ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
• Posts: 1255
December 23rd, 2021 at 11:54:40 PM permalink
Quote: Dieter

(snip)
I didn't play enough rounds to get a good feel for the sidebet spinner weighting (snip)

Here are my results after making it to "20 x rounds of the sidebet spinner": .

Totals:
0 x 20 = ?
1 x 20 = 20***
2 x 20 = 2
3 x 20 = 0
4 x 20 = 0

***: Below is the break-downs for the "sidebet spinner"

Odds (to 1) / No. of times it occurred

Push / five
1 / nine
2 / three
3 / three

Note: The sample size is probably too small to work out a good estimate of the "sidebet spinner" weighting, but anyone can add my figures to their testing, if they choose to do so.
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
• Posts: 514
Thanks for this post from:
December 24th, 2021 at 1:41:49 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter

I estimate about 1 in 14500. This is not exact, it's an estimation.

edit: I am notoriously bad at math.

I worked out the probability for four pat 20's off-the-top of an 8D shoe to be 7.967005 x 10^(-5), or about 1 in 12,550 rounds.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Edit: fixed the mantissa to say 7.967005 rather than 0.7967005.
Last edited by: DogHand on Dec 24, 2021
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
• Posts: 1255
December 24th, 2021 at 2:48:49 AM permalink
Here are my results after making it to "40 x rounds of the sidebet spinner":

Totals:
0 x 20 = ?
1 x 20 = 40***
2 x 20 = 4
3 x 20 = 0
4 x 20 = 0

***: Below is the break-downs for the "sidebet spinner"

Odds (to 1) / No. of times it occurred

Push / eleven
1 / seventeen
2 / eight
3 / four

Note: The sample size is still probably too small to work out a good estimate of the "sidebet spinner" weighting, but anyone can add my figures to their testing, if they choose to do so.
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
• Posts: 3070
December 24th, 2021 at 3:23:59 AM permalink
Quote: DogHand

Quote: Dieter

I estimate about 1 in 14500. This is not exact, it's an estimation.

edit: I am notoriously bad at math.

I worked out the probability for four pat 20's off-the-top of an 8D shoe to be 0.7967005 x 10^(-5), or about 1 in 12,550 rounds.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

I saw a number like that too, but I didn't like it.
When I punch 1/(7.97*10^-6) into my calculator, I get an extra zero.

Care to smarten me up?
May the cards fall in your favor.
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
• Posts: 3070
December 24th, 2021 at 4:10:21 AM permalink
Subjective aesthetic notes:

The paytables all state payouts as "to 1", but the software seems to display game results as "for 1". I understand why they do it, but it annoys me.

Turning off animations in the web version does speed the game, but not enough to make it engaging for me.
The side bet resolution really slows down the game.
If you think video poker on turbo "could be faster", you'll probably notice.

I'm glad the music can be disabled.

Objective notes:
Double after split is allowed. I had missed that.
No action allowed on hands totalling 21.
May the cards fall in your favor.
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
• Posts: 514
December 24th, 2021 at 7:52:35 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter

Quote: DogHand

Quote: Dieter

I estimate about 1 in 14500. This is not exact, it's an estimation.

edit: I am notoriously bad at math.

I worked out the probability for four pat 20's off-the-top of an 8D shoe to be 0.7967005 x 10^(-5), or about 1 in 12,550 rounds.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

I saw a number like that too, but I didn't like it.
When I punch 1/(7.97*10^-6) into my calculator, I get an extra zero.

Care to smarten me up?

Dieter,

Oops... I mistyped the mantissa. I should have typed 7.967005 x 10^(-5).

I shall edit my original post.

Dog Hand
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
• Posts: 3070
Thanks for this post from:
December 24th, 2021 at 8:32:26 AM permalink
Quote: DogHand

Oops... I mistyped the mantissa. I should have typed 7.967005 x 10^(-5).

If catching a minor flub on a decimal place is the worst thing that happens until next year, I think things are pretty ok.

Does the 1/12550 approximation include soft hands?
May the cards fall in your favor.
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
• Posts: 514
Thanks for this post from:
December 24th, 2021 at 12:01:22 PM permalink
Quote: Dieter

Quote: DogHand

Oops... I mistyped the mantissa. I should have typed 7.967005 x 10^(-5).

If catching a minor flub on a decimal place is the worst thing that happens until next year, I think things are pretty ok.

Does the 1/12550 approximation include soft hands?

Dieter,

Yes, I counted both hard and soft 20's. These are the probabilities for 4 H and 0 S, 3 H and 1 S, 2 H and 2 S, 1 H and 3 S, 0 H and 4 S, and their Sum, respectively:

6.87746E-05 9.54142E-06 1.20237E-06 1.37414E-07 1.42182E-08 7.967005E-05

Dog Hand
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
• Posts: 1255
December 24th, 2021 at 2:17:00 PM permalink
Quote: DogHand

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DogHand

Oops... I mistyped the mantissa. I should have typed 7.967005 x 10^(-5).

If catching a minor flub on a decimal place is the worst thing that happens until next year, I think things are pretty ok.

Does the 1/12550 approximation include soft hands?

Dieter,

Yes, I counted both hard and soft 20's. These are the probabilities for 4 H and 0 S, 3 H and 1 S, 2 H and 2 S, 1 H and 3 S, 0 H and 4 S, and their Sum, respectively:

6.87746E-05 9.54142E-06 1.20237E-06 1.37414E-07 1.42182E-08 7.967005E-05

Dog Hand

I got the same starting figures as you, but I did this (to get my estimate):

(6.87746E-05 x 1) + (9.54142E-06 x 4) + (1.20237E-06 x 6) + (1.37414E-07 x 4) + (1.42182E-08 x 1) = ~ 0.0001147...

Note: I don't know if the above step is needed for this kind of problem, but it is similar to what I do when I want to work out my "sports multi " estimated chances (see "three leg" example below):

Example: Say I bet on team A (50% chance of winning), B (60% chance of winning), and C (80% chance of winning) in a three leg multi and for whatever reason I wanted to know what the chances for winning 0 legs to all 3 legs is:
w = "chance of winning", l = "chance of losing"

0 legs = A l x B l x C l = 0.5 x 0.4 x 0.2 = 0.04
1 leg = (A l x B l x C w) + (A l x B w x C l) + (A w x B l x C l) = ... = 0.26
2 legs = (A l x B w x C w) + (A w x B l x C w) + (A w x B w x C l) = ... = 0.46
3 legs = A w x B w x C w = 0.5 x 0.6 x 0.8 = 0.24

4% + 26% + 46% + 24% = 100%

Note: The main reason I needed to know the above for sports, was because I used to get money back for "missing the multi by x legs" (where "x" can be any number, but it was usually between 1 and 3).

Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 24225
Thanks for this post from:
December 24th, 2021 at 3:40:36 PM permalink
Here are my combinations for 0 to 4 20's. Please excuse the leading zeros at the end of the totals. I hope there is a spreadsheet in heaven that does not have any cap on the number of significant digits. C++ compiler too. I had to play some tricks to deal with numbers this big.

20's Total Probability
4 96,154,845,853,132,800 0.000115
3 3,423,358,427,452,540,000 0.004084
2 44,788,356,273,817,700,000 0.053435
1 255,238,297,847,250,000,000 0.304514
0 534,635,239,424,785,000,000 0.637851
Total 838,181,406,819,158,000,000 1.000000
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.