Show Pai
Poll
 | 2 votes (8.69%) | ||
| | 7 votes (30.43%) | ||
| | 7 votes (30.43%) | ||
| | 6 votes (26.08%) | ||
| | 2 votes (8.69%) | ||
| | 4 votes (17.39%) | ||
| | 2 votes (8.69%) | ||
| | 2 votes (8.69%) | ||
| | 2 votes (8.69%) | ||
| | 10 votes (43.47%) |
23 members have voted
You can see the full rules at Wizard of Odds.
Stay tuned for my analysis. The advanced readers are welcome to also analyze it and we can compare results. I met the game inventor last night and he said the house edge is 1.42% with six decks.
Any questions for now?
The question for the poll is would you play Show Pai? (multiple votes allowed)
when the dealer has no pai it's a push
when both hi and lo pushes it's a player loss.
I think player loses when no pai is already a big enough edge for the house.
Side note: it seems like the bonus bet has a much better chance when the remaining decks are rich of hi cards.
Quote: WizardI just played Show Pai at the Palace Station yesterday. Briefly, it is a combination of baccarat and pai gow. Player and dealer get four cards and must set them into a one-card low hand and three-card high hand.
You can see the full rules at Wizard of Odds.
Stay tuned for my analysis. The advanced readers are welcome to also analyze it and we can compare results. I met the game inventor last night and he said the house edge is 1.42% with six decks.
Any questions for now?
The question for the poll is would you play Show Pai? (multiple votes allowed)
I saw this when it first came out, seems like fun
The external link to the Gaming Today review claims:
Quote: Gaming TodayBonus bets can be made to cash in on less likely scenarios such as a “Double No Pai” – pays 80 to 1 – in which neither the dealer nor player is able to set his/her hand (for instance, each draws all 10s or face cards, equaling hands of zero).
So a zero in both the high and low hands is considered a No Pai and not merely equal?
What is the minimum bet amount for the Play bet and Bonus bet? I may visit Palace Station for the first time this weekend and give Show Pai a shot.
Quote: BlueEagleI'm looking forward to your analysis and odds, Wiz. How does it compare to Pai Gow Poker as far as being a slow-loss, "drinking game" with lots of pushes? I have the impression Show Pai has more volatility. However, it looks to me that the house edge is only when there is a double tie.
The external link to the Gaming Today review claims:
So a zero in both the high and low hands is considered a No Pai and not merely equal?
What is the minimum bet amount for the Play bet and Bonus bet? I may visit Palace Station for the first time this weekend and give Show Pai a shot.
I think Gaming Today has it wrong, in that your high and low hands must be equal or low be less (from the table card pic at WoO). If zero/zero were an exception to that, it would have to be disclosed.
I would probably play. Not sure how long.
Briefly, with my Wizard strategy, I get a house edge of 1.38%.
If you play the Bonus bet, I would strongly suggest playing 8-8 over 7-9. That will increase the house edge on the Play to 1.42% but lower the house edge on the Bonus from 9.22%, using the Wizard strategy, to 7.78%.
Somebody asked about a comparison to pai gow poker. In that game playing the house way and not banking the house edge is 2.72%. While Show Pai has a house edge about half that, it is also a much faster game.
Change that to a double tie/copy (dealer wins) as well as dealer No Pai (player pushes.)Quote: BlueEagleit looks to me that the house edge is only when there is a double tie.
Quote: wizardofodds.comFollowing is my Wizard strategy for Show Pai.
With six or less total points, maximize the low hand.
With seven total points, play 3-4 if you can, otherwise maximize the high hand.
With eight total points, if you can make at least 7 in the high hand, then maximize the high, otherwise maximize the low.
With nine or more total points, maximize the high hand.
Thanks! I should be able to stop by sometime tonight and check it out. I see your calculations show a house edge of only 1.38%, compared to Pai Gow Poker at 2.72% (House way Strategy — Dealer Banker)
Edit: I see you posted while I was reading your analysis and composing my post.
Quote: WizardI just completed an analysis of the game. Please revisit my Show Pai page to see it.
Briefly, with my Wizard strategy, I get a house edge of 1.38%.
If you play the Bonus bet, I would strongly suggest playing 8-8 over 7-9. That will increase the house edge on the Play to 1.42% but lower the house edge on the Bonus from 9.22%, using the Wizard strategy, to 7.78%.
Somebody asked about a comparison to pai gow poker. In that game playing the house way and not banking the house edge is 2.72%. While Show Pai has a house edge about half that, it is also a much faster game.
Looks like a much better than average new game field trial. I'm sure John Nguyen (inventor) is on top of the world, good for him.
I would have had a 7-9 hand that could be reset to 8-8 win the bonus bet also. Side bets shouldn't compromise optimal strategy at the cost of losing an otherwise winning side bet, as the hand can simply be reset to pay the side bet, too. In Pai Gow Poker, the bonus bets wins without regard to the best main bet hand setting. Players might push back on this.
Aside from that, and all in all, pretty sharp.
Quote: PaigowdanLooks like a much better than average new game field trial. I'm sure John Nguyen (inventor) is on top of the world, good for him.
I would have had a 7-9 hand that could be reset to 8-8 win the bonus bet also. Side bets shouldn't compromise optimal strategy at the cost of losing an otherwise winning side bet; the hand can simply be reset to pay the side bet, too. In Pai Gow Poker, the bonus bets wins without regard to the best main bet hand setting. Players might push back on this.
Aside from that, and all in all, pretty sharp.
Normally I don't like games that mix together two existing games, but this one does a decent job of it. Maybe I shouldn't look at it that way. Perhaps it is more like pai gow (tiles) with cards but without the pairs, wongs, and gongs. If it were my game, I think I would have tried to make it two sets of two cards. Possible idea there. I claim all rights.
Agreed, the side bet doesn't hit me right either. If it were me I might have had two:
Side bet 1: Insurance against no pai and double copy.
Side bet 2: Big wins for combined 16 points or more.
Quote: WizardNormally I don't like games that mix together two existing games, but this one does a decent job of it. Maybe I shouldn't look at it that way. Perhaps it is more like pai gow (tiles) with cards but without the pairs, wongs, and gongs. If it were my game, I think I would have tried to make it two sets of two cards. Possible idea there. I claim all rights.
That's the thing about two-sided games; you can use any ranking methodology as a "two-sidedness" attribute; it is more of a general attribute than mixing game types. I will say that nothing seems to work as well as poker rankings for this two-sided setup so far, but this may do fine.
Quote: WizardAgreed, the side bet doesn't hit me right either. If it were me I might have had two:
Side bet 1: Insurance against no pai and double copy.
Side bet 2: Big wins for combined 16 points or more.
Yes. You could break out a positive bonus bet and have a separate insurance/bad hand bet. Different strokes for different folks, more winning hand triggers, playing the side you want. Here it is mixed into one, with only double 9's and 8's paying on the positive side, very rare at 4.5% or the time or so. This is like having a Pai Gow side bet that only pays on Full Houses or better with Jack-highs and lower.
Also, the hit rate is low (about 1 in 9.5 rounds), so the pay table could have been more bottom-heavy, and where you can start payouts at 5:1 and better. Something more like:
Event Pays
Double no pai 50
Player all 10's 15
One no pai 10
Player 9-9 7
Player 8-8 6
Double copy 5
Loser -1
HE = 3%
A progressive can be made for a four 4's no pai and four 7's no pai, a lot can be done..
Quote: WizardofnothingI hate one card top games- like Asian poker - it's like total wipeout on a copy which happens a lot
Except in this game you win if you copy the top and win the bottom. I am pretty sure if it was a a casino I normally go to I would give it a try. Agree that the bonus bet, if you play 9-7 instead of 8-8, should DEFINITELY pay as if you set it 8-8. This precedent already exists in the regular pai gow cards side bets.
I'm surprised no one has discussed the countability of the side bet yet. But if I go to Palace station and see Axel and DJ at the table already.....
The strategy says that, with 8 total points, maximize the high hand if you can make it 7 or more; otherwise, maximize the low hand.
If the low card is 0 or 1, then the high cards add up to 7 or 8, so maximize the 3-card hand; if the low card is 3 or more, then the total points is at least 3 x 4 = 12.
That means the only 4-card set with 8 total points where you cannot make a 3-card hand of 7 or more is four 2s, in which case, "maximize the high hand" also applies.
I am assuming that 8 total points means "8, and not 18, 28, or 38."
Am I missing something?
Quote: ThatDonGuyI am assuming that 8 total points means "8, and not 18, 28, or 38."
Am I missing something?
"8 total points" means the maximum sum of the low and high hand is eight points. I use the same convention in my Wizard Way for pai gow tiles.
Quote: SOOPOO...I'm surprised no one has discussed the countability of the side bet yet. But if I go to Palace station and see Axel and DJ at the table already.....
I'm not. It might not be very countable. There may be a lot to prevent gaming this game.
The main game is player versus dealer without keyed bonuses.
The side bets are a mix of differing hand types that may cancel out key cards.
Is it dealt in four card packets, one shuffle per deal?
There is one install on the game.
I'm sure if it exploitable, it will be plundered.
Quote: Wizard"8 total points" means the maximum sum of the low and high hand is eight points. I use the same convention in my Wizard Way for pai gow tiles.
I have what is intended to be a "perfect" strategy, which is slightly different than yours, but I get a HA of 1.4219334% (192847043802260 / 135623120171253 %):
Add up the total of the four cards - for example, 6 7 8 9 is 30
If it is 6 or less, maximize the 1-card hand
If it is 7, make a 3/4 if you can except if the hand is 0,2,2,3; otherwise, maximize the 3-card hand
If it is 8 or more, maximize the 3-card hand, with the following exceptions, where you maximize the 1-card hand:
0 1 3 9
0 1 4 9
0 1 5 9
0 1 6 9
0 2 3 9
0 2 4 8
0 2 4 9
0 2 5 8
0 2 5 9
0 3 4 9
0 3 5 9
0 3 7 7
1 2 2 9
1 2 3 8
1 2 3 9
1 2 4 8
1 2 4 9
1 3 3 9
1 3 4 9
1 3 6 6
1 3 6 7
2 2 3 9
2 3 3 9
2 3 5 6
2 3 5 7
2 3 5 8
2 3 6 6
2 4 4 8
2 4 5 7
2 4 6 6
3 3 4 8
3 4 4 7
3 4 5 6
3 4 6 6
Quote: WizardSide bet 1: Insurance against no pai and double copy.
Side bet 2: Big wins for combined 16 points or more.
This is what I come up with as (arguably) better side bets using this idea, just killing time:
Show Pai Bonus Pays
Player 9-9: 10
Player 8-8: 5
Copy with win: 4
Other loss.
HE = 4.99%
Hit rate = 1 in 6.4.
Show Pai Insurance Pays
Double no pai: 50
Player all 10's: 15
Double copy: 8
One no pai: 5
Copy with loss: 3
Other loss.
HE = 5.2%
Hit rate 1 in 5.8
Show Pai Progressive pays
9999 No pai: 100%
4444, 7777, 8888 No Pai: 1000
Double no pai: 100
Double copy: 15
Player 9-9: 10
Avg Jackpot = $56,700, average reseed=$5,415, using:
Meter = 21 cents
Reserve = 2 cents
RTP = 75.8%
Hit rate 1 in 24
Quote: ThatDonGuyI have what is intended to be a "perfect" strategy, which is slightly different than yours, but I get a HA of 1.4219334%
Which breaks down into:
82024863079573814400 deals (312 x 311 x 310 x 309 x 308 x 307 x 306 x 305)
Player winning deals:
20594260695161887488 1-card win / 3-card win
3852517027989823488 1-card win / 3-card tie
5003040943307925504 1-card tie / 3-card win
Player losing deals:
1406481916008153600 player No Pais
1413111575383940736 1-card tie / 3-card tie
2710554124200523776 1-card tie / 3-card lose
6449959137084235776 1-card lose / 3-card tie
18636050834698851072 1-card lose / 3-card lose
Push deals:
1383682056290823168 dealer No Pais (that are not also player No Pais)
4979794092225700608 1-card win / 3-card lose
15595410677221949184 1-card lose / 3-card win
Resulting overall loss is 1166338920916068480
Quote: ThatDonGuyI have what is intended to be a "perfect" strategy, which is slightly different than yours, but I get a HA of 1.4219334%
I must admit, that is what the math report by Charles Mousseau gets too. My analysis is my random simulation. Why it comes in a little lower I still am not sure.
Quote:Add up the total of the four cards - for example, 6 7 8 9 is 30
If it is 6 or less, maximize the 1-card hand
If it is 7, make a 3/4 if you can except if the hand is 0,2,2,3; otherwise, maximize the 3-card hand
If it is 8 or more, maximize the 3-card hand, with the following exceptions, where you maximize the 1-card hand:0 1 2 9
0 1 3 9
0 1 4 9
0 1 5 9
0 1 6 9
0 2 3 9
0 2 4 8
0 2 4 9
0 2 5 8
0 2 5 9
0 3 4 9
0 3 5 9
0 3 7 7
1 2 2 9
1 2 3 8
1 2 3 9
1 2 4 8
1 2 4 9
1 3 3 9
1 3 4 9
1 3 6 6
1 3 6 7
2 2 3 9
2 3 3 9
2 3 5 6
2 3 5 7
2 3 5 8
2 3 6 6
2 4 4 8
2 4 5 7
2 4 6 6
3 3 4 8
3 4 4 7
3 4 5 6
3 4 6 6
Nice work!
The game is dealt from a shoe. The six decks are shuffled and cut the same way as for Blackjack, and the first card out of the shoe is placed in the discard tray. The dealer pulls four cards from the shoe one-by-one and gives the packet of four cards to the player. When all of the players have set their hand face-up, the dealer sets his own hand and resolves the bets. The house way of setting the hand is to maximize the 1-card low hand.
The game layout has six player positions, but there were only five chairs at the table. There were five players at the table when I walked up, and I could see that six players would not fit. Four of the players as well as the dealer were Asian, and all talking in what I assumed to be Chinese. After a few minutes, one of the players left and I was able to buy-in.
I decided to bet $10 on Play and $1 on Bonus. The other players were betting $15-$30 on Play and $5-$10 on Bonus. I won my first hand. I got 9-9 the second hand but dealer had No Pai (push); the Bonus paid $10 for No Pai. My chip stack was greater than my buy-in for the first hour of play until I hit a losing streak. For the Bonus, I was paid on 8-8, 9-9 and No Pai a few times each.
Towards the end of my session, I was left playing by myself. However, both of the players on my left and right stayed, watched me play, and called out how to set the hands. There were a few instances when I didn't set the hand the best way and another player or the dealer told me how I should set it. One time my hand lost to the dealer until a player pointed out that the dealer hadn't maximized his low hand. After the dealer's hand was reset, my hand won. After playing for an hour and a half, I was up $10 and decided to color in. I hadn't seen anybody tip the dealer and the dealer seemed confused when I gave him $10.
According to this page, players are to set their hands and place the cards face down on the table. However, at Palace Station, the players place their cards face up on the table. (I began to place my cards face down multiple times.)
The page also suggests that players can bank. "Winning wagers are paid from the banker’s bank. Banker(s) can only win or lose the amount they place at risk."
There are two game layouts shown on the page. Palace Station uses the green layout. Perhaps the red layout would be used for face-down hands and player banking.
Quote: BlueEagleAccording to this page, players are to set their hands and place the cards face down on the table. However, at Palace Station, the players place their cards face up on the table. (I began to place my cards face down multiple times.)
I can confirm that they let players place their cards face up at the Palace Station. This is a policy I applaud, as the players enjoy helping each other and it makes for more of a team effort.
Quote: WizardI can confirm that they let players place their cards face up at the Palace Station. This is a policy I applaud, as the players enjoy helping each other and it makes for more of a team effort.
I enjoyed having the cards face up as well. As I said in a previous post, there were a few times when I didn't set my hands the best way and another player or the dealer told me the better way to set the hand. However, I suspect that player banking would not be allowed unless the hands were set face down.
Quote: Wizard's strategyWith seven total points, play 3-4 if you can, otherwise maximize the high hand.
This could be confusing to someone who is new to the game and learning how to play. For clarification, I believe you are advising to play 3 Low and 4 High, otherwise 0 Low and 7 High.
Also, when you say to maximize the low hand, you advise to set the highest possible value while adhering to the rule that the High hand value must be higher than or equal to the Low hand value.
As for total points, do you mean the sum of all four cards?
How would you set 2, 5, 6, 9? 6-6 or 5-7?
Sorry - I already came across that game many years ago, somewhere in New Mexico, except pairs were considered higher than 9's, like PGT.Quote: Wizard...If it were my game, I think I would have tried to make it two sets of two cards. Possible idea there. I claim all rights....
The problem I see with this game is when dealer gets No Pai the player doesn't win - I guess, rather like some PaiGow variants, this is an attempt to get round having 2.5% commission. btw your page needs to state this explicitly (even though the rack card does) as I didn't realise it until someone mentioned it.
As to your simulation, I have also found when looking at Blackjack (but keeping infinite deck strategy) that running 6 deck shoes gives a slightly lower House Edge (about 0.04%) than the first hand only.
Quote: BlueEagleThis could be confusing to someone who is new to the game and learning how to play. For clarification, I believe you are advising to play 3 Low and 4 High, otherwise 0 Low and 7 High.
Yes.
Quote:Also, when you say to maximize the low hand, you advise to set the highest possible value while adhering to the rule that the High hand value must be higher than or equal to the Low hand value.
Yes. Of course you have to adhere to the rule that the high hand is greater or equal to the low hand. Would it be more clear if I said "balance the hands" where I now say maximize the low hand?
Quote:As for total points, do you mean the sum of all four cards?
How would you set 2, 5, 6, 9? 6-6 or 5-7?
I mean the sum of the points of the low hand and points of the high hand.
I also get 1.421 933% (although I'm only using a simple version of excel so it doesn't have all the significant digits). It's interesting that you get similar strategy decisions to PGT (e.g. play 0/9 with 5400).Quote: ThatDonGuy...overall loss is 1166338920916068480
Quote: charliepatrickI also get 1.421 933%
I'm still scratching my head why I come in lower. My analysis is by random simulation, but I shouldn't be off by this much, given my simulation in the billions.
Meanwhile, literature on Supreme 99 from Bally.
Perhaps they could add that to where both the player and dealer get No Pai so you're still in the game (chance of Player No Pai = 1.715%).Quote: WizardofnothingWow I love the both hands copy 4-1 rule...
btw I get 1.390922% for 5 decks and 1.3440325 for 4 decks.
| Count | Exp | Hands | Win | Tie | Lose | DNP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 1.419 526% | 1 099 999 989 | 394 947 988 | 294 489 229 | 410 562 772 | 18 556 833 |
-1-1 | -1.000 000 | 18 864 459 | 0 | 0 | 18 864 459 | 0 |
0-0 | -0.982 315 | 13 045 587 | 0 | 230 705 | 12 814 882 | 230 705 |
1-0 | -0.959 423 | 17 676 422 | 203 889 | 309 484 | 17 163 049 | 309 484 |
1-1 | -0.806 288 | 8 520 313 | 234 837 | 1 180 809 | 7 104 667 | 149 170 |
2-0 | -0.919 871 | 13 352 643 | 365 654 | 338 630 | 12 648 359 | 235 463 |
2-1 | -0.779 650 | 14 529 898 | 682 993 | 1 835 672 | 12 011 233 | 255 672 |
2-2 | -0.669 513 | 15 036 110 | 909 884 | 3 149 470 | 10 976 756 | 261 477 |
3-0 | -0.869 024 | 20 735 552 | 819 443 | 1 076 983 | 18 839 126 | 359 905 |
3-1 | -0.722 223 | 12 160 794 | 957 241 | 1 463 511 | 9 740 042 | 213 636 |
3-2 | -0.613 337 | 20 772 293 | 2 150 338 | 3 731 209 | 14 890 746 | 361 839 |
3-3 | -0.481 945 | 15 119 836 | 1 854 876 | 4 123 154 | 9 141 806 | 262 039 |
4-0 | -0.788 416 | 12 100 040 | 698 938 | 1 162 301 | 10 238 801 | 212 904 |
4-1 | -0.656 257 | 14 974 610 | 1 510 209 | 2 126 995 | 11 337 406 | 261 283 |
4-2 | -0.538 106 | 14 505 372 | 2 130 963 | 2 438 012 | 9 936 397 | 253 192 |
4-3 | -0.415 582 | 21 278 910 | 3 717 409 | 5 000 950 | 12 560 551 | 365 961 |
4-4 | -0.277 556 | 4 184 030 | 827 462 | 1 367 802 | 1 988 766 | 70 946 |
5-0 | -0.698 895 | 17 676 944 | 1 218 055 | 2 886 507 | 13 572 382 | 307 105 |
5-1 | -0.560 034 | 14 568 016 | 1 895 754 | 2 617 922 | 10 054 340 | 254 832 |
5-2 | -0.436 154 | 2 885 368 | 554 463 | 517 976 | 1 812 929 | 48 868 |
5-3 | -0.304 161 | 1 746 971 | 426 664 | 362 283 | 958 024 | 29 709 |
5-4 | -0.173 775 | 2 082 559 | 586 363 | 547 936 | 948 260 | 34 564 |
5-5 | -0.043 634 | 12 049 119 | 3 722 070 | 4 079 223 | 4 247 826 | 203 878 |
6-0 | -0.565 938 | 13 346 448 | 1 129 051 | 3 535 090 | 8 682 307 | 233 671 |
6-1 | -0.431 141 | 3 967 071 | 625 459 | 1 005 786 | 2 335 826 | 67 422 |
6-2 | -0.306 489 | 2 091 792 | 493 536 | 463 608 | 1 134 648 | 35 546 |
6-3 | -0.177 590 | 3 653 069 | 1 101 709 | 800 904 | 1 750 456 | 61 215 |
6-4 | -0.038 045 | 14 745 223 | 5 434 599 | 3 315 044 | 5 995 580 | 250 882 |
6-5 | 0.086 898 | 17 313 829 | 7 202 300 | 4 413 763 | 5 697 766 | 296 097 |
6-6 | 0.203 139 | 12 037 823 | 5 359 104 | 3 764 964 | 2 913 755 | 201 464 |
7-0 | -0.418 969 | 49 323 692 | 4 807 764 | 19 043 053 | 25 472 875 | 858 603 |
7-1 | -0.276 016 | 6 596 762 | 1 250 389 | 2 275 173 | 3 071 200 | 112 551 |
7-2 | -0.156 774 | 6 759 097 | 1 875 316 | 1 948 813 | 2 934 968 | 113 915 |
7-3 | -0.019 212 | 17 535 215 | 6 437 945 | 4 322 440 | 6 774 830 | 297 554 |
7-4 | 0.118 948 | 18 923 689 | 8 566 045 | 4 042 541 | 6 315 103 | 323 351 |
7-5 | 0.250 177 | 20 796 044 | 10 975 969 | 4 046 794 | 5 773 281 | 355 672 |
7-6 | 0.356 416 | 17 763 704 | 10 218 306 | 3 658 362 | 3 887 036 | 299 545 |
7-7 | 0.453 513 | 15 045 656 | 9 064 994 | 3 739 074 | 2 241 588 | 252 315 |
8-0 | -0.242 798 | 65 944 084 | 7 570 848 | 34 791 314 | 23 581 922 | 1 146 572 |
8-1 | -0.111 315 | 9 540 771 | 2 036 766 | 4 405 204 | 3 098 801 | 162 226 |
8-2 | 0.015 867 | 23 427 287 | 7 491 145 | 8 816 712 | 7 119 430 | 402 960 |
8-3 | 0.152 049 | 23 262 963 | 9 912 471 | 6 975 123 | 6 375 369 | 397 421 |
8-4 | 0.295 621 | 23 943 288 | 12 803 294 | 5 414 827 | 5 725 167 | 409 615 |
8-5 | 0.420 960 | 24 909 370 | 15 585 332 | 4 224 547 | 5 099 491 | 424 493 |
8-6 | 0.532 387 | 23 380 176 | 16 366 223 | 3 095 034 | 3 918 919 | 395 174 |
8-7 | 0.621 676 | 23 264 822 | 17 371 807 | 2 984 381 | 2 908 634 | 392 176 |
8-8 | 0.698 293 | 21 246 352 | 16 453 439 | 3 175 657 | 1 617 256 | 358 107 |
9-0 | -0.055 288 | 84 749 111 | 10 980 282 | 58 102 964 | 15 665 865 | 1 460 370 |
9-1 | 0.072 754 | 30 092 681 | 7 226 344 | 17 829 370 | 5 036 967 | 519 688 |
9-2 | 0.202 472 | 30 075 628 | 10 851 450 | 14 462 205 | 4 761 973 | 518 367 |
9-3 | 0.340 239 | 30 054 346 | 14 567 852 | 11 144 301 | 4 342 193 | 513 718 |
9-4 | 0.479 074 | 30 083 345 | 18 268 873 | 7 957 755 | 3 856 717 | 513 852 |
9-5 | 0.609 820 | 30 091 891 | 21 676 399 | 5 089 739 | 3 325 753 | 513 862 |
9-6 | 0.715 543 | 30 073 778 | 24 366 519 | 2 859 813 | 2 847 446 | 510 973 |
9-7 | 0.811 116 | 30 101 453 | 26 624 008 | 1 269 195 | 2 208 250 | 506 679 |
9-8 | 0.879 628 | 30 085 042 | 28 022 533 | 503 634 | 1 558 875 | 503 634 |
9-9 | 0.934 502 | 27 908 641 | 26 762 412 | 464 511 | 681 718 | 464 511 |
edit - I've had a closer look and agree with your description with a few exceptions; so have changed the table to reflect this.
Best Hi - means make the highest High hand and let the Lo hand be whatever is the odd card left.
Best Lo - means look at the single highest cards in turn and see which is the highest one that leaves a valid High hand>=Low Hand; Wizard uses the term balancing the two hands.
| Total | |
|---|---|
0-6 | Best Lo |
7 | (4-3), else best Hi; except 3220=(7-0) |
8 | Best Hi if 7+, else best Lo |
9-18 | Best Hi; except 6643=(5-4) |
Quote: Wizard StrategyFor example, if the player's cards were 2-3-5-6, there are two viable ways to play the hand 2-4 or 3-3. The total points are six either way, so follow the first rule that says to balance the hand, and play 2-2.
Did you mean to say "balance the hand, and play 3-3"?
Quote: AyecarumbaDid you mean to say "balance the hand, and play 3-3"?
Thanks; good catch.
My thanks to all for their contributions and help!
Quote: charliepatrick
(4-3), else best Hi; except 3220=(7-0)
Can you provide any explanation for why 3220 shouldn't be set 4 High, 3 Low? According to your table, setting the hand 7-0 lowers the expected return.
Quote: BlueEagle
Can you provide any explanation for why 3220 shouldn't be set 4 High, 3 Low? According to your table, setting the hand 7-0 lowers the expected return.
I suspect it's because that you have three cards (3 2 2) that reduce the chances of dealing making a low hand that's smaller than your Low 3 if you player (4-3), so it's better to go for the High Hand win. If you ramp up the number of decks to 99, i.e. your cards don't matter, it switches to being better to play (7-0).
| Cards | High | Low | Win | Tie | Lose | EV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Six decks | ||||||
3 2 2 0 | 7 | 0 | 9.812% | 38.210% | 51.978% | - 0.421 657 |
3 2 2 0 | 5 | 2 | 18.748% | 18.044% | 63.208% | - 0.444 603 |
3 2 2 0 | 4 | 3 | 17.060% | 23.250% | 59.690% | - 0.426 302 |
| 99 decks | ||||||
3 2 2 0 | 7 | 0 | 9.962% | 38.519% | 51.519% | - 0.415 569 |
3 2 2 0 | 5 | 2 | 19.151% | 17.894% | 62.955% | - 0.438 045 |
3 2 2 0 | 4 | 3 | 17.582% | 23.318% | 59.100% | - 0.415 184 |
Thank you for your hypothesis and the table showing the data.Quote: charliepatrickI suspect it's because that you have three cards (3 2 2) that reduce the chances of dealing making a low hand that's smaller than your Low 3 if you played (4-3), so it's better to go for the High Hand win.
The strategy for Show Pai can be stated as simply:
Play the best High if 7+, otherwise play the best Low.
Exception: Play (High: 4, Low: 3) instead of (High: 7, Low: 0) unless dealt 3220.
Quote: BlueEagleThe strategy for Show Pai can be stated as simply:
Play the best High if 7+, otherwise play the best Low.
Exception: Play (High: 4, Low: 3) instead of (High: 7, Low: 0) unless dealt 3220.
Some other exceptions:
If the best Low has a corresponding High of 5, and you can make a High of 6 instead, do it
(for example, with 3448, the best Low is 4, but since 4-348 is 4/5 and 3-448 is 3/6, make the hand 3/6)
1458 and 1467 should be played 4/4 rather than 0/8 or 1/7 respectively
fwiw My figures suggest you play 1/7 - but it's very close.Quote: ThatDonGuy1458 and 1467 should be played 4/4 rather than 0/8 or 1/7 respectively
| Cards | High | Low | Win | Tie | Lose | EV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8 5 4 1 | 7 | 1 | 19.023% | 34.366% | 46.611% | - 0.275 879 |
8 5 4 1 | 4 | 4 | 19.821% | 32.585% | 47.594% | - 0.277 730 |
7 6 4 1 | 7 | 1 | 18.936% | 34.527% | 46.537% | - 0.276 015 |
7 6 4 1 | 4 | 4 | 19.856% | 32.523% | 47.621% | - 0.277 650 |
Quote: charliepatrickQuote: ThatDonGuyQuote: BlueEagleThe strategy for Show Pai can be stated as simply:
Play the best High if 7+, otherwise play the best Low.
Exception: Play (High: 4, Low: 3) instead of (High: 7, Low: 0) unless dealt 3220.
Some other exceptions:
If the best Low has a corresponding High of 5, and you can make a High of 6 instead, do it
(for example, with 3448, the best Low is 4, but since 4-348 is 4/5 and 3-448 is 3/6, make the hand 3/6)
1458 and 1467 should be played 4/4 rather than 0/8 or 1/7 respectively
fwiw My figures suggest you play 1/7 - but it's very close.
You're right - I was trying to figure out why Wizard's numbers were wrong and used a 4-deck strategy by mistake.
There's another correction:
If the best Low has a corresponding High of 5, and you can make a High of 6 instead, do it unless the best Low is a 1, or your cards are 2358
Quote: WizardofnothingSpeaking of which, I emailed the game creator at the web address on his site, kind of disappointing over the lack of response
That is a shame. It seems like a fun game and if it is still at the Palace Station, I will try it out next week.
