Chase the Flush

Quote: Paigowdan

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.

I think you're wrong about the casino wanting the players to play the game well--if that would reduce the house edge below 1%!. They never handed out little basic strategy cards when blackjack paid 3:2, nor do they do so now, when most games are 6:5. They never installed software in VP machines that actually suggested the proper plays (correctly, that is). They never spray-painted a skull and crossbones over the Big 6 and 8, or put a little box behind the pass line labeled "ODDS!!!" So I can't imagine them putting in this game and then helping the players to lose less at it. The object of every casino game is to make the players lose. The secondary object is to make them think they can win. Put up a big bonus bet with a high house edge, and you've created the necessary illusion.

At any rate, if this game ever makes it to the casino floor, they'll cut back the paytables so that the house edge is 2-3% even with perfect strategy. They've done this in other poker-carny games. I remember, for instance, the Deuces Wild table game, which had a low house edge with perfect play until they basically killed the game by reducing the payoff on the straight by one unit.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I think you're wrong about the casino wanting the players to play the game well--if that would reduce the house edge below 1%!. They never handed out little basic strategy cards when blackjack paid 3:2, nor do they do so now, when most games are 6:5. They never installed software in VP machines that actually suggested the proper plays (correctly, that is). They never spray-painted a skull and crossbones over the Big 6 and 8, or put a little box behind the pass line labeled "ODDS!!!" So I can't imagine them putting in this game and then helping the players to lose less at it. The object of every casino game is to make the players lose. The secondary object is to make them think they can win. Put up a big bonus bet with a high house edge, and you've created the necessary illusion.

Joe, first of all, casinos look at table hold, not house edge, in terms of the profitability of a game. A fast game or a game of tricky strategy can support a low house edge/EoR, because more hands per hour (or more player mistakes per hour) occur.
Secondly, the games aren't designed by the casinos, they're sold by distributors and game designers with the house edges designed and supplied by them, not by the casinos. I was talking about the game distributors: AGS, DEQ, SG, Galaxy, as well as the independent game designers.
Now, if players have a bad time with a game and get killed, they abandon the game in a New York minute and trash it. You milk a cow (or the players), not slaughter them once, so to speak. You don't kill off your customer base with usurious edges, you seduce your customer base with fair and well-playing games to keep them playing. They all know the limits and ranges on the games and adjust accordingly.
Casino would also prefer to make 25% on $200,000 drop rather than 35% on $20,000 drop by having their players take to a new game with fair edges, not drive them away from a new game by declaring usurious edges.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

At any rate, if this game ever makes it to the casino floor, they'll cut back the paytables so that the house edge is 2-3% even with perfect strategy.

1. This game did make it to the casino floor, and at a major MGM property. It was crowded.
2. Casinos cannot cut back or alter the pay tables during a field trial, and they cannot adjust the pay tables after the field trial unless multiple pay tables were approved and offered by the distributor of the game, where they can select the pay table. Only non-proprietary games like blackjack that were grandfathered in (instead of the later games being field trialed and reviewed) can be slightly changed by the casino operators. Game designers don't work for casinos, they work for distributors or for their own companies to supply and to change/modify the games to spec.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

They've done this in other poker-carny games. I remember, for instance, the Deuces Wild table game, which had a low house edge with perfect play until they basically killed the game by reducing the payoff on the straight by one unit.

This was not the case with Deuces Wild (table game) of Galaxy.
Galaxy changed the game, not the casinos, in order to provide a higher hit frequency, to try to revitalize the game when it was fading away at that point, because of a poor hit rate. Casinos don't adjust games to make them work, they simply remove games IF the distributor doesn't improve the game.

Ouch!
Thank you Sir, can I have another?

I played the demo a little. I voted to stick with UTH. One thing that I found frustrating is that you can have a low rainbow hand, see two high cards of the suit you don't have on the flop, and know you have no chance on the river. At least with UTH, you have a chance to hit runner-runner trips on the turn/river and turn your 2-7o into a winner, regardless of how ugly the flop was. In CTF, if you have 2h-2c-2s and Ad, Kd comes on the flop, no two cards in the deck can save you on the river.

As for strategy, it hasn't been mentioned, but I would guess that a strong rainbow hand (As-Ah-Ac, for example) also merits a 3x raise. I don't think you can only raise with Q-x or 3-card suited hands and get the 24% optimum 3x raise rate Wiz mentions on his analysis page. Just my unverified-by-the-math opinion.

Quote: miplet

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.

Thanks for hand calculator, Miplet! That's pretty cool!

Quote: Paigowdan

1. This game did make it to the casino floor, and at a major MGM property. It was crowded.
2. Casinos cannot cut back or alter the pay tables during a field trial, and they cannot adjust the pay tables after the field trial unless multiple pay tables were approved and offered by the distributor of the game, where they can select the pay table. Only non-proprietary games like blackjack that were grandfathered in (instead of the later games being field trialed and reviewed) can be slightly changed by the casino operators. Game designers don't work for casinos, they work for distributors or for their own companies to supply and to change/modify the games to spec.


This was not the case with Deuces Wild (table game) of Galaxy.
Galaxy changed the game, not the casinos, in order to provide a higher hit frequency, to try to revitalize the game when it was fading away at that point, because of a poor hit rate. Casinos don't adjust games to make them work, they simply remove games IF the distributor doesn't improve the game.

Of course. I was referring to the game being disseminated among casinos at large, not a one-casino field trial. I suspect people have been playing it because of the novelty, not necessarily because of any inherent merit of the game. I still think that if this game becomes widespread and it's as good for the player as you guys have been saying that it is, it can't last in its original form. However, if people play it badly, that will inflate the house hold, making it more attractive to the casino in the short run.

I see nothing that would stop casinos from altering the game rules if they thought the games weren't profitable enough. Even if the designers could somehow dictate to the casinos how the games were run, why couldn't a casino just say, "We're not making enough money on this game, we need to increase the house edge"? Would the designer refuse? COULD the designer refuse? (Again, I'm talking about widespread general use, not a one-casino field trial.)

While this game does have multiple player decisions within a hand, it goes relatively slowly--each player has to be allowed to make a decision, one by one, and that has to happen three times--then multiple bets are resolved. That pace of action doesn't support a low house edge OR a low house hold--the game won't make enough money. Of course, I'm talking long run here. The novelty of the game and player mistakes may inflate the hold temporarily.

Re the Deuces Wild game: I saw multiple layouts where the Straight payout on the layout had been scratched out and a new number drawn in with whiteout! It would seem to me that if that change were done at the behest of the game designer, then the designer would have supplied a new layout. Anyway, reducing the payout on the straight didn't increase the hit frequency! So one has to ask: why was the payout reduced (and the house edge increased)? Obviously, because SOMEBODY thought the game didn't have a high enough house edge. Are you saying that that somebody was the game designer??

The game looks interesting and has novelty value. I agree that it's better to shear than kill the sheep; however, casino operators may find that it takes too long to shear them. You have to keep in mind that Vegas casinos destroyed blackjack precisely because they couldn't tolerate dealing a game with such a low house edge. (Also see: video poker.) If this game is too good for the player (or not good enough for the house), it won't last. Not the way Vegas operates these days. Your comment about how the casinos don't aim to crush the player, just milk him dry slowly, I agree, USED to apply. Now, with the floods of ploppies pouring out of the terminal at McCarran day after day, it's rape 'em and replace 'em.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Of course. I was referring to the game being disseminated among casinos at large, not a one-casino field trial. I suspect people have been playing it because of the novelty, not necessarily because of any inherent merit of the game. I still think that if this game becomes widespread and it's as good for the player as you guys have been saying that it is, it can't last in its original form. However, if people play it badly, that will inflate the house hold, making it more attractive to the casino in the short run.

Designers and Distributors do their best in reckoning what the gamblers may want when they pitch their games to the casinos for installation. Gamblers will try new games, but will only stick around if the game offers game-play fun or juice and a decent shot to win. I think this game has a better shot than most new games, but the jury is always out until a good five months have passed, at least.

Quote: Joe

I see nothing that would stop casinos from altering the game rules if they thought the games weren't profitable enough. Even if the designers could somehow dictate to the casinos how the games were run, why couldn't a casino just say, "We're not making enough money on this game, we need to increase the house edge"? Would the designer refuse? COULD the designer refuse? (Again, I'm talking about widespread general use, not a one-casino field trial.)

It's a regulated industry. Every gambling state has a Gaming/Gambling Control Board that oversees approvals of new games. The casinos have to install approved games, and to the game rules and options listed for the game. A casino tweaking an approved game for additional profit is a MAJOR no-no for a casino to do under the eyes of a Gaming Commission! If a game is performing badly, it just gets removed by the casino. If it is performing marginally because its hold (profit) is too low or too high, then the casino might try an alternate and approved pay table to adjust the edge.

Quote: Joe

While this game does have multiple player decisions within a hand, it goes relatively slowly--each player has to be allowed to make a decision, one by one, and that has to happen three times--then multiple bets are resolved. That pace of action doesn't support a low house edge OR a low house hold--the game won't make enough money. Of course, I'm talking long run here. The novelty of the game and player mistakes may inflate the hold temporarily.

I've played this game in a real casino; it plays well, and it has a good pace. Casino game design is my business. It has a chance of catching on. They could have made it 3x on the flop and then straight to 1x or fold on the river, skipping the 2x raise for speed, but the cases where you form a "good touch" three-card flush with the flop occurs too frequently to deny this. I think the game is at or near the game pace and house edge it is supposed to be. If they need to raise it 1%, they can make the Xtra bet pay a 6-card flush 40:1 instead of 50:1; if they need an extra 2.5%, they can make the 5-card flush pay 4:1 instead of 5:1; I assume AGS has submitted a few versions to Gaming covering a range of house edge options for down the road, if needed.

Quote: Joe

Re the Deuces Wild game: I saw multiple layouts where the Straight payout on the layout had been scratched out and a new number drawn in with whiteout! It would seem to me that if that change were done at the behest of the game designer, then the designer would have supplied a new layout. Anyway, reducing the payout on the straight didn't increase the hit frequency! So one has to ask: why was the payout reduced (and the house edge increased)? Obviously, because SOMEBODY thought the game didn't have a high enough house edge. Are you saying that that somebody was the game designer??

Joe, it pays out on a pair of Aces now instead of two pairs; this increased the hit frequency over the old version by about 5%. Yes, someone was the game designer, it was bought by Galaxy Gaming a while ago, and they discussed various options with a gaming mathematician, as owners, in order to make this change. A good new felt should always be installed, but probably wasn't ready at the time.

Quote: Joe

The game looks interesting and has novelty value. I agree that it's better to shear than kill the sheep; however, casino operators may find that it takes too long to shear them. You have to keep in mind that Vegas casinos destroyed blackjack precisely because they couldn't tolerate dealing a game with such a low house edge. (Also see: video poker.) If this game is too good for the player (or not good enough for the house), it won't last. Not the way Vegas operates these days. Your comment about how the casinos don't aim to crush the player, just milk him dry slowly, I agree, USED to apply. Now, with the floods of ploppies pouring out of the terminal at McCarran day after day, it's rape 'em and replace 'em.

Strip casinos have an endless supply of gamblers, so they don't have to fleece anyone. It's when you have spotty business that you have to fleece just to survive. Now the Washington State card rooms are hurting, and they have to bang up house edges just to survive. When a designer designs a game, he put in a 4% main game version with a 9% side bet version, calling it the "Washington State Card Room" version. (The 1% main game with the 2% side bet is called the "Barona" or loose version of the game.)
The 6:5 BJ was put in to thwart low holds (returns) from counting; before AP play became wide spread, 3:2 held fine.

Quote: Joeman

I played the demo a little. I voted to stick with UTH. One thing that I found frustrating is that you can have a low rainbow hand, see two high cards of the suit you don't have on the flop, and know you have no chance on the river. At least with UTH, you have a chance to hit runner-runner trips on the turn/river and turn your 2-7o into a winner, regardless of how ugly the flop was.

The fly in the ointment in this game is that an apparently "made hand" is much less secure until the dealer reveals his cards. In UTH, you flop trips, you're good. In CTF, you have a Jack to three suited on the board for a four card flush, the dealer will have a Q, K, or Ace too often.

Quote: Joeman

In CTF, if you have 2h-2c-2s and Ad, Kd comes on the flop, no two cards in the deck can save you on the river.

You still have a small shot, a snowball's chance...two spades, hearts, or clubs, with the dealer missing three to a suit:
Player: 2h-2c-2s
Board at river: Ad-Kd-7s-As
Dealer: 9c-7c-6h.
Dealer has two to a suit, player wins with three spades.

Quote: the other joe

As for strategy, it hasn't been mentioned, but I would guess that a strong rainbow hand (As-Ah-Ac, for example) also merits a 3x raise. I don't think you can only raise with Q-x or 3-card suited hands and get the 24% optimum 3x raise rate Wiz mentions on his analysis page. Just my unverified-by-the-math opinion.

Yes - raise that too: get two or three to any of those Ace-high suits (and you probably will), you're in decent shape.

Quote: The One & Only Paigowdan

You still have a small shot, a snowball's chance...two spades, hearts, or clubs, with the dealer missing three to a suit:
Player: 2h-2c-2s
Board at river: Ad-Kd-7s-As
Dealer: 9c-7c-6h.
Dealer has two to a suit, player wins with three spades.

You're right, of course. You do have a small chance to win if you make the 1x bet, but I'm pretty sure basic strategy would dictate a fold in this situation. So, you know you are going to fold on the flop, regardless of what comes on the river.

My name is "Dime a Dozen Danny."

Yes, basic strategy would say fold. You have to touch a three card suit strongly, - high card or two cards to it.

I believe there is an error in Steve Howe's table. It is on the line corresponding to

ALL-IN-BET =1 ____ DOES NOT Qualify____ 2-Card Flush____ WIN

The RETURN on this line is shown as 1 but the RETURN should be 0 (Because the XTRA-BET return is -1.)

Correcting this error will increase the House Advantage by 0.4%.

MIPLET's calculator also has this error. (BTW, MIPLET astonished me with how fast he put that calcuator togther. You are amazing Mip.)

Quote: gordonm888

I believe there is an error in Steve Howe's table. It is on the line corresponding to

ALL-IN-BET =1 ____ DOES NOT Qualify____ 2-Card Flush____ WIN

The RETURN on this line is shown as 1 but the RETURN should be 0 (Because the XTRA-BET return is -1.)

Correcting this error will increase the House Advantage by 0.4%.

No, Steve How is correct.
On a win against a non-qualifying dealer with a low hand win, the ANTE pushes (+0), the Xtra Bet pushes (+0) and the ALL-IN (Raise/Play) bet wins +1, as always in action. The Extra bet never loses on any player win.

If the player loses against a non-qualifying dealer, his ante pushes, and his All-In and Extra bet loses (-2), and if he wins without a four-card+ bonus, it's only the ALL-IN bet that wins, with the others pushing (for +1).

Quote: Gordy

MIPLET's calculator also has this error. (BTW, MIPLET astonished me with how fast he put that calcuator togther. You are amazing Mip.)

Miplet ("Bobby C.") is amazing - and correct.

Edit: Mike Shackleford is also correct.

No, I still think the Steve Howe table is in error -the 5th line from the bottom which refers to 2-card flushes

For the 2-card flush, the XTRA-Bonus Bet is a loss, not a push.

So for a 2-card flush that WINS (but Dealer does not qualify)

ANTE________Push 0
ALL IN_______Win +1
XTRA BONUS____-1
Total Return----- 0

However, Howe erroneously uses a RETURN of 1 for this category of hands.

Quote: gordonm888

No, I still think the Steve Howe table is in error -the 5th line from the bottom which refers to 2-card flushes

For the 2-card flush, the XTRA-Bonus Bet is a loss, not a push.

So for a 2-card flush that WINS (but Dealer does not qualify)

ANTE________Push 0
ALL IN_______Win +1
XTRA BONUS____-1
Total Return----- 0

However, Howe erroneously uses a RETURN of 1 for this category of hands.

If Steve How were wrong, then BMM or GLI who certified his work was wrong and the math analysts / engineers at Nevada Gaming Control were also wrong. WOW, so many professionals were wrong!!! Steve was not alone here.

Quote: gordonm888

No, I still think the Steve Howe table is in error -the 5th line from the bottom which refers to 2-card flushes

For the 2-card flush, the XTRA-Bonus Bet is a loss, not a push.

So for a 2-card flush that WINS (but Dealer does not qualify)

ANTE________Push 0
ALL IN_______Win +1
XTRA BONUS____-1
Total Return----- 0

However, Howe erroneously uses a RETURN of 1 for this category of hands.

No, that's not how this bet structure works. If the player DOES NOT LOSE, whether they win or push the dealer, whether the dealer qualifies or not, the Ultra
Bonus bet pushes unless player has a qualifying hand that beats the dealer, in which case it wins odds.

Only when the player's hand loses to the dealer, even with an ultra qualifying hand, is that bet lost.

If they fielded the game with the exception you are trying to establish, when there are a half dozen games using the bet structure (including one of mine), shame on them. Bad design flaw that will lead to mistakes in the field. But I don't think you're correct in your interpretation of the payout rules.

Quote: gordonm888

... 2-card flushes .... For the 2-card flush, the XTRA-Bonus Bet is a loss, not a push...

My reading of the rules is for there to be any payout if you have a two-card flush then (a) your two-card flush has to beat the dealer's flush (rule 12) (b) it follows the dealer cannot have qualified (rule 10). Thus your Ante is returned and the All-In and X-tra bets are live (rule 11). The All-In bet pays 1 and the X-tra bets is a Push (rule 13).

Quote: gordonm888

No, I still think the Steve Howe table is in error -the 5th line from the bottom which refers to 2-card flushes

For the 2-card flush, the XTRA-Bonus Bet is a loss, not a push.

So for a 2-card flush that WINS (but Dealer does not qualify)

ANTE________Push 0
ALL IN_______Win +1
XTRA BONUS____-1
Total Return----- 0

However, Howe erroneously uses a RETURN of 1 for this category of hands.

You are incorrect. If the player beats the dealer with a 2-card flush, then the X-Tra Bonus is a win of one unit.

I've not really got into reading Chase The Flush in all its details so please forgive me if I've got it wrong. I'd like to analyse some of it sometime - but my understanding from your rules is
(i) The initial bet ("Ante") is not in play if the dealer does not qualify.
(ii) The raise ("All-In") is always in play (although you might have 3 2 or 1 units wagered).
(iii) The X-tra is always in play (and typical of a mandatory side-bet, is where the House Edge comes from).
Each rule above can be found, in various guises, in existing games such as Two-Way poker, UTH, Six-card poker etc.

Both the "All-In" and "X-tra" bets are always compared with the dealer's hand and pay as follows
(a) Loses if your hand does not beat the dealer
(b) Ties if your hand is equal to the dealer
(c) Pays out (at odds in the pay-table) if your hand beats the dealer

In particular
(1) All winning "All-In" pay Evens.
(2) If you have a winning 2 or 3-card flush, the "X-tra" bet is a push
(3) You need a winning 4-card or more flush before "X-tra" bets receive a payout, the odds being 1 5 50 250 depending on size of flush.

So a winning 2-card flush
"Ante" - is not in play ( 0 )
"All-In" - is in play and wins Evens ( +1 )
"X-tra" - is in play, wins but the paytable means the bet is a push ( 0 ).

Quote: Wizard

You are incorrect. If the player beats the dealer with a 2-card flush, then the X-Tra Bonus is a win of one unit.

Rule 13 says:
13. If the player has the higher hand, then the Ante* and All In bets shall pay even money and the X-Tra Bonus bet according to the pay table below.
*: Please note that for purposes of adjudicating the Ante wager, rule 11 supersedes this rule. In other words, if the dealer does not qualify, then the Ante will be returned before any comparison of the player and dealer hands.

and the X-Tra Bonus Bet Table is:

X-Tra Bonus Pay Table
Event Pays
7-card flush_____ 250 to 1
6-card flush_____ 50 to 1
5-card flush_____ 5 to 1
4-card flush_____ 1 to 1
3-card flush_____ Push
All other_________ Loss

a 2-card flush falls into the category of "all other" and thus the X-tra Bonus bet should be a loss. What else could this line labeled "All other" possibly be referring to?

I still believe the Steve Howe table posted on WOO is wrong.

Quote: gordonm888

Rule 13 says
3-card flush_____ Push
All other_________ Loss

Assuming the AGS site is the best source it says

Quote: http://www.playags.com/portfolio/chase-the-flush/

The X-Tra Bonus bet wins when the player beats the dealer with four or more cards of the same suit. See paytable for odds. If the player wins with less than a four card flush then the X-Tra Bonus bet pushes.

Quote: gordonm888

Rule 13 says
3-card flush_____ Push
All other_________ Loss

Quote: charliepatrick

Assuming the AGS site is the best source it says:

Quote: http://www.playags.com/portfolio/chase-the-flush/

The X-Tra Bonus bet wins when the player beats the dealer with four or more cards of the same suit. See paytable for odds. If the player wins with less than a four card flush then the X-Tra Bonus bet pushes.

Okay, this brings us to the heart of the question.

The WOO site has posted a pay-table for the X-Tra bet that must have come from somewhere (perhaps from the math report that was provided to Shackleford?) that says (or implies) that the X-Tra Bet is lost even when a 2-card flush wins. This is at variance with the Steve Howe Table and with the AGS site's summary of the rules which Charliepatrick has very helpfully supplied.

Is this AGS site, which only summarizes the rules, really the best source? I don't know.

I live in Tennessee and can't readily go to a table in Las Vegas and play the game and see how the rules are enforced (or ask a dealer how they are intended to be enforced.) I relied on the WOO site and its posted information -which the Wizard has invited us all to review. It would be helpful if the Wizard or someone else (1) would acknowledge the inconsistency and (2) attempt to resolve it somehow.

I spent many hours in the past few days writing a calculator for CHP (similar to Miplets, but which is still incomplete for certain kinds of 3-card flush hands) and developing a strategy for 2-card flushes based on the assumption that a winning 2-card flush has a Return of 0. When miplet posted his calculator (which is awesome) I did comparisons between his calculator and mine and I found a difference in calculated results for 2-card flush hands. Which led me to this discovery of a contradiction between the posted rules and the way that others have interpreted them.

Quote: gordonm888

I spent many hours in the past few days writing a calculator for CHP (similar to Miplets, but which is still incomplete for certain kinds of 3-card flush hands) and developing a strategy for 2-card flushes based on the assumption that a winning 2-card flush has a Return of 0. When miplet posted his calculator (which is awesome) I did comparisons between his calculator and mine and I found a difference in calculated results for 2-card flush hands. Which led me to this discovery of a contradiction between the posted rules and the way that others have interpreted them.

Here is the strategy I mentioned, which is correct if it turns out that the X-Tra bet is lost on a winning 2-card flush.

EDIT: This strategy does not have the player betting frequently enough to match the frequency with which the 2-card flush is shown to win on Steve Howe's table. So, the player strategy used to develop Howe's table was almost certainly based on the stipulation that a winning 2-card flush gets a PUSH on the X-Tra bet and has a Return of +1. I see the handwriting on the wall . . . . but let's wait on Shackleford to resolve this.

Basic Strategy: When to Bet (vs Fold) a 2-Flush in Chase the Flush
When you get to the River in Chase the Flush and your longest flush is 2 cards -and I assume that you have checked up to this point –you face the decision: FOLD and forsake your ante bet, or BET the 1-unit ALL-IN BET and hope to find the dealer with a 2-Flush hand and TIE or WIN.

Proposed Basic Strategy Rules
If your longest flush is a 2-card Flush on the river:
FOLD: Whenever the board (the 4 face-up cards) contains a 2-card (or longer) flush.
When the board is rainbow –has a suit distribution of 1-1-1-1:
FOLD: When your strongest 2-Flush is Q-High or lower.

When there are no aces on the board
The most common situation is to have no aces on the board. When there are no aces on a board with a suit distribution of 1-1-1-1, you should FOLD except:
BET if your strongest 2-Flush is A-x,
BET if your strongest 2-Flush is K-x and “x” –the 2nd card in your 2-flush - is the highest card on the board (other cards may have the same rank but not be higher).

When there are aces on a rainbow board

1 Ace on a Rainbow Board
BET: 2-card flush AJ+, and A-10 when at least two cards on the board are 9 or lower. Otherwise FOLD a 2-card flush.

2 Aces on a Rainbow Board
BET: 2-card flush AQ+, and A-J when at least two cards on the board are 10 or lower. Otherwise FOLD a 2-card flush

3 or 4 Aces on a Rainbow Board
BET 2-card flush AK or AQ, otherwise fold.

FWIW, I played the demo on the AGS website until I got to a showdown where my 2-card flush beat the dealer's 2-card flush. The result was that both the Ante and the X-Tra Bonus bet pushed. The All-In bet paid even money.

Also of note was that the layout on the demo shows the X-Tra Bonus paytable, which lists the payouts for 4-, 5-, 6-, & 7-card flushes. On the last line of the paytable, it does not reference a "3-card flush," but instead reads: All Other Flushes .... Push.

Quote: gordonm888

Rule 13 says:
13. If the player has the higher hand, then the Ante* and All In bets shall pay even money and the X-Tra Bonus bet according to the pay table below.
*: Please note that for purposes of adjudicating the Ante wager, rule 11 supersedes this rule. In other words, if the dealer does not qualify, then the Ante will be returned before any comparison of the player and dealer hands.

and the X-Tra Bonus Bet Table is:

X-Tra Bonus Pay Table
Event Pays
7-card flush_____ 250 to 1
6-card flush_____ 50 to 1
5-card flush_____ 5 to 1
4-card flush_____ 1 to 1
3-card flush_____ Push
All other_________ Loss

a 2-card flush falls into the category of "all other" and thus the X-tra Bonus bet should be a loss. What else could this line labeled "All other" possibly be referring to?

I still believe the Steve Howe table posted on WOO is wrong.

Where does it say that? If you're referring to my site, please refresh the page.

Some quick simulating of 300 million hands shows that the strategy for making the 3x bet is with three suited hole cards, or:
A,6 or better suited
A,5 suited and 4 (2)
A,4 suited and 4 (3)
A,3 suited and 6 (4)
A,2 suited and 6 (5)

K,Q suited and 8 (7)
K,J suited and 9 (8)
K,10 suited and 10 (9)
K,9 suited and J
K,8 suited and J
K,7 suited and Q (J)
K,6 suited and Q (J)
K,5 suited and Q
K,4 suited and K (Q)
K,3 suited and K
K,2 suited and K

(Q,J suited and K)
Q,5-10 (3-10) suited and A

In each case, the "and" card should be that card or better (e.g. "A,5 suited and 4" is Ace-5 suited and 4 or better).
Values in parentheses came out negative in the simulation, but less than 2% negative.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: gordonm888

and the X-Tra Bonus Bet Table is:

X-Tra Bonus Pay Table
Event Pays
7-card flush_____ 250 to 1
6-card flush_____ 50 to 1
5-card flush_____ 5 to 1
4-card flush_____ 1 to 1
3-card flush_____ Push
All other_________ Loss

a 2-card flush falls into the category of "all other" and thus the X-tra Bonus bet should be a loss. What else could this line labeled "All other" possibly be referring to?

I still believe the Steve Howe table posted on WOO is wrong.

Where does it say that? If you're referring to my site, please refresh the page.

Okay, so I refreshed the WOO page on Chase the Flush and see that you've updated the page and removed the last line form the X-Tra Bonus Payout Table that says "All Other_____Loss." That clears up the contradiction/ambiguity that I've been asking about, which is what I needed.

Quote: Wizard

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.

You must've missed Zappit Blackjack at The Venetian/Palazzo a few months ago.....

I believe that once you have the "best practices" betting system down for UTH playing Chase the Flush is not dumbing down my skills. I think it's just adding a new set of skills (Q-9+suited) and trying to figure out a new best practices for the 2nd and 3rd decision bets.

I've been playing the game for 3 weeks @ Redhawk, Placerville CA.
Winning sessions 4
Losing sessions 2
My impression is its a good game for UTH fans.
My $0.02

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

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

Frequent (above average) players of UTH likely realize your statement, however in Chase the Flush the "Same Suit" bonus is more often to pay large returns than the Trips bet in UTH.
My $0.02

I played this for an hour or so at Lone Butte Casino in Chandler, Arizona a couple weeks ago on the day that it opened. They didn't have the right type of shuffler, so they substituted a Three Card Poker shuffler and for the community cards discarded the top card of two 3-card hands. I found it to be an OK game, but I prefer UTH for a carnival game. The dealers told me that they only practiced a few hands each before it went live, so it went fairly slow even though I was the only one at the table.

Also, the pay table for the Same Suit side bet had a 500:1 payout for the 7-card flush, but same payouts for all other flushes. My math after using the Wizard's table makes me think that the side bet HE is then 4.18% at this table.

Just curious if there is a final consensus on strategy for this game. 3rd time I played this game I hit a 7 card straight flush and won $10k on my $5 Same Suit bet. It was blind luck but now I'm hooked although I haven't been back yet since I won (been playing the demo game).

Quote: kevins59

Just curious if there is a final consensus on strategy for this game. 3rd time I played this game I hit a 7 card straight flush and won $10k on my $5 Same Suit bet. It was blind luck but now I'm hooked although I haven't been back yet since I won (been playing the demo game).

The consensus is run away and don't look back. You beat the game. :)


ZCore13

LOL. That is excellent advice

Well, went and played anyways at Redhawk Casino. Apparently too many people have been winning as they changed the payout. It was 2000 to 1 for a 6 or 7 card straight flush. It's now 500 to 1 for a 5, 6, or 7 card straight flush. So the BIG prize is gone but it pays better on 5 card straight flush then it did before.

I have played this many times and it is my favorite game. I used to be a big pai gow poker player until I decided that the 5% commission on every win was enough to negate the very small house advantage otherwise on the game. Where I play there is no player banking option. By far I have had more winning days with this game than losing days. I am working on developing my own strategy. Currently, I mostly follow the Wizard's incomplete strategy but with a few exceptions based on my own experience. I seem to have much better luck than others who I play with because I have learned to not chase the big payouts. I've seen most people at least bet as much on the same suit bet as they do on the ante so a lot of the time they do no better than push the hand because the dealer didn't qualify and they got no better than a 3 card flush. Sometimes they'll bet 2, 3, or even 4 times the ante bet so they lose money even when they win the hand. Even though I know the Wizard advises not to bet the Same Suit Bet, I do bet a dollar on it. With a $5 ante wager this makes sense to me. I still have the chance for a big payout with very little additional risk. It also allows me the chance to give the dealer a big tip when I bet for them as well on it. Others look at me strangely with my little bets up there but I try to explain that betting big on the same suit doesn't make sense, they don't want to listen. I just keep accumulating my piles of chips slowly but surely while they lose all their chips in a short time and wonder why.

There seems to have been a decent amount of discussion on the Xtra bonus bet already, but I don't think this issue has been covered.

On WOO's page on the game, he lists a paytable for the Xtra bet that includes a 50-to-1 payout for a 6 card flush. In the 'Base Game Analysis' table further down the page, however, the 'Pays' column (it actually looks like the 'Event' column due to alignment issues) does not include an entry that reflects the 50-to-1 payout for the 6 card flush, but instead three entries for a 20-to-1 payout (after factoring in the outcome of Ante and All-in bets).

Have I made a mistake or is this an error on the page? If it is an error, which one is correct?

Just noticed that Chase the Flush has come to the Harrah's Cherokee casino in Cherokee NC, so it has received some placements.

This is at Delaware Park right now. When it first opened it was usually a full table. Now I often see it empty or just one person there. I've played it a little bit and kind of like it. I seem to usually make a little or break even. Fairly often you hit 4 card flushes which pays 1:1 on the blind bet (or whatever they call it). In uth getting a straight or a flush seems more difficult. Not knowing proper strategy or how to get an advantage, I won't play it too much more.

I also saw it at Harrington about 2 months ago but it wasn't open during the day. I asked about it and a floor person wasn't sure about it and why it wasn't open. I went back a week ago and didn't see it anymore.

Basic Strategy for Chase the Flush -for Review and Comment

Chase the Flush seems to be a fun game but it is tough to analyze. The current WOO page for Chase the Flush offers some vague principles to keep in mind when playing but basically does not offer a basic strategy. So I wrote a spreadsheet/code using combination math that analyzes any starting hand with a two-card flush and have used this and Miplet's calculator to develop a Basic strategy for Chase the Flush. My combination spreadsheet for 2-Flush starting hands should be computer perfect but it has thousands of moving parts and the chance of a significant error is real. I am hoping to get some review from the game math geniuses on this forum.

When playing Chase the Flush you will start out with the following categories of three-card hands:
- 5.18% a three card flush (a "3-Flush")
- 55.06% a 2-card flush (a "2-Flush") and a kicker in a different suit
- 39.76% rainbow, three different suits

PREFLOP Strategy for Chase the Flush

3-card flush: Bet 3x
2-card flush + kicker: You must take into considerations both how high your 2 card flush is and the rank of your kicker. The table below provides the minimum 2-card flush for Bet 3X as a function of the rank of your kicker.

Kicker	Min 2-Flush to BET 3X
2-4	A2
5	KQ
6	K9
7	K4
8-9	K2
T	QT
J	Q5
Q	Q2
K	J2
A	T7

Rainbow -3 cards in different suits: CHECK
I have not actually analyzed this category. CHECK is the obvious strategy, but I suspect that Rainbow hands with 2 aces and a third high card may be candidates to BET 3X. More Analysis is needed.

POST-FLOP Strategy for Chase the Flush

3-card flush or longer: BET 2X but see exception below.
2-card flush: CHECK
Exception: When you have a 3-card flush after the flop and your starting hand has only contributed one card to the 3-flush you should CHECK if your 3-flush is:
- 432
- 532 and the card from your starting hand is a 3 or 2
- 542 and the card from your starting hand is a 2.

Basically, a solitary 2 in your starting hand is terrible. Whenever the board comes with 2 cards in that suit to give you a 3-flush there is a 48% chance that you are stone-cold dead because the dealer has at least one of the 10 remaining cards in that suit that is higher than your 2.

I have not comprehensively analyzed the post-flop decision, because it is relatively straightforward – so there may be additional exceptions.

River Decision –Basic Strategy

On the river, if you have not already made a bet you must Bet 1X or Fold. You are able to see all 7 of your cards and in general you will be guided by the length of your longest flush:
- 4-card Flush or longer: Always Bet
- 3-card Flush: Bet 1X except when your 3–flush is low and there is a 2 –card flush on the board that has an overcard to your 3-flush, i.e.,when the 2-card flush on the board has a card that is higher than the highest card of your 3-card flush.
- 2-Flush: If your longest flush is only 2 –cards, this means that you have three different 2-card flushes. Your decision will be based upon your highest 2-card flush. You will usually Fold but should sometimes hit a high 2-card flush if the circumstances are correct.

These decisions are complex, and the challenge is to come up with a reasonably simple strategy that captures most of the EV that is to be gained by computer-perfect play. This is what I have so far:

2-card flush:

When you have a 2 –card flush as your longest flush on the River, you must always FOLD if:
- there is a 2-card flush on the board.
- there is a card on the board that is an overcard to your highest 2-card flush.

If these 2 criteria are satisfied (no 2-card flush on the board, no overcard to your best 2-card flush on the board,) then a simple rule is:

Bet 1X if the card from your starting hand that you contribute to your best (highest) 2 card flush is a Jack or higher, otherwise FOLD.

3-card flush:

When you have a 3 –card flush as your longest flush on the River, you should usually (always?) Bet 1X if the board is rainbow, if the 4 common cards are four different suits. When there is a 2 card flush on the board you must compare the highest card in the board 2-card flush to the highest card in your made 3-card flush. Here are the simplest rules I could conjure:

When your starting hand has contributed only 1 card to your River 3-card flush:
- You should FOLD if your 3-card flush is 10-high or lower and there is a 2-Flush on the Board with an overcard, otherwise Bet 1X.

When your starting hand has contributed 2 cards to your River 3-card flush:
- You should FOLD if your 3-card flush is 8-high or lower and there is a 2-card flush on the board with at least one card that is 9 or higher.
- You should FOLD if your 3-card flush is a 9-high or 10-high and there is a 2-card flush on the board with at least one card that is an overcard and the board has another overcard in a different suit

An example of how to apply this last rule:
Player: Ts5s7h Flop: KdAc River: 3s7d
Your hand has a T53 flush in spades and the board has K7 in diamonds and an Ace of clubs. Both the Kd and the Ac are overcards to your T53 flush. This hand should be folded.

That’s it! These rules are preliminary, might contain grievous errors made by me and can certainly be improved upon with more work. I would appreciate any review from the Gods of the Forum.

Here's an example of the importance of the ranks of your cards when you start with two suited cards in your initial 3-card hand. The table below looks at the effect of your "kicker" when you start with Q9 as your two suited cards. The "EV, Check" column refers to the EV when you Check the hand at the Preflop decision point but subsequently either Check or Bet or Fold depending on whether you improve the hand.

Suited	Kicker	EV,Bet 3X	EV,Check
Q9	A	0.665	0.535
Q9	J	0.318	0.294
Q9	8	0.088	0.153
Q9	5	-0.128	0.014
Q9	2	-0.357	-0.135

Interesting, huh? The EV of your initial 2-Flush hand is very dependent on the kicker. Notice that for Q9-8 it would be a positive EV decision to BET 3X preflop, but it is not the optimal decision. With Q9-8 there is more value in waiting to get additional information from the Flop and Turn/River and adjusting your decisions accordingly.

Caveats: code is preliminary, could contain errors, etc.

Strategy for Pre-Flop Decision when you have three unsuited cards

I've modeled the Chase the Flush hands when you start with three different suits- what I call a a rainbow hand. The player will be dealt a 3-suit rainbow hand about 39.76% of the time. As you might imagine, this type of hand should almost always be checked. However there are some exceptions: when the three unsuited cards in your hand are high enough, it is better to Bet 3X than check. These exceptions are:

Bet 3X with these "3 unsuited card" hands:

AA + 4 or higher ( AA4 to AAA)
AK + 7 or higher
AQ + 9 or higher
AJ + 10 or higher
KK + J or higher

Here are some calculated EVs for hands with 3 unsuited cards

3 suit hand	EV, Bet 3X	EV, Check
AAA	+0.610	+0.204
AAQ	+0.302	+0.023
AA7	-0.129	-0.234
AKJ	+0.012	-0.141
AQQ	-0.002	-0.144
AJT	-0.311	-0.328
KKJ	-0.243	-0.260
KQQ	-0.270	-0.267
KQT	-0.586	-0.446

For the preflop check EV calculation, I used the following strategies for the Postflop and River decisions:
- Postflop: Bet 2x with 3-card flush, otherwise check
- River: Computer-perfect decisions as to whether to Bet 1x or Fold

This strategy will have you betting 3X on 5.1% of all 3-suit starting hands and preflop checking on the other 94.9% of those hands. All together, this strategy of Betting 3x on very high unsuited hands will add 0.23% to a player's EV while playing Chase the Flush.

Error correction: Strategy for Pre-Flop Decision when you have three unsuited cards

I found an error in my model that slightly changes the strategy and calculated EVs that I posted yesterday. This post is a replacement for yesterday's post with the errors corrected.


I've modeled the Chase the Flush hands when you start with three different suits- what I call a a rainbow hand. The player will be dealt a 3-suit rainbow hand about 39.76% of the time. As you might imagine, this type of hand should almost always be checked. However there are some exceptions: when the three unsuited cards in your hand are high enough, it is better to Bet 3X than check. These exceptions are:

Bet 3X with these "3 unsuited card" hands:

AA + 3 or higher ( AA3 to AAA)
AK + 6 or higher (AK6 to AKK)
AQ + 8 or higher
AJ + 9 or higher
KK + J or higher
KQQ

Here are the calculated EVs for some hands with 3 unsuited cards

3 suit hand	EV, Bet 3X	EV, Check
AAA	+0.659	+0.221
AAQ	+0.345	+0.038
AA7	-0.174	-0.266
AKJ	+0.051	-0.127
AQQ	+0.036	-0.129
AJT	-0.276	-0.316
KKJ	-0.215	-0.250
KQQ	-0.243	-0.258
KQT	-0.454	-0.385

For the preflop check EV calculation, I used the following strategies for the Postflop and River decisions:
- Postflop: Bet 2x with 3-card flush, otherwise check
- River: Computer-perfect decisions as to whether to Bet 1x or Fold

This strategy will have you betting 3X on 5.8% of all 3-suit starting hands and preflop checking on the other 94.2% of those hands. All together, this strategy of Betting 3x on very high unsuited hands will add 0.27% to a player's EV while playing Chase the Flush.

Strategy for “BET 1X or FOLD” Decision on the River When Your Longest Flush is a 2-Card Flushsuited
Situation You have checked to the river in Chase the Flush.. You arrive at the river with a hand that has no flushes longer than a 3-Flush - a “2-Flush Hand.” (Actually, by definition, such a hand must contain three 2-card flushes in three different suits and a 7th card in the fourth suit.) When should you BET 1X? and when should you FOLD?
There is no published strategy for this. This post provides a strategy that is almost computer-perfect.

Factors to Consider
1. Does the Board have 2 suited cards, i.e., a 2-card flush on the board? If it does, then you must FOLD. This is an absolute rule, correct in 100% of situations. When the board has 2 cards in the same suit, the probability of the dealer having a 3-card (or longer) flush is simply too high to justify Betting 1X on the river.
Another way to say this is:
When your longest flush is 2 cards on the river, never consider betting 1X unless your starting hand has 3 suits and the board has all 4 suits. Both your starting hand and the board must be rainbow, otherwise FOLD.

2. How many dealer “OUTS” are there such that the dealer can make a 2-card flush that is higher than your highest 2-card flush? I will give many examples of this definition of dealer OUTS below and show you how to apply it. The short rule is:
- Dealer OUTS = 0-8: always Bet 1X
-Dealer OUTS = 9-11: it depends upon the third factor below.
- Dealer OUTS = 12 or higher: always FOLD.

3. Given a board with 4 different suits, how many cards on the board are in the range 2-8, i.e., are <9?
This surprising factor arises from the Ante payout rules in which the Ante Bet always pushes if the dealer does not qualify and the player has not folded - and the dealer must have a 9-high 3-card flush or higher to qualify. With a rainbow board, each card on the board lower than a 9 means that if the dealer does make a 3-card flush in that suit then the probability of that 3-card flush ‘not qualifying’ is about 20%. Conversely, for each hand on the board that is 9 or higher, there is zero chance that a dealer 3-card flush in that suit will not qualify. So, when you have no flush longer than a 2-card flush on the river and the board is rainbow, every card on the board that is lower than a 9 increases the EV of Bet 1X by about 5-6%. In plain English, low cards on the board increases the EV of going to showdown.

So, given a rainbow board and a player hand with nothing longer than a 2-card flush, there are two things to count: (1) Dealer “OUTS” to make a higher 2 card flush than the player and (2) number of cards on the board in the range 2-8. The table below gives the exact rule on how to combine them.
Criteria on When to BET 1X on the River with a rainbow board and a longest flush of only 2 cards.

Number of Board Cards <9	Max Dealer ‘OUTS” *
0	8
1	9
2	10
3	11

*To make a higher 2-card flush than player.

Examples

I am providing 5 examples of how to count dealer “OUTS,” because it can be tricky and how to apply the rule I’ve presented above. Note that all graphics refer to suits simply as suit A, suit B, suit C or suit D

Example 1. Player: As 9h 4d, Board: Qs Kh Kd Ac

You have made a high 2-card flush, an AQ but the rest of the board is scary: A, K and K. The graphic below illustrates that there are 4 dealer “OUTS” to have a better 2-card flush than AQ and that you should Bet 1x on this river.


Example 2. Player: Ts Qh 4d, Board: As Kh 3d Ac

You highest 2-card flush is AT in spades. Counting dealer “OUTS” on this board is tricky. The graphic below shows that there are only 7 outs and that you should BET 1x.


Example 3. Player: Ts 6h 4d, Board: Ks Jh 3d Jc
Your highest 2-card flush is K-T of spades. The board is dangerous, because there are two other suits with cards higher than the Ten that you are contributing from your hand. The graphic below shows that there are 8 outs.


Example 4. Player: Qs Th 7d, Board: 7s 8h 8d 9c

Your highest 2-card flush is Q-7 of spades. This is not a very high 2-card flush and the graphic below shows that there are 11 dealer “OUTS” to make a 2-card flush that is higher than Q-7. However, the board also has three suits in which the only card is in the range 2-8. The correct decision is BET 1X. This example, hand is at the very outer limits of qualifying for a BET 1x. If there had only been 2 board cards in the range 2-8, then the correct decision would be FOLD.


Example 5. Player: 6s 5h 2d, Board: As 3h 3d 4c

Your starting hand is terrible: 6-5-2 rainbow. The board has given you an A-6 as your highest 2-card flush –not a hand that you can often BET 1X with. However, the other 3 cards on the board are all lower than than the 6 that your starting hand contributes to the A-6 flush. The graphic below shows that there are only 7 dealer “OUTS”, namely the 7-K of spades. The rules say to BET 1X.


Summary

When you are on the river with a 2-card flush hand, you should not base your BET vs. FOLD decision strategy simply on how high your highest 2-card flush is. I propose a BET vs. FOLD strategy in which you count (1) the Dealer OUTS to make a higher 2-card flush than yours and (2) the number of board cards in the range 2-8. Except for a small number of rare situations in which your hand has 2 or more cards in the range of 2-8 and the board has cards<9 in the same suits, this proposed strategy appears to always provide the computer-perfect optimal decisions.

There is a tremendous amount of great information in your posts, gordon. Thank you for sharing!

Ditto.
Many thanks.

Wow! Excellent job.

Thank you all. Your recognition means a lot to me.

Special thanks to MIPLET for his excellent Chase the Flush River calculator, which I have used in this work and to verify my own code.

This game has arrived to Motor City Casino recently. What would the house edge be on the Same Suit pay table if the payouts were as follows:

7-card straight flush: 500 to 1
6-card straight flush: 500 to 1
7-card flush: 500 to 1
5-card straight flush: 400 to 1
6-card flush: 50 to 1
4-card straight flush: 20 to 1
5-card flush: 5 to 1
4-card flush: 1 to 1

Quote: FourFiveFace

This game has arrived to Motor City Casino recently. What would the house edge be on the Same Suit pay table if the payouts were as follows:

7-card straight flush: 500 to 1
6-card straight flush: 500 to 1
7-card flush: 500 to 1
5-card straight flush: 400 to 1
6-card flush: 50 to 1
4-card straight flush: 20 to 1
5-card flush: 5 to 1
4-card flush: 1 to 1

Using the Wizard's combinations for the Same Suit bet gives a house edge of 10.95% for the above pay table.

Discountgambling - https://discountgambling.net/2018/05/21/chase-the-flush/ - has recently posted a Basic Strategy Card and narrative analysis on "Chase the Flush". One interesting comment is that the Same Suit Bonus @ 5.67% HE was "reasonable"!!

Very interesting to read Stephen Howe's work and strategy. I have not looked at the mathematical strategy for Chase the Flush for many months now, (if you scroll up on this thread you will see some of my posts on this subject) but I always found that it was a rich and interesting subject. I think that Stephen has done an excellent job, as usual.

It is interesting that Howe's posted strategy is still 0.3% from optimum! I suspect that his strategy for betting on the river are probably where the inefficiencies lie. There are just so many different suit distribution and overcard/undercard combinations that can arise between the board and the player's cards on the river that its very hard to develop a simple river strategy that captures all of the EV.