jopke
jopke
Joined: Aug 14, 2012
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 132
May 6th, 2014 at 2:29:53 PM permalink
Quote: socks

A good suggestion. Maybe I'll take a second look. I actually noticed MS a couple of months back when I was working on video poker. Like you say, it's small enough that a straightforward approach can work. At the time, I didn't want to get too far off track of what I was doing, but I took a couple of days to look at it anyway. The initial results were pretty close, but a run with my naive approach went overnight, and I went back to VP before figuring out exactly what went wrong.



As a baseline for you to measure against, my code runs through the full combinatorial analysis of Mississippi Stud in about 23 seconds. My results match Wizards exactly.

I don't write my code to focus on performance, I'm more concerned with maintainability and development time than with execution time, so it would certainly be possible to get it quite a bit faster.

First step is to get a quick hand evaluator, which it sounds like by now you have.
socks
socks
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
May 6th, 2014 at 3:38:17 PM permalink
Quote: jopke

As a baseline for you to measure against, my code runs through the full combinatorial analysis of Mississippi Stud in about 23 seconds. My results match Wizards exactly.


Thanks for the reference time. I also focus on development time and expressiveness. When I made that half hearted attempt at MS, I used a mutual recursion technique I'd worked on for BJ. Outside of the unoptimized eval, my code was a couple of dozen lines. Mostly I needed a break from VP, But I think I will drop in a better eval in and try to get some results. It'd be nice to post a win. Thanks.
socks
socks
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
May 6th, 2014 at 8:54:07 PM permalink
Well, I dropped in a suffe deck, and eval, and it looks like run times are down to 3 minutes. So, I guess it's time to troubleshoot.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23603
May 19th, 2014 at 7:53:37 PM permalink
I'm proud to announce my new page on Double Draw Poker is ready for your to preview.

JB has to get the glory on this game. As I mentioned before, there are an ungodly number of combinations to this game. However, JB is a genius at time-saving short-cuts and multi-core processing. His program takes only several hours to crunch the numbers. So, a well-deserved BRAVO to JB on this one. Check out his strategy as well.

I welcome all comments, questions, and especially corrections on the page.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6272
May 19th, 2014 at 10:15:03 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Yup. ShuffleMaster, I mean Ballys, was kind enough to give me the math report by GLI on the game. The report indicates the two pay tables mentioned. They report a house edge of 1.7479% for the Cromwell pay table and 3.8503% for the Detroit pay table.



I'm annoyed that they consider the "element of risk" as the "house edge". A game with a complex strategy, where the element of risk is 1.75% and the cheapest available average bet is $19.29? And 5 aces are worth 5.92% of an ante?? I'm shocked this game is a success. People have to play this game pretty badly. Straight flush draws are super important. And the Detroit casinos (Motorcity was mentioned in an older thread) should definitely be ashamed of themselves for offering the weaker paytable. And it was reported that AC also offers this crappier paytable too??? :(

Also, even though the second draw strategy is probably obvious...
My guess is...any chance for a paying hand is a call I suppose, otherwise fold? If that's the general case, it's probably worth adding that in the main page just for completeness.

Also this is only 7 times more hands to cycle through than standard VP? I would expect an answer way higher than that. Am I interpreting the statement incorrectly?

"An analysis of this game requires looping through 28,587,727,358,190 different hands. To put that in comparison, that is seven times as many as video poker."

As for typos/grammar suggestions, looks pretty good to me.

Only noticed these:
"The problem isn't writing a program to do it, but making it finish withing within months, or years."

"Where I threw my hands up in the air and said "forget it," my sidekick JB wasn't discouraged."

I would probably use "when" instead of "where".

And last but absolutely not least, BRAVO JB!!!

socks
socks
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
May 19th, 2014 at 11:13:21 PM permalink
Nice work JB. At some point, the man hours going in (and the tradeoff w/computer hours) becomes just as interesting. Care to comment on whether this was hours of computer time for man-week of human time, or was it more like a day?
JB
Administrator
JB
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 334
  • Posts: 2089
May 19th, 2014 at 11:41:16 PM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

I'm annoyed that they consider the "element of risk" as the "house edge".


I was able to determine that Washington's definition (at least for this game) of the house edge was the average loss relative to the initial wager (the ante and the bonus). GLI's definition of the house edge (at least for this game) was the average loss relative to the average total wager.

Quote: tringlomane

Also this is only 7 times more hands to cycle through than standard VP? I would expect an answer way higher than that. Am I interpreting the statement incorrectly?

"An analysis of this game requires looping through 28,587,727,358,190 different hands. To put that in comparison, that is seven times as many as video poker."


It's difficult to say how many combinations there actually are because it depends on how many cards get discarded at each decision. What I did was equalize the possibilities with weight factors.

Quote: socks

Nice work JB. At some point, the man hours going in (and the tradeoff w/computer hours) becomes just as interesting. Care to comment on whether this was hours of computer time for man-week of human time, or was it more like a day?


I had to run my analyzer several times to get it right. After the first run, I realized that I neglected to allow for folding at the second decision after having drawn at the first decision. I fixed that and ran it again, but the totals didn't add up. I changed what I thought was the problem and ran it again, but the totals were still off. Then I found the real problem, fixed that and ran it again, and all was well. I don't quite know how much man-time I spent on it since I had worked on it off and on for the last couple of weeks, but I can safely say that my computer worked a lot harder on it than I did. After the Vegas paytable was successfully completed, I ran it again for the stingy paytable. And then when that finished, I ran it again to have it save strategy information. The strategy didn't take too long to put in writing; I probably spent more time writing the code which identified the strategy.
socks
socks
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
May 20th, 2014 at 1:30:46 AM permalink
Cool. Thanks for pulling the curtain back a bit.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23603
May 20th, 2014 at 5:10:40 AM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

I'm annoyed that they consider the "element of risk" as the "house edge".



I agree 100%.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
May 20th, 2014 at 5:14:01 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!

  • Jump to: