of the cards (on the board and in the player's hand) changes the math somewhat. The dealer will qualify even less often when 2 or more cards in the player's hand are 9 or higher, and/or when 3 or all four of the face-up cards are 8 or lower - which would lower the threshold for how high ranking your cards need to be so as to make the ALL_IN bet have a positive EV in this situation.

So, there is lots to calculate and understand. But this discussion should indicate the types of things that will determine optimum strategy for CTF - the ranks and suit distribution of both the 4-card board and of the player's hand will sometimes need to be considered - not just calculating a "threshold 3-card flush" such as Q-9-X as we do in High Card Flush.

Just a thought, but just reading this discussion of the game makes it highly unlikely I would ever play this game. I understand you guys are trying to figure out exact strategy, but even if I am willing to play a game like this to relax, this seems too complicated. My idea of a good carnival game is that it is simple to play almost perfect strategy without too much effort. This game seems to not be designed that way.

But I may be in the minority as it is obvious most players don't care about perfect strategy. Give them the chance for a big hit and they will play.

Quote: Boz

Just a thought, but just reading this discussion of the game makes it highly unlikely I would ever play this game. I understand you guys are trying to figure out exact strategy, but even if I am willing to play a game like this to relax, this seems too complicated. My idea of a good carnival game is that it is simple to play almost perfect strategy without too much effort. This game seems to not be designed that way.

But I may be in the minority as it is obvious most players don't care about perfect strategy. Give them the chance for a big hit and they will play.

In the old days, when people were trying to figure Blackjack strategy and Texas Hold'em, strategy, it probably sounded this complicated.

My windy post above probably boils down to: If your longest flush is 2 cards, K-high or higher, then make the All-IN Bet (do not fold) if the board is showing all four suits.

Quote: Boz

Just a thought, but just reading this discussion of the game makes it highly unlikely I would ever play this game. I understand you guys are trying to figure out exact strategy, but even if I am willing to play a game like this to relax, this seems too complicated. My idea of a good carnival game is that it is simple to play almost perfect strategy without too much effort. This game seems to not be designed that way.

I generally say that too. However, the crowd here is not the average crowd of ploppies. I could list some negatives about the game but I still feel it is the best field trial game I've seen for while.

Has anyone figured out what the house advantage is? I realize that we don't have a "perfect" strategy yet, but it seems to me that the inventor(s) of the game must have one, and even with that strategy, the game must be negative for the player--the casinos aren't about to put any games out there, ever again, that can be "solved" to the point where the player has an advantage.

If I had to make a guess at the numbers, I'd say -2.4% with perfect play, and more like -3.5% with average play. This would be in line with all the other 53,000 poker-based carny table games. The side bet nearest the dealer--I forget what it's called--probably has an 8% house advantage or more.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Has anyone figured out what the house advantage is

The answer to that question is in my analysis of the game.

You can't really base the quality of a game, field trial or chance of succeeding based on the crowd at this forum. This forum is not representative of the gambling public. It is actually probably about 1% or less of the public if you want to try and put a number to it.

The reason, or some of the reasons, High Card Flush has been successful and continues to grow is:

Simplicity - A dealer can explain the game to a new player and even an intoxiacted new player, in about 15 seconds. This also includes teaching the game to a female, whO in general, shy away from more complex strategy games and games where their decisions can (allegedly) affect other players at the table.

Controlling the reveal - In High Card Flush players get to hold all their cards and reveal them to themselves in the manner they like. Some like to squeeze them and reveal one by one, while others may want to fan them and sort them. This method makes it fun for a wide range of people.

Near misses - This is a HUGE factor in the games rise. With 7 cards and chances to make flushes and straight flushes, a very high percentage of hands are almost really good hands. Slot manufacturers have actually gotten in trouble for creating this feeling during slot play, always having a winning combo be off the paying by a hair on the last reel. This near miss feeling happens naturally in High Card Flush.

Ease of playing optimal or near optimal strategy - If players can buthCher a game, they will. Maybe not the very small minority here, but a large majority of average gamblers will. The ease of Three Card Poker with the Q/6/4 or evendors just playing Q/x/x, is similar to High Card Flush. You really can't damage yourself too badly, which results in longer play with your money as compared to playing well below optimal in some games.

It's not easy or very often you find these qualities in a game. I would compare Chase the Flush much more with UTH than High Card Flush because of the betting structure. The reason UTH is so popular is because it's the closest thing to real poker on the market. Poker players play it. Non poker playing females shy away from it because of this structure. I think it will be the same for Chase the Flush.

ZCore13

Quote: Wizard

The answer to that question is in my analysis of the game.

Right, but was that calculated based on an "optimal" strategy that has since been improved upon? I see various and sundry posts on this thread that suggest that the strategy is quite complicated. (I think people were hoping that a refinement of the strategy could negate the house edge.)

Again, I would be suspicious if a preliminary analysis indicated a house percentage as low as that which you report in your analysis. A game with a house EV that low would never sell.

For what it's worth (probably nothing), the demo game, in ten minutes, dealt me three four of a kinds (worthless, of course), and three one-suited hands, all of which whiffed the flop and lost (And one was KQJ of diamonds, losing to the dealer's 4-2 of spades combined with the board's 10-7.)

I think what might make this game marketable is the exciting possibility of most players playing it very badly. Assuming that the proper strategy is complex, then people will bleed out quickly at this game, as the cost of errors looks to be pretty large. People prefer to leave their brains in the glove compartment while gambling, so the chance of any random player learning/knowing the strategy is 1/10x999.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Right, but was that calculated based on an "optimal" strategy that has since been improved upon? I see various and sundry posts on this thread that suggest that the strategy is quite complicated. (I think people were hoping that a refinement of the strategy could negate the house edge.)

It was based on optimal strategy. Almost every game on my site is.

Quote:

Again, I would be suspicious if a preliminary analysis indicated a house percentage as low as that which you report in your analysis. A game with a house EV that low would never sell.

I trust Stephen How's report, which was verified by GLI. I'm sure the game owner would say player errors will add another 3% to 5% in house advantage.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Right, but was that calculated based on an "optimal" strategy that has since been improved upon? I see various and sundry posts on this thread that suggest that the strategy is quite complicated. (I think people were hoping that a refinement of the strategy could negate the house edge.)

A strong usable strategy for this game is actually three easy steps. Easier than Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, in fact. A maximum optimal strategy would be more complex, but keep in mind that a usable strategy that gets you to a percentage or two of optimal play is very fine, and it leaves a bit of more to grow into the game, - same experience as UTH, which is very popular.
Keep in mind two things:
1. The optimal play during computer simulation runs of billion of hands reveal an accurate house edge.
2. During the sim run, strategy is routinely NOT saved off for reference. The way to develop the game's strategy is to build up the game's strategy from several assumptions and test them, coming up with a short and effective strategy, or to take a very long list of strategy plays from a sim run and condense them to a short and usable strategy - both arduous and expensive, and (sadly) too often skipped.

Quite often, (usually in fact but bad to do), ALL the designer knows is the exact house edge from the sim runs without having or knowing or obtaining a written strategy for the game. Also, often skipped by the designer is the collusion effect on one-round per shuffle type games, and AP key cards on multi-round per shuffle ("shoe") games. Both are mistakes to do.

Quote: Joe

Again, I would be suspicious if a preliminary analysis indicated a house percentage as low as that which you report in your analysis. A game with a house EV that low would never sell.

Not true.
Ultimate Texas Hold 'em has an EoR (or house edge of the main bets in action) of 0.53%, slightly lower - and it sells like hotcakes with over 1,000 installs, a monster of sales.

Quote: Joe

For what it's worth (probably nothing), the demo game, in ten minutes, dealt me three four of a kinds (worthless, of course), and three one-suited hands, all of which whiffed the flop and lost (And one was KQJ of diamonds, losing to the dealer's 4-2 of spades combined with the board's 10-7.)

I think what might make this game marketable is the exciting possibility of most players playing it very badly. Assuming that the proper strategy is complex, then people will bleed out quickly at this game, as the cost of errors looks to be pretty large. People prefer to leave their brains in the glove compartment while gambling, so the chance of any random player learning/knowing the strategy is 1/10x999.

I think what would make this game marketable is providing a simple strategy for the players on the rack card, to get them started, and supplying mathematical AP reports to substantiate the game is collusion/AP resistant. Remember, you want your players playing your game well, so they can support it at casinos, and you want to substantiate to casino execs who'll install it that the game has robust game protection. Failures in one or both detract from the game's salability.

The biggest cost to a player's play is in not raising when best to do so. (Same as with UTH).

Raise 3x on hole cards with two to a king or better or three of a suit,

and 2x on the flop when having a STRONG touch to three of a suit, (a strong touch being two cards in your hand to a three-flush, or one high card in your hands to a three-flush.)

If you checked to the river, call 1x with a 10 or better to three of a suit. As a starter's strategy, this'll do a player very well. Not hard.

Quote: Paigowdan

Not true.
Ultimate Texas Hold 'em has an EoR (or house edge of the main bets in action) of 0.53%, slightly lower - and it sells like hotcakes with over 1,000 installs, a monster of sales.

Problem is, civilians do not play well enough to achieve this 0.53%. They're after the Trips or progressive bet winnings.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Problem is, civilians do not play well enough to achieve this 0.53%. They're after the Trips or progressive bet winnings.

Absolutely true, and that is all right. Play as well as you can, - but play (and they do).

It is the same with UTH, which is very popular. The thing is, using a short-and-effective strategy beats "playing while totally clueless."

And as for playing for the bonus bets, I played the bonus bet and got a royal (pays as a 5-card straight flush 100:1) Gave me some juice.