Video Poker Strategy Calculator

Yes it is. It is actually 100.14% at max bet (5.007/5).

Quote: SONBP2

Using the new Video Poker Strategy Calculator on WizardofOdds.com, I put in the 5 coin amount and the Total Return amount was 5.007, which I don't think is correct. So I put in the 1 coin in value and the Total Return amount was .9895.

Therefore, my question is, is this game really a 100% payback game?

Yes. You didn't use the correct prize for the royal flush (4000/5 = 800, not 250, even though the single-coin prize is 250).

With the correct paytable, perfect play returns 100.1496% and the basic strategy returns 100.1438%. For what it's worth, this is the default paytable that comes up for Loose Deuces in the calculator.

I have a minor feature request. All the action in the calculator currently takes place at a single URL, http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator/. The problem with this is that if you have a game analysis loaded in your browser, and you refresh the page, you lose everything you've done and get sent back to the beginning. This is not so much a problem on a normal computer, but browsers on mobile devices (like iPhone or Android) routinely dump rendered pages to save RAM when you switch to another tab or another application. And I would imagine mobile use is fairly common for this particular web application.

This would be easy to fix - when an analysis is complete, redirect to a new URL specific to that paytable. Something like http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator?game=ddb&rf=1240&fl=5 (encoding all non-default payouts in the URL), or even http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator?game=384592 (referring to an internal database ID).

This would also allow users to bookmark games they've analyzed for future reference.

Thanks again for the excellent tool.

I ran into an odd output from the calculator the other day, analyzing 9/6 DDB with a 1240 royal. Part of the basic strategy is:

3 to a Royal Flush TJA; TJQ; TJK; TQA; TQK; TKA; JQA; JQK; JKA; QKA
2 Pair 2233; 2244; 2255; 2266; 2277; 2288; 2299; 22TT; 22JJ; 22QQ; 22KK; 3344...
1 Pair JJ; QQ; KK

But every single conflict between RF3 (AHT) and two pair (no AA) is listed as an exception to the basic strategy:

Right Play Wrong Play Pattern(s)
2 Pair: TTJJ 3 to a Royal Flush: TJA (more)10♣ 10♦ J♣ J♦ A♣
2 Pair: TTQQ 3 to a Royal Flush: TQA (more)10♣ 10♦ Q♣ Q♦ A♣
2 Pair: TTKK 3 to a Royal Flush: TKA (more)10♣ 10♦ K♣ K♦ A♣

You can increase the accuracy of the basic strategy and reduce the number of exceptions by separating out the weaker RF3's:

3 to a Royal Flush TJQ; TJK; TQK; JQA; JQK; JKA; QKA
2 Pair 2233; 2244; 2255; 2266; 2277; 2288; 2299; 22TT; 22JJ; 22QQ; 22KK; 3344...
3 to a Royal Flush TJA; TQA; TKA
1 Pair JJ; QQ; KK

This is what my desktop software does, and I was surprised that JB's calculator didn't do the same. Intentional, or bug?

Minor issues with the output analyzing QQ DDB. Top of the chart:

Pat Hand Four 5's through K's; Four 2's, 3's, 4's with any A,2,3,4; Four Aces with any 2,3,4; Straight Flush; Royal Flush
4 of a Kind 2222; 3333; 4444; 5555; 6666; 7777; 8888; 9999; TTTT; JJJJ; QQQQ; KKKK; AAAA
Pat Hand Four 2's, 3's, 4's

Obviously that last line is superfluous. (The output for regular DDB doesn't do this.) A little further down:

3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker
5552; 5553; 5554; 555A; 6662; 6663; 6664; 6665; 666A; 7772; 7773; 7774;
7775; 7776; 777A; 8882; 8883; 8885; 8886; 8887; 888A; 9992; 9993; 9994;
9995; 9996; 9997; 9998; 999A; TTT2; TTT3; TTT4; TTT6; TTT7; TTT8; TTT9;
TTTA

With the following exceptions listed:

Right Play Wrong Play Pattern(s)
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6662 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 (less)6♣ 6♦ 6♥ 2♣ 3♣
6♣ 6♦ 6♥ 2♣ 3♦
6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 2♣ 3♠
6♥ 6♣ 6♦ 2♠ 3♠
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6664 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 3♠ 4♣
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6665 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 3♠ 5♣
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 666A 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 3♠ A♣

Much simpler to put "3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663" on a separate line of the basic strategy. Also, while it makes no difference, odd that the calculator was able to collapse suit symmetries when displaying example exceptions for 6664, 6665, 666A but not 6662.

(JB, should I be posting this minor stuff in the forum thread, or should I email or PM you?)

Can the Video Poker Strategy Calculator be used to calculate progressives? I was hoping to use the calculator to determine, based on the pay table, the house edge for vp progressives. I would like to know at what point the game's return is over 100%. I entered the following paytable but it keeps returning an error message.

$1 Progressive Double Double Bonus:

Royal Flush Jackpot was $4500 so I entered 900 into the calculator
Straight Flush 50
Four Aces with any 2,3,4 Jackpot was $2025 so I entered 405 into the calculator
Four 2's, 3's, 4's with any A,2,3,4 160
Four Aces 160
Four 2's, 3's, 4's 80
Four 5's through K's 50
Full House 8
Flush 5
Straight 4
Three of a Kind 3
Two Pair 1
Jacks or Better 1

Maybe the calculator is not designed to do this.

Quote: SONBP2

Can the Video Poker Strategy Calculator be used to calculate progressives? I was hoping to use the calculator to determine, based on the pay table, the house edge for vp progressives. I would like to know at what point the game's return is over 100%. I entered the following paytable but it keeps returning an error message.

$1 Progressive Double Double Bonus:

Royal Flush Jackpot was $4500 so I entered 900 into the calculator
Straight Flush 50
Four Aces with any 2,3,4 Jackpot was $2025 so I entered 405 into the calculator
Four 2's, 3's, 4's with any A,2,3,4 160
Four Aces 160
Four 2's, 3's, 4's 80
Four 5's through K's 50
Full House 8
Flush 5
Straight 4
Three of a Kind 3
Two Pair 1
Jacks or Better 1

Maybe the calculator is not designed to do this.

I got it to work. The payback according to the pay table given is 97.07%. The progressives would need to be very large to reach 100%.

Quote: fivespot

Minor issues with the output analyzing QQ DDB. Top of the chart:

Pat Hand Four 5's through K's; Four 2's, 3's, 4's with any A,2,3,4; Four Aces with any 2,3,4; Straight Flush; Royal Flush
4 of a Kind 2222; 3333; 4444; 5555; 6666; 7777; 8888; 9999; TTTT; JJJJ; QQQQ; KKKK; AAAA
Pat Hand Four 2's, 3's, 4's

Obviously that last line is superfluous. (The output for regular DDB doesn't do this.)

The reason for this is that, the "4 of a Kind 2222; 3333; etc." line refers to natural 4 of a kind, and the "Pat Hand Four 2s, 3s, 4s" refers to quick quad hands such as 222AA, 3332A, 44422, 4443A. One type uses 4 cards, the other uses 5 cards, and this fact basically "requires" that they be listed separately, because the program will not group together plays of different types -- and internally, these two plays are completely different even though they pay the same in the front end.

Quote: fivespot

A little further down:

3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker
5552; 5553; 5554; 555A; 6662; 6663; 6664; 6665; 666A; 7772; 7773; 7774;
7775; 7776; 777A; 8882; 8883; 8885; 8886; 8887; 888A; 9992; 9993; 9994;
9995; 9996; 9997; 9998; 999A; TTT2; TTT3; TTT4; TTT6; TTT7; TTT8; TTT9;
TTTA

With the following exceptions listed:

Right Play Wrong Play Pattern(s)
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6662 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 (less)6♣ 6♦ 6♥ 2♣ 3♣
6♣ 6♦ 6♥ 2♣ 3♦
6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 2♣ 3♠
6♥ 6♣ 6♦ 2♠ 3♠
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6664 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 3♠ 4♣
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6665 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 3♠ 5♣
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 666A 3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663 6♦ 6♥ 6♣ 3♠ A♣

Much simpler to put "3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker: 6663" on a separate line of the basic strategy.

I'm not sure why it didn't.

Quote: fivespot

Also, while it makes no difference, odd that the calculator was able to collapse suit symmetries when displaying example exceptions for 6664, 6665, 666A but not 6662.

That's not an error. There is only one unique pattern where the (666A|6664|6665) vs. 6663 exception applies, but there are 4 unique patterns where the 6662 vs. 6663 exception applies.

Quote: fivespot

(JB, should I be posting this minor stuff in the forum thread, or should I email or PM you?)

Here is fine. Thank you for the PM alerting me to it though, as I hadn't checked this thread in a while.