UTH Break Even Win %
I am going to Guess about 52% ?
All the times you get 5/6 odds because the dealer didnt qualify can get very hard to overcome.
The More I think About it It Seems Like you would have to hit a trips bet every now and then to
over come that. The Bad news is making trips bets on every other hand gives the house even more edge.
Thoughts Please.
Ive played a few thousand hands and the win % seems to be 48% (which is not enough to be profitable)
I have also noticed
that on practice sites things like trips, flush, straight, full house etc seems to run in favor of the house
at about 60% to 40% which seems unrealistic. I would think such a number should be far closer to
50/50
A few people have claimed to play this game fairly consistently to a profit I am really starting to think
That that is a cock and bull story and the game isnt beatable at all.
I do however believe the game is playable to a near stand off if you are playing a very very sound strategy.
Comments Please
The game has a 2% built in house edge... of course it's not beatable straight up. It's just like someone coming in here saying "I can beat craps straight up." We all know they're lying...Quote: gary55...A few people have claimed to play this game fairly consistently to a profit I am really starting to think
That that is a cock and bull story and the game isnt beatable at all.
I do however believe the game is playable to a near stand off if you are playing a very very sound strategy.
Comments Please
If you play the game straight up you're going to lose the house edge in the long run (just over 2%). The win rate will be more like 50/50 or even in favor of the player, but this doesn't mean you'll win money. You forget... When you win a hand you often don't get paid on the blind, and often don't get paid on the ante. This is where the house makes it's money against you even if you're splitting the winning hands 50/50. When you lose, the house gets all your money. When you win, you rarely get paid on all your money.
Quote: gary55A few people have claimed to play this game fairly consistently to a profit I am really starting to think
That that is a cock and bull story and the game isnt beatable at all.
I do however believe the game is playable to a near stand off if you are playing a very very sound strategy.
You can find the strategy and edge at the Wizard's site. You are correct that unless you are doing something unusual like holecarding, taking advantage of consistent mispays, or stealing chips from the rack, the house has the edge. The game is not made +EV simply by making optimal raise/fold decisions.
How did that go down exactly?
Did you make it to the door?
Enquiring minds ask?
Quote: RomesThe game has a 2% built in house edge... of course it's not beatable straight up. It's just like someone coming in here saying "I can beat craps straight up." We all know they're lying...
If you play the game straight up you're going to lose the house edge in the long run (just over 2%). The win rate will be more like 50/50 or even in favor of the player, but this doesn't mean you'll win money. You forget... When you win a hand you often don't get paid on the blind, and often don't get paid on the ante. This is where the house makes it's money against you even if you're splitting the winning hands 50/50. When you lose, the house gets all your money. When you win, you rarely get paid on all your money.
I would say everyone or nearly is thinking about the game wrong. You don't have to win 50%of hands to win. You have to learn correct strategy and be disciplined about it. And be very aggressive about betting it. This I'd because if you slack your good hands you're giving up money you need to overcome the combined effects of losing blinds on folds and losses, and no ante pay on non-qualified dealer hands.
There's no heads-up range. There is only the math. Fold,lose 2. 4 bet correctly, win 4 or 5. Catch a flop, win 2 or 3. Strategy is everything.
Quote: WizardofnothingHaunt the right strategy is correct however you should win more then 50 the hands , however I agree that means nothing in terms of beating the game
I don't think you can expect to win more than 50%of your hands, because you have to fold first, before you see if you would beat the dealer had you stayed. The dealer always stays, but because they don't always qualify, you don't always get a full pay on your win. When they don't qualify, you only win 1 of your 3 units on hands you should have folded.
However, if you always stay, when you lose you lose at least 3 units. Furthermore, even if the dealer doesn't qualify, you STILL have to beat them to get that 1 chip, unlike nearly every other dealer qualified game.
So always staying is a losing strategy. You need to fold when the numbers say to fold and minimize your loss to just ante and blind.
The balance to that is to always 4 bet even the most marginally correct 4bet hands. Never 3 bet because that increases the house edge; if it's worth 3, it's worth 4 every time. 2 bet pretty much any time your hand improves the flop. And know how to count your kickers to make the best fold decisions.
That way, even though you're going to lose more than 50%of your hands, your wins will pay more units than your losses will cost.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHe's talking about straight up win/loss percentage when making the play bet. Folded hands don't count.
Well, ok, if folded hands don't count (though they certainly count as a drain on your br), then yes. You should win more than 50% of your Play hands....or you should be folding more. :)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLYou have stolen chips from the rack?
NO. (looks around nervously)
No, but seriously, that was just a little joke...the point being that gary55 was right that anyone saying they play the game with an edge is incorrect unless they are doing something beyond the "normal" gameplay, e.g., holecarding.
I disagree. The house will indeed make their money from your blind/ante bets not always being paid, but just the hands themselves... You're getting 2 random cards and so is the dealer. You have the chance to play your cards optimally (with basic strategy compiled through simulation), the dealer does not. I fail to see how you'd win less than 50% of the time.Quote: beachbumbabsI would say everyone or nearly is thinking about the game wrong. You don't have to win 50%of hands to win. You have to learn correct strategy and be disciplined about it. And be very aggressive about betting it. This I'd because if you slack your good hands you're giving up money you need to overcome the combined effects of losing blinds on folds and losses, and no ante pay on non-qualified dealer hands.
There's no heads-up range. There is only the math. Fold,lose 2. 4 bet correctly, win 4 or 5. Catch a flop, win 2 or 3. Strategy is everything.
Hell, if you NEVER look at your hand and just blind all-in'd with the dealer, it's your 2 random cards vs their 2 random cards. Yes you'll lose money due to the other rules, but strictly hand wise you should win 50% as you're just as blind as they are.
p.s. He was also talking about Ultimate Texas Hold'em (UTH) in which you get to see all of the community cards before you have to make your decision to fold. In Texas Hold'em Bonus (THB) you have to make the play bet or fold before the flop.
Following BS, a player will lose more than 50% of the hands he is dealt. However, he will win more than 50% of the hands he "Plays" (as in, "makes a Play Bet").
BS dictates that a player fold in certain instances, but the dealer never folds. Inevitably, some of these folded hands would have been winners. Therefore, if the dealer wins 100% of the time he is dealt winning cards, but the player wins <100% of the time he is dealt winning cards, the player following BS must win <50% of the hands he is dealt.
Note, that as Babs indicated above, that the dealer "not qualifying" has no bearing on whether the player wins his Blind/Ante bets. It's not like 3CP where the player automatically wins if the dealer does not qualify.
Quote: JoemanI thinks Babs' subsequent posts and WoN's comments clarify this.
Following BS, a player will lose more than 50% of the hands he is dealt. However, he will win more than 50% of the hands he "Plays" (as in, "makes a Play Bet").
BS dictates that a player fold in certain instances, but the dealer never folds. Inevitably, some of these folded hands would have been winners. Therefore, if the dealer wins 100% of the time he is dealt winning cards, but the player wins <100% of the time he is dealt winning cards, the player following BS must win <50% of the hands he is dealt.
Note, that as Babs indicated above, that the dealer "not qualifying" has no bearing on whether the player wins his Blind/Ante bets. It's not like 3CP where the player automatically wins if the dealer does not qualify.
Really well summarized, Joeman. Thanks.
I still submit that I believe "dealt" hands the average player will win 50% or more... not just "played hands." The dealer not qualifying has little to do with anything as you're still comparing 2 dealer cards against 2 player cards in the end.
Think of it this way... I'm gonna sit at the UTH table and blind "call" (1x) every single hand so that I never fold either. Given that the dealer has 2 random cards and that I have 2 random cards, we should both win/lose 50% of the time. This again is just the win rate, not dollars. Now, you're telling me if I play "optimally," that I'm going to lose more often?
Quote: WizardofnothingNot factoring in played hands - just any hands at all should the answer be exactly 50 in the long run- the reason it's more then 50 percent of hands that you will have higher then the dealer on your PLAYED HANDS is based on the fact that the average hand is q7 for the dealer and with proper strategy most of the hands you will play have more weight then q7
Right, 2 random cards vs. 2 random cards should be 50% equity a side in a vacuum if all bets were 1 to 1. But you get paid less than 1 to 1 on your weaker winning hands which helps drive the house edge. Betting more money when the player has a large enough winning percentage (via the play bets) helps offset the blind and ante bet rules.
Yes.Quote: RomesThink of it this way... I'm gonna sit at the UTH table and blind "call" (1x) every single hand so that I never fold either. Given that the dealer has 2 random cards and that I have 2 random cards, we should both win/lose 50% of the time. This again is just the win rate, not dollars. Now, you're telling me if I play "optimally," that I'm going to lose more often?
Playing optimally means folding whenever your average return for playing your hand is less than (more negative than) the -2 units guaranteed return via folding. However, while is is the correct play to fold these hands, they occasionally would have beaten the dealer.
For example, consider that you hold 4,2 with a board of QQ992. BS (and your common sense) tells you to fold this hand because just about anything beats your 4 kicker. I bet the average return is darn close to -3 units for playing this hand. But the dealer flips over 3,2. Now you have just lost a hand where you had the better cards (and you would have won if you were playing blind as you described above).
Now, as you say, both you and the dealer are dealt an equal number of winning hands over time, but now, because you folded what would have been a winner, your win rate dropped below 50%. And, unfortunately, you'll never get it back because the dealer never folds. He wins all of his hands (50%), plus the winners that you had to fold.
Think about it, if the dealer is dealt a winning hand 50% of the time, how could the player's win rate ever get above 50%?
Am I missing something, here? If you look at the Return Table on the WoO UTH page, it shows (using optimal strategy) a total of 27,813,810,024,000 possible combinations for a hand. Of these, 12,952,855,061,940 result in a Player win, 13,965,861,872,312 result in a Dealer win (or Player fold), and 895,093,089,748 result in a push.Quote: WizardofnothingThe is not correct ..... Based on strategy I'm not saying you will have a net win- however if you play the correct strategy you WILL win more then 50 percent of your played hands ....::!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without a doubt
That's 46.6% Player win, 50.2% Dealer win (or Player fold), and 3.2% push. Ignoring pushes, you get a 48.1% Player win rate.
Quote: JoemanAm I missing something, here? If you look at the Return Table on the WoO UTH page, it shows (using optimal strategy) a total of 27,813,810,024,000 possible combinations for a hand. Of these, 12,952,855,061,940 result in a Player win, 13,965,861,872,312 result in a Dealer win (or Player fold), and 895,093,089,748 result in a push.
That's 46.6% Player win, 50.2% Dealer win (or Player fold), and 3.2% push. Ignoring pushes, you get a 48.1% Player win rate.
He means if you ignore folds as dealer wins. When you are making a "play bet" you're definitely winning more than 50% of the time.
And I was confused when WoN said that response was not correct.Quote: RomesI still submit that I believe "dealt" hands the average player will win 50% or more... not just "played hands."
I have two questions for the math gurus.
1. If I am able to see two cards other than my own in UTH, what is the HE then?
2. If Paigow now offers no commission on the win, what is the house edge (I have seen this in LV)
Quote: whodatIf UTH carries a HE of 2.1%, why not try other table games (Baccarat 1.15% b/p, BJ <1%, Paigow 1.46%, craps PL with double odds 0.57%)?
I have two questions for the math gurus.
1. If I am able to see two cards other than my own in UTH, what is the HE then?
2. If Paigow now offers no commission on the win, what is the house edge (I have seen this in LV)
It's misleading to compare the UTH HE to those other 4 games. All of them require your entire bet up front. UTH has you make your main bet after you have partial to full knowledge of your hand, and that amount varies. Yet the HE calculation you quote only takes the ante into account for UTH, and not the play or blind bets, though both are required to win a hand.
The Wizard, in an attempt to compare apples to apples, invented the element of risk calculation, or EOR, for games which have a decision point betting structure, like this one does. Using that calculation, the comparable house percentage is ~.54 if I recall correctly. (I'm on my phone, but you can go to wizardofodds.com and check. ) That's using perfect strategy, which is too aggressive for most players, so they leave a lot of money on the table. But very comparable to the best games.
The HE is based only on the Ante amount. When you factor the the 1x, 2x, or 4x Play bet, the Element of Risk is only 0.53%.Quote: whodatIf UTH carries a HE of 2.1%, why not try other table games (Baccarat 1.15% b/p, BJ <1%, Paigow 1.46%, craps PL with double odds 0.57%)?
Currently I enjoy Craps (way too much) because I get to roll them "bones". And no, I am not a DI.
What about the question concerning Paigow?
Every poker-variant table game does.Quote: IbeatyouracesUTH has big swings.
Quote: UCivanEvery poker-variant table game does.
Not true, pai gow poker is extremely low variance.
If you're playing basic strategy in UTH... Don't even look at the 2nd card. You're supposed to bet any ace anyways, but I personally find it adds another level of excitement to have a "wild card." IF the ace isn't good at the end of the hand, then it feels like you have a "2nd chance" to get what you need with your unknown card. Clearly mathematically it changes nothing, but it's a lot of fun (at least in my opinion) =P.Quote: whodatThat makes a lot more sense now as far as playing UTH. I have always enjoyed games where I am holding cards in my hand. There is something exciting about finding an ace on the first card and slowly pulling back the 2nd card to see if you get another face card (or a BJ in hand held BJ games)...
Quote: RomesIf you're playing basic strategy in UTH... Don't even look at the 2nd card. You're supposed to bet any ace anyways, but I personally find it adds another level of excitement to have a "wild card." IF the ace isn't good at the end of the hand, then it feels like you have a "2nd chance" to get what you need with your unknown card. Clearly mathematically it changes nothing, but it's a lot of fun (at least in my opinion) =P.
You are absolutely right. I will bet 4x when I see an ace and not look at the second card. It's just that my heart will be racing if I see 3 royals of the same suit on the flop/turn/river.
But 99% of the time you won't have it... BUT you'll still get that excitement when the board is Kh-Qh-Jh and ALL YOU KNOW is the Ah... because you could already have it, or draw to it ;-).Quote: whodatYou are absolutely right. I will bet 4x when I see an ace and not look at the second card. It's just that my heart will be racing if I see 3 royals of the same suit on the flop/turn/river.
