Super Hand Poker
Poll
 | 3 votes (20%) | ||
| | 4 votes (26.66%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (6.66%) | ||
| | 6 votes (40%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.66%) |
15 members have voted
I first saw this game at the last Global Gaming Expo. Then I saw it for the first time in a casino yesterday at the Red Rock. It plays like Triple Play video poker, except the player can play off of the best of three starting hands. The player is also paid based on the deal on each of these hands. As always, nothing is ever free when it comes to gambling, and the player must double his bet to 30 credits to invoke these features.
The player can expect to get more premium hands but will be grinded down faster between them with that extra 15 credits.
I'm proud to say this isn't one of those times I just copied and pasted the returns IGT gave me but analyzed it myself. Only three pay tables so far, but more are coming.
Please check out my new page on Super Hand Poker and let me know what you think. As always, I welcome questions, comments, and especially corrections.
The question for the poll is would you play Super Hand Poker, given the same return as conventional video poker?
I've been playing this game for months on videopoker.com and it's one of the better ones out there. It's very satisfying to start with the best of 3 hands; you almost never toss garbage. I would definitely play it despite the lower odds than many you show on the pay tables you've processed so far.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm not sure what the reference to "Dice Fever" is in step 1 of the basic game instructions on your page. Might be a leftover from a paste?
Thanks. Yes, copy and paste error from Dice Fever.
Quote: GWAESo if you are dealt a royal on one hand then you would get paid for 4 royals?
Yes. I've had it happen playing for fun.
And 6/5 and 7/5 Bonus deluxe? I guess 7/5 was at quarters? Ouch.
Quote: tringlomaneThe 6/5 Bonus deluxe table has a formatting error and many numbers are not in the appropriate place.
It looks fine in Chrome. Can you describe the problem in more specifics?
Quote: WizardIt looks fine in Chrome. Can you describe the problem in more specifics?
First detailed pay line looks like this in my Chrome for 83/6/5 Bonus Deluxe.
Royal flush 800 0.000002 0.000048 0.001231 Deal pays 0.001231
It affects other parts of the chart too because Four of a Kind return should be more than 1.53%.
Quote: tringlomaneFirst detailed pay line looks like this in my Chrome for 83/6/5 Bonus Deluxe.
Royal flush 800 0.000002 0.000048 0.001231 Deal pays 0.001231.
Thank you. I fixed it.
To get the top win in Super Hand Poker, one would have to get a royal flush on all three initial hands. The probability of that is 1 in 274,295,581,802,424,000.
I think there must be some rule to work around this, but I can't see mention of one in the rules. Here are links to the rule screens:
Screen 1
Screen 2
What they might do is if the player gets a royal on the deal, then it pays for all three hands, plus the three hands on the draw. However, BBB claims this happened to her at VideoPoker.com and was paid for only four royals.
Thoughts?
Just kidding !!!!!!!!
Quote: MidwestAPIf I understood BBB, she received a Royal on only ONE of the first three hands. She was paid for that hand, plus the three hands on the draw (obviously holding all her cards).
That is my interpretation of what she said too.
Given a similar return (99%-ish) as others I'd probably give it a shot or perhaps have some fun with it when I need to ear some mailers/comps. However, I would never play it at the 95%-96% level.Quote: Wizard...The question for the poll is would you play Super Hand Poker, given the same return as conventional video poker?
Quote: MidwestAPIf I understood BBB, she received a Royal on only ONE of the first three hands. She was paid for that hand, plus the three hands on the draw (obviously holding all her cards).
This is what I had. I was dismayed, as I've never had a Royal on a paying machine, and there went my one! (kidding)
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is what I had. I was dismayed, as I've never had a Royal on a paying machine, and there went my one! (kidding)
Play some 100 play. You will most likely get one on your first day.
Quote: DRichPlay some 100 play. You will most likely get one on your first day.
Yeah, that's part of what I was kidding about. I'm very fond of 100 play QQ (would play it for money if I could afford the variance) DDB, and I've had several Royals on that alone.
But the rest of the kidding was the 42K+ odds before I get another; several regulars on here have shown both sides of how that may be the chance, but that's not when it happens.
Quote: WizardThere is a law in Nevada that the top award in any game must have a probability greater than 1 in x. I'm always forgetting what x is, but it is in the realm of 1 in 25 million. MathExtremist knows the exact number, I hope he can remind us.
To get the top win in Super Hand Poker, one would have to get a royal flush on all three initial hands. The probability of that is 1 in 274,295,581,802,424,000.
Thoughts?
I thought in previous discussions that the 1 in X rule (de facto 1 in 100 million in NV) it only applied to a single line of the game, not the complete round. Otherwise ultimate X breaks the rule as well. Dealt full house followed by a dealt royal is about 1 in 451M in Ultimate X.
Quote: tringlomaneI thought in previous discussions that the 1 in X rule (de facto 1 in 100 million in NV) it only applied to a single line of the game, not the complete round. Otherwise ultimate X breaks the rule as well. Dealt full house followed by a dealt royal is about 1 in 451M in Ultimate X.
Thanks for the reminder on the 100 million. I could easily be wrong, but I thought the rule applied to all hands combined. In the case of Ultimate X, I would think the rule would be applied after considering what the multiplier is for that hand. So, a dealt royal would be the highest possible win, no matter what the multipliers were.
Quote: WizardThanks for the reminder on the 100 million. I could easily be wrong, but I thought the rule applied to all hands combined.
It looks like I was indeed wrong. I asked my guy at IGT and he gave a long answer with lots of industry jargon, but my interpretation was that each hand is considered a separate bet. There may be exceptions for games like Ace Invaders where the hands are correlated (I'm sure DRich can speak to that one).
I've since added lots more games and pay tables to my Super Hand Poker page. Each pay table requires a separate computer run and very big spreadsheet, so I hope you'll have another look. This game has been my main project the last week.
As always, I welcome comments, questions, and especially corrections.
Thank you.
I'll feel a bit silly after my 95-96% comment earlier if those good pay tables are found anywhere.
Quote: WizardIt looks like I was indeed wrong. I asked my guy at IGT and he gave a long answer with lots of industry jargon, but my interpretation was that each hand is considered a separate bet. There may be exceptions for games like Ace Invaders where the hands are correlated (I'm sure DRich can speak to that one).
In standard and multiline video poker each hand is compared and paid corresponding to the particular paytable. Games like Super Times pay where the multiplier is applied to the hand the odds of the highest hand and highest multiplier are combined. So the odds of a 10x royal would be considered the highest odds. The fact that it is three hands is irrelevant because the hands are evaluated separately.
In Ace Invaders the hands are evaluated separately also but since there was a strong correlation I added a feature that if you were dealt a Royal the Royal would drop down to each hand below. Therefore the highest jackpot odds was just getting a dealt royal on the top hand.
Quote: MoosetonThe first sentence in Triple Double Bonus Analysis should be listed as 9-6 instead of 8-5.
Thanks; good catch.
Quote:I'll feel a bit silly after my 95-96% comment earlier if those good pay tables are found anywhere.
There were found on VideoPoker.com. They also had some lousy pay table there too. Strange.
Quote: DRichIn Ace Invaders the hands are evaluated separately also but since there was a strong correlation I added a feature that if you were dealt a Royal the Royal would drop down to each hand below. Therefore the highest jackpot odds was just getting a dealt royal on the top hand.
If the hands in Ace Invaders are evaluated separately for compliance with Gaming regulations, then wouldn't the top hand not meet the 75% return rule?
ZCore13
Quote: WizardIf the hands in Ace Invaders are evaluated separately for compliance with Gaming regulations, then wouldn't the top hand not meet the 75% return rule?
They still go by the overall return based on optimum play and since you have to play the two hands below to play the top hand the overall return meets the payback percentage. Basically, there is no way to play the game in which it pays back less than 75%. I don't recall the exact wording but basically the highest advertised award must occur at least 1 in "x".
The game I am not sure that I understand is Ultimate X. By betting 10 coins what is the return of the game? I would think it is below 50% because the game is over after the completion of the draw. Granted, the next game could clearly be over 100% but the initial game clearly is not. I can only assume they got a waiver from the commission by explaining that the next game makes up for the previous game but I am pretty sure the game itself does not meet the regs.
Quote: DRichThey still go by the overall return based on optimum play and since you have to play the two hands below to play the top hand the overall return meets the payback percentage. Basically, there is no way to play the game in which it pays back less than 75%. I don't recall the exact wording but basically the highest advertised award must occur at least 1 in "x".
The game I am not sure that I understand is Ultimate X. By betting 10 coins what is the return of the game? I would think it is below 50% because the game is over after the completion of the draw. Granted, the next game could clearly be over 100% but the initial game clearly is not. I can only assume they got a waiver from the commission by explaining that the next game makes up for the previous game but I am pretty sure the game itself does not meet the regs.
The 75% rule applies to the lifetime of the game. GLI and other states' laws state this much more clearly. Nevada's wording is terrible for this rule.
Here's a typo in the WOO page.
The following table shows the probability and return for each win on both the deal and the draw for 20-10-8 Deuces Wild. The lower right cell shows a combined return of 99.99%. As usual, all probabilities assume optimal player strategy
99.99% is 25-16-13 Deuces, not 20-10-8.
Excuse me? The only Nevada law I am aware of along those lines is, if the odds of winning the jackpot exceed 100,000,000 to 1, then the probability must be posted on the machine.Quote: WizardThere is a law in Nevada that the top award in any game must have a probability greater than 1 in x.
Quote: Nevada Gaming Regulation 2.070Jackpot Odds. If the odds of hitting any advertised jackpot that is offered by a gaming device exceeds 100 million to one, the odds of the advertised jackpot must be prominently displayed on the award glass or video display.
Quote: fivespotPaytables I've encountered in the wild not listed in your article: 9/5 DDB (with the standard pays for quads), 6/5 BP (with the standard 80/40/25 for quads), and 80/8/5 BDlx. I probably won't play any of them, as there are better games at that casino, but I wish the return were competitive as it sounds like a fun change of pace.
EVs:
BP 80-40-25-6-5: 0.955111
DD 9-5: 0.985563
BD 80-8-5: 0.971256
