One Card Poker
October 19th, 2012 at 7:30:38 PM
permalink
Please try out my new game One Card Poker. This is the end result of months of work (off and on), so I consider it my biggest project for months. My thanks to our own Mango J for helping me with the math.
Let me know what you think. I'm also thinking of having a contest for who can run up the highest balance. Send me a screen shot if you get above $150.
Let me know what you think. I'm also thinking of having a contest for who can run up the highest balance. Send me a screen shot if you get above $150.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 19th, 2012 at 8:08:31 PM
permalink
1.) Surprisingly, it's a fun little game. I thought it would have crossed the line into, "Too simple," but it's actually pretty cool.
2.) I have a couple of name suggestions, how about either, "Bidding War," or, "Betting War," the game is more war-like than it is poker-like.
3.) I might try it, what's the time limit, or is it first to $150? I played for about ten minutes (or so) with a high point of $119.
2.) I have a couple of name suggestions, how about either, "Bidding War," or, "Betting War," the game is more war-like than it is poker-like.
3.) I might try it, what's the time limit, or is it first to $150? I played for about ten minutes (or so) with a high point of $119.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 19th, 2012 at 8:11:16 PM
permalink
I don't know what your game is but when I was a kid one of our poker games was One Runny One. It was one card poker for us.
October 19th, 2012 at 8:18:49 PM
permalink
When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be a hole carding thread. I do like the game. If it were a table game, any advantage to seeing your neighbors cards?
Man Babes #AxelFabulous
October 19th, 2012 at 8:27:59 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146I have a couple of name suggestions, how about either, "Bidding War," or, "Betting War," the game is more war-like than it is poker-like.
We already have "Three card poker" and "Four card poker," so why not "One card poker"?
Quote:I might try it, what's the time limit, or is it first to $150? I played for about ten minutes (or so) with a high point of $119.
I just picked $150 out of nowhere to get a record going. However, at $119, you have the highest alleged record.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 19th, 2012 at 8:33:46 PM
permalink
There is an interesting event that happens when there is a tie. Bet call tie should go to the more aggressive side IMO.
At $93 now.
At $93 now.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
October 19th, 2012 at 9:00:37 PM
permalink
I think all ties should roll-over to the next pot (even though "thats not poker"). Peak 107 quit 105.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
October 19th, 2012 at 9:04:13 PM
permalink
Just hit $151. I'll have to find a way to post the screen shot from my iPhone.
I heart Crystal Math.
October 19th, 2012 at 9:06:54 PM
permalink
Fun little game but I never did get to the plus side. Stayed between 87 and 100 for about 15 minutes.
Curious about the programming does the game learn about the opponent as the game progresses or is it random on it's bluffs? I assume that they are not set plays or a player should be able to learn and anticipate them in a relatively short time.
Curious about the programming does the game learn about the opponent as the game progresses or is it random on it's bluffs? I assume that they are not set plays or a player should be able to learn and anticipate them in a relatively short time.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
October 19th, 2012 at 9:45:32 PM
permalink
Huh... I'm guessing most of the work for this went into the AI... how does it work, roughly?
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
October 19th, 2012 at 10:06:44 PM
permalink
Fun and simple, will try to play more later this weekend. Put me in the group that says the name should be something different. This is a combo of "War" and Poker. Poker-War or somehting sounds a little better IMHO.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
October 19th, 2012 at 10:14:14 PM
permalink
Quote: kenarmanCurious about the programming does the game learn about the opponent as the game progresses or is it random on it's bluffs? I assume that they are not set plays or a player should be able to learn and anticipate them in a relatively short time.
No, each hand is independent. The computer doesn't learn from your strategy. We here at Wizard Labs are not that smart. Much like a 100.0% video poker game, we're just hoping for YOUR mistakes.
Quote: 24BingoHuh... I'm guessing most of the work for this went into the AI... how does it work, roughly?
You may recall some of the game theory posts I made in August. Those were lead ups to this end. This is basically a game theory exercise. The best you can hope for is to be equally as good as the "dealer." As I wrote in the game, MangoJ was of great help with the computer strategy. He deserves a lot of credit.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 19th, 2012 at 10:16:35 PM
permalink
I enjoy the game. Got to $169, but I've been hovering around $155 for a while now.
I heart Crystal Math.
October 19th, 2012 at 11:04:27 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardWe already have "Three card poker" and "Four card poker," so why not "One card poker"?
No reason. It's not a bad name, I just liked, "Bidding War."
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 20th, 2012 at 12:11:21 AM
permalink
Quote: 24BingoHuh... I'm guessing most of the work for this went into the AI... how does it work, roughly?
by playing "perfect" strategy.
October 20th, 2012 at 12:32:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardYou may recall some of the game theory posts I made in August. Those were lead ups to this end. This is basically a game theory exercise. The best you can hope for is to be equally as good as the "dealer." As I wrote in the game, MangoJ was of great help with the computer strategy. He deserves a lot of credit.
Are you sure that's the case? It looks from that thread as if an opponent's chance of bluffing has to be taken into account, and in the game, the computer certainly does bluff (once raising me with a 2)... with that in mind, it seems like the player could gain an advantage from knowing the machine's strategy exactly that the machine, having only experiment, could never match.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
October 20th, 2012 at 12:45:01 AM
permalink
Imagine a business scenario, where you and your competitor both have the same options, but of course different strategies. How would you run your business ?
A first approach could be, to settle on a certain strategy and "hope for the best" (i.e. that your competitor also has a fixed strategy, and yours is simply more efficient).
The better approach could be: analyze the strategy of your competitor, and adapt a very efficient counter-strategy against that very strategy. There are two major problems: Learning the competitors strategy from his past actions takes time, depending on how accurate you want his strategy. Second problem is: Your opponent is not dumb enough to fall for that, he will adapt his strategy to a counter-counter-strategy.....
Now what woulc be a good approach: You find a strategy where no counter-strategy exists (yes there is one). Now even if your competitor knows every detail of your strategy all he could possibly expect is to break even with you.
And what is the perfect approach ? You play the "fixed" no-counter strategy from above (with no long-run EV), but you keep your strategy a secret. Let your competitor analyze your strategy by observations, and draw your value from his "mistakes" he does (your competitor does not play the no-counter strategy, and thus must be inferior, as no superior strategy exists).
A first approach could be, to settle on a certain strategy and "hope for the best" (i.e. that your competitor also has a fixed strategy, and yours is simply more efficient).
The better approach could be: analyze the strategy of your competitor, and adapt a very efficient counter-strategy against that very strategy. There are two major problems: Learning the competitors strategy from his past actions takes time, depending on how accurate you want his strategy. Second problem is: Your opponent is not dumb enough to fall for that, he will adapt his strategy to a counter-counter-strategy.....
Now what woulc be a good approach: You find a strategy where no counter-strategy exists (yes there is one). Now even if your competitor knows every detail of your strategy all he could possibly expect is to break even with you.
And what is the perfect approach ? You play the "fixed" no-counter strategy from above (with no long-run EV), but you keep your strategy a secret. Let your competitor analyze your strategy by observations, and draw your value from his "mistakes" he does (your competitor does not play the no-counter strategy, and thus must be inferior, as no superior strategy exists).
October 20th, 2012 at 5:53:14 AM
permalink
We've been playing a variant of this game at the family table for years. It's called 'Crazy Indian" and everyone gets dealt one card face down, on the count of 3 you all pickup your card without looking at the face and put it face out on your forehead so everyone else can see your card but you can't, neither can anyone else see their card. Now you bet and you have to kinda guess how strong you are by what you see and how everyone else is betting. It's a million laughs. But played one on one it the same game as yours only in reverse.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin
October 20th, 2012 at 6:43:34 AM
permalink
Quote: NickyDimWe've been playing a variant of this game at the family table for years. It's called 'Crazy Indian" and everyone gets dealt one card face down, on the count of 3 you all pickup your card without looking at the face and put it face out on your forehead so everyone else can see your card but you can't, neither can anyone else see their card...
I've played that a lot of times in my much younger days. We called it Indian Poker.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 20th, 2012 at 7:29:51 AM
permalink
i raised/4bet with a 4 and dealer folded to the 4bet. highest lowcard i saw from previous hands that dealer ever 3bet bluffed with was a 4. i believe thats the right play if he only 3bet/calls with a K or A. if he also 3bets/call with a Q, hed then need to also 3bet/fold a 5 for it to still be profitable.
October 20th, 2012 at 7:45:45 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI've played that a lot of times in my much younger days. We called it Indian Poker.
Awesome video. Exactly as my family games turned out too.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin
October 20th, 2012 at 8:16:32 AM
permalink
Nice game, I enjoyed playing it for about 15 minutes.
I see that it is patent pending. The only thing that looks like it might be patentable is the computer strategy.
I see that it is patent pending. The only thing that looks like it might be patentable is the computer strategy.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
October 20th, 2012 at 8:28:41 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
October 20th, 2012 at 10:34:36 AM
permalink
Quote: rudeboyoii raised/4bet with a 4 and dealer folded to the 4bet. highest lowcard i saw from previous hands that dealer ever 3bet bluffed with was a 4. i believe thats the right play if he only 3bet/calls with a K or A. if he also 3bets/call with a Q, hed then need to also 3bet/fold a 5 for it to still be profitable.
Sorry I don't know the exact meaning of your terms, I'm not very experienced in poker. Button indeed does call only with K or A on the max pot, but he is very able to fold the K. I'm not sure about the "3bet bluffed 4", actually it's not part of the strategy to even be in the hand with 4-8 if pot is > $5 (meaning to call or fold before).
Personally I really like is UTG, he also likes to slow-play his ace :)
October 20th, 2012 at 11:35:57 AM
permalink
i guess the cap is 3bets not 4bets cause what i counted as the 1st bet is just the ante. anyways what i meant is i had a 4 and was first to act so i bet, he raised me, i reraised him and he folded. idk what the correct strategy is in this game, im just playing by intuition. in poker youre supposed to play the bottom and top of your range strongly. i figure valuebetting with a K or an A and bluffing with a 2 or 3 was a given. not sure where a 4 fit into that equation. but i saw on a previous hand i had a Q and was first to act, i bet and he raised and i just called and saw he had a 4 that he was bluffing with but that was also when he was 2nd to act so it wasnt definitive on how to play a 4 when youre first to act.
October 20th, 2012 at 11:46:18 AM
permalink
I assumed that bluffing on 3 would be correct, but as far as I can tell, the computer never bluffs on a 3.
I heart Crystal Math.
October 20th, 2012 at 12:39:41 PM
permalink
Quote: CrystalMathI assumed that bluffing on 3 would be correct, but as far as I can tell, the computer never bluffs on a 3.
The computer will bet his 3 if you check to him.
October 20th, 2012 at 2:26:11 PM
permalink
I suspect each card has a set of probabilities for the computer to raise, call or fold, dependent on the size of the bet the opponent has made. So it may be a 4% chance of raising with a 2 (the AI should never call with a 2), 2% to re-raise, 1% to cap, and 100% raise with an Ace (the AI should never fold or call with an Ace). With the cards in between having their own. Each of those strategies could be worked out to maximize the return with each card.
It feels slightly counter intuitive that there's one perfect strategy for heads up one-card poker. I know the toy examples with 3 card decks have a perfect strategy, so I can see why a 52 card game might have one, but there must be some point where it breaks down... or there is a perfect strategy for heads up 5 card poker?
It feels slightly counter intuitive that there's one perfect strategy for heads up one-card poker. I know the toy examples with 3 card decks have a perfect strategy, so I can see why a 52 card game might have one, but there must be some point where it breaks down... or there is a perfect strategy for heads up 5 card poker?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 20th, 2012 at 2:26:38 PM
permalink
Quote: MangoJThe computer will bet his 3 if you check to him.
Always?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 20th, 2012 at 2:55:35 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitAlways?
Not always, just often enough to let you in the darkness. As you said, every action has a specific probability (depending on the state of the game, in this simple fixed limit game the hole carde and the pot size). However the probabilities are balanced that you cannot make valuable conclusions from the seen actions.
Even if you know the probability rules all you can hope is comming out even (as it is a symmetric game).
October 21st, 2012 at 4:30:56 AM
permalink
this thing has been kicking my ass
PS: just quit with $110. I feel better now.
PS: just quit with $110. I feel better now.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 21st, 2012 at 9:59:18 AM
permalink
Feels like this is a game if I want to play a long time without much risk. It will be hard to double your money starting with $100 but it would also be hard to lose it all. Something players would play if they wanted to get comps on play and if they wanted to win few bucks for drink money.
It lacks a high payout aspect like VP or bonus screen for the other video casino games.
It lacks a high payout aspect like VP or bonus screen for the other video casino games.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
October 21st, 2012 at 10:10:06 AM
permalink
Quote: AceCrAAckers
It lacks a high payout aspect like VP or bonus screen for the other video casino games.
Im wating for the side bets. Casino War on the side maybe (in event of push) and pair payout are a couple that spring to mind.
Ill take 0.5% of all royalties on these.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
October 21st, 2012 at 10:33:29 AM
permalink
To me the lamest hand in poker, in all its variants, is a high-card hand. This game is only high-card hands. The math ought to be simple from here...
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
October 21st, 2012 at 11:45:15 AM
permalink
Quote: MangoJNot always, just often enough to let you in the darkness. As you said, every action has a specific probability (depending on the state of the game, in this simple fixed limit game the hole carde and the pot size). However the probabilities are balanced that you cannot make valuable conclusions from the seen actions.
Even if you know the probability rules all you can hope is comming out even (as it is a symmetric game).
Assuming there are no errors in your code or engine :)
I can't see this as a hand dealt game (I assume the table is non-trivial)... electronically, as an offered game it needs an edge... House wins ties? House pushes on a 2? Both would appear make a bigger edge than you'd want. Ace Of Spades wins the ante for the dealer might just about work?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 21st, 2012 at 11:52:01 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI can't see this as a hand dealt game
Neither can I. A dishonest dealer could signal his hand to a confederate player. This is absolutely intended for a machine. If player errors didn't bring in enough revenue then I would probably favor a rake to increase the win.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 21st, 2012 at 12:14:38 PM
permalink
It's a frustrating but fun little game.
I CAN see a method of playing it as a hand-dealt game. But it would requite elaborate electronics. I.E. The dealer would have to use a scanner to have the computer read the card, then apply the logic to determine the dealer's action. It would also need to be one-on-one.
In the end, a V.P. type machine version would be the only way you'd see this in a casino.
I CAN see a method of playing it as a hand-dealt game. But it would requite elaborate electronics. I.E. The dealer would have to use a scanner to have the computer read the card, then apply the logic to determine the dealer's action. It would also need to be one-on-one.
In the end, a V.P. type machine version would be the only way you'd see this in a casino.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
October 21st, 2012 at 1:51:21 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitAssuming there are no errors in your code or engine :)
Sure, but it's not my engine, just the computer strategy.
Quote:
electronically, as an offered game it needs an edge... House wins ties? House pushes on a 2? Both would appear make a bigger edge than you'd want. Ace Of Spades wins the ante for the dealer might just about work?
If the player is to act first every turn, house edge is about 6%, assuming perfect player strategy. Thats at least in the right scale for a carnival game.
October 21st, 2012 at 2:00:13 PM
permalink
I'd say an edge is unnecessary, if the only way the player can break even is to follow a probabilistic strategy, since that's basically impossible for a human. Comps would be a pain, though.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
October 21st, 2012 at 2:05:58 PM
permalink
Well, the player does not need to play a probabilistic strategy, since he does not need to disguise his strategy from the computer.
For example, the "perfect probabilistic strategy" for rock paper scissors is playing each option with probability 1/3.
If the computer plays this strategy, he cannot be consistently beaten. However, the player could simply play "rock" each time for the same EV.
For example, the "perfect probabilistic strategy" for rock paper scissors is playing each option with probability 1/3.
If the computer plays this strategy, he cannot be consistently beaten. However, the player could simply play "rock" each time for the same EV.
October 21st, 2012 at 2:24:21 PM
permalink
Quote: 24BingoI'd say an edge is unnecessary, if the only way the player can break even is to follow a probabilistic strategy, since that's basically impossible for a human. Comps would be a pain, though.
I'm torn if I should explain the computer strategy, or offer a player strategy that would break even against it. The player advocate in me wants to. The one trying to market the game, and have it profitable for the casino, doesn't.
The moral anguish of playing both sides.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 21st, 2012 at 2:28:35 PM
permalink
It doesn't matter what you do. There aren't enought people who will do the extra work to "break even" that it matters. Beat the dealer is a must read for bj player, or basic counting cards but most will not take the extra time to do this.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
October 21st, 2012 at 2:56:38 PM
permalink
Analysis is inevitable
Resistance is futile
Resistance is futile
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 14th, 2014 at 9:59:18 PM
permalink
I know that this is an old thread, but...
I just started playing this. I'm up to $160. It's been a pretty steady climb. Does this really play perfectly, according to game theory? Have I really just been that lucky?
I just started playing this. I'm up to $160. It's been a pretty steady climb. Does this really play perfectly, according to game theory? Have I really just been that lucky?
February 15th, 2014 at 12:03:36 AM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI just started playing this. I'm up to $160. It's been a pretty steady climb. Does this really play perfectly, according to game theory? Have I really just been that lucky?
It is supposed to play perfectly, but maybe there is a mistake somewhere. I'll get officially worried that is the case if you can get your balance to $500.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 15th, 2014 at 3:34:34 AM
permalink
It is defiantly interesting but at limit steaks for how long? Can this be turned in to a spread limit or pot limit? I'm guessing no. I would not mind trying this heads up VS a real player under a spread pot limit situation. I think Mike Caro talks a bit about something like this.Quote: WizardPlease try out my new game One Card Poker. This is the end result of months of work (off and on), so I consider it my biggest project for months. My thanks to our own Mango J for helping me with the math.
Let me know what you think. I'm also thinking of having a contest for who can run up the highest balance. Send me a screen shot if you get above $150.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
February 15th, 2014 at 10:33:02 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardIt is supposed to play perfectly, but maybe there is a mistake somewhere. I'll get officially worried that is the case if you can get your balance to $500.
Ugh.. that's way too much of a grind. If you'd give me an api to your strategy, I'd write a bot to play against it, though.
February 15th, 2014 at 1:14:52 PM
permalink
The design goal was the dealer playing perfectly by following an Nash-equilibrium mixed strategy. Neglecting the first hand as the player always UTG, the Null hypothesis is it is a even game at par. Even under the null hypothesis, reaching any balance threshold (positive or negative) is just a matter of time.
November 29th, 2018 at 5:15:24 PM
permalink
I'm waaay late to the thread but maybe that's for the better. Have any of you guys played this with live players and, if so, how many? I see that the Wizard designed it for 2 only (live player vs computer) but I was thinking it might be a fun filler game on poker night when there's a break in the action and 3 or 4 players are stuck waiting at the table. Yet how many people can it support before the math breaks the game? Obviously 52 players is out of the question. Would it be when the chance of at least one player receiving an ace approaches 50%? I mean, a lone ace in a 5-card poker hand is one thing but here it's God on Mt Sinai.
As for the AI discussion on the site's emulator, I wasn't expecting much at first. Then the little snot suckered me with a check-raise and now I'm a lot more respectful. It's interesting how I consider something like video poker to be a soulless machine but give a game a little personality and I suddenly want to strangle my cellphone.
As for the AI discussion on the site's emulator, I wasn't expecting much at first. Then the little snot suckered me with a check-raise and now I'm a lot more respectful. It's interesting how I consider something like video poker to be a soulless machine but give a game a little personality and I suddenly want to strangle my cellphone.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
November 29th, 2018 at 5:59:22 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereI'm waaay late to the thread but maybe that's for the better. Have any of you guys played this with live players and, if so, how many? I see that the Wizard designed it for 2 only (live player vs computer) but I was thinking it might be a fun filler game on poker night when there's a break in the action and 3 or 4 players are stuck waiting at the table. Yet how many people can it support before the math breaks the game? Obviously 52 players is out of the question. Would it be when the chance of at least one player receiving an ace approaches 50%? I mean, a lone ace in a 5-card poker hand is one thing but here it's God on Mt Sinai.
As for the AI discussion on the site's emulator, I wasn't expecting much at first. Then the little snot suckered me with a check-raise and now I'm a lot more respectful. It's interesting how I consider something like video poker to be a soulless machine but give a game a little personality and I suddenly want to strangle my cellphone.
If you want a group game with a 1 card poker filler, I invite you to look at my "One For the Money" on the Woo site.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
